Institutional racism

Following a discussion of institutional racism on this site last month, I sent an email to CURE seeking their perspective on the problem. I asked what information they had on the existence of institutional racism in Bermuda and whether any investigations had been done to determine which institutions were affected.

CURE executive officer Myra Virgil sent me a lengthy response, which I had been planning to incorporate into a column on the subject. Since I've now taken a step back from the column, however, here's what she had to say:

Let's begin with a common definition. Institutional racial discrimination can be understood as a subtle form of racism that exists in systems. It is imbedded in policy and its effect is to maintain the power, influence and well-being of one racial group over another. The key word in this definition is that it is subtle. Even the most complex of investigatory techniques are inadequate to flesh it out, let alone substantiate its existence in such a form palatable to the larger community.

I'd say the other key word in that definition is "effect". Institutional racism does not have to be deliberate and conscious.

One of our stakeholders once said to us, as her working definition of institutional racism, "if you look around, and everyone around you looks and sounds the same as you, then you or your organisation is practicing some form of institutional discrimination".

That's an interesting definition, not least because it could be applied to the PLP too.

The major institutions in Bermuda are white-owned or ultimately, white-powered. This outcome is historically designed. Without very concerted efforts to include people of colour, the racial make-up of the workforce is unlikely to change (as people tend to be more comfortable with others who look like them).

In practical terms, institutional racism could sound like this:

1. "This position requires 8 years experience" (when a survey of industry professionals indicate a necessity of 4); or

2. "We require the XYZ qualification and the TWZ" (and it just so happens that Joe work-permit holder, here, has those exact qualifications and has been with us so he is more familiar with the business); or

3. "Oh, you mean you only have the TWZ- sorry" (the job description has changed since last year and we now require this additional qualification).

And more, for example, every year, employers tell us that they can not find black Bermudians to take on certain positions. Yet, when we ask them if they have put in place a succession plan or training program, so
that the future looks different, there is very little being done.

We have heard too many black Bermudian professionals tell a story of taking on quite senior positions in organisations, and getting none of the grooming that is afforded to white people, often white ex-patriated workers. This grooming, which truly is a model for success, involves ensuring that the employee is part of the decision-making process that has implications for the jobs they do. That "coaching/mentoring" process sees the employee getting appropriate introductions and connections to the people who will make a difference in their success. There are networking and mentoring activities that go on in Bermuda, from which blacks report being specifically excluded. They report not being introduced to the people they need to meet to effect change and to move up. They report that their white counterparts do get these connections made for them.

Although people claim there is an even playing field now and all access to opportunities is equal, it's not yet true. Black people are not starting form the same starting positions as whites, Bermudian or otherwise. Few black people have cushions of wealth, generational experience, business ownership, etc. At this point, what people are really saying is that there are no known barriers to stop blacks from gaining entry to "opportunity". However, there are very many clever ways to exclude people in seemingly legitimate ways.

So, while you ask about evidence of institutional racism, there is very little overt evidence. Qualifications and job requirements can be tweaked to ensure that a pre-selected candidate is appointed to a position. Employees can be made to feel so excluded that they become disenchanted, disengaged and ultimately leave positions. Employees can be treated in such subtle and different ways, that while their gut feelings are that the treatment is race-related, to compile enough "evidence" to make a declaration is impossible. So these situations go relatively unchallenged. However, the evidence of a degree of institutional racism is in the statistics.

Rather than talk about investigating institutional racism, which essentially asks the question, "Is this happening in my organisation?", people might be better served to ask the question, "How is this happening in my organisation?".

So to answer your question, investigations or inquiries into the presence of institutional racial discrimination are tasks that we undertake, more with a goal of understanding and exploring, rather than consequencing- at this point. CURE conducted 20 such inquires with employers in 2004. Note however, that CURE queried both employers with poor levels of representation, as well as those that were excellent. The objective being to explore problems but also explore what works!

There were over 15 recommendations that came out of this process and to which any community members should read and attend. It's a joint responsibility.

