Name: UK GOVERNMENT, RACISM, AND THE RACE DISPARITY UNIT at the LSE
Start: 2024-06-15T15:00:00+01:00
End: 2025-11-08T18:00:00+01:00
Location: LSE Old Building

UK GOVERNMENT, RACISM, AND THE RACE DISPARITY UNIT at the LSE

The Imperative for Clarity: Redefining Race Disparity Audits and the Call for Reparatory Justice at the LSE
About this Event
Event Photos

The Imperative for Clarity: Redefining Race Disparity Audits and the Call for Reparatory Justice

In recent years, initiatives like the African Diaspora Equity and Justice Alliance (ADEJA) have emerged, seeking to address historical injustices and promote reparatory justice for marginalized communities. However, the effectiveness of such efforts is hindered by the lack of clarity and understanding surrounding race and ethnicity, particularly within government institutions like the Race Disparities Unit established by the UK government in October 2017.

ADEJA, in its quest for endorsement and recognition, faces a challenge from the government's stance on endorsing stakeholder organizations. A representative of the Cabinet conveyed that the government does not formally endorse such organizations, suggesting instead that ADEJA might find alignment with the work of the Race Disparities Unit. This interaction sheds light on broader issues regarding the government's approach to addressing racial inequality and the need for clarity in terminology and methodology.

The Race Disparities Unit's efforts to tackle racial inequality are commendable, yet there are glaring discrepancies in its approach. The unit's reliance on terms like "race" and "ethnicity" interchangeably without clear distinctions contributes to confusion and misinterpretation. The use of the British Police IC codes further complicates matters, as it classifies individuals into broad categories that may not accurately represent the complexities of race and ethnicity.

IC1 (White Northern European) is not an ethnicity,

IC2 (Dark Southern European) is not an ethnicity,

IC3 (Black) is not an ethnicity,

IC4 (Asian) is not an ethnicity,

IC5 (Oriental) is not an ethnicity,

IC6 (Arab, Mixed-Race, Middle Eastern) is not an ethnicity,

IC7-9 (Unknown) is not an ethnicity.

The Race Disparity Audit's failure to differentiate between race and ethnicity is a serious flaw that undermines its efficacy. By predominantly focusing on ethnicity and neglecting race, the audit fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of racial disparities. This lack of clarity perpetuates confusion and hinders efforts to address systemic racism effectively.

Moreover, the confusion between race and ethnicity is not merely a semantic issue but a matter of national security. Identity plays a crucial role in shaping societal dynamics, and misunderstandings or misrepresentations of racial identity can lead to social unrest and division. Therefore, the government's failure to clarify these terms poses a significant risk to the stability and cohesion of the nation.

To rectify these shortcomings, there is an urgent need for a proper race disparity audit that accurately captures the nuances of race and ethnicity. Such an audit must use terminology consistently and differentiate between race and ethnicity to provide meaningful insights into racial disparities. Additionally, the government must recognize the importance of addressing reparations for historical injustices related to race and colonialism. Reparatory justice is inherently linked to race and cannot be adequately addressed within the framework of ethnicity alone.

In conclusion, achieving racial equality and justice requires clarity, consistency, and a commitment to addressing historical injustices. Initiatives like ADEJA highlight the importance of recognizing and rectifying past wrongs, but their effectiveness hinges on the government's willingness to acknowledge and address the complexities of race disparity. By reforming the approach to race disparity audits and prioritizing reparatory justice, we can move closer to building a more equitable and inclusive society for all.

Race causes an initial confusion

By Lindsay Mackie
Wednesday 14 June 1978

The man who answered "human race" when asked to what race he belonged would get short shrift at West End Central police station, London. For there human classifications have achieved an elaborate formality, as a bemused magistrate heard yesterday.

Giving evidence in a begging case at Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court, WPC Linda Nicholls said that she saw the defendant stop an IC1 in the street. What, enquired the magistrate, Mr St John Harmsworth, was an IC1? Amid laughter the WPC explained that it was part of a code: "An IC1 is a white man, an IC2 is an Italian, and an IC3 is a West Indian." When WPC Nicholls reverted later in the evidence to more traditional language and said that the defendant had also stopped an Italian, the magistrate, warming to the theme translated: "An IC2".

Police language has long been famous for its cumbersome style, although on this occasion the WPC did not resort to the time-honoured "proceeding in a northerly direction". But the magistrates' court did not hear the half of it.

The Metropolitan Police are addicted to codes. Yesterday a police spokesman explained that police stations themselves are referred to in code. Thus West End Central, in copperese, is CD, Paddington Green is DD, and Kingston upon Thames is actually VD.

Coding of humans is a more sensitive matter and, although no one appears to have told West End Central - sorry, CD - about the change, Scotland Yard, which started to classify arrests in racial groups in 1975, dropped the RC (standing for race code) more than a year ago and replaced it by a system of "Identi-Coding" on a one to six scale.

It is difficult to encompass the world with six groups but the Metropolitan Police assign "white-skinned European types - English, Scottish, Welsh, Scandinavian and Russian" to IC1; "dark-skinned European types - Sardinian, Spanish, Italian" to IC2; "Negroid types - Caribbean, West Indian, African, Nigerian" to IC3; Indians and Pakistanis to IC4; "Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Siamese" to IC5; and "Arabians, Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans and North Africans" to IC6.

A spokesman at West End Central was unable to explain why WPC Nichols found it necessary to race-code a victim rather than a suspect but he did say that the police used their "own internal language". He would not give examples because they might be controversial. The police are not alone in their difficulties. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys has not yet devised a question which has been accepted by everyone on how to ask people about their ethnic origins for the 1981 census.