Institutional Racism in the UK: An Overview
In collaboration with the Racial Education Project (REP)
Through a brief overview of racial biases within our key institutions, this paper aims to showcase the many faces of institutional racism, from microaggressions to implicit biases, that persist in our institutions in order to highlight the need to actualise the long anticipated change to our institutions that would finally make them cater for and representative of the people they serve.
Guy Smallman // Getty Images
Initiatives to combat racism in the UK have been greatly undermined by the popular notion that it simply does not exist within our institutions. As a neglected norm that has been repeatedly left out of public conversation, racism has now taken on new forms which remain largely implicit, giving it the ability to mask itself within our institutions as nothing more than normality. A combination of micro-aggressions and implicit biases which have been so deeply ingrained within our institutions seem to have contributed to this, allowing prejudicial behaviours, which lead to very real consequences for minorities, to be considered somewhere between ‘normal’ to ‘non-existent.’ This, unfortunately, has resulted in shared experiences of social exclusion & isolation among minorities who bear the brunt of all of its facets, including stifled job opportunities and capped progression in working environments. Patterns of discrimination should therefore be addressed in order to more adequately protect, support, and serve minorities who have been effectively subordinated by our institutions. In order to comprehend the full extent of racial discrimination, this paper aims to distill some key flaws that both expose and encourage the discriminiation towards minorities to go unchecked. Rather than viewing racism as confined to any historical period, it may be time for us to reconsider the failures of our employment, criminal, healthcare, and educational institutions in adequately supporting BAME groups in the UK. This would not only supplement the much needed call for institutional reform, but encourage the full integration of minorities into them, allowing the institutions themselves to perform to a much higher standard.
Institutional racism: An Overview
In order to detect and combat institutional racism, we must first start with a definitional overview of the topic at hand. The Macpherson report published in 1999, a landmark case in exposing prejudicial tendencies within our institutions, categorised the term ‘institutional racism’ as:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”[1]
Many of these “behaviours” exist because of the persistence of implicit racial biases and microaggressions within our institutions, which remain covert in nature. The problem with these forms of racial discrimination lay in their names; its ‘micro’ and ‘implicit’ qualities prove difficult to detect at face value because of its covert nature, allowing it to be viewed as a sporadic rather than systemic issue. It must be understood however, that this difficulty in detecting and effectively monitoring racism does not negate its presence in our institutions; they can still play a role irrespective of a specific intent to racially discriminate. According to the report, these problematic beliefs are largely a result of the cultural ethos [2] produced in these institutions which act as subconscious cues that determine the treatment of minorities. There is a tendency to expect racism to display itself blatantly with clear overt consequences, but this undermines those consequences that can be passive in nature, like the neglect, lack of understanding, or as stated above, subconscious cues which negatively stereotype minorities, differentiating their treatment within these institutions from others.
As the report highlighted, “The debate about defining this evil...is cathartic in leading us to recognise that it can occur almost unknowingly, as a matter of neglect, in an institution” [3]. After years of debating its definition, it is now time to employ a more organised and systematic effort to detect, monitor, and prevent these glaring issues. This action would begin with a clear outline of where some of the many forms of racism, both explicit and implicit, can be found within our institutions, which will be discussed in the following sections.
Institutional Racism Within the Criminal Justice System
Policing
One of the more explicit forms of racial discrimination against BAME groups is found in the policies linked to the implementation of criminal justice. To provide an overview of the main issues we face within the system, it may be helpful for us to focus on three main branches where institutional failure is most apparent: policing, sentencing and prison systems. Starting with policing, some of its most discriminatory features can be seen in the execution of controversial policies like stop and search, which in recent years has been sold as a preventative measure to tackle knife crime but has been critiqued for its disproportionate use against black minorities. Official figures reflect this disproportionality, where while there were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 white people, there were 38 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people between April 2018 to March 2019 [4]. As “almost half of all stop and searches” were carried out in London by the Metropolitan police [5], it may be useful to focus our attention on the figures here. A 2019 briefing conducted by the Criminal Justice Alliance found that not only are black people over 9 times more likely to be searched than white people [6], but specifically in London, 43% of searches were of black people compared to the 35.5% of white people [7]. These numbers become more problematic when put into perspective; according to the 2011 census, black minorities only make up 13.3% of London's population while the white majority makes up 44.9% [8]. This level of disproportionality which has only increased in recent years is a clear indicator of the discriminatory handling of policies encouraged by our government, which have important implications on the treatment of ethnic minorities within our societal institutions. When policies made to serve and protect the public exclude certain sections of society to such a degree that they begin to work against them, we must ask ourselves why in order to identify the ways this can be prevented.
