**4. Challenging the narrative**

The report purports to be balanced and provide an evidence-based contribution to the national conversation over race inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. And there is indeed much of merit in the report which is consonant with the academic literature in this field:


Despite these merits, any hopes that the report would shift the national conversation away from 'culture wars' towards a balanced informed discussion about race were quickly dashed, with the same antagonists in the culture wars at each other's throats again. The resignation on the day of publication of No 10's race advisor, Samuel Kasumu, who had earlier expressed dismay at the government for pursuing a 'politics steeped in division', was an early portent. Some commentators welcomed the report seeing it as a powerful challenge to 'the pessimistic identity-politics-based race narrative that has become so influential in recent years' [43], but most were highly critical, with one journalist describing the report as 'shoddy…littered with mistakes and outright mangling of sources, alongside…

selective quoting' [44] and one academic describing it as 'poisonously patronizing' and 'historically illiterate' [45].

What is evident when we examine the report is that the central thrust of its narrative has an 'optimism bias', which, while recognizing racism and racial discrimination, tends to downplay their prevalence (as evidenced in attitude surveys and field experiments), significance (as illustrated not only by racist abuse but also microaggressions) and systematic nature (with organizations across the board producing unequal outcomes). There is some justification in seeing education as a success story, but the world of work is another matter. Here the report's optimism bias glosses over what is for many members of minority communities a difficult transition. Field experiments clearly demonstrate racial discrimination in the labour market. Such discrimination is associated with ethnic penalties, but the latter varies by group, with some groups having more resourceful social networks so that they are able to be relatively successful in spite of discrimination [46]. Investment in educational pays off, but the return for minorities is less than that for their White peers. Ethnic minority graduates are much less likely to be employed than their White peers six months after graduation, even after controlling for class and education, and an earnings gap apparent in the early career of British graduates persists long after graduation [47]. Ethnic pay gaps are in fact large and stable once suitable controls are put in place, and it's by no means clear that things are getting better. Comparison of disparities in pay, employment and unemployment among different ethnic groups shows that there has been little change over the past 25 years. Indeed for black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men and women pay gaps with white men and women have widened. While 'there are some groups for some labour market outcomes where there is clear evidence of reducing ethnic penalties, the overriding impression is of stasis' [48, 49].

The report rightly says that the system is no longer rigged against ethnic minorities, but when commentators attribute disadvantage to racism or racial discrimination, they are not typically arguing that the racism or racial discrimination is intentional. Indeed, the contention in the report that racism requires 'the intent of the perpetrator as well as the perception of the victim' contravenes the tenor of equality legislation which does not require proof of intention when a judgment as to whether discrimination has occurred is made. The report frequently focuses on racism at the individual level and here it rightly acknowledges its toxic nature on social media. Much less attention is paid, however, to the historical roots of racism [see [24]] or the structural forces that sustain it, or (as we shall see below) racism at the institutional level.

The Commission is clearly correct in recognizing that race and ethnic disparities do not in themselves demonstrate racism or discrimination. Correlation is not the same as causation. The commission's approach in seeking to explain disparities is, however, deeply flawed. It divides disparities into two kinds, explained and unexplained, as we saw earlier. This means that disparities 'are either explained by factors other than racism – or there is no evidence so they are unexplained'...there is [thus] no way, within its framework, to demonstrate that racism or discrimination…is actually causing the observed disparities in outcomes' [50]. Even worse is its use of regression analysis from which it commonly infers in the report that racism is a less significant factor than other factors. This is a statistical error. 'The impact of someone's race on their health cannot be dismissed by saying "well, actually, poverty is the "real" cause, if poverty and race are – as they are in the UK – inextricably linked…Structural inequality is a complex interplay of causes and outcomes – and one variable can be both at once. Sticking in as many variables as possible on one side of a regression and claiming you've "explained" away race and racism…is not a credible analysis' [50]. This has been labeled '"the garbage can"

#### *Perspective Chapter: Black Lives Matter and the Anti-Woke Campaign in the UK DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99929*

approach to statistics: the calculations appear to be scientific, but in reality they are meaningless'. What is more, this approach 'displays a basic misunderstanding of how racism works. Often various statistical factors, such as people's socioeconomic status or geographic location, are themselves products of racism' [51]. The higher mortality rate of ethnic minorities from COVID-19 'can be attributed to living in deprived areas, crowded housing, and being more exposed to the virus at work and at home – these conditions themselves the result of longstanding inequalities and structural racism' [52].

At the launch of the report and in the press release, Tony Sewell stated that the report found no evidence of institutional racism. This was a significant and incendiary claim because the Macpherson report had argued in 1999 that institutional racism was rife in Britain. The Commission's report itself, however, is more circumspect, in acknowledging the existence of institutional (as well as individual) discrimination and even recognizing merit in MacPherson's definition of the term. And yet when we examine the report, there is an extreme reluctance to point to any examples of institutional racism. An obvious example is the Windrush scandal in 2018 which saw significant numbers of Black Caribbeans being wrongly detained and in some cases deported by the Home Office. The Commission mentions the scandal but emphasizes that it was not intentionally designed or deliberately targeted. What it does not mention is that an independent review led by Wendy Williams found that the Home Office had displayed 'institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness' on race issues, 'consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism'. Interestingly, she adds a coda which is pertinent to the authors of the Sewell report: 'There seems to be a misconception that racism is confined to decisions made with racist motivations…This is a misunderstanding of both the law and racism generally' (Williams quoted in [53]).

The extreme reluctance to identify any examples of institutional racism is further evidenced by the one occasion when the question of an organization being institutionally race is addressed. The charge that the police remain institutionally racist is dismissed on the flimsy grounds that there is more reporting and recording of racist incidents. It seems remarkable that the report did not examine, as previous research has done (see [54]), whether prevailing cultural assumptions and routine practices in the police continue to have a discriminatory impact, before reaching its judgment. The crime and policing chapter, while providing some pertinent data, ultimately shies away from seeing institutional discrimination, preferring instead to believe that there are a few 'bad apples' or 'rogue elements'.

Rather than flirting with the notion that powerful organizations may be institutionally racist, the report tends to be uncritical towards them. While I recognize that it may be politic to assert that the government which has commissioned the report takes race equality seriously and has sought to implement the recommendations of previous reports, both claims are highly questionable. Arguably, the recommendation to the government to strengthen the body responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination legislation is a brave one, but it is notable that it eschews any comment on the EHRC's steady emasculation since 2010 and does not incorporate a recommendation to the government to activate the socio-economic duty, Section 1 of the Equality Act and in this way address the socio-economic disadvantage highlighted in the report. What is more evident is that the issue of race inequality, which was propelled into the limelight by the Macpherson report and for a period was taken seriously by the Labour government, dropped off the agenda until the Black Lives Movement resuscitated it. The consequence of the neglect to address race equality in the intervening period is that many of the recommendations the report makes have been made before. Examples are manifold: in education, improving data collection, monitoring and quality of analysis, and providing better

careers guidance; in employment, advancing 'nudge'-style procedures such as name blind CVs, transparent performance metrics, proactive mentoring and networking procedures; in policing, training in de-escalation techniques, increased monitoring by senior officers, more community involvement, measures to increase police diversity; and in health, more research. There is only one occasion when the Commission shows some exasperation when it fulminates that 'the gap in achieving the right workforce mix has been driven by a lack of consistent political and police leadership focus on this issue over the last 40 years' [38].

The report rightly acknowledges the agency of ethnic minorities who have indeed been resourceful despite facing unique hurdles. Although the Commissioners acknowledge the importance of structural factors such as socioeconomic position in influencing outcomes, their emphasis on agency means that they are often concerned to emphasize what people can do for themselves. This is important, but to produce significant change in, say, employment or health outcomes, we need to address the structural factors responsible. And there is a danger in honing in on individuals, families and communities rather than structural factors. The danger is that the responsibility for disadvantage is seen to lie within those individuals, families and communities. This is evident when the report explains why some minority groups have been less successful in transcending class disadvantage than others. 'Its answer is "family structures" and "cultural traditions"' [55]. Family breakdown, which is in fact an attribute of poverty, entails negative outcomes for Black Caribbeans, while lack of fluency in English, among a small number of older women, purportedly holds back the economic advancement of Pakistani/Bangaladeshis. The report is at pains to point out that it is not blaming the communities in question, but in arguing that the causes of disadvantage lie primarily within those groups, 'social issues…are reframed as moral choices and the behaviour of individuals' [55]. Despite the protestations of the authors of the report, this is tantamount to a victim blaming discourse.

#### **5. Conclusion**

Black Lives Matters (BLM) have put structural racism back on the agenda, but the initial optimism felt by many anti-racists that at last action would be taken to promote racial justice has been somewhat dashed by the backlash to this agenda. This backlash needs to be seen in the context of an anti-political correctness discourse which is extremely pervasive. This discourse comprises a major interpretive framework in the media uncritically reproduced by many journalists. Populist politicians are all too happy to propagate this discourse and indeed have not been averse to fermenting culture wars and pursue an anti-woke agenda which they believe play well with their constituents. The Sewell report was commissioned by the government in the UK because it needed, given the popularity of the BLM movement, to be seen to be responding. The government was careful in its choice of Chair and choice of Commissioners, and we should not therefore be too surprised that the final report draws upon many right wing tropes and was consonant with the positions earlier taken by Boris Johnson, Munira Mirza and Tony Sewell: challenging the pertinence of key concepts such as institutional racism, white privilege and decolonizing; questioning the purportedly subjective definition of a racist incident; stressing what people can do for themselves; critiquing diversity specialists, unconscious bias training and quotas; downplaying racism and playing up geography and the White working class; presenting a caricature of antiracism as pulling down statues, excising White authors etc.; dismissing what it characterizes as identity based politics; and extolling Britain as a beacon to the world. Far from

*Perspective Chapter: Black Lives Matter and the Anti-Woke Campaign in the UK DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99929*

the report moving us beyond the culture wars, it has itself become employed as a weapon in these wars. 'The report strikes a major blow against institutional wokeness' shouts one academic [56]. In the process, the report has become the latest manifestation of a strategy to delegitimize antiracism; 'anyone who talks about racism is simply doing Britain down, smearing white people, forcing a woke agenda "down our throats"' [56].