In response to a question about whether any research has been conducted into the causes of the salary discrepancies between black and white Bermudians, Ms. Virgil said:

Any executive or human resource person worth their salt can devise what appears to be an objective pay scale grid that results in differential pay outcomes, based on qualifications and experience. We are fairly certain that to attempt to ascertain and "prove" that the salary differentials are race-based, is an exercise in futility. And of course, there are so many ways to award employees without appearing discriminatory on the face of things (housing allowances, relocation allowances, travel bonuses, private school fee supplements, etc.)

In conclusion:

We know institutional racial discrimination is present in the workforce, as well as some very real incidents of overt discrimination. It is both intentional and conscious and unintentional and unconscious. But the critical activity that has to occur is IMPROVING rather than PROVING it. Improving the outcomes for racial inclusion and the protection of human rights is about helping people understand and commit to a philosophy of equality of opportunity. And this is where CURE has placed its emphasis- the education, the awareness, and encouraging the difficult and courageous dialogues.

Comments

[Git on 01.11.05 at 15:23]

44-40,

Dilute the opposition vote and you may be looking at another half decade of this BS. Careful what you wish for...

[jake on 01.11.05 at 16:23]

First you say they are anti-white and then you criticize them for running a white candidate in an overwhelmingly white constituency.

loki, I know you believe this stuff at heart, but I think it is sad that you do.

The truth is that there have always been a few brave souls in the white community who have ventured over to the PLP.

The truth is that they were ostracized and rejected by their own community, hence stemming any potential tide.

The truth is that there are some PLP members who would prefer an all black party.

The truth is that they are in a minority, and that most black people have moved on long ago, and want the PLP in place, not as a punishment for whites, but as a protection from the abuses of the past. It may be irrational for those of you who buy into the "new" UBP message, or for whom the black faces in Parliament mean something, but most black Bermudians - without prompting from Ewart Brown or Alex Scott - don't think those guys will give the black population a fair deal. That is why they return the PLP to Government.

Your comments about black leadership being crackpots and similar comments from others like corrupt black racists help only to reinforce the mistrust.

It is over-the-top and only seems normal in the company of other likeminded people on this anonymous weblog.

Until you stop painting us all with the same brush it is empty to ask us to do the same.

[44-40 on 01.11.05 at 16:23]

You have to start somewhere, mate.

[silencedogood on 01.11.05 at 16:33]

It is over-the-top and only seems normal in the company of other likeminded people on this anonymous weblog.
Posted by jake on 01.11.05 at 16:23

If this was a shot at me, I would clarify that I stated Calvin Smith is a crackpot who is in the PLP leadership, not all their leaders. I stand by that. Independence + WWII comparisons = crackpot in my book.

[blovator on 01.11.05 at 16:41]

One thing should be said - the CURE statement that Limey posted is an unussually careful and useful document. Its definitions are clear and on the whole its assesments are correct. I would quible with some of its assumptions but for a government document it is remarkably informative. Its not badly written either.

[loki on 01.11.05 at 17:16]

"Your comments about black leadership being crackpots......"

I have said no such thing - that was someone else.

"Until you stop painting us all with the same brush it is empty to ask us to do the same."

I am not for a second suggesting that all PLP members are bigots. Far from it, in fact. I am saying that the PLP is an institutionally racist organization, which it is. If any corporate institution had the exact opposite racial make-up of the PLP and similar publicly expressed sentiments by those at the top of the hierarchy (and a complete lack of publicly expressed dissent by those lower down the hierarchy), that organization would be rightly accused of being institutionally racist.

"First you say they are anti-white and then you criticize them for running a white candidate in an overwhelmingly white constituency."

If they were serious about integrating the party, why would they put their only white candidate in a constituency where no PLP candidate would ever win, given the PLP leadership's anti-white rhetoric, and the overwhelmingly white population of the constituency in question?

