‘Institutional Racism’ scrutinised. # 220. 27/01/2026.

Out of Many, One People

Welcome, to an exploration of an over-used and under-defined phrase, albeit from an American perspective. Should we think that a British take would read quite differently? Please comment.

‘Institutional Racism’ scrutinised.

At the Anglican Network for Intercultural Churches in 2023 someone rightly asked what it meant to say that the Church is institutionally racist. No one on the panel could give a clear answer. Since Archbishop Justin Welby made the statement in February 2020 it has been repeated many times and received the status of a proven fact, despite their being very little clarity about what it actually means to say the Church of England is ‘institutionally racist’. (See my earlier discussion at ‘Institutional Racism and the Church of England’ # 9, 14/01/2021).

Lee Jussim, Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, takes a hard look at the meaning and value of the phrase ‘systemic racism’ (used interchangeably with ‘institutional racism) in an article in the ‘Theory and Society’ journal of October 2025, entitled ‘The Discrimination Paradox’. The body of Jussim’s paper is how to account for the fact that in recent years some high quality studies have found that racial discrimination is very rare, whilst other high quality studies have found it very common. (A not dissimilar theme to that identified in my blog ‘A Bad Story or a Good Story’, # 45, 14/09/2021; also # 113).

Jussim then discusses the impact his conclusions have on claims about ‘systemic racism’, noting that ‘the term . . is often used so casually among both some academics and some in the wider society that it has become almost impossible to pin down what the term means’. By contrast he refers positively to the Wikipedia 2025 definition of Institutional Racism saying that it refers to policies and practices that produce discrimination, thus requiring, as Jussim notes, ‘ a clear onus on those invoking systemic racism to point to the specific systems, political or economic policies or practices producing discrimination’. In contrast, for Jussim academics (and, by extension, church leaders) whose account of institutional racism make no reference whatsoever to specific policies or practices are simply guilty of the following tautology:

‘* Why is there a racial gap [in outcomes]? Because of systemic racism.

* How do we know there is systemic racism? Because there is a racial gap [in outcomes]’.

It is a little like a doctor, on being told that you have a severe stomach pain, simply replying that you are sick. Only when diagnoses, and hopefully cures, come into the conversation is anything worthwhile being said.

Jussim’s a solution for the paradox of apparently contradictory conclusions being found in high quality studies of racial discrimination noted that on the one hand, in a meta-analysis of job applications by equally qualified Black and White candidates, the latter received 36% more call-backs than the Black applicants – an alarming figure that has remained roughly consistent since 1972; but, on the other hand, studies of peoples’ actual choices have regularly found a discrimination rate in low, single percentage figures. By closely analysing the way the statistics work, Jussim’s resolution is to argue that a small number of discriminatory acts can result in a substantial number of discriminatory experiences. He offers a hypothetical case where 500 of both Black and White equally qualified people apply for jobs – 36% discrimination would mean that 136 Whites are successful against only 100 Blacks. Equality would mean that both groups would get 118 call-backs, thus racial discrimination against Black applicants occurred in 18 of the 1,000 applications, a rate of 3.6% for each Black applicant.

Both of these startlingly different statistical outcomes are correct, depending upon how one construes the statistics. As Jussim concludes ‘very low frequencies of acts of discrimination can produce substantial experiences of discrimination’. He also highlights an outcome: ‘Everyone is right, even those who find the other side’s views repugnant’.

His solution helps us understand that claims of institutional racism. It is a loose attempt to account for the experiences even though the acts generating those experiences can be very limited. It becomes a concept struggling to find hard evidence that the institutions workings are explicitly racist. To elucidate Jussim offers two criteria for properly describing it: ‘1) The particular racist system has to be identified independent of the inequality; and 2) One must provide evidence that the particular system so identified caused inequality’. One early British example that might pass this test was the use of ‘word of mouth’ recommendations in filling vacant employment posts, particularly in municipal jobs. The effect of the system was that certain areas of work tended to employ people within close friendship or family circles, making it difficult for outsiders, notably those from ethnic minorities though possibly better qualified to enter into that area of the job market.

How then might the allegation of institutional racism in the Church of England be filled out? One possible area is appointments. When those involved in making the appointment share similar backgrounds, education and experience then there is a prima facie likelihood of like selecting like. Therefore, the proposals in the ‘From Lament to Action’ report that selection bodies be diversified, notably by including members from ethnic minorities, is a reasonable one. This meets the first of Jussim’s criteria by identifying a ‘racist system’, but his second criteria – the need to provide evidence that suitably qualified people have been excluded – has never been tested . So the allegation that the absence of minority ethnic people in senior leadership in the Church of England (which I take was the basis of Archbishop Welby’s admission) might be plausible but it lacks substantive evidence to be convincing as it would require identifying that the system actually had excluded suitably qualified people.

