Fat Off The Backs Of Blacks?

 

It is not new news that Black pupils are at greater risk of exclusion than their counterparts.  Regular statistics from The Department for Education (DfES) and the schools inspectorate (Ofsted) prove this fact unequivocally.

 

What might not be so readily known however, is that under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, schools have to explain this discrimination.

 

The response to this article will be linked to genuine commitment to dealing with discrimination irrespective of any discomfort felt about issues raised.  This can be measured in part, by an ability to resist shooting the messenger in favour of listening to the message.

 

The social inclusion rhetoric is part of the New Labour discourse and as a key concern led to the establishment in 1997 of a Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit.

 

In recent years there have been a flurry of publications around equality.  The publication ‘Aiming High: Raising The Achievement of Minority Ethnic Pupils’ and ‘Every Child Matters’ a government green paper published following the report on the death of Victoria Climbie, highlight issues that affect the lives of young people who may be considered at greater risk of exclusion because of their heritage.  These reports provide the evidence that discrimination exists and must be confronted.  The McPherson Report that investigated the murder of Stephen Lawrence opened up the debate about institutional racism and the more recent unintentional discrimination.

 

Discrimination affects everyone regardless of whether you consider yourself to be a feminist, liberal, pan African, humanitarian, disabilities campaigner, pacifist or some other social construct.  The extent to which you benefit from discrimination is raised in this article.

 

Raising the matter may evoke all sorts of reactions depending on your resolved or unresolved relationship with discrimination, and the extent to which you are able to engage in debate without resorting to the ‘chip on your shoulder’ get out clause.

 

Regardless of how difficult it is to provide evidence of discrimination, it is an issue that requires attention because, as stated earlier, it affects everyone indirectly but in terms of the Black family, it makes a direct hit.

 

In an attempt to tackle the issues raised in the aforementioned publications, huge amounts of money have become available through private sector, lottery, regeneration social funds and other funding streams.

 

The government periodically releases funds for evaluations, training, publicity campaigns and a number of other activities.  Organisations are set up, departments are restructured and advertisements appear in publications and websites.  But where does the money go?

 

There has been a huge awareness push for ‘Valuing Diversity’ in private and public sector recruitment with the appointment of hundreds of professionals with a ‘diversity brief’.  The sponsorship logos appear as part of a marketing drive that slips into corporate social consciousness.  The renumeration packages appear quite attractive and of course, career wise, it may look good to put Manager, Executive Officer or better still Director of Diversity on a CV when looking for another appointment.

 

In addition, an attractive pay package and the associated perks, can also pay for a comfortable life style.  Flexible hours, raised networking profile, first class travel to conferences and substantial expenses.

 

But what does it mean?  How can it be measured?  How far does the organisation empower and enable the person with the diversity, achievement and inclusion brief?

 

Is it simply a case of ensuring all adverts are placed in the media of the target population, or slapping the ‘valuing diversity’ logo on recruitment material?  Perhaps it is about having an exhibition stand at recruitment fairs or cultural exhibitions?  Or, having a few friends from the Black community who can provide credibility and add endorsement to a claim of widening participation and tackling underachievement in schools?

 

The government Aiming High consultation document discussed how money should be spent to raise achievement of African Caribbean young people.  The current ‘widening participation’ drive includes trying to get initiatives going that will increase the participation in education of communities that may not be able to easily access the opportunities of mainstream society. 

 

Although I should not have been surprised, it struck me as being highly suspicious when my recent attendance at a national widening participation conference tipped the balance from an all white audience to mixed. 

 

Delegates were from education authorities throughout England and Wales with the brief to affect widening participation.  As I was the only person of colour present, it suggests to me that the widening participation and aiming higher government led initiatives, which promote the ideology of collaborative working, are failing miserably.  How people who are not members of and do not experience the challenges faced by certain communities expect to understand and tackle the real issues that impact on the very population it seeks to reach if it is not representative?

 

The first evening I dined alone in a huge restaurant that was absolutely buzzing with delegates attending the several conferences which were all taking place over the same few days.  I was clearly invisible and during this time I saw one other African who was rushing and managed to say hello whilst on the fly.  All the diners were white European and the catering staff was oriental except for the supervisors who were also white Europeans.  After delivering a conference paper on inclusive education, I magically became visible.

 

When I enquired, a fellow conference delegate who told me she was the ‘Head of something or the other’, and went on to confidently inform me that when advertising she couldn’t get anyone of colour with the necessary experience and qualifications.  As a professional with a human resource development background, I wondered about training needs analysis and other ways of widening participation.

 

 Up and down the country, there are conferences, debates, and publications taking place on the issue of underachievement of African and African Caribbean young people.  Marketing campaigns, graphic designers, printers, conference organisers, caterers the list goes on.

 

The issue I raise in this article is not strictly about colour, because there exists in all communities unprincipled individuals ruthlessly making money off the backs of Blacks on their knees.   It simply asks the question, who reaps the benefits of the huge amounts of money being ploughed into the area of discrimination, exclusion, underachievement and neglect of young people?

 

Perhaps the biggest culprit is the professional beneficiary with their huge budgets and personal agenda for individual acknowledgement who is accountable to no-one.  The number of egos that are massaged in this arena is obscene, as is the nature of the relationships between who is successfully applying for funds such as Excellence in Cities and Childrens Fund monies and the fund holder.

 

It would be interesting to discover the amount of people African, Asian and Europeans who through personal gain live very comfortably because they are paid handsomely and get recognition and rewards from being weekday ‘compulsive conference-going associates’ of inclusive, widening participation rhetoric born out of the adverse circumstances of people less fortunate than themselves. 

 

How many of these paid professionals go that extra mile without pay to make a difference to the lives of the very population that provides the funding stimulus for their job?  Who are they accountable to?  What is the nature of their relationship with the people they favour financially? 

 

Are the successful individuals and organisations sufficiently networked to support the communities they are funded to help or are their networks intimately social?

 

Now that would make interesting research.