Welcome. The flow of reports relating to race continues; below is a ‘compare and contrast’ of two alternative approaches. As ever, please comment, command, criticise, forward and subscribe. And thank you for your attention.
Runnymede vs Sewell?
The Runnymede Trust report ‘Race and Racism in England’, published on 15th July, quickly sets out its stall as a counter to the controversial Sewell Report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which it alleges ‘misrepresents the scale and complexity of the issues and stands in stark contrast to the evidence that we have received . . . about the experiences facing BME people in England today’ (Preface, p 3).
Before embarking on a ‘compare and contrast’ exercise on the two reports, it is worth setting them in the context of differing understandings of ‘race’, and how that has played out in debate over the past few years. ‘Race’ is an umbrella term, where differences in physical appearance that are immediately obvious, but in reality of little significance, cover two separate and much more significant realities – the ‘external’ reality of how society regards and treats different ethnic groups, and the ‘internal’ reality of the cultural thought patterns and behaviour characterising specific ethnic groups. The oft repeated statement that ‘race’ is socially constructed is true, if it is taken to mean the rejection of genetic or biological differences (apart from the greater prevalence of certain illnesses). But the question remains ‘constructed by whom’? This is often simply assumed to be ‘society’, thereby ignoring the role of ethnic groups in affecting their own outcomes. (See Blog # 33 ‘So, what is race?’).
Matters are always simpler when issues (such as racial and ethnic disparities) have only one source. But when two (at least) sources for a phenomenon are held to be in play then we are into the complex issue of how we are to balance the sources against each other. (A parallel issue is the historical origins of western secularisation – has it stemmed from primarily philosophical and ideological causes, or from economic and social causes? The Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution?)
Often such questions become merely a dialogue of the deaf. Each side offers explanations from its own vantage point, barely stopping to consider the possibility of other levels of explanation. Thus we have the production of ‘how awful’ statistics of racial disparities where it is assumed that the only possible explanation is racism in society – the CEEC video ‘One’ began with a few (see the Review in Blog # 12); Ben Lindsay’s recent Moule Lecture at Ridley Hall began with a cascade.
The furore over the Sewell Report was that it dissented from what had become a sort of orthodox methodology. The approach to disparities in the ‘Race Disparity Audit’ (2016) was critiqued for its approach by Sewell and other practitioners, such as the educationalist Katherine Birbalsingh; and Boris Johnson, influenced by his adviser Munira Mirza, then commissioned the Sewell report, which articulated what was certainly a minority, but nonetheless credible response to understanding disparities. The Runnymede Trust was first off the block, disseminating a highly critical response to Sewell, including the palpable falsehood that Sewell denied the existence of institutional or structural racism. This is repeated here that ‘A theme promoted throughout the [Sewell]report is that institutional racism is no longer a valid or useful explanation for the various forms of inequality, discrimination, disproportionate disadvantage, restriction or exclusion experienced daily by BME groups’ (p 5). This is in simple denial of Sewell’s statement that ‘We have argued for the use of the term ‘institutional racism’ to be applied only when deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level’ (p 8); as indeed Sewell recognises to be the case with employment (p 105).
We are, then, in the midst of a turf war. On the one side Runnymede holding the fort for the view that racial and ethnic disparities are de facto the consequence of racism in society; Sewell arguing for the salience of cultural and other factors. To be fair, Sewell clearly concedes that racism, including in the structures of society, does exist alongside other complicating factors. By contrast, the Runnymede response, as we shall see, is loath to step back from a hard-line position that all racial and ethnic disparities stem alone from how society operates. Karl Popper wrote: ‘Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve’. The review below will ask how effectively Runnymede has understood the problem.
The problem – of significant shortfalls of positive outcomes for various ethnic groups in our society – is a very serious one. It ought not to be crassly interpreted as just another skirmish in a supposed ‘culture war’. The future well-being of people in our society is at stake. Evidences for the problem need careful scrutiny.
Analysis of ‘Race and Racism in England’.
1. Positives.
A wide-ranging Report has a clear focus for identifying issues where England falls short of offering equality to all its citizens. Examples are:
* It identifies the often overlooked issue of caste (p 7), and also of Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities..
* As regards the appalling injustice of the Windrush scandal it notes: ‘It is extremely concerning that a department at the heart of central government felt no obligation or pressure to comply with its equality duty and therefore proceeded to perpetuate such injustices’ (p 9).
* As an ominous precursor to the post-Euro abuse of black players who missed penalties, and as a backdrop to the endemic racism in English society, it notes the distressing statistic that a 2019 study indicated 41% of Black people had received obscene or abusive emails, in contrast to just 8% of white people (p 12).
* It notes that almost half of newly qualified teachers thought that their initial course had not prepared them to teach ‘across all ethnic backgrounds’ (p 35) - Church of England please note.
* It calls for closer monitoring by the police of ethnicity in traffic stops (p 18) and use of Tasers (p 20); both of which have given rise to high profile incidents recently
2. Assessing disparities.
It is here that the narrow perspective of the Report’s outlook begins to show. As identified in the introduction above, ‘how awful’ statistical outcomes are presented without any attempt to scrutinise reasons.
* The Lammy Report is quoted as saying that 40% of young people in custody are from BME backgrounds as opposed to making up 14% of the population (p 17). The latter figure would seem to be an all-age statistic; the BME proportion of young people would likely be notably higher. Nor is there any attempt at ‘non-ethnic’ correlations, such as young people without a father in the home; nor any attempt to disaggregate the 40% into different ethnic groups; for example to explore whether some BME groups may be over-represented (Black Caribbean?) and others under-represented (Indian?).
* Similarly, over disproportionate penalties for non-observance of Covid regulations there is no consideration of what behavioural factors may lie behind the differences.
* It is indicative of the report’s biased orientation that a rare example of it seeking to disaggregate statistics comes where ethnic minorities are advantaged. Discussing that ‘Indian and Chinese workers were reported as earning more than their white counterparts’ (p 33), the Report brings variables other than ethnicity into play. ‘When adjusted for factors such as age, qualification level and geography . . . these differences are overstated’. A perfectly reasonable approach. But when statistics show minority ethnic disadvantage the only factor born in mind is race and racial discrimination.
3. Wilful obscurantism.
Consequently, there are two no-go areas in the Report’s discussions which the report refuses to consider.
* Differences between ethnic groups.
We saw above that this happened with reference to Indian and Chinese incomes, but by and large the report sees ‘BME’ as an undifferentiated group, with no attention paid to explaining the very different trajectories of the various ethnic minorities in British society. The illuminating differences that appear in the Sewell report (such as that black African Caribbean pupils have notably higher school exclusion rates than Black African pupils) are rarely found in the Runnymede report. Thus the opportunities that ethnic diversity gives for groups to learn from the achievements of others that Sewell notices (see his Recommendation 6) are wholly absent from Runnymede. Thus we have a flat two-dimensional account of race in England, rather than a contoured account which has far greater explanatory power.
* Reference to family and fathering.
Sewell noted the relationship between absentee fathers and the social problems of young people; in particular that a staggering 63% of African Caribbean children now grow up in a single parent home, and the correlation of this with school exclusions or incarceration. Runnymede never once raises the issue, either in relation to school exclusions (p36) or elsewhere, which inevitably raises the question of whether the report’s credibility when it refuses to consider a factor which has clear implications for children’s well being (see evidence in Sewell p 42). Given the sexual idolatry of our society, any suggestion that people’s sexual behaviour can have serious and damaging social consequences is a blasphemy which may not be uttered. (Even Sewell’s reference to the reality is somewhat muted). But stable parenting is a major engine of social mobility; its increasing infrequency, particularly in black Caribbean and white working-class families, is a powerful drawback against the improvement of their circumstances.
Ways Ahead.
1. Try a little ‘Adversarial Collaboration’.
This is a conflict handling procedure where instead of adversaries feeling they have done their job when they have drowned their opponents in hostile rhetoric, opposing experts work together to produce a unified summary of the evidence and its implications. ‘It’s a good way to make sure you hear the strongest arguments and counterarguments for both sides – like hearing a debate between experts, except all the debate and rhetoric and disagreement have already been done by the time you start reading, so you’re just left with the end result’. (From Slate Star Codex 12/09/2019). (To credit the Church of England, it seems to me that its ‘Living in Faith and Love’ programme concerning same-sex relationships is akin to this. It may well not lead to policy proposals that are acceptable to all sides, but at least each side will know that it is a relatively fair account of their convictions that has been rejected).
The seriousness of racial disadvantage in Britain demands a programme not a squabble. It needs people of strongly opposing viewpoints to patiently collaborate in seeking to present each other’s viewpoints seriously and sympathetically in such a way that they can recognise themselves in their opponent’s portrayal of them. Whilst I find myself more persuaded by Sewell’s approach than Runnymede’s, clearly at present the balance of informed opinion tends to favour Runnymede, with Sewell being essentially a minority and deviant ‘position paper’. But both sides need taking seriously in a way that can’t happen as long as the debate is dominated by a polarised political landscape. Such a procedure may well not lead to consensus, but it should lead to policies were great swathes of evidence aren’t simply neglected in the rush to win arguments.
2. Let’s work together.
Love it or loath it, the Sewell Report is on the government’s table. Arguing over it simply diminishes the likelihood of the Government implementing any of its Recommendations. Rather than stumbling over its caution (not denial) over the use of ‘sanctified’ words as systemic, structural and institutional, as though these were the only touchstones of an orthodoxy worth considering, Runnymede and its supporters ought to work with Sewell in pressing on the Government Sewell’s specific and constructive Recommendations with which Runnymede also agrees, such as:
* greater financial support for the Equality and Human Rights Commission - # 1 (see Runnymede p 50);
* Investigating what causes existing ethnic pay disparities - # 9 (Runnymede p 34);
* Establishing an Office for Health Disparities - # 11 (Runnymede p 42).
These are areas where all agreed that, yes, institutional and structural racism exists in this country. A Government easily influenced by cultural ‘warriors,’ who will resist any movement on these important initiatives, needs united pressure both from those who emphasise only socio-political causes of racial disadvantage, and those who believe that cultural, especially family, issues also need to be thrown into the explanatory pot. Runnymede’s wholescale rejection of a Conservative government report seems a bad case of cutting your nose to spite your face. Far better to energetically support the Report’s positives rather than simply score points by discrediting the government before the eyes of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Twenty years ago the Runnymede Trust produced a report on ‘The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain’. I fear that twenty years from now people who have supported BLM, taken the knee, gone on protest rallies - and who have seen in society greater recognition of Britain’s evil responsibility for slavery and its consequences, and a national mood which takes racism more seriously – will nonetheless be depressed and disillusioned. Whilst growing numbers of black people will have seen greater security and stability, the ‘how awful’ statistics over matters such as school exclusions or incarceration will still be there, as they will be for all segments of society where stable parenting has not been re-established.