The Macpherson report was an inquiry carried out by Sir William Macpherson into the death of Stephen Lawrence. In his inquiry Macpherson reported how “Institutional racism played a part in the flawed investigation by the police”[1] and he concluded in his report that the police investigation was undeniably sabotaged by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism, and a failure of leadership by senior officers. In addition, Macpherson exemplified how institutional racism was more than likely to be ingrained into the fabric of all other organisations, not just the police force, as he expressed how “it is incumbent on every institution to examine their policies and outcomes of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities”.
The Macpherson report tried to deploy the concept of institutional racism in a well-defined manner as opposed to what was first established in the Scarman report of 1981. When it came to the understanding of police racism Lord Scarman left an ambiguous legacy, he drew attention to the impediments of police racism as he did acknowledge that “racial prejudice does manifest itself occasionally in the behaviour of a few officers on the streets” but he wholeheartedly denied the overall existence of institutional racism within the police force specifically in society as a whole. When asked ‘if Britain is an institutionally racist society’, Lord Scarman replied by saying:
“if, by [institutionally racist] it is meant that it [Britain] is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject the allegation. If, however, the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration, and, where proved, swift remedy”[2].
On a philosophical level Scarman had effectively reduced institutional racism to that of black perception on the one hand, and personal prejudice on the other, shifting the struggle of anti-racist from the state to the individual. Thus, Scarman reflected on the view that a few ‘racist’ police officers infected the broader organisational milieu and tainted a what would otherwise be a non-racist institution
However, this all changed when the Macpherson report was published, as Macpherson had broken the concept of institutional racism with cultural explanations and remedies, away with individual definitions and ethnic identity and thrown the spotlight on the workings of institutions instead. He made 70 tangible recommendations for tackling police racism, investigating and prosecuting racial incidents, interacting with victims’ families and educating young people out of racism. In short, the Scarman report had solely been about managing ‘them’, the problem. Whereas, the Macpherson report insinuated that ‘we are the problem’ and that shamed the nation into action.
As indicated previously, prejudice is something that individuals are socialised into. As it can be shown through the examination of how white police officers only meet members of the black community in confrontational situations, which in turn enables them to stereotype them in general. A representative of the Black Police Association (BPA) advocated how they should not underestimate the occupational culture within the police force as this in turn leads to negative views and assumptions of black people. The root of this problem lies with their lack of contact with the black community outside of their workplace. This was proven to be the case when compared to white officers who knew that not all white people were suspects, due to the fact that they meet a diverse demographic of non-white criminals outside of the police organisation, they do not impose their restricted views onto them as they do to people of BME origin. Subsequently, the breakdown of relations between the black community and the police was down to issues of power and the fact that it had been completely ignored. As the police were only willing to listen to those who agreed with them and would act as their supporters, the others who held different views to them were ignored as they had little incentives to listen to those who were not considered to be politically powerful.
Within the police service, the concept of racism is often associated with the similarly potent concept of ‘canteen culture’. This is the colloquial name for the informal talk amongst police officers away from the public eye, which validates discriminatory banter including racism, sexism and homophobia. Waddington (1999) proposed that the concept of canteen culture became notorious due to its ‘condemnatory potential’. He comments on how its existence “is a rhetoric that gives meaning to experience and sustains occupational self-esteem”[3], which then reintegrates into the way that police officers dignify their work, which often might be seen as ‘dirty work’. The suggestion that the police service represents the ‘thin blue line’ between social order and chaos has been expressed in different ways at various times since the establishment of the modern police force. The way in which such perspectives on the roles of the police in society became racialised came to fruition in the early 1970’s, during a period in where social deviances were associated with black youths. This ideology was implemented through various media platforms, such as news programs, radio shows, and newspaper articles. Media images then associated BME groups such as black youths as being muggers, the media accelerated this process by reporting social anxiety which then led to a moral panic which then resulted it becoming much harder for them to disassociate themselves from this stereotype, avoid the police and lead law-abiding lives.
Professor Simon Holdaway, of Sheffield University, believes that the widespread of racism is due to ‘occupational culture’ of police work, which forces all police officers to conform to a white status quo[4]. He strongly believed that racism became more subtle and more underground. He carried out various interviews with officers of White, Asian and Black origin. Among those persons he interviewed was a white officer who said “Bobbies used to talk in West Indian patois or refer to ‘niggers and pakis”. When he was asked whether an Asian officer might find this offensive he replied “Yes, but it was all right because he wasn’t Asian, he was white really”. An Asian officer recalled how when it came to black people the police saw them as trouble makers, drug dealers, robbers and nothing else, whereas with Asians they saw them as fighting, streetwise wogs. Another officer, of black decent, said how he finds more racism in the force and amongst his colleagues than he has experienced in his entire life, and in order for him to do his job properly he has to endure the racism. This explicitly shows how this so called cop culture is directly linked to, the aforementioned, institutional racism, and how these practices are what fuels and maintains the existence of institutional racism.
