Welcome. May the presence of the risen Jesus bring you joy. Peter tells us to ‘accept the authority of every human institution’ (1 Peter 2:13), so do pray for the police for wisdom and energy at this time of public scrutiny.
So, What is ‘Institutional Racism’?
The conclusion of the Casey Report into the Metropolitan Police was that they were institutionally racist (as well as -sexist and -homophobic). The Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, whilst recognising and accepting the seriousness of the Report’s severe criticism of the police, said he was unwilling to use the term institutional racism because ‘I have to use practical, unambiguous, apolitical language. . . I don’t think it fits those criteria’.
So, is this merely a debate about words – what is or is not at stake when the word ‘institutional is ‘deployed’? And, responding to Sir Mark’s words, how ‘ambiguous’ is it to the degree that it has little ‘practical’ use? What might the word ‘institutional ‘add?
1. Manifestations of Institutional Racism.
How can institutions, and not simply the choices and attitudes of the people within them, function in ways that discriminate against and disadvantage people from racial minorities? Here, on a scale of increasing complexity, are ways in which institutions themselves can operate in ways that cause racial injustice.
a) Not knowing.
When I first became aware of the term in the 1970s one of the examples given was of employers that operated by word-of-mouth recruitment, so that desirable jobs went to people who already had contact with those already employed. The work-force was constantly cloning itself, to the exclusion of those outside the family of social circles of the current employees. Quite simply that meant that white organisations stayed white; whilst competent and well-qualified potential ethnic minority candidates never got a look-in. Publicly advertising vacancies enabled them to get a foot in the door. (Word of mouth recruitment can consolidate the hold of various groups on employment opportunities – I assume this is the mechanism by which petrol stations in London and further afield are so frequently operated by Sri Lankan Tamils).
In this respect several proposals in the Church of England’s ‘From Lament to Action’ report commendably set out to ensure greater diversity in the application and appointment processes, both by making opportunities more widely known, and by having people from ethnic minorities built into the selection process.
More broadly, since a century ago Britain was an almost entirely white society, and this was reflected in the operations, cultures and ambience of our institutions, they were all in a general sense, ‘institutionally racist’. That is, they were deigned to be operated by and to enable the flourishing of white people (though largely those of the ruling classes). Therefore if institutions just unreflectively ‘do what they do’, the upshot will be racial discrimination. By and large, people and cultures that are new to this country will not easily fit in. In the now racially diverse society that has emerged over the past century all institutions need to interrogate themselves as to whether or not their ways of doing things justly reflects that diversity.
It may be significant, therefore, that one of the most serious of Casey’s allegations against the Metropolitan Police is ‘complacency’ – a failure to rigorously interrogate itself as to whether, in the words of the MacPherson Inquiry into the Death of Stephen Lawrence (1999) it is found to exhibit a ‘collective failure . . to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin’. Surely, too, this is not an institutional defect that is limited to the police alone.
b) Not bothering.
If there is a certain innocence in ‘not knowing’, then complacency in the face of a clearly changed environment – of the inertia which refuses to take seriously the reality and consequences of ethnic diversity – leads to the more serious charge of ‘not bothering’. For example, under this heading comes the fact that for more than half a century the Church of England has not developed its ministry training to seriously reflect that its clergy are operating in a culturally very diverse and complex society. The situation referred to in 2b below of the vicar who did not invite black people in his church to do the scripture reading, whilst it primarily reflects his own racist mind-set, also reflects that his ministerial preparation did not cause him to think seriously about racial diversity, to examine his own attitudes, or to sense the potential or needs of people ethnically different from himself.
A common misunderstanding of what ‘institutional racism’ implies is that it refers to deliberate intent. I sense that the police’s rejection of the term when used by the MacPherson Report was that it implied the force as a whole was consciously adopting racist attitudes and policies. Not so. It simply meant that the police had not yet become serious about investigating in what ways its policies and the attitudes adversely affected ethnic minorities. If complacency is one danger for all traditionally white organisations, then inertia is its close cousin.
c) Not countering.
Mostly, we don’t like being disruptive. It is one thing not to be racist, something else to actively oppose racism. This is even more difficult in an institution such as the police where a high level of mutual camaraderie and support is necessary. Consequently, toxic atmospheres can also flourish where people are afraid to disrupt bonds of unity, or seniors reluctant to damage morale by calling out not just racist behaviour but also racist attitudes and assumptions. Yet for institutions to tolerate racism in their ranks is to be guilty of institutional racism; it is tolerating the ‘collective failure’ referred to above in the words of the MacPherson Inquiry.
The sociologist T W Adorno’s account of the ‘authoritarian personality’ is less often deployed than once it was, but is still of relevance. Adorno (1903-1969) argued that ‘the authoritarian person also presents a cynical and disdainful view of humanity, and a need to wield power and be tough, which arise from the anxieties produced by the perceived lapses of people who do not abide by the conventions and social norms of society (destructiveness and cynicism); a general tendency to focus upon people who violate the value system, and to act oppressively against them (authoritarian aggression)’ (Wikipedia). It is not difficult to see connections between Adorno’s possibly tendentious account and the appeal of working for a necessarily discipline enforcing organisation such as the police. But it also points up the greater importance of police recruitment being alert to the dangers of attracting inappropriate applicants.
