Acting to stamp out racism

The murder of Stephen Lawrence fuelled moves to crack down on racism.

Richard Kenyon looks at how the legislation affects public authorities

Legislation is rarely introduced to universal approval.

So, it is hardly surprising that grumblings appeared in the media well in advance of the 31 May 2002 deadline for actioning the 'specific duties' that have been placed on public authorities by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

It is true that the legislation opens possibilities for individuals to bring County Court claims of race discrimination in respect of public authority functions.

It is also true that the 'specific duties' imposed under the Act, which require public authorities to publish a race equality scheme and the results of ethnic monitoring, may provide a complainant with valuable data in support of a County Court or Employment Tribunal claim.

However, to understand the need for, and the value of, such legislation, it is important to understand its context.

The most dramatic catalyst for change was the murder of Stephen Lawrence and his family's campaign for justice.

Stephen Lawrence was murdered in 1993 in an unprovoked attack in a south London street.

He and the friend who was with him at the time were black.

The subsequent police investigation failed to result in a prosecution.

The Macpherson Report into the matters arising from his death dealt with racism in the Metropolitan Police and, in particular, 'institutional racism'.

This was defined in the report as: 'The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin.

It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.'

Crucially, the report highlighted unconscious or unwitting prejudice, equating its consequences to more overt forms of racism.

While we can all recognise racism in its jack-booted neo-Nazi form, we are much less able to recognise it in its subconscious form.

The language that we use may be unhelpful here.

The concept of 'politically correct' language aims to alter attitudes by altering language, but it may also mask attitudes.

Since we often equate racism with neo-Nazism, individuals are less likely to accept that they may unwittingly discriminate if they do not see themselves as stereotypically racist.

By creating a positive 'general duty' to promote race equality, the Act at least lays the foundation for change.

However, it is difficult to see how change may be realised without including the 'specific duties'.

Unwitting prejudice is, by its nature, difficult to identify.

The specific duties require certain public authorities to publish a race equality scheme.

Unlike an equal opportunities policy, this is not a document that can be downloaded from the Internet, stuck on a staff noticeboard and promptly forgotten.

The process of producing a race equality scheme requires a public authority to analyse what its functions, policies and proposed policies are, and how they are relevant to the general duty of eliminating racial discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting good relations between persons of different racial groups.

The specific duties for employment require, among other things, ethnic monitoring of employees and job applicants.

The data produced through the specific duties may, in the short term, make or may not make uncomfortable reading for public authorities.

Butt it should identify any areas, whether in employment practices or in any of the functions of the public authority, where race equality matters can be improved.

The influence of the Act may also trickle down to the private sector through good practice in the public sector and through the public sector demanding best practice from its private sector suppliers and partners.

If the Act improves race equality, it will be of benefit to all of us.

Richard Kenyon is head of the diversity team in the employment group at City-based Field Fisher Waterhouse

l See Feature