Consequently, the Macpherson inquiry has come under considerable amount of criticism for its lack of precision about the mechanism, process and relationships through which institutional racism is generated and maintained. While the inquiry tried to focus on institutional rather than individual processes of disadvantage, these are difficult to differentiate as they are not always conceptually distinct. As institutions are not refined entities but emerge from taken for granted ways of thinking, working together and taken for granted categorisations and self-definitions of identity. Thus, making the identification of particular actions problematic as they are generated by institutional rather than individual processes.
Another important factor that Macpherson missed out on is the symbiosis between institutional racism and state racism. As it is the State that imposes through its immigration and asylum laws, its administration of public services, and its Crown Prosecution Service; which sets the tone for race relations in society. So it cannot be seen to be so content in the eradication of institutional racism in public bodies when at the same time its sneaking in racist immigration and asylum laws, restrictions on jury trials and proscription of specific refugee organisations in legislation against terrorism, all of which affect those of Black and Ethnic Minority backgrounds the most. Therefore, you simply cannot combat popular racism without combating state sponsored racism, which gives popular racism its inspiration.
Above any other precipitating factor in contemporary British policing, the use of institutional racism as a concept within the Macpherson inquiry has been responsible for concentrating efforts on the problem of discrimination within public institutions and policing services. According to recent reports it would appear, as the inquiry had intended, that the use of the concept has radically transformed the terms within which debates about racism occur throughout institutions.However, critics also noted how the term has become diluted and how it’s more of a signifier on a broad range of issues that relate to ‘race relations’. Due to mainstream adoption it is no surprise that the term has lost some of its mobilising potency, with some arguing that institutional racism is no longer considered a policy priority. This then enables policies and regulations, that may be seen as being too archaic, to be kept unchecked which may result in further discrimination being implemented by authoritative figures such as the police.
Regardless of the matter, the use of the term ‘institutional racism’ within the Macpherson inquiry appears to have generated a powerful response. As police officers, of all ranks, across the UK reported that since the publication of the inquiry there had been an enormous shift in what they called the canteen culture of years ago. As there was an acute sensitivity following the matter where language that was deemed inappropriate would receive harsh disciplinary consequences. However, this type of discrimination was selective as one officer explained how there was a hierarchy of tolerance when it came to what was deemed to be acceptable and what was not. For example, it was still acceptable to make homophobic remarks, sexism was a touchy subject as some people were guarded against it, but when it came down to racism it was seen as being taboo. The anxiety that was described by officers who indicated the intensity of surveillance in the aftermath of the inquiry. As they finally understood that their language could be defined as being racist despite what their intentions were. As a result of this, most officers were put on edge after the publication of the Macpherson report as it clearly established where the lines should be drawn, which in turn increased the intolerance towards racist language within the organisation. This then resulted in there being somewhat of a confusion as to what was deemed to be acceptable, as racism, sexism, and homophobia were all once a part of cop culture.
Historically shown, the attention that was paid to racist language in the aftermath of the inquiry was not symptomatic of a decline in racism but was purely cosmetic, as any change in people’s attitudes merely reflected in the belief that if they spoke their mind they would get into trouble. Suggesting that this type of racial discrimination is still adamant in the police force but it merely went underground.
The Macpherson inquiry was well aware of the problem yet it failed to set up and adopt a radical policy approach directed at the structure and organisation of policing institutions, and the relationship between police officers and BME people. In the area that the inquiry failed in, British Left-Realist Criminologist John Lea lays out far-reaching structural change in operational policing. He highlighted the need for a developed system of police accountability, where elected representatives have the authority to determine the priorities of policing, especially those enquiries that have a heavy effect on BME groups[5]. This would then allow ethnic minorities, despite their lack of economic power or political status, to contribute to their settings of police goals and be taken seriously by the police as a constituency.
The question of whether or not institutional racism within policing has in-fact decreased since the publication of the Macpherson report does not seem to be the case here. As on the one hand, the past twenty-two years has seen a huge shift towards combating race relations in the UK, with both public and private sector bodies enabling race awareness training to expel prejudice from their workplaces. Ultimately, the Macpherson inquiry called for the abolition of both individual and institutional racism and as much as it tried to do this, it is far from being the egalitarian society it wants to be. Racism is institutionalised due to it being embedded within the prejudices of society, and it’s those prejudices and internalised psychological feelings that allow racism to be legitimised.