Perhaps what was more surprising about the above figures was the response by the MET police, who stated that youth from “African-Carribean” descent were simply more likely to be involved in knife crime, either as perpetrators or victims of it, to defend the disproportionately high searches of black people [9]. However, research by Dr. Krisztian Posch from the London School of Economics has proven otherwise, as once these figures were analysed, 30.5% of the searches of white people resulted in further action, compared to only 26.7% of the searches of black minorities [10]. Contrary to the MET police statement, these figures would suggest that youth with African-Carribean heritage are not inherently ‘more likely’ to be complicit in violence, and that the high search rates of black people could be another example of implicit racial biases that have penetrated our criminal justice system. The misuse of Section 60 acts as a clear example of the potential dangers of current implicit biases within our institutions, as they have the potential to allow negative associations of black people & violence to transform from prejudicial sentiments to discriminatory action. In addressing this issue, not only will policies made to protect our population finally include black communities rather than work against them, but it will also improve the effectiveness of these policies, as figures prove that knife crime has not been significantly affected by Section 60 [11], meaning that reforming its methods would only push it into a more positive direction.
Sentencing
Implicit biases within sentencing expose another form of institutional racism that obstructs the ability to ensure the equal treatment of BAME groups within our criminal justice system (CJS). A system that promises fair and just action should not lack in providing the same standard for BAME individuals, which recent reports have shown a trend towards in certain cases. The 2017 Lammy Review, an essential piece on the treatment of BAME groups within our CJS, called attention to the disproportionate level of sentencing of BAME individuals in cases of drug offences; “within drug offences, the odds of receiving a prison sentence were around 240% higher for BAME offenders, compared to white offenders” [12]. The potential role that implicit biases can have on influencing this level of disproportionality cannot be ignored as a leading cause of this issue, as there has not been enough research into the subject to fully discount it. As the report concluded, this figure is “deeply worrying,” which increases the need for more to be done to scrutinise sentencing decisions, in order to ensure that judgments remain fully impartial [13]. These numbers lead to us to question how far implicit biases motivate discriminatory treatment of BAME individuals, and why there is still a lack of any thorough examination of this issue. After repeated scrutiny of our sentencing system, ignoring such figures which potentially encourage the unjust treatment of BAME groups in our CJS translates into a form of neglect, which in itself shows a worrying attitude of indifference towards the outcomes of BAME individuals. It is important to reiterate here that many forms of institutional racism can be much harder to detect because they are less overt in nature and can thus be hidden in nuances like neglect, which in this case encourages the potentiality of BAME individuals being subjected to a subpar standard of justice. Ignoring high levels of disproportionality is not a way forward, and reveals the need for more research to be done in this area to understand how our sentencing system can better serve BAME groups, and what preventative measures can be put in place to obstruct the possible penetration of implicit biases into our justice system.
Prison systems
Implicit biases also seem to have encouraged the mistreatment of minorities within our prison systems, often leading to neglect of wellbeing, and exclusion from proper rehabilitative programmes. Starting with the former, the Lammy review stated that BAME offenders in both adult and youth estates experience differential treatment upon reception, with BAME individuals “less likely to be identified with problems such as learning difficulties or mental health concerns” [14]. This is worrying, considering the proportion of “damaged” BAME individuals who require additional support in order for rehabilitative programs to be fully effective; “in the youth estate, 33% arrive with mental health problems, whilst a similar proportion presents with learning difficulties...45% arrive with substance misuse problems and 61% have a track record of disengagement with education” [15]. This is also a similar reality for those offenders in the adult estate; “an estimated 62% of men and 57% of women prisoners have a personality disorder, while 32% of new prisoners were recorded or self-identified as having a learning difficulty or disability. Many have been both victims and perpetrators of violence, with resulting trauma and psychological damage” [16]. The report concluded that “a far more comprehensive approach to assessing prisoners’ health, education and psychological state” [17] upon reception was required to adequately support BAME individuals.
In order to comprehend the potential negative outcomes of their neglect upon entry while facing these difficulties, it is important to understand the purpose of prison systems. The central purpose of the prison system, in theory, is to serve as a rehabilitative institution which provides offenders with the support needed in order to become active members of society; their sole purpose is not to carry out punishment for the crimes committed, as this in the long term does little to prevent the rate of reoffense. It seems however, that there has only been an adoption of the latter purpose, as little has been done to combat these high rates of “trauma and psychological damage” for BAME groups who are being deprived of the very basic necessities that, at the same time, have been more readily available to white offenders. This would prove to be another example of the detrimental impact of ‘passive’ forms of institutional racism previously discussed, as by nature, neglect is intangible and often difficult to see at face value, requiring a more thorough examination which critics often fall short of, in order for it to be detected and prevented. Rehabilitation is difficult to achieve without working on a firm foundation to build its provisions off of; this is why actively ignoring the wellbeing of BAME individuals obstructs their ability to combat underlying issues which could be preventable or controlled, which then excludes them from the potential benefits of rehabilitative programmes, while also encouraging a more hostile attitude to develop and grow out of frustration towards the same institutions which claim to support them.
