Systemic Racism: The Ghost Hunt Continues - Philip Miles

Systemic racism. Institutional racism. Structural racism. Call it what you like, but it’s a real thing. From Nazi Germany to Apartheid-era South Africa to present day China, both historic and current examples are easy enough to find. Today, it is defined not only by racist laws, regulations or processes, but also by racist attitudes, behaviours, and a legacy of historic racial injustice whose effects are - arguably - still being felt.

Yet the search for evidence of its existence (in today’s Britain and elsewhere in the West) is often likened to a ghost hunt. Why? Perhaps because, as the definition grew broader, systemic racism began to feel more like a phantom and less like something real. After all, a ‘legacy of injustice’ is a highly abstract concept. ‘Attitudes and behaviours’ are easily misinterpreted. Is there anything we can do to make the phantom real enough to pin down? Indeed there is, if we’re willing to stick to the narrower but more concrete definition of racist laws, regulations or processes.

The trouble is, today’s 'evidence' seems to consist not of laws, regulations or processes, but of disparities, disproportionalities and inequalities. Consider this, from a Guardian editorial in response to the recent Sewell Report: “One cannot deny structural racism in a society where a black man is 19 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the Met than his white friend, or a young black mother is four times more likely to die in childbirth.”

This is hardly the smoking gun the author seems to think it is. Indeed, it takes a special kind of intransigence to criticise a report by making the very same error the report was trying to flag! 

The error being? Conflation of discrimination and disparities.

Disparities are not discrimination. Nor are they laws or regulations or processes. Disparities are outcomes, perhaps of discrimination, but also, perhaps, of culture, age, geography, sex, class, absent fathers… the list goes on. 

Furthermore, ‘Black’ is a woefully inadequate, surface-level umbrella term. ‘BAME’ is worse still, because it’s even less specific. Neither ‘BAME’ nor ‘Black’ can break down the differences between, say, black Caribbeans and black Africans; and that’s just the second layer of the onion. There are many more layers beneath. 

Too often, the 2017 Lammy Review, which purported to find evidence of systemic racism in the Criminal Justice System, made the same mistake as that Guardian editorial. It too tended to conflate discrimination and disparities, though it seemed at least partially aware of the trap when it introduced a principle called ‘Explain or reform’; if you can’t explain the ethnic disparity any other way, then assume racism and reform as such (and never mind about the consequences of a potential misdiagnosis).

I searched the Lammy Review for evidence of systemic racism, but every potential smoking gun seemed to come with caveats or unanswered questions. For example: “BAME defendants are more likely than White defendants to receive prison sentences for drug offences, even when factors such as past convictions are taken into account”. Bingo! But then came the caveat: “Despite some areas that require further study, such as the role of aggravating and mitigating factors…”

What about: “Police charge 78% of black people caught in possession of cocaine, but only 44% of white people”? That sure sounds like racism... until you start to wonder about the quantities of cocaine involved in each case.

How about this: “The difference could be said to indicate that the CPS is too reluctant to prosecute White defendants for rape or too quick to prosecute Chinese and Other or Black defendants.” Gotcha! But then: “There could equally be other factors at play.”

This one then: “A significant proportion of decisions made within a sentencing judge’s discretion may result in that discretion being exercised in one direction for BAME defendants (a longer sentence) and in the other direction for White defendants (a shorter sentence).” Judge’s discretion, huh? That sounds like part of an identifiable process. And a racist one at that. But hang on… discretion can go either way, or no way at all; it might favour white defendants or BAME defendants. Or it might favour neither.

Throughout the Lammy Review, lack of trust in the system was a recurrent theme: “Those who carry around a sense of injustice are more likely to rebel against prison regimes, rather than start on the road to a life without offending.” But if you’re publicly arguing – often erroneously – that the system is unjust, then aren’t you exacerbating the problem?

And as the review concedes: “Objective evidence of discrimination can be rare, with actions open to different interpretations.”

What the Lammy Review did find, though, was evidence of systemic non-racism: “Independent analysis commissioned by this review corroborates the picture of broadly proportionate CPS decision-making.” What about juries? “Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries – including all white juries – do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants.” 

There was even evidence of systemic anti-racism. The review highlighted the work of the Judicial Diversity Committee (part of the Judiciary itself) which runs ‘positive action’ mentoring schemes in which BAME candidates are over-represented. 

Outside of the Criminal Justice System, Britain’s immigration policy is another alleged hotbed of systemic racism. After the 2018 Windrush scandal, the independent Lessons Learned review concluded that the debacle was “foreseeable and avoidable,” a result of "ignorance and thoughtlessness". Immigration regulations were tightened "with complete disregard for the Windrush generation" and officials had made "irrational" demands for multiple documents to establish residency rights. But all this could just as readily be attributed to incompetence as it could be to racism. And when Theresa May said in 2012 “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants” she did not go on to add “Unless they are white illegal immigrants.” Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious: the category of ‘illegal immigrant’ is not an ethnic category.

Alright then, you might say, what about the unrecorded stuff? The hidden stuff? What about the employer who quietly deletes a CV because the applicant has an African-sounding name? Well, there’s a reason he does it quietly; because it’s against the rules. Which rules?  Take your pick; from the 2010 Equality Act, which prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, to the vast array of internal anti-discrimination HR policies that most if not all companies now abide by. Collectively, people like that employer might well be in a position to keep ethnic minorities down, but if they are, they are breaking the rules, not playing by them. It’s racism, sure. But it’s not systemic.

The Sewell Report hammered the point home like this: “If it were true that Black and South Asian groups were suffering from systemic racism throughout their lives – adversely affecting their health, education, income, housing, employment (the key determinants of health) – this would be reflected in overall mortality figures across the life-course. In fact, Black and Asian groups have had lower mortality rates from all-causes, and data for Scotland suggests Asian ethnic groups have higher life expectancy than White ethnic groups.” And it hit the nail on the head when describing the intransigence of those who like to pin each and every ethnic disparity on racism and nothing else: “Too many people in the progressive and anti-racism movements seem reluctant to acknowledge their own past achievements, and they offer solutions based on the binary divides of the past, which often misses the point of today’s world.”

Admittedly, my own search for evidence of systemic racism in today’s Britain was far from exhaustive. I focused mainly on the Lammy Review and the Sewell Report. There are many other reports I haven’t looked at; the Angiolini Review (racial disproportionality in deaths under police restraint), or the McGregor-Smith Review (pay disparities by race) to name two. So maybe you can prove me wrong; maybe you can point to a racist law, rule or process currently in play somewhere in the UK. If you can, I will gladly join you in condemning it.

But, as I have shown, it is perfectly possible to have racial disadvantage without racists. So enough with the conflations. Enough with the lazy assumptions of racism. And enough with the lack of curiosity about alternative explanations. 

On the contrary; it’s time to get curious.