Sheffield Race Equality Commission Report: Critique

Although we work with clients across the world, our roots are in Sheffield, England, and given the nature of our work, it is important that we share our thoughts on the recent Race Equality Commissions Report, and what it will mean for those engaging with race equity work in the City.

The Sheffield Race Equality Commission’s report on racial inequality in the city was officially released for public viewing on 14th July 2022, after two years of development. It is important to begin any commentary on this Report with an understanding of how it came to be.

On the 5th of June 2020, a series of email exchanges initiated by grassroot community activists, with organisational leaders and city councillors reflected on the dangers of silence and inaction in the city in light of what had been happening around the world and on our doorstep in relation to racial inequity. The exchanges spoke of feelings of unsafety and insecurity experienced by racially marginalised communities (the term BAME was used at the time) in the city and the need for immediate, responsive, and collective action.

It was agreed by all on the email exchange that commitments had to be made by City leaders and communities, and that only accountable actions would drive real change. That email resulted in further discussions within and outside of the council around the need for evidence, and as a result arguably the need for a Commissioned Report.

I begin with this context to stress how far removed this final Report is from those initial community- led calls to action.

To be or not to be anti-racist

The Commission’s finding that systemic racism is a significant problem in Sheffield that pervades all its major sectors; though not news to any of us who engage in this work, and certainly not to racially marginalised communities, is a fundamentally important statement to reaffirm on a public platform, when National Reports (Sewell) seek to deny this basic fact.

You cannot name systemic racism, without naming anti-racism as process by which to dismantle racism and racist structures, which the Report rightly does. The Report correctly states that anti-racism is to be proactive, unlike the phrase ‘not-racist’ which is passive. However, the Report does not explain what anti-racism actually is, simply arguing that there is no legal definition. In fact, the Report does not do enough to explain what racism is and how it functions in our city. The use of action- orientated language, without clear definitions, enable a false engagement with potentially harmful impacts.

You cannot name systemic racism without a mention of Whiteness, structurally enabled advantage (privilege), intersectionality and power, and there is little to no mention of these concepts in the Report. What is named in this report however is a superficial overview of the impact of Racism on those racially marginalised, with little acknowledgement of the historic and contemporary causes of these injustices.

When language obscures systemic causes, it impedes systemic solutions.

When we work with leaders who seek to consider how racism functions in their organisations, we work with them to develop their racial literacy first, and then to use that developing literacy to decipher how racism functions within their specific context. When they can identify how racism shows up in their organisation, they can begin the work of not only dismantling those structures and processes that disadvantage (and harm) those racial marginalized, but also begin to create a culture of learning, growth and community.

It is not difficult for any organization to claim to be anti-racist without doing the work.

The Report shows us a clear example of this.

“Some organisations have become anti-racist (e.g., Sheffield City Council or Sheffield City Galleries/Museums) and others have proclaimed a zero tolerance to racism (e.g., Manor and Castle Development Trust)” (Full Report, pp.54-55)

It is extremely dangerous for a Report looking at Racial Inequality in a City, to present a City’s Council and Museums as examples of anti-racist organisations, when these organisations have a legacy of racial injustice in the city with no evidence of systemic and structural anti-racist change.

 How can a Report set in place a recommendation that demands Organisations in the City BE Anti-racist within 36 months, without even explaining how that is possible, if at all?

Anti-racism is a process towards equitable change. It is not a destination. It requires the constant re/negotiation of power, the unlearning of assumptions and continual and consistent reflection.

An organization that commits to working in an anti-racist way, is an organization that commits for the whole of its lifespan. I am not sure where the measure of 36 months has come from, and what organisations are to be expected to have achieved by that point and this ambiguity leaves room for open mis/interpretation and the impossibility of accountable measure.

When language fails to shape action

Ahistorical and decontextualized language (whether it be about racial disparities, crime, or poverty etc.) focuses on a city’s challenges and minimizes its long-standing injustices. This leads to surface level actions that seek to target the symptoms, rather than the root causes, of those injustices.

This Report does no justice to naming the historic and contemporary injustices that are a lived intergenerational reality for many in our city. A failure to clearly present this context, enables a Report that reads as a simple call and response between a Council funded Commission and mainstream organisations in the city.

This Report does not present an honest account of the justified rage and frustration felt by those who experience racism.

This report is palatable to the majority. It does not seek to offend those in power. It is written for those in power, and in this City, that means it is written for the sensibilities of our leaders who are racialized as White.

Terms like ‘cohesion’ seek to diminish the identities and experiences of communities whose practices fail to assimilate to what is considered a ‘British’ way of life, often interpreted to be the way of the racialized majority. Not only is this language offensive, but it also places the onus on communities to change and not the environments and structures around them... a sentiment that seems to permeate throughout the Report.

Being anti-racist require us to sit and work with discomfort, as a minimum. Those of us who are racially marginalized and also engaging with anti-racist work, risk more than our discomfort… we risk trust, safety, security, income. At the very least, this call to action for a city should have been bold enough to speak the truth about our pain.

Optics over Accountability

The Report looked at 10 key themes and concluded with 7 overarching recommendations (34 action points). The recommendations and actions however focus primarily on data, and measures based on diversity and representation. Representation is extremely important in anti-racism work, but it is about much more than optics. If you seek to diversify your governance but do little to change the conditions of those environments, all you are doing is inviting people into a space that you are unwilling to change.

The report recommendations highlight the need to ‘involve’ those racially marginalized in developments, but there is no analysis of power here. As we have seen over the last 3 years (and longer), racially marginalized people are often asked to participate and even lead segments of ‘work’ on race in their organisations. This labour is often not resourced, capacity is not provided and most importantly, power is maintained by those racialized as White leading in these organization. This work isn’t easy, and the burden of responsibility should not lie with those who experience the impact of racism. Expertise, racial literacy and lived experience however, often mean that those racially marginalized are in fact the best people to lead on this work, but organisations need to recognize the weight of this work, support it appropriately and relinquish power where necessary so that change can be achieved.

Many of the recommendations in the Report are just too vague. They can easily be interpreted to mean that little more than a change in optics is needed and that in fact the only thing organisations will be held accountable for, are those optics.

Where do we go from here?

The Report also speaks of a legacy group, but again does not tell us what purpose this group will actually serve. The efforts of the Commissioners cannot be denied in this work, despite the flawed methodology and the final Report missing the mark. The commissioners are individuals from organisations and communities who are committed to change. They dedicated their time, expertise, and experiences to this process. I am sure any individual who puts themselves forward to be a part of the continuation of this work, will be equally committed.

It is very easy for this Report, as we have seen many times before, to be placed on a shelf and forgotten, and some may argue that it should. But I do think the conversation about what happens next, is an important one.

I think Sheffield relies too much on its 'radical', social justice driven past and we have not been honest enough about the failure of organisations and leaders in city to be just to the communities of people they serve.

I do not, in all honesty, think that this Report offers enough challenge, but I do think it can be used as a point of reference for understanding some (not all) of the impacts of racial discrimination in the city.

I am not sure what form such a legacy group would take, and I am not sure how they intend to hold organisations to account with such ambiguous recommendations. I am also not sure how dynamics of power will be managed when the very organisations the legacy group will hold to account, will likely be the very organisations that fund it.

I do hope that the next steps we take as a city involve a deeper, more honest account of systemic trauma and that we employ a methodology that clear, intersectional, community-led and accessible.

We must take what we can from this report, be clearer in our commitments and ensure accountability is embedded throughout our work.

You can read the full report here: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/rec-final-report_1.pdf

Written by Dr Muna Abdi