More blatant forms of institutional racism can be found in the differential treatment of BAME and white individuals who have committed similar offences. The report notes the significance of the type of regime that prisoners are put under, as it can largely determine how successful rehabilitation is; “high security prisons are focused overwhelmingly on preventing escape, while lower security prisons involve more freedom of movement and therefore more opportunity to provide a regime focussed on rehabilitation” [18]. The report’s findings in regards to this were worrisome, as it showed that BAME males were proportionally much more likely to be put into high security prisons than white males who committed similar kinds of offences; for public order offences, 417 black offenders and 631 Asian offenders were placed in high security prisons for every 100 white offenders [19]. Overt discrimination that makes ethnicity a variable in the level of punishment an individual receives, reflects negatively on the current standard of our prison system and points to how ingrained biases are within it, allowing clear proofs of discrimination to be disregarded. One of the most prominent issues with institutional racism is not only its existence in the period in which it is being analysed, but also its long term effects, which not only stifles the progression of BAME Individuals for years to come, but more generally cements a culture of hostility between institutions and those subject to them. Wrongfully putting individuals into high security prisons, an environment that fosters hostility and lacks focus on rehabilitation, not only creates an atmosphere of scepticism from bottom-up, but also allows the neglect of preventable issues that encourage rates of reoffense to go unnoticed from top-down, which incites antagonism between prison staff and prisoners who as a result feel mistreated. The report touched on the issues of the ever-growing “them and us” culture which has severely impeded on the effectiveness of rehabilitative programmes, as it has led to a general disenchantment with the institution as a whole, including its branches of support that are increasingly being viewed with scepticism. Considering this, improving the treatment of BAME individuals would not only help combat the rate of reoffense, but it would also help tackle the growing culture of distrust and apathy between institutions and the people they are supposed to serve which is contributing to the ineffectiveness of rehabilitation.
Institutional racism within healthcare
WRES/NHS Workforce
The healthcare system can in some ways be seen to have failed to equally protect BAME communities to the same level as white people, which represents a deep rooted institutional bias which translates into the mistreatment of BAME staff and patients. To begin to understand the forms of institutionalised racism within the system, it would prove beneficial to detail the statistical make-up of the NHS workforce. The WRES (Workforce Race Equality Standard) was introduced in 2015 in order to prompt recognition of the disparities in treatment between BAME and white staff members of the NHS. The 2015 report argued that BAME staff members were less likely to have faith in their superiors in regards to “equal opportunities for career progression” [20] and were more likely to report “experiences of bullying” [21] and “discrimination from a colleague” [22]. A WRES 2019 data report proposed that little change had been made to the 2015 figures. Although numbers of BAME staff have been increasing over time, BAME staff members retain that the negative experiences outlined in the 2015 report have not depleted. This hostile environment experienced by BAME employees supplements the argument that implicit biases are still present within our healthcare system as an attitude that has very real consequences, potentially limiting their professional advancement. The reports suggest that white staff members do not recognise - or are outright oblivious to - these hostile settings. As a result of this, the protection of BAME staff members is neglected, with implicit biases directly leading to inimical consequences, such as the loss of job opportunities discussed above. “Regardless of education/qualification factors,” [23] there is a stagnant trend between 2015-2019 which illustrates that BAME staff members receive disproportionately fewer opportunities than their white counterparts. This becomes a prime example of the institutionalised racism that is embedded in the system.
Patient Experiences
Disparities in treatment of BAME individuals are also found among patients, who ultimately suffer because of the knock on effects generated by their lack of representation in the healthcare system. Dame Donna Kinnair (current Royal College of Nursing Chief Executive) outlined these “structural issues” [24] quite clearly; the UK only has “10 BAME chief nurses across the whole of the NHS in England,” [25] a meagre reflection of the BAME communities that they serve. Arguably, the access to healthcare that BAME communities are able to obtain is comparatively weaker to white communities due to a lack of empathy, which is an issue that is reflected in the workforce. Kinnair stated that BAME patients are routinely ignored, and disregarded, therefore leading to “worse outcomes” [26] for a number of illnesses. In short, the concerns of BAME patients are often neglected or not understood, which is a direct result of the lack of BAME representation in the industry. This treatment, or lack thereof, has resulted in widespread apathy and distrust towards the NHS and its ability to serve BAME groups. Harries Et Al’s study into BAME experiences provided insight into this feeling of neglect, noting that there were clear disparities in treatment based on ethnicity. Although the study is primarily set in the area of Greater Manchester, and therefore represents a smaller sample of the UK population, it’s important to note that the lack of extensive research into BAME experiences within healthcare is what has caused our reliance on this small sample size. This, in itself, is a major issue when attempting to analyse the experiences of BAME individuals in our institutions, and is evident in the implicit or explicit obliviousness to the discrimination that takes place. Harries Et Al themselves note that, specifically elder BAME patients are likely to avoid going through with complaints procedures, and to discuss their experiences. While this may be due to a lack of understanding or lack of available options, it would not be wrong to note that elderly BAME patients are often left to face the brunt of discriminatory behaviour, because it is generally understood that they are less likely to speak up.
