Thread by @sundersays

This is Samir Shah on what the Race Commission was trying to say about institutional racism (that it can exist/does exist). And Tony Sewell, the Chair, on what he thinks of the Commission's findings (that it is defined too loosely/they didn't find it)

Here is Maggie Aderin-Pocock saying there is racism, and terrible experiences of racism, but not systemic racism (now/anymore) and that they "didn't find" institutional racism. Though it may exist.

The Commission also says (collectively) "we have never said that racism does not exist in society or in institutions. We say the contrary: racism is real and we must do more to tackle it"

The Commission report is a collective view - and probably a compromise between different views on the Commission. It clearly does endorse the Macpherson definition & it is clearly concerned that it is used more loosely (ie, should check if a disparity is discrimination)

They propose these distinctions.
Explained/unexplained racial disparities

Institutional racism
(Applicable to an institution)

Systemic racism
(Wider society/interconnected institutions)

Structural racism
(They see this term as inextricably linked to a critique of capitalism)

It seems to me they may forget or conflate or muddle up these distinctions in their report - esp between systemic and institutional racism - in their comms and interviews

This Times page 1 is most nuanced description of content. Mail & Indy headlines closer to Sewell interview

Matthew Parris says it was a mistake on tone to enter a 'sterile debate'. Having set out their distinctions, the Commissioners seem to me to conflate them

"Put simply", Tony Sewell foreword that v clear verdict that there is not *systemic racism* ("we no longer see a Britain where the system is *deliberately* rigged against ethnic minorities. The impediments and disparities do exist ... very few of them are *directly racism*)

This foreword moves the goalposts, compared to the definitions box because "deliberately rigged" and "direct" racism have been introduced.

"Rigged" is now an *intentional* matter.
Systemic racism exists if there is a clear and sustained bias, by accident not design, by ethnicity

This (from the report) is evidence of a systemic ethnic disparity. Because unconscious bias.

The sentence at the bottom does not make sense (the study methodologies are applications for real jobs) and indicates an optimism/benefit of the doubt bias in the report.

"Unemployment rates for the 16 to 24 group are high even for those from Indian and Chinese ethnic groups who comfortably outperform the White average in education"

This clearly meets the systemic (society-wide) bar among the young adult cohort who closed the aggregate educ gap

Foreword then says use "institutional racism" when "deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level" (what about unconscious bias/affinity bias being systemic causes of disparities)

"Not as a general catch-all phrase for every microaggression" is rhetorical

Report looks for systemic disparities (it finds some, in employment and health). Its accurate argument would be "closing disparities ... widening opportunities ... fairer chances than ever before ... lets build on progress & work too to close the remaining gaps too" [proposals]

After call for a clearer definition, not finding "institutional racism" = red herring. They do not produce a model of how to test for it *in institutions* as they are looking society-wide for systemic racism.

Reasonable: they would need two dozen 250 page reports to assess this

They do look a little at police recruitment, at NHS pay/progression, at civil service. (They don't look at most institutions: home office, the courts, business, sport, civic society, arts and culture). They just dont have much basis to make declarations about institutional racism

When a Commisioner says there was *potentially* even systemic racism in the 1960s (1m 20s), this seems one small indication that the burden of proof is set somewhat beyond beyond reasonable doubt

My own view (on reflection) is we should use a cooler word than the R-word when we want to focus on *institutionalised* discrimination & disparities

Because R word understood to be about intent.We discuss intent, but this was trying to shift to systems

It is also perhaps too binary an on/off term, if interested in driving sustained changes over time. It is clearly harder to adopt by institutions than a cooler synonym.

Incisive example of taking metaphors seriously

"Anecdotal" was an unhelpful (unproven) word to introduce on evidence of racism. (Eg, prosecution data for racist violence are facts; as are tribunal verdicts, etc).
* no doubt about existence of racism.
* good evidence of closing gaps
* clear evidence of systemic disparities

This (from the report) on the persistence of racism and the corrosive toxicity of anonymous online racist abuse against many prominent ethnic minority people is much clearer & better in content and tone (than saying "anecdotal examples of racism" on the Today programme).

At core of Macpherson definition is that institutional discrimination does *not* depend on the intent (versus "deliberately rigged"): a point which Wendy Williams puts clearly too. (However, our intuitions re the word "Racism" seem largely intent-based)

Foreword conflates institutional & systemic racism. It states Britain is not "deliberately rigged" (ie, by intent).

Report differentiates institutional and systemic thus. It endorses the Macpherson 1999 definition in which "unwitting" (ie, not by intent) is a key feature.

My view: Sewell Report contains *conclusive* evidence of systemic disparity (= discrimination) in recruitment+employment (This may arise mainly from "unwitting" bias, not "deliberate" rigging; but this CV evidence just can't be explained using foreword's narrative on disparities)

On "institutional racism"

I cant see anything in report's methodology (review 2ry data, take evidence) to gave Commission any credible basis to offer any general verdict on scale of IR (or not) in Britain today

Recommendation to invest more in ECHR only makes sense if IR exists

If anyone says Sewell report provides "evidence-based" case of no institutional racism in Britain (or"Britain is not institutionally racist", which seems a confused claim, meaning systemic racism), I do not see where they could get that from the report content (vs Foreword/Comms)

It would be very strange if there was *simultaneously*

Institutional racism in 1 institution in Britain (Labour Party in treatment of Jewish members, due to systematically inadequate handling of complaints about anti-semitism - ECHR)

No other institutional racism in Britain!

Unroll @threadreaderapp