Understanding and Interrupting Systemic Racism: A ‘Race Equality Receipt’ as a Mechanism to Promote Transformational Conversations and Stimulate Actions to Redress Race Inequality

Abstract

This chapter argues that transformational conversations pertaining to race equality can only be productive if evidence-based mechanisms are in place to reconcile proposed actions for redress. Guided by socio-legal theory and Critical Race Theory (CRT), Thomas and Mikel suggest that this reconciliation is built on the legacy of systemic racism, at least 400 years ago and recommends acknowledgement that overt physical violence and brutality, microaggressions, racial harassment, racial bullying, discrimination and institutional racism are manifested in universities in myriad ways. These mechanisms of prejudice affect people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds in general, and people from Black backgrounds more extremely. Taken together, they have a traumatic, debilitating effect. The authors proffer a Race Equality Receipt as tangible proof of delivery on commitments to promote race equality.

Introduction

The pandemic of systematic racism has been the main cause of racial inequality and a major public health problem globally for at least 400 years. Inspired by turbulent forces such as imperialism, massification of education, globalisation and neoliberal agendas, universities have struggled to reconcile with their colonial past, instead opting to purport that they operate in colourblind, meritocratic, post-racial societies, where ‘race’¹ doesn’t matter. An understanding that “‘race’ is the child of racism and not the father” (Coates 2015, p. 7) and proof of transaction on commitments to redress structural inequalities is fundamental to any transformational conversation about racial equity/equality. There is a consensus that universities operate within a society that is currently in a state of economic, political and social flux. Universities are not exempt from societal ills and operate in a microcosm that mirrors the macrocosm. As societies become more socio-politically aware of the devastating effects of racism on civil liberties, multiculturalism and cultural democracy, we are seeing what can only be considered as a war on the pandemic of systematic racism. The legendary Jamaican reggae singer-songwriter Robert (Bob) Nesta Marley in his anthem against racism and ode to peace “War”, quoted a speech by Ethiopian Emperor, His Imperial Majesty, Haile Selasse I, which was delivered before the United Nations General Assembly in 1963. In denouncing discrimination, Marley unequivocally chanted:

Until the philosophy, which hold one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war… until there no longer first class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, … until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, dis a war. Bob Marley (quoting Haile Selassie)

To what extent can a community dismantle a problem that they did not create?—A community who are all under the knee (physically, psychologically or emotionally); A community, which as Buffalo Soldiers, fought on arrival and are now fighting for survival. In a society where the racial pandemic has normalised angry, racial slurs and xenophobic insults, overt fury and vitriol has become common place; A society where the knee-jerk “go back” slur is employed on demand to immediately single out Black people from a society where Whiteness has become the default. Ironically, the existence of a Black population in Britain is the legacy of British imperialist history. Commenting on the presence of Black people in Britain, Stuart Hall provocatively reminded us in his 2017 book entitled Familiar Stranger, “we are here because they were there” (Hall 2017).

Historic and ongoing acts of physical violence and brutality levelled specifically at Black people in societies globally have been fuelled by highly visible violent and virulent racism. These heinous acts are ratified by institutional racism (Macpherson 1999), which undergirds the policies, processes and practices of organisations in every sector of society. Allied to these overt acts are microaggressions, microinsults and microinvalidations (Huber and Solorzano 2015; Rowe 2008) that operate covertly to inflict irreversible psychological distress on its victims. These everyday experiences promote collective trauma and social suffering in a world still intoxicated by the psychological damages inflicted by colonialism—deeply psychological experiences. In what follows, we amalgamate the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT)² and Socio-Legal Theory³ as a framework to illuminate the chain of causation between historical events that render colonialism and imperialism culpable for racialised inequalities today. Our central argument is that given the chain of causation, transformational conversations pertaining to ‘race’ equality can only be productive and penetrative if evidence-based mechanisms are instituted to reconcile actions proposed for redress. Firstly, we excavate the genealogy of causation by highlighting some key historical events that have crystallised disparate philosophies, practices and paradigms that shape persistent racial inequalities in universities today. We then explore the current socio-political landscape, highlight some of the major contestations in UK higher education (HE) institutions, before proffering a Race Equality Receipt as proof of delivery on commitments to promote race equality.

