Is it wise to select people on the basis of their ethnicity? # 165. 25/06/2024.
Out of Many, One People
Welcome, especially to new subscribers. And thanks to those who commend this blog to others. Please commend to those you think may find this blog evaluable, notably with today’s blog, church leaders and decision makers
Is it wise to select people on the basis of their ethnicity?
‘We must have a . . .’ is a phrase used by Winkfield Twyman, a black American legal scholar and pundit, bemoaning foregrounding ethnicity when making appointment, broadly under the label of ‘affirmative action’. Is it good to make appointments with a focus of wanting to appoint a black (in America) or minority ethnic (in Britain) person?
This blog seeks to draw out the pros and cons of such an approach, primarily with reference to pressures on making senior appointments in the Church of England, but with the broader context in view.
Arguments for giving weight to ethnicity.
1. It encourages positive aspirations for people from ethnic minorities.
This was a common argument for the need for the church to have more minority ethnic clergy: visitors attending a church would be more inclined to become involved if they saw a non-white face up front, the church would most likely be more congruent with their culture, and people who thought that the church would not welcome them into leadership would now be more likely to aspire to leadership or ordination themselves.
It is not difficult to imagine how these arguments might resonate. It seems to be the case that visibly multi-ethnic leadership teams do generate more ethnically varied congregations. People are inspired by seeing people that they can identify with in positions of leadership. Speaking personally, how far was my own call to ministry stimulated by imaging myself doing what I saw other, slightly older young men doing? Likely, I think
But whilst their does seem an inherent credibility in the proposal, their does also seem to be an idealised hope about the argument, rather than solid evidence, especially if it is an argument for the transformative impact of having a black incumbent. By now we have had black clergy leading parishes for long enough for a dispassionate analysis of their impact. Do congregations grow, particularly from the incumbent’s specific ethnic group? Are their people now ordained or in training because seeing a minority ethnic minister opened their eyes to the possibility for themselves? But is it the case that our still uncertain footing about issues of race makes it feel unseemly to ask questions about ‘success’?
As regards education, Tony Sewell writes: ‘The race of a teacher is not as important as the quality of the teacher, and the school system that they are in. When it comes to education, identity is not as important as competency’, and quotes the American academic John McWhorter ‘The teacher bias argument . . . falls down when we consider that black students generally do not perform appreciably better in schools where they are taught by mostly black teachers’ (in ‘Black Success’, p39). In similar vein Doug Stokes writes ‘In what we might call a correspondence theory of knowledge primacy is placed on the correspondence between the immutable identity characteristics of a teacher and student. As such, diversity is seen as a panacea to the problem that rests on an assumption that the optimal way to learn is to be taught by somebody of your own racial identity’ (‘Against Decolonisation’, p 62).
So the congruence argument has theoretical plausibility but no clear evidence in its favour.
2. Diversity of backgrounds leads to better decisions.
There is evidence from business studies that diversity at the boardroom level increases effectiveness. In an article in the Harvard Business Review July/Aug 2018 (culled somewhat randomly from Google) on ‘The Other Diversity Dividend’ Gompers and Kovvali write: ‘How do the financial outcomes of [Venture Capital] homogeneous partnerships compare with those of diverse collaborations? The difference is dramatic. Along all dimensions measured, the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance. . . .To understand why homogeneous teams have worse investment outcomes, it’s critical to determine exactly when decision making suffers. Interestingly, projects selected by both homogeneous and diverse sets of investment partners were equally promising at the time the decision to invest was made. Differences in decision quality and performance came later, when the investors helped shape strategy, recruitment, and other efforts critical to a young company’s survival and growth. Thriving in a highly uncertain competitive environment requires creative thinking in those areas, and the diverse collaborators were better equipped to deliver it’ (Italics mine).
The cross-over to the Church of England should be fairly obvious. The decision making of the House of Bishops or General Synod or your church’s PCC (all ‘in a highly uncertain competitive environment’) will be more apposite and creative it there is an ethnic diversity that reflects our composition.
More specifically, the greater confidence in the supernatural, in the power of prayer, in the effectiveness of witness that tends to mark people from ethnic minority backgrounds is surely much needed in the higher echelons of the church. Indeed, given the burgeoning vitality of the faith of minority ethnic Christians in Britain, it is arguable that had the Church been wise, faithfull and humble in its ministry to minority ethnic people over the past half century then by now they would be well over-represented in our leadership. As it is, greater cultural diversity amongst our leaders could make them ‘better equipped to deliver’ appropriate initiatives and enhance our ‘creative thinking’.