The shortage of research in this area can also be a result of BAME groups themselves, who often do not want to be subject to “stereotypical understandings of how migrants behave.” [27] Here, Harries Et Al presents the larger sociological consequences which arise when those from a minority background are seen to be exaggerating their woes, or viewed as aggressive when discussing their unpleasant experiences, allowing them to quickly be ignored and forgotten. The study showed that there was a significantly “lower positive response” [28] to each of the questions given regarding the satisfaction of care in BAME respondents compared to white respondents. A large number of respondents felt as though healthcare workers failed to communicate effectively enough to allow “patient participation in decision-making,” [29] often leaving the patients to feel reliant on themselves to understand their medical needs. The environment created for BAME individuals is thus noticeably hostile, leaving us doubtful that these patients are adequately protected and cared for. Implicit biases that subconsciously control the responses given to these patients can lead to very serious consequences, where patients may not receive adequate care due to their own fear of feeling like a burden and therefore not speaking up, or due to the healthcare workers own inability to recognise BAME patients as their equal. When ethnicity seems to drive the quality of healthcare that patients receive, we must be willing to find preventative solutions in order to end this and improve the standard of our healthcare system as a whole.
Maternity
Disproportionality in the treatment of BAME patients is also evident in the analysis of maternity rates. Once again, though few studies have been conducted on this topic, there seems to generally be a lack of any real focus on the experiences of BAME mothers within the UK healthcare system, which severely limits our analysis. For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on Muglu Et Al’s evidence that illustrated that black women were almost “twice as likely to suffer stillbirths,” [30] and were also five times more likely to die during pregnancy in comparison to white women. In many cases, reasons for these upsetting figures trace back to institutionalised racism, which has had a direct impact on the life expectancy of BAME mothers, either through socioeconomic influences, or the healthcare system itself. The study found that black mothers received less access to antenatal care in comparison to white patients, which was said to be a result of the so-called ‘pain bias,’ whereby healthcare staff are less likely to believe the pain that BAME individuals claim to be under. Pragya Agarwal illuminates the damaging history behind the subconscious attitudes of medical practitioners; she argues that although there is little evidence to analytically link this bias to racist attitudes, the ideology is from the same set precedent used to justify the tragedy of enslaving black individuals. Physicians claimed that black individuals could “tolerate surgeries with little to no pain,” [31] and had physical differences such as “thicker skulls and less sensitive nervous systems,” [32] which made their pain threshold considerably higher. Though a historical attitude, its lingering presence in our healthcare system has proven to take many forms, as we have seen with the ‘pain bias’ which permits a lower standard of healthcare to be given to BAME patients.
BAME Individuals and COVID-19
Institutional racism has also shown itself in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the experiences of BAME victims who have suffered from the illness. The Office for National Statistics's analysis reported that death rates among those of a white ethnicity was significantly lower than that of most ethnic groups. The report stated that differences of the death rates of COVID-19 “may be related to demographic and socioeconomic factors” [33]. BAME individuals are more likely to attain “public-facing” [34] roles, such as cleaners, transport staff, care workers. These jobs are generally more at risk in the likelihood of a pandemic. Furthermore, BAME communities are more likely to live in overcrowded or populated areas, often living with multiple other family members. These social inequalities lead to there being an increased risk of catching the illness. However, the report states that this cannot be claimed to be the full explanation as to why the rates differ. As explained above, the disparities in treatment of ethnic minorities most definitely could have presented themselves during this current pandemic - if healthcare workers are unable to treat BAME communities as their equals in everyday situations, their needs are more likely to be ignored.