Fighting on Arrival, Fighting for Survival: The Genealogy of Causation

Returning to the subject of university’s inertia to publicly reconcile with its colonial past, the events of the present, namely the killing of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis on 25 May 2020 by a White police officer, as well as the killing of Breonna Taylor, at the hands of the police, who used a battering ram to enter her house on the authority of a “no-knock” warrant adds to the chronology of acts of barbarism. These overt acts of violence are among a number of incidents of racial violence and excessive use of force by the police, particularly against Black women and men. But how did we arrive at this point where the Black life does not seem to matter? To what extent are the current statues and doctrines operationalized in praxis? This section excavates a synopsis of the genealogy of causation that has operationalised and sustained racial inequality.

Man’s justice and equality under the law has been promised through a plethora of statutes and cornerstone legal Doctrines. Within Britain, the first and most notable legal doctrine was the Magna Carta Libertatum,⁴ otherwise known as “The Magna Carta” or “Great Charter”. The notable 1215 legal doctrine agreed by King John of England confirmed the human rights concepts of habeas corpus, “trial by jury” and the longstanding principle that no one such man (including the lawmakers and the King) shall be above the law inter alia. Similar efforts to “bestow” equality under the law were attempted via various slave abolition legislation such as the Dolben’s Act of 1788,⁵ the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807⁶ and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.⁷ Whilst the aforementioned served to abolish inhumane treatment of Black people and promote social equality under the law in theory, it may be revealed that in praxis, these goals were not accomplished. Prima facie, the Magna Carta indeed afforded the “free man” protection and equality under the law, as exemplified within clause 39. However, the remit of “free man” excluded that of Black people, as the Black man was considered merely “the subject of property… [or] goods”⁸ as illustrated in the 1783 judgement of Gregson v Gilbert,⁹ in relation to the Zong Massacre of 1781. Likewise, the Slave Trade Act 1788, otherwise known as the Dolben’s Act 1788 attempted to limit slave trading by placing restrictions on the quantity of slaves that could be transported through tonnage limitations. However, this resulted in adverse effects on women and children, as the imperfections within the legislation failed to define what constituted a child status; this motivated traders to utilise children and women as a method of potentially carrying multiple unborn slaves through childbirth upon their arrival at their destination.¹⁰ Although the Slave Trade Act 1807 prohibited the transportation of slaves (the Slave Trade) within the British Empire, the practice of slavery was still not formerly abolished, and remained legal within most of the British Empire until 1833, with the implementation of the Slavery Abolition Act.

Likewise, contemporary examples of attempts to tackle inequality and racial injustice have been exemplified through the Race Relation and Equality Acts. However, the multiple amendments and repeals within the law highlight the consistent limitations with the legislation in praxis.

The Race Relations Act 1965¹¹ was the first piece of legislation within the UK to prohibit overt racial discrimination (see Dame Jocelyn Barrow’s commentary in Chap. 2). However, this prohibition did not extend to covert and institutionalised racism. Consequently, Black people could still be denied housing, employment or other public services on the grounds of ‘race’. This continued until the amendment of the law in 1968.¹² Yet, despite the amendment, “grey areas” within the law resulted in the perpetuation of discrimination both directly and indirectly until the Race Relations Act 1976¹³ (establishing the Commission for Racial Equality) and subsequently, the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000¹⁴ (further extending the scope of the 1976 Act to impose a statutory duty upon the police and other public authorities for the purpose of safeguarding national security). The final repeal manifested in the form of the Equality Act 2010.¹⁵ When viewed through a socio-legal lens, a contention can be made that continuous revision of the law is advantageous and necessary in an endlessly evolving and increasingly multicultural society, whose needs in terms of equality have hardly changed between 1968 and 2010. The basic entitlement of equality under the law remains a necessity. Whereas the laws provide a theoretical complete solution; in praxis the law continues to fail the Black population. An example can be seen within section 159 of the Equality Act 2010, with the “tie-break” provision for judicial appointments. Whilst the provision affords a member from the protected group to gain priority in appointment in instances of a “tie-breaker”, this event happens seldom. Therefore, “tie-break” provision is rarely utilised in practice.

Likewise, today Black people are promised equality and justice by those who claim to stand in solidarity with them. However, as demonstrated, a promise without realisation in praxis is futile and may result in hyper inequality. A promise without action will serve to further erode Black people’s fragile confidence in a system where racism is a normal fact of daily life (Tate 1997), where the assumption of White superiority are ingrained in the political, legal and educational structures (Mills 1997; Delgado and Stefanic 2017). This creates a system that supports the massification of deeply entrenched racialised inequalities by sanctioning colour-blind racism, “racism without racists” (Bonilla-Silva 2014). Hence, to what extent has the genealogy of causation and turbulence in society influence the major conversations/contestations in the HE microcosm?

The aforementioned chronology demonstrates, some of the archaic promises that were pledged to deliver equality and justice under the law. We propose that the ecology of atrocities excavated here in relation to ‘race’ (in)equality should not be presented as a quest for oppressed subjects’ liberation (in a similar manner to which Black history that is taught in schools centres Black slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, thus eliminating 4000 years of Black civilisation and the very greatest periods of Black achievements (see “The Destruction of Black civilisation” by Chancellor Williams (1987) and “When we ruled” by Robin Walker (2011))). Rather we assert that these ongoing atrocities are presented accurately as a disruption to the Black history that is currently being presented in the curriculum in universities. A history that should detail when Black people were “among the earliest builders of a great civilisation on this planet, including the development of writing, sciences, engineering, medicine, architecture, religion and fine arts” (Williams 1987, p. 34).

The Socio-political Landscape, (Dis)order of Things and the Major Contestations in the Academy

Universities have been reluctant to acknowledge and address the legacies of colonialism and imperialism that have stimulated and sustained structural inequalities. Although it is well documented that intersectionally these systemic inequalities disproportionately affect staff and students from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME)¹⁶ backgrounds, there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement of inter-group inequalities to highlight the fact that Black staff and students are most affected. Ironically, there is an ignorance and difficulty to comprehend the implications of racism and racial inequalities in shaping the lived experiences of Black people. Providing clarity, Jamaican-born philosopher Charles Mills (1997) stated:

As a general rule, White misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion and self-deception on matters relating to [‘race’] are among the most pervasive mental phenomena of the past few hundred years, a cognitive and moral economy psychically required for conquest, colonization and enslavement. And these phenomena are in no way accidental, but prescribed by the terms of the racial contract, which requires a certain schedule of structured blindness and opacities in order to establish and maintain White polity. (p. 19)

The historic events excavated in the previous section provide plausible evidence and justification as to why Black people face the greatest levels of inequality and why they are perceived as “faces at the bottom of the well” (Bell 1992). Racism shapes inequality; racism is the mother and racial violence, racial discrimination and racial harassment are her children. Take for example the inequalities in academic outcomes, where Black UK domiciled students in British universities are approximately 80% less likely to achieve a good degree (first or 2:1) as compared to their White counterparts (Higher Education Statistical Agency 2020). Or despite the fact that the percentage of Black students entering HE has increased, they are less likely to complete their three-year undergraduate degree courses (Keohane 2017). And, those who successfully achieve a “good degree” are less likely to access Research Council funding to support further studies (Williams et al. 2019). These barriers limit Black student’s achievement and progression in the academy, as well as the potential for graduate employment.

Higher education institutions do not produce equal outcomes for staff. In 2019, university staff in the UK expressed strength of feeling on these issues by embarking on a series of strikes (Universities & Colleges Employers Association 2019). Although students were collateral damage in this process (due to postponement of teaching), it is important to understand the juxtaposition between structural inequalities that affected Black students and those that affect Black staff. In terms of pay, pensions and working conditions, Black staff fare worse off than their White counterparts. Data from the Office for National Statistics highlights an ethnicity pay gap in Britain (ONS 2019). In terms of HE, Black academic staff are paid 14% less than their White Counterparts; intersectional analysis shows that the largest pay gaps are for Black men and women (Universities and Colleges Employers Association 2018). As it relates to promotions, Black staff face a double whammy, due to underrepresentation in top roles, where 3% of Black academics are professors, as opposed to their White counterparts (Universities & Colleges Employers Association 2019). Black staff are underrepresented in senior positions and overrepresented in junior positions, particularly amongst the ancillary staff in British universities.

Concerns about mental health conditions are longstanding. Race shapes inequality and these concerns must be considered and addressed intersectionally (Crenshaw 1991). However, collectively, Black communities are mindful of the atrocities of the Tuskegee Syphilis study (1942–1972); this provides a powerful metaphor for state-funded racism and ethical mistakes (Jones 1981). The historical memories of the atrocities of the Tuskegee Syphilis study and their subsequent contributions to the formulation of the circle of fear must also be considered when exploring barriers to engagement with health and care services by Black people (Reverby 2001). In the main, Mental health conditions are clinically diagnosable, as per the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders ICD-10 (WHO 1992). However, mental distress as a result of traumatic, racialised violence that influences Black people’s thoughts and feelings about their quality of life are not classified within the ICD-10. Is there a mechanism to diagnose suboptimal wellbeing that results from the debilitating effects of microaggressions and feelings of (un)belonging? As Thomas (2020) has written elsewhere, these feelings compromise overall sense of belonging for Black students and staff in creating an Insider Without Syndrome. Taken together, it is plausible to suggest that the lack of culturally competent/appropriate wellbeing services in universities compounds sense of belonging and wellbeing for staff and students alike.

The pervasive structural inequalities found in higher education legitimises microaggressions, overt acts of racial discrimination, and epistemic violence. Epistemic violence and microaggressions have become key components of the university culture, a culture that poses barriers to impede Black students and staff from achieving equivalent outcomes to their White counterparts. Despite outcries for redress by a variety of student-led movements (Peters 2018; Hussain 2015; Rhodes Must Fall 2018) and faculty, the Anglo-American, Eurocentric curriculum remains in situ and continues to promote epistemic apartheid (Rabaka 2010). But, to what extent are conversations pertaining to racialised inequalities taken seriously in university settings? Social injustice is a war on humanity and requires serious considerations.

Imagine for a moment that you are a Black student, that Amy Cooper¹⁷ worked for your university and HR were the police. Imagine entering your university library and the challenge for your student ID card represented a moment to be “stopped and searched”. Imagine wearing an invisible, weightless knapsack with special GPS devices, passports, passwords, tools, vaccines and credit cards that afforded you privilege, protection and exemption from everything untoward; imagine if you were blinded by the corollary of these privileges. Now imagine your Black colleague wearing a visible knapsack that accrues weight for every act of microaggression, discrimination, microinsult, microinvalidation and racially motivated act. How then could you distinguish between earned strength and unearned power? Privilege is currency, but how are Black students afforded the luxury of accruing this currency?

A “Race Equality Receipt” as Proof of Delivery on Commitments to Promote Race Equality

Racism is a disease and informed, transformational action must be seen as a cure for this disease. Admirably, universities have stood in solidarity with the Black communities globally in the wake of the inevitable upsurge in racialised violence which culminated with the horrific murder of Mr George Floyd in USA. Statements of solidarity are very important signals of intent (promissory notes). These statements of solidarity have stimulated potentially transformational conversations about racial injustice and social justice, conversations which historically would have been had in hushed tones. But how do we transform these conversations (invitations to treat) into paid purchases? We don’t need IOUs. In order to sustain and operationalise transformational conversations, we need to see receipts! We need proof of purchase. The hashtag #showMetheReceipts has become a catchphrase for holding people accountable. We extend this hashtag further within the context of social justice to propose universities #ShowMeyourRaceEqualityReceipts (emphasis added).