3. Being in a diverse environment educates white people.
Professor Amartya Sen once argued to a Cambridge audience that from his Harvard experience one strength of ethnically based preferential admissions was that it benefitted all students by enlarging their horizons and strengthening their intercultural awareness. This is supported by research that racism is best countered by equal status contact.
I think it is probably significant that the best British book on multi-cultural ministry – ‘Leading a Multi-Cultural Church’ by the Baptist minister Malcolm Patten (SPCK 2016) – had its roots in Patten’s friendship with a Jamaican-background fellow student whilst studying at Spurgeon’s College. In which case it is promising that the percentage of minority ethnic students in Anglican colleges is increasing, though we need to respond thoughtfully to the anecdotal evidence suggesting that white students can be seriously negligent in failing to take up the opportunities to develop cross-cultural friendships.
Returning to the House of Bishops, it is arguable that it is formative and productive for white bishops to be rubbing shoulders with bishops of different culture and ethnicity; though the complexities of education and class also need factoring in. For example, the weightier issue of social class is neglected. When did we hear it said: ‘We need to find someone from a working-class background to fill this post’? In reality ‘minority’ senior clergy can share the same social background, experiences and interests as their white colleagues.
Meanwhile, the proposal in ‘From Lament to Action’ that white bishops should have a minority ethnic adviser to provide them with an element of ethnically diverse input is a wise initiative.
Problems caused by giving weight to ethnicity.
1. Ethnically based appointments can lead to worse outcomes.
Demands for appointing minority ethnic leaders are often based on the spurious and easily disprovable assumption that people from all ethnic groups basically have the same capacities. Thomas Sewell in particular has produced reams of evidence, both historically and globally, that there can be remarkable differences of outcome as regards ethnic groups excelling across a wide range of activities. Why are there so many south Asians involved in British politics and yet so few east Asians, even though east Asians are notably successful in other areas. Quite simply there is a tendency for people from ethnic groups to develop different work habits, to focus on developing different skills, to have aspirations to excel in particular areas, and so bring different capacities to the table.
An obvious factor is that we assume, rightly I believe, that senior clergy should have a reasonably high level of conceptual intelligence, certainly to A level, and usually to university, with the subtlety of mind that good education ought to generate. But it is also apparent that average educational levels vary significantly between different ethnic groups. Therefore it does not reflect badly on the church if low achieving groups have low representation at senior level. It is a hard (and variably caused) fact of our society that we have to live with. (Is the importance of educational level indicated by the fact that one of the stand-out allegations of racism in the church was made against one of the few bishops who had not been to university?).
Therefore for bodies or people making appointments to feel the pressure that ‘we must have a . . .’ can lead to very unwise appointments. Merely cosmetic appointments to give ‘a good look’ can be damaging to the institution and especially to the person who was inappropriately appointed. I know of two, possibly three, archdiaconal appointments that went badly awry because the appointment was unsuitable at the time. If we start seeing people as faceless tokens of a particular ethnicity rather than unique, specifically shaped human beings then we risk damaging people by putting round pegs into square holes just because the peg is the right colour.
2. The standing of all minority ethnic leaders becomes undermined.
Quite simply the suspicion that a person’s appointment was due to their ethnicity rather than their abilities becomes inevitable. It reduces their standing in the eyes of colleagues, and it can create insecurity, and thence unhelpful defensiveness, even paranoia, in the person who feels their standing is regarded by some as fraudulent. Rather than generating respect for the achievements of people from ethnic minorities, with one swipe it undermines and levels down all minority ethnic achievement. They all look alike. Exceptional brilliance becomes unrecognisable.
In a typically hard-hitting post, Glenn Loury, the high-achieving black economics professor at the Ivy League Brown University says: ‘The problem, then, is two-fold. On the one hand, African Americans in any field who meet and exceed the standards of that field will have to deal with condescension and undeserved suspicion regarding “how they got here.” That is insulting, and it casts a pall of illegitimacy over their achievements. It compromises how their integrity is perceived, and through no fault of their own. Indeed, affirmative action actually penalizes high-achieving African Americans, since everyone knows that all black people at the elite level in the US benefit from affirmative action, whether they want it or not. On the other hand, African Americans who might not be up to snuff but who are nevertheless elevated within their fields may never actually know they’re being condescended to. It’s not as though a hiring committee will tell them, “Well, you’re not the best candidate, but we like your skin colour.” These beneficiaries walk around believing their peers regard them as equals, when, in reality, everyone else can see they’re below par. Maybe the hiree will realize what’s happened or maybe he won’t. Either way, he won’t be regarded as a true equal’. (Blog on ‘The Indignities of Affirmative Action 30/01/2024).
