UK
Experts cited in No 10's race report claim they were not properly consulted
Aamna Mohdin Community affairs correspondent
Aamna Mohdin Community affairs correspondent
THE GUARDIAN
© Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA A Black Lives Matter protest in London. Historian, Stephen Bourne, was one of the leading experts on black history who said he was ‘angry and upset’ to see his name listed as a stakeholder on the race disparities report.
Leading academics cited in the government’s controversial racial disparity report say they were not properly consulted, and claim that they were never tasked to produce new research specifically for the commission.
The commission’s report, released on Wednesday, notes that while racism and racial injustice do still exist; geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion all have a greater impact on life chances.
The commission notes it requested new research from a number of researchers, including Veena Raleigh and Shilpa Ross from The King’s Fund. But a spokesperson for the independent thinktank said this was not “strictly true”.
Raleigh and Ross present some existing work from The King’s Fund, but this research was not produced or delivered especially for the commission, they said. The King’s Fund said it shared its epidemiological findings on ethnic differences in health, which was part of the preparatory work under way for an explainer published in February. The Kings Fund also presented research on the experience of NHS staff from minority ethnic backgrounds, from a report that was published last July.
Richard Murray, chief executive of The King’s Fund, said: “While it is important to not generalise about the cause of health inequalities among black and ethnic minority people, the importance of structural racism must not be downplayed.”
It comes as two leading experts on black British history spoke out against the listing of their name as stakeholders.
Historian Stephen Bourne said he was horrified to see his name listed as a stakeholder on the report. He said he was contacted by an adviser in No 10 to attend a roundtable discussion with other historians of black British history.
“So I turned up and was sort of disappointed to find I was the only historian there, apart from another guy from Cambridge University,” he said. “On a big screen these black and Asian faces suddenly appeared including Tony Sewell, but apart from him I didn’t really recognise anyone else. I didn’t know who they were honestly. I was asked to give my presentation and I said, ‘What presentation? I wasn’t asked to give the presentation.’”
Bourne said he ended up speaking for 10 minutes on the difficulties in raising the profile of his work. “I think they were as baffled as I was as to why I was there. I didn’t know who they were so I wrote down their names and when I came home I Googled them and then the penny dropped they were all part of this government commission and I was so angry and upset.”
Leading academics cited in the government’s controversial racial disparity report say they were not properly consulted, and claim that they were never tasked to produce new research specifically for the commission.
The commission’s report, released on Wednesday, notes that while racism and racial injustice do still exist; geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion all have a greater impact on life chances.
The commission notes it requested new research from a number of researchers, including Veena Raleigh and Shilpa Ross from The King’s Fund. But a spokesperson for the independent thinktank said this was not “strictly true”.
Raleigh and Ross present some existing work from The King’s Fund, but this research was not produced or delivered especially for the commission, they said. The King’s Fund said it shared its epidemiological findings on ethnic differences in health, which was part of the preparatory work under way for an explainer published in February. The Kings Fund also presented research on the experience of NHS staff from minority ethnic backgrounds, from a report that was published last July.
Richard Murray, chief executive of The King’s Fund, said: “While it is important to not generalise about the cause of health inequalities among black and ethnic minority people, the importance of structural racism must not be downplayed.”
It comes as two leading experts on black British history spoke out against the listing of their name as stakeholders.
Historian Stephen Bourne said he was horrified to see his name listed as a stakeholder on the report. He said he was contacted by an adviser in No 10 to attend a roundtable discussion with other historians of black British history.
“So I turned up and was sort of disappointed to find I was the only historian there, apart from another guy from Cambridge University,” he said. “On a big screen these black and Asian faces suddenly appeared including Tony Sewell, but apart from him I didn’t really recognise anyone else. I didn’t know who they were honestly. I was asked to give my presentation and I said, ‘What presentation? I wasn’t asked to give the presentation.’”
Bourne said he ended up speaking for 10 minutes on the difficulties in raising the profile of his work. “I think they were as baffled as I was as to why I was there. I didn’t know who they were so I wrote down their names and when I came home I Googled them and then the penny dropped they were all part of this government commission and I was so angry and upset.”
© ASSOCIATED PRESS People attend a protest outside the US Embassy in London, Saturday, July 11, 2020, in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, USA last month. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)
He said he let his feelings known to the special adviser who had initially contacted him. “I said in the future, you need to be very clear and concise about when you invite people to these things and what they’re going into. It’s disrespectful and it’s unprofessional.