Institutional Racism Within Education
Miseducation and our current curriculum
Our curriculums play a crucial role in setting the foundations on which institutionally racist systems are born, hence the need for a particular focus on education when discussing racial discrimination. Individuals in society are extremely impressionable, especially children, whose knowledge and ideologies are rooted in their social surroundings. The lessons that students are taught within their academic life, from Key Stage 1 up until higher education shape their understanding of the world, making the importance of the education system undeniable. In this way, it would be beneficial to discuss the national curriculum, which sets basic guidelines for most schools to follow. There are potentially dangerous consequences that arise from the lack of imperial history of Britain, which can teeter on the edge of becoming a form of miseducation. An example of this would be the complete erasure of the involvement of ‘non-Britons’ in World War 1 and World War 2 (two major parts of our current school curriculums) who contributed to the success of Britain. The risk of this form of miseducation is that British children are likely to grow up without having the knowledge of what ethnic minority citizens, immigrants, migrants, refugees etc have done for the country, greatly underestimating their involvement in British history. The curriculum also includes “the wartime leadership of Winston Churchill,” [35] without reference to Britain and Churchills racist ideologies which led to his direct involvement in the “1942 Bengal Famine” [36] which killed at least 2.1 million individuals, an internationally recognised act of genocide. The lead up the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya 1952 is widely unrecognised as 150,000 Kenyan men, women and children were forced into “concentration camps” [37] similar to those built by Hitler’s Nazi’s, another piece of Churchill’s ideology and British history that is nowhere to be seen. To completely gloss over the atrocities that have led to countless deaths of ethnic minorities due to colonialism denies Britain of accountability for these actions. A recognition of the legacy of colonialism even at a base level would then make it more likely for there to be a recognition and understanding of the faults of our institutions as an issue that has persisted over hundreds of years, rather than a new movement or “trend” that is being applied to them in recent years. Britain's colonial and historical treatment of BAME groups is deeply intertwined with their treatment in our institutions today, which is why our curriculums must shed light on this.
Student experiences
Patrick Roach (currently head of NASUWT, The Teacher’s Union) describes the way in which institutional racism is embedded in the treatment of BAME students in school settings. Differential treatment of students based on their ethnicity has become a more overt reality in our education system. First off, implicit biases built into behavioural attributions and haphazard determinations on students' academic capability lead to competent students being neglected as “teachers are routinely under-estimating the abilities of some black pupils” [38]. These biases can greatly impact the trajectory of a students life, as it can cap their progression very early on in their academic life. An inherent bias against black students in our academic institutions thus acts as a foundational obstacle that underpins their experiences in many other social institutions thereafter. Dr. Steve Strand found that if these setbacks are tackled efficiently, it would motivate and improve pupil and parental academic aspirations within black communities. Strand evidenced that Asian minorities retain higher aspirations within their home life which is associated with higher attainment. The motivation that a pupil has to achieve to a high standard is one of the largest projectors of their grades. An example of the structural bias in place in these institutions is shown where ”⅓ of the most capable black Carribean pupils are not entered for the hardest tests at age 14” [39]. These early tests act as the stepping stones that determine the trajectory of a students academic life, as it leads to staff level approximations on the students capabilities. If students are not given equal opportunities to fulfill their academic potential, it can lead to the unfair obstruction of certain pupils from academic resources which they should be given access to. Our education institutions should be prevented from doing so, as by exercising this power, they determine pupils’ academic successes based on ethnicity, which then has huge implications on their future career paths and access to opportunities that they rightfully have claim to.
Attainment also correlates to the socio-economic background of pupils, with BAME communities having a further disadvantage due to wider social disparities. This isn’t to say that there are not any white working class pupils who also suffer; Strand’s study described the way in which financial status had a direct impact on all pupils regardless of ethnicity, but BAME communities (specifically black pupils) had added drawbacks due to the stereotypical behaviours that are regularly attributed to them. It can be argued that the focus that is put onto the ‘behavioural issues’ of black pupils is covertly racist, as these negative stereotypes encourage them to be treated as inherently more ill-mannered, and substantially less gifted than white students. This does not assume that ‘bad’ behaviour simply does not exist in BAME communities, but instead draws attention to the issues caused when this is applied to them arbitrarily.
Howard Becker's analysis of the “labelling theory,” [40] is significant in understanding the behaviours of black students. He suggests that students are likely to reflect the stereotypes that are assigned to them; when low expectations and depictions of them as inherently more deviant and problematic are continuously attributed to students within our academic institutions, the likely result is disinterest and apathy to them, and the development of an attitude of indifference towards these labels. This becomes cyclical in nature, as where you only give negative expectations, you will only receive negative attitudes in return. This contributes to Becker’s description of the “outsider,” [41] that forms when society is adamant in creating barriers, allowing for the development of superiority complexes and preferential treatment in multiple areas, like ethnicity. The punishment process within schools acts as evidence for the problematic organisational bias against black and mixed-race students, where they “are excluded at rates 3 times greater than that for white children.” [42] Not only are these students expected to make mistakes, but their mistakes have disproportionate consequences. Research shows us that from 2007-2019, black and mixed-race students “had the highest rates out of all ethnic groups” [43] in regards to temporary exclusions, which is an undeniable representation of the overwhelming disparity in the treatment of ethnic minority and white students.