Professor, Sir Geoff Palmer reminds us that “we cannot change the past but we can change the consequences of past attrocities, such as racism for better by making reparations. A diverse society needs diverse solutions” (see Chap. 3). Therefore, for universities, these Race Equality Receipts represent proof that proposers have delivered on their commitments and intentions, as outlined in their statements. Typically, while not prescriptive, a receipt may be comprised of the following items:

• Highlighting and reconciling with your university’s colonial/imperialist past—as mentioned in the first section of this book, a review of the past serves to inform the future. In light of the new cultural awakening, it becomes necessary for universities to declare their associations with and benefits bequeathed from colonialism and White supremacy? For example, the university of Guelph is reconciling with its history of teaching eugenics (Kelly and Rice 2020). In a similar manner, universities should illuminate their associations with colonialism. These illuminations should highlight people after whom buildings are named, as well as those with colonial/ imperialist relationships who are immortalised by way of monuments and statues on their campuses.

• Membership of the AdvanceHE Race Equality Charter (REC)—to date, only 62 of the 132 universities in the UK have signed up as members of the charter, with 14 achieving a Bronze award.¹⁸

• Application for an institutional level REC award—the REC is the only framework in UK higher education that facilitates identification of and self-reflection on the structural, cultural and institutional barriers that impedes representation, progression and success of minority ethnic staff and students. While this should not be considered a panacea, as part of the REC application process, universities are required to develop a SMART action plan to address the barriers to race equality at their institution.  

• BAME Staff Network (Championed by a member of the university’s Executive Group)—importantly, this network should be resourced and supported by the university. Membership of this network may create a community for both academic and professional members of staff who identify as belonging to a BAME background to share experiences, ideas and common concerns, while retaining a critical engagement with the concept of ‘race’. While we acknowledge inter-group biases, a BAME Staff Network may form the basis to develop sub-group networks. We also accept that the term BAME is a contentious terminology that has often been imposed on people with the intention to homogenise their lived experineces, culture and identies. This is not our intention here. 

• Robust frameworks to facilitate reporting, complaint and redress of racial harassment, discrimination or racially motivated violence—according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2019, p. 44) “there is a large discrepancy between the number of racial harassment incidents taking place and the number of complaints recorded in universities”. Reporting an incident is the process by which a person informs their university that they have witnessed or experienced a behaviour that they consider unacceptable. A report may trigger a complaint. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction. In order to sustain transformational conversations in relation to ‘race’ inequality and stimulate actions for redress, an evidence-based approach is imperative to reporting, recording and redressing acts of racialised harassment and discrimination on university campuses.

• Policies specifically to sanction race-related offences—according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2019, p. 52) “Universities’ harassment policies [should] explain how an individual can make a complaint about a racial harassment incident. They should also set the expectations of students and staff in relation to unacceptable conduct, explain how universities will deal with alleged misconduct and set out the likely sanctions”. As Dame Jocelyn Barrow outlines in Chap. 2, these policies should be “policies with teeth” (emphasis added).

• An Equality Impact Assessment of all policies, processes, programmes and strategies—the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) requires public authorities to have due regard for equality considerations when exercising their functions. An Equality Impact Assessment is an assessment that a university may carry out to ascertain the potential impact on equality, prior to implementing a new policy in order to evidence their compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (House of Commons Library 2018). In this case we suggest that this is extended to the development of academic programs, processes and strategies.

• Scholarships, grants and bursaries for high achieving Black students to pursue undergraduate/postgraduate courses—these may serve to instigate positive action towards redressing structural inequalities that disproportionately affect Black students in universities. These inequalities have been found to create a ‘broken pipeline’ (Williams et al. 2019).

• Conducting an equal pay audit—under the Equality Act 2010, women and men are entitled to equal pay for doing equal work. Universities are encouraged to adopt an intersectional approach (Crenshaw 1991; Crenshaw 1995) in identifying the extent to which there are differences in pay between women and men doing equal work in the university. We further propose that intersectional, inter-group audit be conducted to understand the extent to which inequalities may be present (e.g., differences between Black women and White women). Universities should eliminate instances of unequal pay that cannot be justified. As part of their Race Equality Receipt we suggest that intersectional ‘equal pay audit’ data be published on university websites.

• Designing/Delivering a Culturally Sensitive Curriculum—owing to predominantly Anglo-American, Eurocentric epistemologies, the current curriculum is not inclusive, nor does not represent increasingly multi-ethnic societies globally. A culturally sensitive curriculum (Thomas and Quinlan 2021) is indicative of a curriculum where diversity is represented positively as a means of enabling students to developing critical and analytical skills, agency and socio-political awareness to challenge longstanding hierarchical/hegemonic power structures. A culturally sensitive curriculum also promotes inclusive classroom interactions. A typical example of this is the Black Curriculum (Arday 2020), which aims to redefine conceptions of Britishness in re-imagining the future of education through Black British history.

• Diverse Representation on shortlisting and interview panels—decisions on shortlisting and appointment should be based on objective, job related criteria and an assessment by a racially diverse panel. We propose that as part of their commitment to promote race equality, universities should mandate that staff from racially minoritised backgrounds should sit on shortlisting and interview panels.

• Racially diverse and culturally competent wellbeing services—Atherton and Mazhari (2018, p. 4) in their report entitled Preparing for Diversity stated: “we are witnessing hyper-diversity among the student body…, where diversity is the norm and not the exception”. Therefore, we propose that universities acknowledge this “new norm” and ensure that their wellbeing services (those provided for staff and students) is racially diverse, culturally competent and culturally sensitive, in order to evolve to meet the needs of its population.

• Publishing your “Attainment Gap” data alongside your Destination of Leavers data on recruitment web pages—this may facilitate a process due diligence by students intending to study at the university, as well as staff seeking employment.

• Representatoion in senior leadership positions—data from the Higher Education Statistical Agency (Op Cit) reveal that the majority of professors employed in UK universities are White, with less than 1% belonging to a Black background. When viewed intersectionally, only 35 of the nearly 20,000 professors are female. There is also a similar picture among professional services staff where Black staff are positioned in lower pay grades. This atrocity requires swift redress.

Conclusion

Transformational conversations pertaining to race equity and equality can only be productive if evidence-based mechanisms are in place to reconcile proposed actions for redress. These conversations must commence with an acknowledgement that race inequality in embroiled within a colonial/imperial system that created the systemic racism that has dehumanised Black people and positioned them at the bottom of the well. Additionally, transformational actions and conversations for redress mandates acknowledgement that overt physical violence and brutality, microaggressions, racial harassment, racial bullying, discrimination and institutional racism are manifested in universities in myriad ways. Mechanisms of prejudice affect people from BAME backgrounds in general, and people in particular Black backgrounds more extremely. While solidarity statements, manifestos, acquisition of charter marks and even keynote speeches are to be admired. We believe these are only invitations to treat. Therefore, as praxis, we proffer a Race Equality Receipt as tangible proof of delivery on commitments to promote race equality. While the list above is not extensive in detailing all available items that could populate a Receipt, their presence could mitigate against inaction, performative activism and performative allyship and demonstrate proof of delivery on promises of solidarity in the war against the pandemic of racism. Social justice and regard for dignity and respect for all humans are basic human rights, not privileges.

…until that day the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained, [but for now], everywhere is war war…