Experiences and dimensions of racism
In considering what it is like to have racial and ethnic diversity in the charity sector, we asked whether racism was a feature of life in the sector for BAME people. And it was.
The weight of negative experiences among BAME charity people suggests that the diversity problem is not limited to there being insufficient numbers of BAME people in the sector. Problems surface even when BAME people are present in charities.
Our results show that, in large numbers, BAME project participants have encountered racism in the form of discriminatory and antagonistic behaviours and actions inside the charity sector. More generally, there was a feeling among our cohort of BAME people that they are on the outside of the charity sector, even when on the inside. This is perhaps most reflected in the fact that 61 per cent (304 out of 491 people) of online survey respondents said that they feel/have felt that they need to ‘outperform’ white British counterparts to make comparable progress in the charity sector.
We consider other research findings below, but before doing so, we need to talk about racism. We discuss and define racism more fully in Section 3, but here it is worth emphasising that racism is built on beliefs that a person’s race and ethnicity (somehow) affects who and how they are as a person, and that some groups have more desirable traits than others. This, in turn, informs the actions of organisations, decision-makers and individuals. For example, recruitment processes are designed to filter in people with positive characteristics and capabilities and to filter out people with negative ones. But because these characteristics are racialised, filtration processes tend to disproportionately exclude BAME people and include white British people.
For now, a final point on racism is that it is harmful to BAME people. This seems obvious, but it is important to emphasise that racism is not necessarily about an intention to cause harm or about BAME people being ‘offended’; it is about actual harm caused.
To sum up, racism exists where harm is caused to BAME people by actions in which race-based thinking is a significant factor.
In a charity or other setting, racism can play out as direct discriminatory and antagonistic behaviour towards BAME colleagues. But this behaviour might not be displayed towards every BAME colleague equally, and some BAME colleagues may even be favoured. Racism is complex and uneven. However, the patterns in the data gathered in our project are clear.
In the online survey, a majority – 68 per cent (335 out of 489 people) – of those providing detailed responses said that they had experienced, witnessed or heard stories about racism in their time in the charity sector.
In terms of directly experienced racism, 28 people had been on the receiving end of physical threats, violence or intimidation. This was one of the least common forms of racism experienced by survey respondents, but is still a significant proportion and is particularly at odds with the compassionate image of the charity sector.
The most common form of racial antagonism that respondents had experienced directly was being subject to ignorant or insensitive questioning about their culture or religion. This affected 80 per cent of people answering the questions (222 out of 278 people) and took different forms. Though we don’t have the sampling frame to claim statistical significance (Gallo, 2016), we note that 58 per cent of female respondents, compared with 46 per cent of male respondents, had been subject to ignorant or insensitive questioning. We also see that Muslim people were the faith group most likely (at 57 per cent) to be subject to questions of this sort. These differential outcomes are cited not to create a ‘hierarchy of oppression’ but to recognise that underneath the broad BAME umbrella are distinct experiences that may require particular attention and intervention. And these differences warrant further survey work (see recommendations).
Ignorance can manifest in negative stereotyping and making assumptions about what BAME people can and (especially) can’t do.
A lot of these incidences are so commonplace that it would take a long time to go through each one. The ‘banter’ and microaggressions happen quite often, remarking on the shock that I can speak such good English (I did an English degree).
Online survey
Micro-aggressions and banter and other passive-aggressive behaviours can be dismissed as insignificant. But they do have an impact because, as mentioned in the quote above, they can take place frequently. They can also be undermining, calling into question the professional competence of BAME people and a person’s position in a workplace.
Beyond these experiences was a raft of other problematic behaviours experienced by BAME online survey respondents. For example, 147 people (out of 199) had been treated as an intellectual inferior. Again, with caveats about the survey limitations, this treatment does appear to be gendered, as it applies to 36 per cent of female respondents compared with 23 per cent of male respondents. Depressingly, such ideas of inferiority stem from old, discredited theories of biological racism and racial hierarchy that somehow persist to this day (Kelley, Khan and Sharrock 2017).
The corollary of thinking that BAME people are somehow ‘not up to the job’ is that BAME people are treated differently in the job. Our online survey data showed that:
114 people
had been unfairly denied development/ acting-up opportunities
114 people
had been subject to excessive surveillance and scrutiny by colleagues, managers or supervisors
We can see from the experiences above that BAME charity people can both be seen as ‘deficient’ and less worthy than white British colleagues and be required to do more to prove themselves.
I always feel like I was held to a higher level of standard than anybody else. I could say one thing the wrong way and I’d be penalised.
Interview – BAME charity employee
This is reflected in the aforementioned 61 per cent of online survey respondents who said that they feel/have felt that they needed to ‘outperform’ white British counterparts in the charity sector. Again, with caveats about our sampling approach, we also note that 71 per cent of black respondents felt this way compared with 62 per cent of all participants who responded to the question. This raises the question of whether black people are particularly subject to excessive scrutiny.
Another question asked of online survey respondents was which ‘types of people’ played a significant role in (any type of) racism they experienced or witnessed. Survey participants could select multiple answers, including people in partner organisations and funders. The two (by far) most common responses from people who had experienced or witnessed racism (in 74 per cent or 216 out of 291 cases) were that senior staff at the charity the respondent worked at played a significant role; and/or (in 70 per cent or 205 out of 291 cases) other colleagues were involved. This is extremely concerning and points to the need for white charity leaders, trustees, and colleagues to fully engage in making workplaces inclusive and free of racism, including being accountable for their own racist behaviour.
