Let’s talk about race
More and more issues today are seen through the prism of race, from education and culture to sport and food. For some commentators, well-intentioned attempts to confront racism – such as the protests following the brutal killing of George Floyd – have morphed into a new orthodoxy that presents racism as the sole cause of all social problems. Moreover, attempts to present contrary arguments are often dismissed as reflections of white privilege and racial prejudice. For example, there was a fierce backlash when the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, led by Tony Sewell, suggested that the existence of racial disparities was not always evidence of racism.
Many insist that there can be no avoiding of talking about racism. ‘Silence is violence’, they claim. Those who point to Martin Luther King Jr’s famous dictum that people should not be ‘judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’ are attacked as racists or subject to unconscious bias. Central to these kinds of claims is critical race theory (CRT), which argues that all human relationships and interactions are shaped by race and frames universal rights such as free speech and equal treatment as products of ‘white supremacy’.
CRT has moved from university seminars into the mainstream and is now commonplace in news reports, op-eds and social media, and informs the most august institutions. CRT has reached the mainstream thanks to authors like Robin DiAngelo, whose best-selling book White Fragility has featured heavily in both corporate reading lists and media thinkpieces. DiAngelo rubbishes the idea that racism is ever truly absent, asserting that ‘the question is not “Did racism occur?” but “How did racism manifest in that situation?”’
Such ideas have led to demands for all-embracing changes at the heart of institutions. For example, an open letter to the Cambridge University’s Classics faculty chair from students, alumni and staff called for a ‘public acknowledgement of the problems of racism within Classics and… for active anti-racist work within our discipline’. The university’s archaeology museum declared it will display signs explaining the apparent ‘whiteness’ and lack of ‘diversity’ among its ancient sculptures.
Across society, there has been a particular emphasis on training people in the language and assumptions associated with CRT, providing a lucrative income to consultants. In academia, many vice-chancellors and human resources managers are signing up to paid accreditations offered by Advance HE, which charges universities a fee to provide advice and training and to audit universities’ anti-racism strategies. But as the group Don’t Divide Us has pointed out, this means that anyone who doubts the salience of ‘white privilege’ is not just arguing against a body of thought, but against their employer.
What are the consequences when conversation is dominated by racial thinking and the assumption that skin colour is the defining feature of all relationships in society? Are attempts to oppose or even ban CRT from classrooms and workplaces illiberal? While accentuating racial difference may foster divisions and undermine solidarity, how should we reflect on and respond to racism today?
