Institutional racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael. In the late 1960s, he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".[1]


Contents

[edit] Classification

Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic policies and practices within the institution, that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Certain housing contracts (see restrictive covenants) and bank lending policies (see redlining) are seen as forms of institutional racism. Other examples can include racial profiling by security and law enforcement workers, use of stereotyped racial caricatures by institutions (such as "Indian" mascots in sports), the under- and mis-representation of certain racial groups in the media, and barriers to employment or professional advancement based on race. As with the more general term of "racism", "institutional racism" carries with it a socially negative connotation which can make accurate classification contentious[citation needed].

Some have distinguished between institutional and structural racism. With the former focusing on the norms and practices within an institution and the latter referring to the interaction between institutions that produce racialized outcome. One of the things that is important about structural racism or structured racialization is that it cannot be reduced to individual prejudice or the single function of an institution. It is also important to note that once a structure is in place, it is likely to impact not just specific racialized groups but the entire population. Structural racialization also bring into focus many of the institutional arrrangements that are often identified as American exceptionalism such as the lack of a labor party, weak unions and a fragmented government system. Structural racialization borrows from system theory which looks at the interaction between institutions or entities and rejects reductionist thinking. There is a mutual and cumulative causation instead of a single cause. The use of the systems approach for structural racialization also call into question of rather race or class in the United States is more important. Instead, it suggests that there is an interaction between race and class and they have an impact both on institutional design and meaning.

[edit] Examples of institutional racism

Examples from U.S. history can help clarify the nature and effects of institutional racism.

  1. In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after retirement. However, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers, many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers were therefore not guaranteed an income after retirement, and had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth on to future generations.
  2. The U.S. property appraisal system created in the 1930s tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race. Thus, all-White neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and White people were eligible for government loans. Between 1934 and 1962, less than 2% of government-subsidized housing went to non-White people.[2]

These examples depend not on the individual, isolated, and idiosyncratic beliefs or biases of individuals, but rather on biases embedded in social structures and in institutions. Moreover, in the first example, no "race" was specifically named to be excluded from the Social Security Act, but the Act effectively allowed wealth benefits to accrue to certain racial groups and not to others. There need not be, therefore, any explicit intent associated with institutional racism in order for it to benefit certain races over others.

The use of standardized testing has also been termed institutional racism by some commentators, who claim that this kind of assessment is significantly biased towards people of a certain cultural and social background, with the supposed result that in much of the Western world racial minorities tend to score lower. Detractors of this view point out that the tests are usually intended to determine the aptitude of the candidate for the subject that is being tested, and if it so happens that a particular racial minority has a lower than average aptitude (just as if a particular racial minority has a higher than average aptitude) then that is simply a fact and as such cannot be racist, institutionally or otherwise.

Charges of institutional racism have been applied to other governmental, social, and educational policies as well. For example, institutionalized racism affects general health care as well as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) health intervention and services in minority communities. The over-representation of minorities in various disease categories, including AIDS, is partially related to racism. The national response to the AIDS epidemic in minority communities has been slow, showing an insensitivity to ethnic diversity in prevention efforts and AIDS health services.[3]

[edit] Institutional racism in the UK

[edit] In the Metropolitain Police Service

Further information: Stephen Lawrence

In the UK, the inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence found the investigating police force to be institutionally racist. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny used the term as a description of "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people.".[4] This definition is almost identical to that used by Stokely Carmichael.

The Macpherson Report, and the public reaction to it, were a major factors in decisions of the Metropolitan Police to address the issue of institutional racism.

Recently the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair has also called the media institutionally racist,[5] a comment which provoked a heated response from the media despite being welcomed by the Black Police Association.[6]

[edit] Institutional racism in Sri Lanka

 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (February 2008)
Further information: Black July

When the British conquered the island of Sri Lanka, they discriminated against the majority Sinhalese population (74% of the total population) because of their unwillingness to work for the British[who?]. The minority Tamils were easier to control than the Sinhalese, so they were granted an elevated status in Sri Lankan society by the British[who?]. The impoverished majority Sinhalese population suffered a lot of discrimination during the colonial period[who?]. When the British left the power went back to the hand of the Sinhalese majority[who?].

In Sri Lanka Tamils were discriminated at certain levels. In 1956, the Sinhalese government introduced 'Sinhala Only Act', which replaced English with Sinhalese as the official language of Sri Lanka. “Quotas” were introduced to stop Tamil students entering universities. LTTE terrorist attacks on the Sri Lankan army unleashed riots against Tamils living in South were to North and East of Sri Lanka. Huge number of Tamils fled the country for good leaving all their property and wealth behind.

In the late 80's, as a token gesture to blunt international criticism, the use of Tamil was permitted in the north and east of the island, where the Tamil homelands are located.

However, with the government and military, the use of the Tamil language in government has not been systematically reduced over the years. This was not an intentional eradication of a language as claimed by the LTTE.[citation needed]

A number of states including USA, UK, EU, India, human rights groups and media organisations have begun acknowledging that Tamil grievances do exist. Many[who?] have asserted a need to recognise Tamils’ fundamental rights - to live free from discrimination and language rights amongst others.

The most prominent recent convert to this ‘Tamil grievance’ position has been the United States, which in a promising step forward, acknowledged the legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil people.

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ "Analysing ethnic education policy-making in England and Wales", Richard W. Race
  2. ^ "Where Race Lives", PBS, 2003
  3. ^ AIDS and racism in America. Hutchinson J., Journal of the National Medical Association, 1992 Feb;
  4. ^ "Metropolitan police still institutionally racist", The Guardian, 22 April 2003
  5. ^ "Met chief accuses media of racism", BBC, 26 January 2006
  6. ^ "Met chief labels media institutionally racist", The Guardian, 27 January 2006

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Languages