Jussim, then, brings a stringent analytic philosopher’s tools to cut away the flabby thinking that the term institutional/systemic racism often embodies. (Parallels with the philosopher Kathleen Stock’s similarly incisive, and highly consequential, critique of loose transgender thinking in ‘Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism’ comes to mind). He stresses that acts of personal prejudice do not constitute institutional racism, observing that discrimination can and does occur at the individual level, without any institutional or organisational practices involved’. To give an example from this country, the helpful Grove booklet on racism by the late Maurice Hobbs, ‘Better Mus’ Come’ is misleadingly titled ‘Institutional Racism and the Church’ since Hobbs central example – a vicar choosing a recently arrived white graduate to read the bible in church in preference to long-standing black church members – was not a case of the institution being racist but simply the racism of the vicar who didn’t value the black church members.

In other words the old-fashioned concern about ‘racial discrimination’ forms a stronger platform for countering racial disadvantage than an unidentified concern about ‘institutional racism’. So Jussim concludes by discussing ‘What can and should be done to mitigate discrimination?’, noting, as we have seen, that minimal acts of discrimination can produce substantial experiences of discrimination. Negatively, he notes studies that conclude ‘The real world success of DEI programming is poorly documented’, perhaps caused by the ‘floor effect': since acts of discrimination are already rare it is difficult to reduce those frequencies even more, especially by blanket programmes.

More positively he notes that ‘emphasis on merit more strongly predicts non-discrimination than does emphasising identity-blind or multi-cultural approaches’, whilst pessimistically commenting that our evolved suspicion of outgroups means that ‘completely eradicating prejudice and discrimination does not seem likely anytime soon’. By comparison in a recent book on ‘The Brain needs Friends: The Neuroscience of Social Cohesion’ Ben Rein also recognises that evolution has made us more empathetic to people like ourselves, thus leading to problems in culturally mixed societies. However, for Rein the more positive response is to ‘consciously update your software to look for what you share’. Surely experience indicates that in all sorts of areas it would seem that shared activities and interests lead to an increase in empathetic and non-discriminatory behaviour.

What then, might be the consequences of Jussim’s take on institutional racism for the Church of England?

1. Careless talk does damage.

Welby’s highlighting of institutional racism without any clear specification of the ‘system’ at work was destructive. At a time when the church has apologetic strength in the fact that there are many congregations gathering people of diverse ethnicities into united communities, this positive was squandered by the negative misuse of sociological jargon.

2. Play to our strengths.

Both Jussim and Rein see the centrality of interactions that both highlight the qualities that different ethnicities contribute and of how shared activities diminish prejudiced attitudes. Christian congregations are ideally placed to do this. We should be energetic in resourcing them to do this more effectively.

3. But accept harsh realities.

A further factor is that the Church of England has, until quite recently, been grossly over-optimistic about its pastoral and evangelistic impact upon minority ethnic people in Britain – from the misplaced expectations in the setting up of the Simon of Cyrene Theological Centre in the 1980s to Archbishop Cottrell’s recent statement that there are many (unspecified) minority ethnic people suitable for senior posts in the Church of England.

4. Don’t accept substitutes.

Unequal representation in senior leadership is only superficially countered by overly focusing on finding minority ethnic leaders – most of whom have been nurtured overseas and are not from our core minority ethnic communities. It is only as minority ethnic people nurtured by the church in England, and going on to develop stature as leaders, will that inequality begin to be truly addressed. There are, I think, signs that at last this is beginning to happen.

5. Do the right thing.

We are institutionally racist, because very largely the Church is carrying on business as usual as if our parishes are not ethnically and culturally mixed. The hopelessly fish-out-of-water Rev Adam Smallbone in the tv series ‘Rev’ was too close to reality. To refer to the McPherson Report’s classic definition, we are failing to provide an ‘appropriate and professional service’ (6:74). We plan, organise and train as though we are still a culturally homogenous society. Astoundingly, despite a slew of committees, reports and recommendations we still do not have a focused, mandatory programme for preparing ordinands for the radically diverse and ethnically complex society that Britain now very obviously is.

At an official level we may talk the talk but in adopting appropriate policies we still don’t walk the walk.