This failure to take racism seriously – in effect to see it from a white vantage point rather than sense the damage and hurt it inflicts on non-white people – is at the heart of institutional racism. It is not therefore simply a question of rooting out the ‘bad apples’ (as is now generally agreed) but more importantly being more vigorous in identifying them, and recognising the way in which toleration transmits into the overall ethos of the organisation.
As regards our attitudes to the police it is also to recognise that internal cohesion amongst the staff is more than usually significant (thus more so than amongst Anglican clergy) and the corollary of expecting greater internal discipline in the police, both informally and formally, is the public’s responsibility to avoid stoking up the ‘us and them’ mentality. This means both taking opportunities to be positive and friendly with the police locally, and avoiding cheap moral or political grand-standing by too-easy criticism and abuse.
Important as the term ‘institutional racism is, it can also be devalued by inappropriate use, therefore:
2. Do not use ‘Institutional Racism’ as . . .
a) an explanation of each and every ethnic disparity.
This was the bone of contention in the Sewell Report on Racial and Ethnic Disparities. Sewell (contrary to mis-representing critics) did not deny the existence of institutional racism. He adjudged there was sufficient evidence in employment practices and health outcomes to warrant research and the development of corrective policies to change institutional practices that unfairly impacted ethnic minorities. Rather, what Sewell warned against was the ‘inflation’ of terms like institutional, used in undisciplined ways without any attempt to show the workings of the institution which were leading to ethnic minorities being discriminated against. His target was in particular the over-frequent use of statistical disparities between groups as ipso facto evidence of ‘institutional racism’ when, as Sewell consistently argued, there were a wide variety of other explanations – regional, social class, family structure – which were more persuasive explanations for disparities.
Inequality of outcome is a good servant but a bad master. It alerts us to the possibility that the cause is racism and invites closer examination, but it is not undeniable proof. When Casey says that black police are 81% more likely to have bad disciplinary outcomes than white police then that may well indicate racism within the institution, for example the prejudices and bias of those carrying out the investigations, but it could be caused by other factors.
b) a pumped-up term for ‘racism’.
The use of loose quasi-sociological terms such as ‘institutional’ adds a veneer of sociological erudition to the description of an everyday event; as though the charge of ‘racism’ wasn’t serious enough and therefore the portentous term ‘institutional’ is needed to give greater weight to the charge. For example in Maurice Hobbes ‘Better Will Come’ three black congregational members observe that whilst they were never asked to do a scripture reading in services, as soon as a white graduate arrives in the church the vicar invites him to read. But surely that was a result of a racist mind-set in the vicar that overlooked the abilities and contributions of black church members. It doesn’t need the addition of the free-floating term ‘institutional’ to make it any more serious. Why was Glynne Gordon-Carter’s account of her time as secretary of CMEAC sub-headed ‘institutional racism in the church’. There was nothing to suggest that the institution itself operated in racist ways.
Adding complexity:
3. ‘Social Justice’ and/or ‘Racial Justice’.
Next month Edinburgh becomes the world’s first local authority to use driverless busses. An interesting, technological but ethnically unimportant event? Not so. Trevor Phillips recently pointed out in an Equiano Project discussion that the technologies that make driverless vehicles or automatic supermarket check-outs have serious consequences ethnically, since it is employees from ethnic minorities who will be disproportionately made redundant by such a ‘neutral’ development. Phillips made the point following on from referring to the particular damage wrought on Pakistani communities by the closure of textile mills. A powerful recent case is disproportionate deaths from Covid; African men are seven times more likely to work in care homes, and therefore die, than white men.
All these examples are not ‘racial’ in a specific sense, therefore Sewell can properly say they can not be classified as ‘institutionally racist’. But they are socially slanted – they affect poor communities who are less carefully buffered against the damaging effects of social change that wealthy or powerful ones, but where ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented. To take another example of the damaging effect of loss of employment, the closure of the coal mines was not a all ‘racial’, but again it affected an employment group whose interests were insufficiently protected.
Social injustices are frequently, though not always entwined with racial injustice, but arguing whether they should be correctly described as ‘institutional racism’ is far less important than simply recognising situations where people are being unfairly disadvantaged. When the victims are predominantly though not exclusively from ethnic minorities, then it is incumbent on institutions to take thoroughgoing reform.
Add On
INTERCULTURAL MISSION CONFERENCE
Wed, 26th April 09:30–16:15 at St Paul's Church, Stoke Rd Slough
Keynote speakers Rev Guy Hewitt, of CMEAC and Rev Mark Poulson, plus choice of two workshops (one of which I am leading). Further details from Rt Rev Dr Tim Wambunya: vicar@stpaulsslough.org.uk
Thanks John, that's helpful and interesting. You have outlined and distinguished three levels of racism..
1. Personal (mind set) which I guess ranges from full blown Nazi hatred to unconscious blindness.
2. Institutuional racism within an organisation... where practices and culture can and ought to be changed.
3. Social disadvantage which statistics show that particualr erhnic (or other) categories of people get worse outcomes.. economically, educationally, health etc...
I guess number 3 is the hardest to deal with as it needs long term culture change across society and it's sub groups.... Maybe another blog exploring that in more depth.