Higher education and the experiences of BAME professors
Institutional racism within universities manifests in a number of different ways. An analysis of all of its manifestations warrants a much deeper analysis which we will conduct in the future. For the purpose of this paper however, we will focus on the lack of representation of minorities in leadership roles at universities, and their discriminatory treatment upon arrival in the workplace. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa) suggested that Black academics make up fewer than 1% of all professors combined at UK universities, with none being employed into “senior level leadership” roles between 2018-2019 [44]. This percentage becomes more worrisome when compared to previous research, which found that across all UK universities, only 25 black female professors had been employed. In a UCU report which collected the experiences of 20 of these 25 black female academics, there were mutual experiences of racial discrimination characterised by “passive aggressive acts, avoidance, undermining and exclusion.” [45] Stifled career progression was also a recurrent theme among the minority, with less qualified white colleagues being awarded promotions in place of them [46]. Again, while these may be less explicit forms of discrimination - the kind that do not garner headlines - they are still very real and should not be ignored, because it is these experiences of implicit racial discrimination, which are quite often intangible, that affirm the exceptionally low percentage of black minorities in leadership roles in higher education institutions.
Katy Sian’s study on the experience of Black academics in British universities shed more light on the origins of this low representation and the antagonisms that are produced by them, through an analysis of implicit racial biases and microaggressions embedded in higher education institutions. The fear of stereotyping was a prevalent issue in Sian’s interviews, as individuals who had faced cases of implicit racism felt as though they weren't able to discuss these matters without being labelled as “overly sensitive” [47]. This is something that has previously been discussed in this paper, under the topic of patient experiences in the healthcare system. This hostile environment seems to have become a pattern among various institutions and is not subjective to a few singular experiences. Racial microaggressions contribute to creating environments where ethnic minorities are emotionally segregated, and made to feel as outsiders. Participants in Sian’s study described the way in which ‘whiteness’ seems to run throughout university structures, where ‘whiteness’ did not represent a physical characteristic but rather “complex structures of power, entitlement and status” [48]. ‘Whiteness’ became what defined the norm, alienating minority members who could not identify with this label. Marginality becomes a common experience, which is not only represented through participants' emotions, but evident in the participants themselves, who were often one of the handful of BAME professors in their faculties.
Student experiences in higher education
Institutional racism is not confined to the top levels of UK universities, and can often be found in student experiences which are negatively tainted by hostile attitudes that stem from racism. A 2019 Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report, analysed racial harassment within universities and outlined the failure of major universities across the UK in protecting ethnic minority students. The report stated that “1 in 20 students said they left their studies due to racial harassment” [49]. This statistic encapsulates the hostility that BAME students are left to face within our institutions, wrongfully leading to a feeling of exclusion and isolation. There was an overwhelming collection of evidence supporting this case, as out of the 159 UK universities questioned, “⅔ of students” [50] had seen or experienced racial harassment. It may be useful to look at the criticisms of the EHR report here to understand the more nuanced aspects of institutional racism, as they centred around the belief that the report itself seemed to “minimise the significance of racism by reducing it to individual encounters.” [51] Acts of racism can be singular, but are often perpetuated by structural systems which allow for the actions to take place. In this way, there is an argument that white individuals cannot face racism, as they gain institutional power over ethnic minorities within them. Critics of the report suggested that including experiences of white students curtailed the recognition of ethnic minority experiences, as the two should not be discussed under the same umbrella. Despite this, the report brings a needed discussion on the topic of BAME student experiences in university which should not be completely discounted.
Institutional Racism Within Employment
Pay gaps/pay penalties for BAME employees
Pay gaps for BAME employees in the workforce uncover another layer of day-to-day forms of institutional racism which remain largely unaccounted for and continue to affect the progression of minorities in everyday life. A 2018 report was conducted by Resolution Foundation to deduce how large these pay gaps were for BAME employees, both non-graduate and graduate. It found that non-graduate black and Indian women earned 61p and 44p less an hour respectively than their white co-workers. [52] This pay gap substantially increased for graduate black women, who on average earned £1.56 less than white graduate women, which, when background factors were controlled, became a £1.62 pay penalty [53]. Graduate black men on the other hand received the biggest pay penalties of 17% (-£3.90) [54]. To understand the significance of this, we must look at its broader implications; for example, the hourly pay penalty for black graduate men between 2007-2017 would amount to £7,000 a year, significantly affecting an individual's lifetime earnings [55]. Looked at through a larger lens by combining the pay penalties of all BAME employees, the report estimated that between 2007-2017, the total annual cost of pay penalties for BAME employees would amount to £3.2 billion a year. This is a staggering loss for these communities that continues to go unnoticed for unexplained reasons.