[loki on 01.11.05 at 17:29]

Jake, I should add that my opinion of the PLP as an institutionally racist organization is of relatively recent vintage. I do believe that the current hierarchy and, to a lesser extent, the hierarchy in place from 1997-2003, is responsible for the attitude of most whites towards the PLP. I certainly don't recall racially inflammatory and divisive tactics being employed in the Freddie Wade era of the PLP. Mr Wade struck me as a decent and principled man, genuinely concerned about social justice and racial equality. From what I know of the man (and I don't pretend to be an expert, by any means), I would bet that he'd be appalled at the power-hungry, racially divisive and self-interested culture that seems to dominate the upper hierarchy of the PLP these days. In all honesty, can you imagine Freddie Wade employing the kind of disgusting tactics and vile racial rhetoric employed by the PLP of late?

[It Doesn't Matter on 01.11.05 at 17:37]

This thread has become 'funny reading'.
If you all would admit that the economic foundation in Bermuda is inherently racist in its structure, management and organization; if you all would admit that it is harder for black men, in particular, to become successful in Bermuda because of the numerous hurdles placed in that man's way; then I would be happy to say (if only for your benefit) that the PLP is an institutionally racist organization.

No harm no foul.

I've noticed Bermuda's latest trend: suggesting that whites are being oppressed by blacks. For some time that has been the focus on this site, as well as in other parts of the Island.

You can't deny that institutional racism exist. You can't deny it because you claim the PLP is an institutionally racist organization.

I think many people need to reach for their dictionaries.

[Nicolette on 01.11.05 at 17:54]

"You can't deny that institutional racism exist. You can't deny it because you claim the PLP is an institutionally racist organization." - while entreating others to check their dictionaries, perhaps you could squeeze in a little logic lesson.

Institutional racsim has nothing to do with how you "brand" the PLP. Back to school for you!

[Phil on 01.11.05 at 17:56]

jake

The truth is that they were ostracized and rejected by their own community, hence stemming any potential tide.

Speaking for myself, even if I shared the ideology of the PLP, the biggest reason I would not join them is because of my perception of their hostility to whites. It would not be because of what my friends, family or other whites would say.

The truth is that they are in a minority, and that most black people have moved on long ago, and want the PLP in place, not as a punishment for whites, but as a protection from the abuses of the past.

Who is perceived as perpetrating those abuses: whites, or members of the UBP?

If the former, does this mean, then, that only certain whites (those perceived as wanting nothing to do with the abuses of the past) would be welcomed in the PLP? If so, who would be welcomed and who would not?

If the latter, why are the PLP not trying to recruit those whites who have no association with the UBP?

Where, for example, is the white working class Portuguese representation in the PLP?

silencedogood

I don't believe Calvin Smith is in the PLP leadership any more, is he?

All

I don't want this thread to bog down in a discussion of institutional racism in the PLP. Other institutions are also affected, e.g. the education system. Let's talk about them too.

[Nicolette on 01.11.05 at 17:58]

And, what's more - of course institutional racism exists as does institutionalized sexism and reverse discrimination in Bermuda to greater or lesser extents. We have come a long way and are far, far better positioned in many of these areas than other "civilized" nations - to say we have made no progress and that nothing has changed or to blame all failures on the possibility of discrimination is a slap in the face to every civil rights leader, every leader since MLK had a dream.

[Phil on 01.11.05 at 18:06]

It Doesn't Matter

This is not a zero sum game.

I don't think most people here are denying that institutional racism against blacks exists. I know that in recent weeks, since watching Crash and listening to Tim Wise, I have become more conscious of the mechanisms by which institutional racism is perpetuated. But I do believe it's mostly subtle and subconscious.

In contrast, the institutional racism I see in the PLP is more overt and deliberate.

But perhaps that's because I am white. Perhaps you see things the other way round.

[loki on 01.11.05 at 18:10]

"All

I don't want this thread to bog down in a discussion of institutional racism in the PLP. Other institutions are also affected, e.g. the education system. Let's talk about them too."