“I didn’t even know they were writing a report until it was published yesterday and I was sort of watching the media and then I downloaded it and discovered to my horror that I was cited as a stakeholder.”
Author SI Martin, a black history specialist who was also cited as a stakeholder, said initially he thought the situation was hilarious, but ultimately there are “concerns that my name would be attached to such a shameful document and used in such a way as veneer to give some sort of respectability to the report”. He claims he did not have any contact with the commission.
Concerns have also been raised by the interpretation of some of the research in the report. Kamaldeep Bhui, professor of psychiatry at University of Oxford and editor in chief of the British Journal of Psychiatry, had his research cited in the report, though he is not listed as a stakeholder.
“My view is that it’s really poor scholarship and really poor chairmanship and interpretation,” he said. “There are nuances, that’s no question. This is a difficult topic, but to be so ignorant of what institutional racism means is quite extraordinary.”
He added: “You can’t explain it other than people are just working backwards from their prior ideologies and assumptions and retrofit the data, which is why everyone’s upset because it’s obvious that the data says something else.”
He argued that across different intersectional influences, the right to race is not the only factor, “but it is an important contribution, particularly for those who are racialised, and to deny it is essentially disenfranchising the lived experience of whole sections of the population who already are marginalised, and they wonder why there’s this vaccine hesitancy and people don’t trust government”.
When approached for comment, the government confirmed Bourne participated in a 10 Downing Street event for Black History Month and said S.I. Martin was added to the report in error based on the invitation list to the event at Number 10, which he did not attend.
A spokesperson for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said: “The commission received 2,329 responses to the call for evidence. Of these, nearly 90% were received from individuals and academics, with 325 received from public and private organisations.
“These organisations – ranging from local community groups and charities, through to national professional bodies and unions – collectively represent a large and varied cross-section of the UK of millions.”
In response to the comments from The King’s Fund, the spokesperson added: “The commission engaged both directly and indirectly with thousands of researchers, analysts, stakeholders and members of the public to inform this comprehensive report. We have thanked them as a courtesy.”
He said he let his feelings known to the special adviser who had initially contacted him. “I said in the future, you need to be very clear and concise about when you invite people to these things and what they’re going into. It’s disrespectful and it’s unprofessional.
“I didn’t even know they were writing a report until it was published yesterday and I was sort of watching the media and then I downloaded it and discovered to my horror that I was cited as a stakeholder.”
Author SI Martin, a black history specialist who was also cited as a stakeholder, said initially he thought the situation was hilarious, but ultimately there are “concerns that my name would be attached to such a shameful document and used in such a way as veneer to give some sort of respectability to the report”. He claims he did not have any contact with the commission.
Concerns have also been raised by the interpretation of some of the research in the report. Kamaldeep Bhui, professor of psychiatry at University of Oxford and editor in chief of the British Journal of Psychiatry, had his research cited in the report, though he is not listed as a stakeholder.
“My view is that it’s really poor scholarship and really poor chairmanship and interpretation,” he said. “There are nuances, that’s no question. This is a difficult topic, but to be so ignorant of what institutional racism means is quite extraordinary.”
He added: “You can’t explain it other than people are just working backwards from their prior ideologies and assumptions and retrofit the data, which is why everyone’s upset because it’s obvious that the data says something else.”
He argued that across different intersectional influences, the right to race is not the only factor, “but it is an important contribution, particularly for those who are racialised, and to deny it is essentially disenfranchising the lived experience of whole sections of the population who already are marginalised, and they wonder why there’s this vaccine hesitancy and people don’t trust government”.
When approached for comment, the government confirmed Bourne participated in a 10 Downing Street event for Black History Month and said S.I. Martin was added to the report in error based on the invitation list to the event at Number 10, which he did not attend.
A spokesperson for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said: “The commission received 2,329 responses to the call for evidence. Of these, nearly 90% were received from individuals and academics, with 325 received from public and private organisations.
“These organisations – ranging from local community groups and charities, through to national professional bodies and unions – collectively represent a large and varied cross-section of the UK of millions.”
In response to the comments from The King’s Fund, the spokesperson added: “The commission engaged both directly and indirectly with thousands of researchers, analysts, stakeholders and members of the public to inform this comprehensive report. We have thanked them as a courtesy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment