After everything, it’s still going on
I was profoundly disappointed over the weekend to read that the Met police had lost a case at employment tribunal which said that three white officers had been “hung out to dry” by the commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, when he questioned why they had escaped punishment for arguably racist (or at the very least bloody insensitive and unprofessional) remarks.
The Guardian has a piece by Hugh Muir about it here, and an interview with Sir Ian here, in which he estimates that one in ten of his force are profoundly opposed the goal of rooting out institutional racism in the Met. I just don’t get it - at one point, even the Daily Mail was on board, and yet now we’ve totally lost the consensus that a modern police force must challenge institutional racism and reflect and be sensitive to the needs of the community it serves.
Let’s remind ourselves why it’s not just overt obvious racism that needs to be challenged, but also that pervasive insitutional racism. (I suppose I need to point out that I’m white, and have no personal experience of racism, so this is from others’ experiences, and from my experiences as a woman and a dyke - groups that also suffer from institutional discrimination, such as sexism, homophobia and heterosexism).
The Macpherson Report, set up to look at why the Metropolitan Police failed to effectively investigate and prosecute the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, put forward the following definition of institutional racism:
“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 amounts to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping that disadvantage ethnic minority people. It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation.”
Eitzen and Baca-Zinn (Social Problems, Allyn & Bacon, 1994, p174) describe institutional discrimination as
“the customary ways of doing things, prevailing attitudes and expectations, and accepted structural arrangements [that] works to the disadvantage [of a particular group].”
Institutional discrimination is present because of a failure to take into account the particular needs of a disadvantaged group - so a “colour-blind” policy could be institutionally racist, as it doesn’t look at the circumstances of groups within the larger group of employees, for example. This is the point that so many of the anti-”political-correctness” crusaders fail to understand - that the way to equality isn’t treating everyone the same, but ensuring that factors which in the past might have disadvantaged that group are no longer doing so.
Of course, what I’m not saying is that every police officer is racist and might as well go and join the BNP. Sometimes institutional discrimination develops without any conscious discriminatory intent - it can operate because of stereotypes and received wisdom which people simply regard as ‘normal’ or ‘commonsense’. It continues through unexamined action - because we don’t think about our attitudes.
These attitudes are even found amongst very young children. In an episode I saw in January of Child of Our Time, the BBC TV series following children born in the millennium year at every stage of their development, there was a fascinating section on prejudice. Five year olds were given pictures of four children of different ethnicities. When asked who would be the cleverest, children of all ethnicities and all backgrounds pointed to the picture of the white child. When asked who would be most likely to be naughty, all the children pointed to the picture of the black child. It was a horrifying demonstration of our unthinking prejudices. The only child who didn’t hold these prejudices was a lone black boy, Tyrese, whose mother, Marie, conscious of the disadvantages faced by black boys, was determined to create for him a positive black identity, taking him to New York to do the black history tour and making sure that the books he read and TV he watched included positive black role models. Such care could be dismissed as ridiculous political correctness, but more and more I am beginning to think that without such attention to getting rid of these myths and unconscious stereotypes early on, we have no hope of creating a more equal society.
Insitutional discrimination can also be built into the unwritten rules and habits of an institution. An example that a speaker used at a conference I attended recently really drove home the point to me - for years, it was the norm, though not written into any law, that the police should avoid interfering in a row between man and wife even if it turned violent because this was a ‘domestic’ matter. This, of course, denied many women protection under the law – a very damaging form of insitutional discrimination. And it was and is part of everyday conversation - a “domestic” is an inconsequential spat between a man and a woman, which further undermines the seriousness of institutional discrimination against women through the endemic nature of male violence against women.
But the fact that much discrimination is unintended and the effects aren’t realised for what they are does NOT mean that it can be excused any more than that which is intended. After all, institutional racism in the UK means that black people get lesser justice from the police and the legal system than other communities - just ask Doreen Lawrence, who has never had the sad satisfaction of seeing the men who killed her son gaoled for it. No-one should argue that insitutional racism is any less dangerous or harmful to equality than direct discrimination - the climate created by institutional discrimination legitimises prejudice, lets racist murderers get away with it and has created a situation where black communities are overwhelmingly poorer than white communities.
But if we all have unexamined attitudes, then I guess dealing with insitutional racism can’t be a matter of accusation, but of understanding why it is created, educating and creating the clarity which challenges bad practices. This isn’t being soft on racist attitudes and practices - I think we need to be tough on them and require a real degree of self-examination from anyone wanting to enter public service. Interpersonal discrimination - racist language, direct discrimination such as not letting a room to a black family - must be challenged, there and then, but we need different tactics with institutional discrimination. Speaking for myself, though I’ve obviously thought a lot about sex, gender and sexuality, I’m not sure I have ever sat down and really properly thought about and explored my attitudes to race and ethnicity, which is clearly a failing, if unexamined attitudes are indeed at the root of institutional racism. Maybe I hold inappropriate attitudes, and certainly I’m not as aware as I should be of what Amanda at Pandagon calls my privilege - the ability to go about my life untroubled by racism and differentia treatment because I’m white and just don’t see it, for example, unlike young black men, I don’t get regularly stopped and searched by the police. Even at work, despite working in political change and campaigning - an apparently progressive sector, I don’t think I’ve ever been offered a more systematic structured opportunity to examine race, ethincity and my attitudes, alone or in the company of my colleagues.
So, I’m sad to see the efforts of the Met to do just that - force its officers to examine unexamined attitudes - backfiring. In this case, it is clear that the challenge to bad practice didn’t happen effectively in the case of the three white police officers. In an atmosphere of mistrust, where this tribunal result may make some officers feel that they have grounds for a persecution complex, maybe the job of ending racism in the police force will be harder than ever. Good luck to Sir Ian in his work - I think he’s got a job on his hands, if as he says, he has “20% who are deeply and firmly committed on [his] side, 70% in the middle who are watching and 10% who are opposed.” He needs our support on this.
Antonia: Thoughtful piece, but you betray your own sexist attitudes with this:
This, of course, denied many women protection under the law – a very damaging form of insitutional discrimination.
It also denied men protection under the law. The Home Office and other studies have shown before that women and men have an equal propensity to commit acts of domestic violence. Why you imply that men are the sole or main perpetrators is beyond me, but it looks to a casual reader like thoughtless sexism. Perhaps you should challenge some assumptions closer to home before setting out to combat the biggies like racism, of which you freely admit no experience.
I may be able to help you here, being Anglo Indian and being brought up in this country through the seventies, my parents and I have experienced the brunt end of racialism. From being beat up in school for being a “half-caste ****”, endured taunts all my life up until the late 80’s at school.
The change in climate, which has taken, place but (not far enough) is to be welcomed. Though I have noted the following (unless I inform people I am usually mistaken for Italian and my last name is not Asian):
The “race hate” has gone underground and has become much more sophisticated.
It was ok to be racist years ago and now its not. Everyone now I meet says how terrible racism is which is nice, makes me wonder why it was so rife years ago. I sometimes feel it is no more then people being seen as PC and not because they believe in equality (do not want to be outside conventional thinking).
Many a time I have seen individuals say one “black and one white” get on great and be the best of mates, and as soon as the “black” individual is gone the “white” state “I hate ****” When ever questioned about it they say he’s alright he’s not like the others.
I have come to the conclusion it is more about being different and group dynamics, then an issue of just colour. But then again this is just one individual’s experience.
But to me now the race issue has strong comparisons to the prejudice, stereotyping and gender bias I have encountered as a non-resident single father and in many instances at present a non resident parent has to endure a far more sinister ordeal.
Andrew:
I checked the stats on this. The 2001/02 British Crime Survey (BCS) found that there were an estimated 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales. 81% of the victims were women. (Home Office, July 2002).
The Home Office and domestic violence charities thought that this was too high - that there were more male victims than they had thought. So they re-examined part of the evidence, that found in Scotland. A 2002 report on research conducted with male respondents to the Scottish Crime Survey 2000 found that men were less likely to have been repeat victims of domestic assault, less likely to be seriously injured and less likely to report feeling fearful in their own homes. The survey retraced men who were counted as victims in the Scottish Crime Survey and found that a majority of the men who said that they were victims of domestic violence, were also perpetrators of violence (13 of 22). A significant number of the men re-interviewed (13 out of 46) later said they had actually never experienced any form of domestic abuse. (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2002).
(all stats available here):
Now, I’m not saying that men can’t be victims of domestic violence - they can be, and all victims of domestic violence should receive support, a safe place to stay etc. I’m saying that women have historically been less powerful than men, and still are (though to a lesser extent than in the past) in contemporary UK society. This has manifested in many ways, notably in women being paid less, being treated as the property of men in terms of marriage and families and in the endemic nature of violence against women, which has been used to reinforce the subjugation of women throughout history. Yes, there is violence against men, but it is not the product of unequal power relations and it is not reinforced through institutional discrimination.
I will, however, agree with one point you make: that a police force that is not institutionally discriminatory against women will serve women AND men better, and by extension a police force that is not institutionally racist will serve both black AND white citizens better.
Anonymous:
An interesting post. Thanks, though I wish you’d keep the f4j stuff to the lower comments sections.
How can I keep it seperate when all these issues are interconnected.
Attempting to understand the dynamics of domestic violence can you help I still cannot identify an approximate number and age, long term relationship, short term etc. as opposed to a percentage in regards to domestic violence victims:
From previous notes among the Appendices of the BCS, is Table A2.9. This informs us that 55% of all DV reports are duplicates (calls made 2, or 3, or even more times). I have failed to get adequate clarification from the Research Dept of the Home Office but it looks very likely that 55% of reports are either made by the same person about the same incident or the same person about a separate incident. This could mean that there are not approx. 500,000 DV incidents pa but only around 280,000.
I am not familiar with the report Scottish Crime Survey 2000 but will spend some time looking at it, I thought the Home Office Study 191 and the British Crime Survey both state that women are 5 times more likely to report DV than men.
As always it appears that this is heading into a gender war, but without examining all the facts DV will never be conquered.
As for the historical issues why is my relationship with our child dictated by history, when my relationship broke down I am automatically seen as a monster and assumned to be a control freak.
I wish for the benifit of our children in the Family Law courts the non resident parent was not in an unequal power relations and it is not reinforced through state sponsored institutional discrimination.
Antonia: Thanks for the considered reply, but the site you link to is focussed on violence towards women and children, so necessarily will understate the problem of domestic violence affecting men. This home office report from 2003 suggests the stats are that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men experience domestic violence against them in their lifetimes, so the true figures are probably somewhere between the ones that I and you posted:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/domesticviolence.pdf
My guess is that the BCS would understate the problem for men, due to the shame factor.
I find it hard to understand that the left want to promote equality for all by proposing treating different groups differently. Surely equality is about treating everyone the same. I’m not sure how a ‘colour-blind’ policy can be institutionally racist. Indeed, if you advocate different treatment for different groups based on their race, you are advocating racism. I’m not sure how you square that away. Perhaps you could supply a specific example?
In September 2004 the Women and Equality Unit produced an extensive document entitled “The Cost of Domestic Violence”. The Unit produced the following estimates based on the BCS 2001 :
Type of Domestic Violence Number of Victims
————————————- Female - Male - Total
Domestic Homicide ———102 —–23 ——–125
————————————- 81.6% - 18.4%
Non-sexual – severe force 242,000 -186,000 - 428,000
———————————— 56.5% — 43.5%
Non-sexual – minor ———410,000 - 174,000 - 584,000
———————————— 70.2% —- 29.8%
Total —————————–652,000 - 360,000 - 1,012,000
————————————-64.4% —- 35.6%
Stalking ————————446,000 - 71,000 —- 517,000
————————————86.3% —- 13.7%
Question : Would you consider that the above statistics reveal that men form a significant minority of victims of domestic abuse, in particular the category of severe force. Again this is an attempt to address a serious issue that of DV regardless of gender. I have put many questions to breakdowns of DV statistics but always come up against a brickwall. I hope you have better luck.
Andrew and anonymous:
As far as I know, there are few reputable groups focussing on supporting male victims of violence. I’d appreciate any links to any any non-misogynist groups you find.
I hope you get what I’m saying: in the same way that an assault on black man by a white gang carries the force of years of racism, the historic oppression of women gives force to domestic violence against women. As I’ve said before, I’m not in the business of saying that men who are victims of violence should be denied justice and redress or support.
Andrew:
“Surely equality is about treating everyone the same. I’m not sure how a ‘colour-blind’ policy can be institutionally racist. Indeed, if you advocate different treatment for different groups based on their race, you are advocating racism. I’m not sure how you square that away. Perhaps you could supply a specific example?
Let’s see how treating everyone the same works out. Say the police force makes a rule, saying that all police officers must wear helmets at all times when out of the office. It’s a colour-blind rule, because they haven’t thought about the implications for all their officers. But then the Sikh officers complain - they can’t do this, because to do so would mean removing their turbans, which they won’t do. If the rule stays, the implication is that all Sikh officers have to work only from the office, thus treating them less advantageously, or remove their headgear, again treating them less advantageously.
I’m not advocating racism. I’m advocating trying to ensure that all groups in our society can take advantage of the opportunities available, and that where there’s a praticular disadvantage affecting a group, it’s not ignored through colour-blindness.
Antonia: The Men in Crisis helpline seems reputable, from a quick Google search - they don’t seem to have a website though. I’m not sure how misogyny comes into it, though - a brief scan of a few sites from a search didn’t show up any overt misogyny, beyond wanting an acknowledgement that women can be abusers too - I would characterise that as realism. That said, some of the testimonials can obviously be somewhat bitter (although no worse than the ‘all men are b***ards’ stuff you can read on other sites…).
in the same way that an assault on black man by a white gang carries the force of years of racism, the historic oppression of women gives force to domestic violence against women.
Perhaps, but for me at least, the key aspect of both of those examples is the crime that was committed, not the motivation. Your opinion may be different, of course.
Your example about the helmet rule is trivially ridiculous - there should be autonomy for senior officers to allow juniors leeway when it comes to this sort of issue - e.g. allowing officers to wear any kind of appropriate headgear when on patrol, including turbans, etc… That’s an example of the disempowering effects of overarching bureaucracy, not racism. How about a specific example where a colour-blind policy means the police treat a suspect in a racist manner?
I think most victims of racism would be insulted that you’d trivialise it to the point where it becomes about whether someone can wear a turban or not - there are far more serious problems with overt racism in society, without worrying about this nonsense. This sort of focus on petty details just exacerbates the real problems.
I’ve recently found your blog on the internet which raises many important issues. I was wondering if it is possible to email you few question regarding immigrant women expressing domestic violence in UK and total luck of support for them. I have experienced domestic violence years ago and still fining it difficult to recover. I also have immigration problems and finding it difficult to cope and find support. I have tried everything I even went to local MP to ask to lobby the problem so home office will give more information to spouses who come to UK and have languages problems and simply do not have an access to information what to do if they experience domestic violence and also forms of domestic violence. I have been told that because it happen to so little people MP simple have no time to do it. I have tried to email you but email come back
Kind regards
Janet