I agree, but I think the point is that whites wouldn't have quite the kneejerk reaction to discussing racism (institutional or otherwise) directed towards blacks, if there was any sincere acknowledgement of racism directed towards whites. For instance, it's difficult for me to take the PLPs pronouncements on race terribly seriously when I view them as being incredibly institutionally racist. Similarly, I have been the victim of overt racism (rather than institutional racism), in that I was hounded out of a job by a black office manager who made no bones about the fact that she wanted to remove all the whites in favour of blacks. Does this happen to blacks? Certainly, but don't pretend that the white population has the monopoly of vile behaviour and bigotry.

[blovator on 01.11.05 at 18:12]

It Doesn't Matter

There can be no doubt that there is institutional racism in Bermuda. This effects both white and black. Niether the PLP nor the UBP has made any attempt to formulate a program of action to address the issue. They are quite pathetic.

As for blacks, no institutional racism is as glaring, embarrasing and disgusting as the education system. The UBP severely damaged the dept of ed, bloated it and left it without a national agenda or purpose. It is 25% more expensive than private education.

The lower classes were to embrase the destiny thier lesser education set for them. The rich would go to private schools. This policy was confirmed by the actions of MPs themselves when they declined to enroll thier children in the schools they with apparent pride, bestowed on the public. Since most people in the lower classes are black - according to the CURE definition - this is instititional racism.

The PLP has pretty much left the educational system as they found it. Draw whatever meaning you wish from that.

The real fault is that of the Bermudian voting public of all races and all classes. Public education simply is not important to them. Even when they pay 25-100% more for what they get and what they get is lousy. How can you expect politicians to care if Bermudians in the main, don't.

[blovator on 01.11.05 at 18:13]

BTW - I use the CURE definition of institutional racism without irony. I think its pretty good.

[Phil on 01.11.05 at 18:20]

I'd like to thank Myra Virgil for making an electronic copy of the "From Survey To Practice" document referenced above available to me. You can download it here.

The 15 recommendations referred to by Ms. Virgil can be found on pages 14-15. They are as follows:

1) Industry umbrella groups should play a greater role in heightening awareness about careers and jobs in their respective industries. Secondary students entering the job market must be made aware of the fields that are available in Bermuda. Publications such as the Annual Employment Survey can assist secondary students with career choices, needs and job availability and therefore should be distributed.

2) Companies need to conduct qualitative surveys of employee perceptions. They need to understand what the employees think of the organization, its policies on racial diversity, and fair access to opportunity. This process is a critical step towards practicing equality of opportunity.

3) A database of current and future job seekers (students studying locally and abroad) could be devised as a human resource tool and resource for job seekers.

4) Current equality of opportunity practices, directions for improving racial representation and fair access commitments must be documented and communicated to all employees. Every employee should be aware of where the company stands and where the company is heading, on equality of opportunity as a whole and race equity specifically.

5) Companies that recognize that there is a shortage of qualified individuals in a particular field need to convey this message to the Department of Education so that current students who will enter the labor market in the future are aware of the opportunities and where they are most needed.

6) Counselors must work with students who will be entering the labor market train them on how to conduct themselves professionally and teach them the interviewing skills needed to get the “job”.

7) Employers should conduct exit interviews 6 months to a year after an individual leaves (rather than at the same time as their departure) their employment - employees who leave are not likely to be frank about their reasons for leaving if they are dependent on references and preserving good relationships. In exit or post-employment interviews, instead of asking, “Why are you leaving?” ask, “What made you think about leaving”.

8) Managers and Supervisors should be evaluated on the basis of how well they have managed diversity and contributed to the recruitment, promotion and retention of Bermudians, on a whole, and Black Bermudians, specifically. They must be made to account for how they manage and promote successful relationships with people of different races - specifically their relationships with employees and between employees. Most businesses will agree that if there is no form of evaluation of individual efforts to promote equality of opportunity; very few will make it a priority. Even if a Manager were doing very little to promote racial equality, if this person knew they were going to have to report on and document their initiatives, he or she would be more likely to take positive action.