In this sense, the consequences of institutional racism are much more imperceptible than commonly thought. A look into the incremental build up of its phases overtime can depict the true severity of its outcomes, which may not in every case be revealed at face value because it remains so implicit in nature. More effort needs to be made to detect the covert reasons behind these patterns which sheds light on a very worrying trend that obstructs the proper and equal treatment of BAME individuals. The report itself states that while largely illustrative, these figures represent a real pattern [56] that cannot be ignored. Since many of the background factors that would have effected the pay gaps were accounted for in the study, discrimination cannot be ruled out as a potential cause. This could then be another example of implicit racial biases in our institutions that have given ethnic minorities, especially black minorities (as they experience the biggest pay gaps according to the report) secondary status within our work/employment institutions. Even if we were to debate the degree to which racial discrimination played a role in creating these disparities, a definite outcome has been discrimination specifically towards ethnic minorities, due to the unexplained pay penalties they now feel; whatever label one would choose to apply to this kind discrimination does not take from the likely implications of these figures which at heart are gravely worrying.
Prejudice in the workplace
The McGregor-Smith 2017 review on discrimination in the workplace outlined some of the key obstacles in working environments that inhibit the career progression of BAME individuals, as well as prejudicial attitudes which continue to plague our employment institutions. The report found that “in 2015, 1 in 8 of the working age population were from a BME background, yet BME individuals make up only 10% of the workforce and hold only 6% of top management positions” [57]. It also found disparities in employment rates for ethnic minorities (62.8%) and White workers (75.6%), which left a considerable gap of over 12 percentage points [58]. The employment rate was worse for those with a Pakistani and Bangladeshi background, which capped at 54.9% [59]. If BAME individuals were treated equally within employment institutions, it is difficult to believe that we would see such large disparities between the outcomes of each ethnic group. Implicit discrimination within this insitution is particularly detrimental, as it limits the outcomes of BAME groups considerably, obstructing their progression in everyday life.
Even those BAME individuals that do surpass these obstacles find themselves subject to a host of other hardships. Many of these are a product of discriminatory attitudes which take the form of implicit biases that impede on BAME workers achieving their full potential. The report noted that “all BAME groups are more likely to be overqualified than white ethnic groups,” but are still less likely to be promoted than white individuals in the workplace [60]. Implicit biases seem to have encouraged this reality; of those who responded to the study, two thirds of BAME individuals reported experiences of “racial harassment and bullying in the workplace in the last 5 years” [61]. Despite these figures, addressing these implicit biases has not been made a priority, which prevents the betterment of our institution as a whole. The report's recommendation of ‘mandatory unconscious bias training’ [62] for all employers and staff members of an institution should be given more consideration, given that it would be a great step forward in combating the implicit behaviours that at face value are difficult to detect, but still greatly inhibit the creation of more positive and inclusive spaces for all employees.
Concluding Remarks
Racism within UK institutions should no longer be ignored. When recurrent themes of unfair treatment, exclusion, and prejudice experienced by ethnic minorities becomes a pattern within them, we must be willing to address these behaviours and prevent their consequences. Disparities in treatment have not only led many to view our institutions with scepticism and increase the level of apathy towards them, but has led more generally to ineffective policy, as in the case of stop and search, which has reportedly had little to no effect on the rates of knife crime. There is a tendency to detach the concerns of BAME groups from the betterment of our institutions as a whole, which is a flawed inclination that must end. It may be time for us to start viewing both as one in the same, as improving the treatment of BAME individuals within our institutions would have tangible and intangible benefits for both as a whole. Tangibly, it would have the almost guaranteed result of making policies more effective, improving the quality of our healthcare, and ending day-to-day issues like obstruction to career progression. These tangible improvements would then spark multiple intangible, but nonetheless important, changes such as putting an end to the implicit discrimination against BAME individuals in higher education and employment institutions, increasing levels of trust between BAME groups and the institutions they live under, and reducing the feeling of exclusion and isolation within the workplace. Through a brief overview of racial biases within our key institutions, this paper aimed to showcase the many faces of institutional racism, from microaggressions to implicit biases, that persist in our institutions in order to highlight the need for more to be done to actualise the long anticipated change to our institutions that would finally make them cater for and representative of the people they serve.
References:
[1] Home Office, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, Cm 4262-I, February 1999, para 6.34.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ministry of Justice, Stop and search, (2020) <https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest> [Accessed 19 June 2020].
[5] Ibid.
[6] Kirat Kaur Kalyan & Peter Keeling, Stop and Scrutinise: How to Improve Community Scrutiny of Stop and Search, (2019) <http://criminaljusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CJA-Stop-and-Scrutinise-2019.pdf> [Accessed 22 June 2020].
[7] Vikram Dodd, MET Police disproportionately use stop and search powers on black people, (2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/26/met-police-disproportionately-use-stop-and-search-powers-on-black-people> [Accessed 22 June 2020].
[8] Office of National Statistics, (2019) <https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/regional-ethnic-diversity/latest> [Accessed 19 June 2020].
[9] Dodd, 2019.
[10] Dodd, 2019.
[11] PA Media, ‘More BAME people likely to be targeted’ under relaxed stop-and-search rules, (2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/oct/18/more-bame-people-likely-to-be-targeted-under-relaxed-stop-and-search-rules> [Accessed 22 June 2020].
[12] David Lammy, The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, (2017) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643001/lammy-review-final-report.pdf> [Accessed 20 June 2020] p.33.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid, p.45.
[15] Ibid, p.47.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid, p.45.
[18] Ibid, p.46.
[19] Ibid.
[20] NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, 2015 Data Analysis Report For NHS Trusts (2015) https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WRES-Data-Analysis-Report.pdf [accessed 25 May 2020] p.11.
[21] Ibid, p.40.
[22] Ibid.
[23] NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, Evaluation of the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (2019) https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wres-evaluation-report-january-2019.pdf [accessed 25 May 2020]. p.49.
[24] Sirin Kale, 'Prof Donna Kinnair on racism in the NHS: 'In every community, BAME patients suffer the most'', The Guardian (2020) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/donna-kinnair-racism-nhs-if-you-arent-white-your-illness-isnt-taken-as-seriously [accessed 27 May 2020].
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Harries Et Al, Older BAME people's experiences of health and social care in Greater Manchester, Oldham Council (2019) http://www.oldham-council.co.uk/jsna/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/BAME-peoples-experiences-of-health-and-social-care.pdf [accessed 20 June 2020] p.29.
[28] Ibid, p.16.
[29] Harries Et Al, (2019) p.20.
[30] Muglu Et Al, Risks of stillbirth and neonatal death with advancing gestation at term: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of 15 million pregnancies, PLOS Medicine (2019) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002838 [accessed 21 June 2020).
[31] Pragya Agarwal, Healthcare bias has to be addressed to protect people of colour during this coronavirus crisis, The Independent, (2020) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-uk-deaths-nhs-people-of-colour-race-bias-healthcare-a9432841.html [accessed 23 June 2020].
[32] Ibid.
[33] Office For National Statistics, Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by ethnic group, England and Wales: 2 March 2020 to 10 April 2020, NHS, (2020) https://www.nhsbmenetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ONS-Report-Covid-19-related-deaths-by-ethnic-groups.pdf [accessed 23 June 2020] p.5.
[34] Ibid, p.7.
[35] Department of Education, National Curriculum in England: History programmes of study, GOV.UK, (2013) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study [accessed 20 June 2020].
[36] Michael Safi, Churchill's policies contributed to the 1942 Bengal Famine, The Guardian (2019) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study [accessed 29 June 2020].
[37] Caroline Elkins, Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, Random House, (2005) p.96.
[38] Liz Lightfoot, New UK teachers union chief, The Guardian, (2020) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/09/new-uk-teachers-union-chief-institutional-racism-in-schools-patrick-roach [accessed 22 June 2020].
[39] Steve Strand, Extension Report on Performance in Public Examinations, University of Warwick, (2009) https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7916/1/DCSF-RR029.pdf [accessed 28 June 2020] p.55.
[40] Howard Becker, Outsiders, (1963) p.64.
[41] Becker, (1963), p1.
[42] Department of Education, Pupil Exclusions, GOV.UK, (2020) https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/absence-and-exclusions/pupil-exclusions/latest#download-the-data [accessed 23 June 2020].
[43] Department of Education, (2020).
[44] Richard Adams, Fewer than 1% of UK university professors are black, figures show, The Guardian, 27 Feb 2020.
[45] Nicola Rollock, Staying Power: The career experiences and strategies of UK black female professors, (2019) <https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/10075/Staying-Power/pdf/UCU_Rollock_February_2019.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020] p.14.
[46] Ibid, p.4.
[47] Katy Sian, Being Black in a White World: Understanding Racism in UK Universities, University of York, (2017) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/121107/1/17625_66628_1_PB.pdf [accessed 26 June 2020].
[48] Sian, (2017).
[49] Equality and Human Rights Commission, Tackling Racial Harassment: Universities Challenged, (2019) https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/tackling-racial-harassment-universities-challenged.pdf [accessed 30 June 2020] p.28.
[50] Equality and Human Rights Commission, (2020) p.21.
[51] Kehinde Andrews, Racism in universities is a systemic problem, The Guardian, (2019) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/23/racism-in-universities-is-a-systemic-problem-not-a-series-of-incidents [accessed 30 June 2020].
[52] Kathleen Henehan, The £3.2bn pay penalty facing black and ethnic minority workers, Resolution Foundation (2018) <https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/the-3-2bn-pay-penalty-facing-black-and-ethnic-minority-workers/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ruby McGregor-Smith, Race in the Workplace: The Mcgregor-Smith Review, (2017) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594336/race-in-workplace-mcgregor-smith-review.pdf> [Accessed 29 June 2020] p.6.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid, p.18.
[62] Ibid, p.19.