Professor Chris Mullard, one of the UK’s leading academics on race relations, stated that institutionalised racism is not something that you can get rid of in just 10 years, he expands on how institutions can become ‘deracialised’ and that is what we have been seeing as opposed to it being eradicated[6]. As the Metropolitan police force is now a complete different organisation than it was at the time of Stephen Lawrence’s death, former commissioner of the MET, Bernard Hogan-Howe, proclaimed how the institution is adapting to the diverse society that is contemporary Britain and how the Met is committed to challenging and driving out any racism within its ranks.
However, there was a dramatic intervention by Scotland Yard’s Black and Asian officers who claimed that, on the eve of Stephen Lawrence’s death, the Metropolitan Police force is still institutionally racist. The BPA believes that the police practices and procedures are still institutionally racist, as they suggest the MET failed to tackle the mind-set at the heart of the organisation which simply cannot be solved by doing a course on race relations. Superintendent Leroy Logan, chair of the MET BPA charitable trust, said before the force can rid itself from being institutionally racist, it must first tackle the continuing disproportion in the treatment of BME Londoners[7]. He conveyed his dismay at issues of stop and search powers and its disproportionality within the BME community as he suggested that many people suspect the police are involved in racial profiling. This wouldn’t be a surprise as it was already established how people of Middle Eastern and South Asian origin are profoundly monitored by counter-terrorism officers and how black people, especially black youths, are targeted by the police when it comes to stop-and-search as they are six times more likely to be stopped than their white counterparts, this is further enforced by the media as they portray these groups as being radical terrorists, thugs, muggers and total outcasts which feeds into the stereotypes that police officers have of BME groups.
The racial divide, however, is not very visible when compared to that of twenty years ago, as it is suggested that equality legislations have forced racist behaviour to go underground. This is one of the critical reasons as to why discrimination is still present within policing organisations. As race relation policies and equality legislatures discourage abhorrent types of behaviour there can be no way that institutional racism can ever be eliminated as it has to be visible for any person or organisation to take action against it. Social geographer Gill Valentine revealed that people who do not agree with equality legislation, develop a way of subverting what they see as political correctness, and are very bitter about the fact that their workplace has become so highly regulated in terms of language and behaviour.[8] Suggesting that there is a liberal culture where everything is discussed and solutions are made and a racist, homophobic, and sexist subculture in the UK, where both discourses are scrutinised through public platforms such as Twitter but left undressed in the workplace, where it is most needed. Which in effect puts anti-racist organisations into a false comfort zone where they believe arguments against prejudices no longer need to be made, as it was mentioned previously how terms such as institutional racism have in-fact lost their mobilising potency in policy reforms. Therefore, it is not enough for pubic authorities to simply make race equality part of their functions as this simply leads to the formulation of hidden discrimination. There should be heavy scrutiny and open discussions on policies especially those that have a greater impact on BME groups, and if this is not happening organisations will therefore not know whether they serve different groups unequally or not.
With this being said there also needs to be some type of principal body that keeps police reforms a priority as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE) is not enough to keep officers in check as it is the leading power which enables racial discrimination through its use of stop and search powers. There needs to be an intention by the current government to establish a Metropolitan Police Authority which will give thought to police accountability, and link the issue of accountability with the expulsion of institutional racism, this notion was welcomed and backed by Macpherson.
References;
[1] The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report (1999) in, The Life and Times of Institutional Racism. Race & Class, [online] 43(2), pp.7–22.
[2] The Brixton Disorders (1981) in, The Life and Times of Institutional Racism. Race & Class, [online] 43(2), pp.7–22.
[3] Waddington, P.A.J. (1999) in, Institutional racism and police reform: an empirical critique. Policing and Society, [online] 24(1), pp.1–21.
[4] Bennetto, J. (1999). Canteen Culture: The Language Of Bigotry. [online] The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/canteen-culture-the-language-of-bigotry-1175592.html
[5] Lea, J. (2000). The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, [online] 39(3), pp.219–233. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2311.00165/full
[6] Casciani, D. (2009). BBC News — Analysis: Institutional racism dead?. [online] News.bbc.co.uk. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7838071.stm .
Gov.uk. (2015). Police workforce, England and Wales: 31 March 2015 — GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2015/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2015
[7] Muir, H. (2013). Metropolitan police still institutionally racist, say black and Asian officers. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-black
[8] Mason, P. (2014). Would it be better for society to let bigots openly say what they think?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/16/better-society-let-bigots-say-what-they-think-racism-homophobia
