The findings of the UK government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, published in March 2021, were not without controversy, so it is hardly surprising that the government’s response has attracted criticism.
Much like the original investigation, “Inclusive Britain”, published in March this year, takes an individualistic approach dripping with white fragility (and shows a complete lack of understanding of intersectionality).
There was a real opportunity to seek expertise, challenge the status quo and take radical action against racism; instead, we have a PR exercise that takes the age-old approach of blaming individuals for their situation rather than deconstructing the oppressive systems in place.
Furthermore, ill-considered actions will no doubt impact the higher education sector – from homogenising student cohorts (and therefore the next generation of graduates) to controlling the narrative around racism.
The 74 actions committed to in “Inclusive Britain” relate to many aspects of life, from online safety to medical equipment. Several have obvious implications for the higher education sector, such as the need for providers to revise their access and participation plans. However, even those not explicitly aimed at universities, such as the introduction of guidance around data collection and terminology, are still likely to have an impact.
The report references student outcomes. Unfortunately, it uses a very narrow criterion, choosing to focus on the “labour market value” of courses and ignore the plethora of other reasons why someone may enter tertiary education. Action 53 (“Improve the information available to students about the labour market value of qualifications and, where possible, the impact of those qualifications on social mobility”) may be well-meaning, but it reduces people to their earning potential and reinforces the notion that certain disciplines are for middle-class students who are less burdened with financial worries.
This perpetuates the lack in certain sectors, such as the arts, of the diversity needed for the UK’s cultural output to be a true reflection of its people and their stories. Only recently, Sheffield Hallam University was in the news for closing its English literature degree, with speculation that this was because of the low proportion of graduates who entered “high skilled” jobs.
In a similar vein, the seemingly harmless action to consult on ways of incentivising high-quality provision (action 52) comes with the threat of low-level minimum eligibility requirements to access student loans in England – and it won’t be middle-class students who miss out. There is no indication of how such an approach would take account of attainment gaps at school level. Low A-level grades could simply mean a student is yet to learn and be assessed in a way that works for them (or perhaps hasn’t yet been able to study the specialism they are truly interested in). And an open letter from the Runnymede Trust in 2020 outlines how socio-economic factors can affect predicted grades, raising a concern that black and minority ethnic students are likely to be disproportionately affected by underprediction.
Action 62 (“Develop refreshed guidance on Civil Service diversity and inclusion with clear advice on impartiality in language and practice”) looks suspiciously like the freedom of speech debate in an unconvincing disguise. My fear is that this action will result in a dilution of what equality really means. There is absolutely nothing impartial about a refusal to engage with the term “white privilege”.
Moreover, this action may be specific to the civil service, but it comes under the heading “Reinforce impartiality in the public sector”. Universities straddle the public and private sector depending on the topic of conversation (universities must abide by the Public Sector Equality Duty, for instance), so it would be naive to assume this guidance won’t touch higher education. As a sector that prides itself on its ability to shape public discourse and hold progressive values, government advice on what to say sounds, at best, stifling and, at worst, akin to censorship.
I also read action 71 (“Develop a new scheme for employers that provides an evidenced framework for improving race equality and progression in the workplace”) with some frustration. Given there are already very well-established frameworks covering various aspects of inclusion, what would this new framework do differently? Having read the letter former universities minister Michelle Donelan sent to universities shortly before she was promoted (only then to resign) questioning whether memberships of diversity schemes such as the Race Equality Charter are value for money, I’d love an explanation of why the government is intent on creating an entirely new framework.
Inclusive Britain? We’re not even close.
Jennifer Hastings is equality, diversity and inclusion projects and partnerships manager at King’s College London.