9) Greater emphasis should be placed on training for students who are more inclined to a “technical” curriculum. Bermuda continues to have a great need for students trained in the trades (carpentry, masonry, drafting, etc.).

10) Employers should aim to establish an internal Equality of Opportunity/ Code of Practice Advisory Committee to include Executive, Managerial and Operational employees from across the organisation. The members would be responsible for establishing the organization’s starting point, reviewing procedures, educating on discrimination, its manifestations and outcomes, and monitoring the progress in achieving the objective of representation.

11) Employers must ensure that they have drawn up clear and justifiable job criteria, which are demonstrably objective and job-related. The job criteria should not change when a position becomes available and there should be no clear link between the required experience for a post and the resumes of select individuals.

12) Rewards and recognition incentives can be put in place for those who facilitate the valuing diversity and the demonstration of cultural competence.

13) Employers may offer pre-employment training, where appropriate, to prepare potential job applicants for selection tests and interviews.

14) Employers should also consider special programmes and positive action training to help employees, less represented in the organisation, or from disadvantaged groups, to apply for jobs and to take on tasks in areas where they are underrepresented. This might mean selecting Bermudians for augmented training and experience in overseas offices and training facilities. These opportunities should be consistently offered with the intent of bringing Bermudians back to Bermuda to take on true leadership roles and commensurate tasks. Some employers have already implemented such programs and report great success.

15) More emphasis needs to be placed on the cost of retention and local recruitment versus oversees recruitment. This attention includes reviewing salaries to ensure that they reflect market. There may be room for employers to reward their local employees better, for there have been some reports that newcomers to positions garner better compensation packages than longer term employees, simply as a consequence of oversight of the current-day salary levels.

[SmokingGun on 01.11.05 at 18:37]

Unfortunately Limey the whole issue of IR is something that is very much at a point where it needs to be addressed in many various institutes and environments. The whole gist of "subtle" implementation is very true. It's there, it's everywhere. We all are guilty of supporting it and we are all victims of it. Wether we know of it, like it, dis-like it or are just plain oblivious to it.

As in all matters in life, there has to be some sort of accountability. If Bermuda truly wants to move in the direction of destroying IR then the very people that must lead the way must live, breath and spend every day showing they are willing to abide by the same rules. If the PLP is the current leadership of Bermuda then they must lead the way. It all starts at the top.

The trouble is it is a double edged sword because now that the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, can the current and new generations of Black Bermudian's resist the temptation of being exclusionary as they change policy or re-write laws. Or do they really not think they have reached any sort of real equality as of yet. In my opinion IR will be around in it's subtle form for many years to come but as long as people are willing to look around and ask why then one day at a time we might make some serious head way against it.

And as has been said, no-one owes a Bermudian anything just because they are Bermudian. Black, White or anything in between. We still have to work hard and prove ourselves as individuals and if it's a labour issue it should go to the labour board, not CURE.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 01.11.05 at 18:37]

Limey,

"Ask yourself why whites haven't joined the PLP in any significant numbers.

Whether accurate or not, there is a perception of the PLP as being hostile to whites. If this is inaccurate, I believe the PLP should be trying to correct that perception..."

Whites have not joined the PLP in any significant way because the PLP is perceived to be a black party. Further, history has shown that when whites do join the PLP they are questioned by their racial peers for their actions. That in itself lends to part of the perception of the PLP being hostile toward whites.

The fact is, the PLP does not have a closed door policy regarding any race. The same perception was once held for many of the dinghy clubs in Bermuda but the perception of many of them changed when blacks who were interested applied for membership and were accepted. The clubs themselves did not change but the perception changed because those of colour who were interested joined they found the perceptions to be just that perceptions.

Most, sorry, many whites are not interested is trying to understand the PLP philosophy so they choose to stay away. Many whites do not want te perceptions they hold of the PLP to change and they perpatuate tat in their discussions about the PLP.