A further part of the burden thus created is that the minority person may be expected to be an exemplar or even a spokesperson for all ethnic minorities, with attendant dangers of inauthenticity on the one hand and false assumptions about the nature of their ‘lived experience’ on the other. A scenario of unreality has been projected which is unhealthy both for the institution and the hapless person so chosen.
3. It can devalue areas of activity where it prevails.
Broadly speaking, ethnicity is a significant factor in making appointments in soft areas of human activity rather than hard areas. In some activities success is so important, and so easily calibrated, that it is unthinkable ethnicity could ever be a factor, so it affects Nobel prizes in the sciences by contrast with literature - where absolute comparisons are unworkable and the shifting tides of culture more influential.
Interestingly, ethnic minorities have often disproportionately flourished in the hard areas. Despite appallingly high levels of anti-Semitism Jews have been very successful in the sciences and in business. Indians have now become major players in Silicon valley. The success of black footballers not just in Britain but across western Europe is very much in evidence. Less well-known is the remarkable fact that three of the twenty Premier League teams (plus the seemingly unbeatable break-out German team, Bayer Leverkusen) are managed by Basques! (An indication of the extraordinary fecundity of micro-cultures). We are dealing here with hard areas that require people with the very highest degree of excellence and where the margin between success and failure is exceptionally slim so that poor selections can have disastrous results for the organisation; far too serious, in fact, for peripheral issues like ethnicity, or ‘racial justice’, to shape the decisions that are made.
By contrast, in soft areas success is harder to evaluate, the ‘face’ of the person involved more influential, the social context more formative. As a result there is more room for manoeuvre in letting ethnicity shape appointments, especially where public response is involved. Making political appointments, casting for television productions (and adverts especially), awarding of arts accolades can all have pressure to ensure ethnic diversity – thus the outcry over a very ‘white’ Oscars led subsequently to the deliberate inclusion of people of colour. These are areas either where judgements of merit are too subjective to be absolute, and where response from the public (or a vocal section of it) has a powerful effect on outcomes.
Whether ethnicity is important in appointments, therefore, tells us something about the institution and how it sees itself. Too strong an emphasis on ‘we must have a . . .’ risks also saying ‘this is a job anyone can do’; in other words, implying this is ‘Mickey Mouse’ organisation that doesn’t see what it does as requiring that much excellence.
Conclusion.
Do the arguments marshalled above simply leave us with a 3-3 draw, or is weight more on one side or the other? What does our experience thus far indicate? In this blog I have referred to anecdotes that I am aware of, but surely it is time that we made a much more thorough and wide-ranging evaluation of our experience. We have had sufficient experience with minority ethnic clergy, and now senior leaders, to attempt a balanced appraisal of the outcomes. Otherwise, we are too easily at the mercy of either prejudice or wishful thinking. As it is, the Church of England can suffer from ‘mission creep’ whereby the command to make disciples of all nations gets overtaken by the intermediate goal of ethnically diverse leadership, such that appointing a minority ethnic bishop is seen as a big ‘win’ in itself without any eye on the eventual missional outcome.
Meanwhile, I think there is enough strength in the arguments in favour of giving heed to ethnicity in making appointments to recognise its value. But I suspect that overall it is an approach that is too ignorant of the substantial imbalances of talent between ethnic groups, too heedless of the consequences, and too reluctant to consider the negative outcomes of such preferences to be a foregrounded guiding light in policy-making.
Overall, ‘use with care’.
********
Add On.
The latest Theos report shows that ‘Anglicans’ are hostile to asylum seekers. However, when broken down the report shows that it is ‘non-practicing Anglicans’ (sic) who are hostile, whilst actual practicing Anglicans are more open than the population as a whole. Therefore an important part of the church’s response should not so much be to harangue people into being more open to asylum seekers, but rather to work at turning non-practicing Anglicans into ‘practicing Anglicans’.