I would be the first to agree that the PLP has made some mistakes, some of them stupid mistakes, however, since they have been the government the historical conservative nature of Bermuda has not changed, which says that the policies of the PLP are not that much different from those of the UBP. However, there are still those who have a perception that things have changed drastically.

That being said, most of the perception of the PLP being hostile toward whites is due to the race of its MPs. But if whites refuse to participate in the PLP the only faces you will see are black faces because in order to have any success a political party must present candidates during elections.

Sure, some of the parties MPs and supporters have made what could be cassified as racist statements but these comments do not represent the party as a whole. For example, am a supporter of the PLP but I don't think I show any signs of being hostile toward whites.

Sometimes if you want to see change you have to create change not sit idly by hoping change will occur. If whites decided to join the PLP they would be welcomed with open arms just as the few who have done so have been.

[blovator on 01.11.05 at 18:51]

GG

you clearly do not live in Bermuda, am I right? Do you know people in the PLP? Have you heard them talk? I don't think you are talking about the same PLP I know.

[Rev. Goat on 01.11.05 at 19:45]

GG, you are living in La la land mate. Is your memory so short you can't even remeber what the Premiere said last month. I do believe he was "sick" of whites. Don't you remeber Renee Webs "look like me" remark. Open arms my ASS!

[Full Fullish on 01.11.05 at 19:49]

Guilden -
I think the point isn't that white people aren't going out of their way to join, it's that the PLP aren't doing anything to try and promote white participation. You go on about instatutionalised racism, well sir, here is the first example (From the description of the cure reply above) that I've seen. The PLP is the first place that I can point to and say without a doubt "Here is a prime example of instatutuinalised racism". Ironically (A word that "P" has been using a lot lately) it's not a white establisment.

[Rincewind on 01.11.05 at 20:07]

"That being said, most of the perception of the PLP being hostile toward whites is due to the race of its MPs"

Damn and here I was thinking it was because of some of the things they said.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 01.11.05 at 20:30]

Rincewind,

Whites not joining the PLP did not start with the current leadership. From its inception whites have not joined the PLP. Whites calling the PLP a racist organisation is nothing new. Blame Alex and Co. all you want but let's look at the history of white membership in the PLP when trying to find the reason why there so few white faces in the party.

Blovator,

I do not need to live in Bermuda to know that historically whites have shown no interest in joining the PLP. Being born and raised in Bermuda in a politically aware home I have followed Bermuda's political landscape for many years.

[Rincewind on 01.11.05 at 20:49]

Guilden,

why is it the PLP doesn't make itself available to all Bdians? How do they encourage racial unity? The history of the island should not continually affect us now aren't we supposed to learn from past mistakes? What the current leadership of the PLP does affects us now, so in what ways do they try to recruit new white members? What do their actions and comments say to BERMUDIANS NOW?

[blovator on 01.11.05 at 21:01]

Limey

I tryed to get it on to education. I tryed. GG put it back on the PLP. I swear.

[Nicolette on 01.11.05 at 21:26]

Thanks for publishing the 15 reommendations, Phil.

After reading the comments on this thread though it appears that little of the valid message that the excerpts provided to us via Phil and Ms Vigil has been digested. Instead this has become a repetitive rendering of the bleeding obvious. Without doubt and imagination one can safely point accusing fingers at the one blatant example of black IR - namely the PLP. What is far more challenging and productive is for me look to those institutions that I grew up in, became members of and worked in (and in some cases still do) to see the more subtle, but no less destructive propagation of white preference. How useful and even valid is it to flog a horse that died long ago while leaving its fetid smell...

There's a far deeper issue being discussed here that asks us to look into our hearts, minds and institutions and see where we can make a change to foster a more level playing field and ultimately a better place to live and raise children who naturally embrace diversity and not fear it - where neither colour, race or sex determine who has power and who does not. IMO, many members of our current government are simply behaving like the racists they used to and still do denounce - perhaps believing they are justified in doing so to somewhat make up for past injustices. Does that make it right or fair - hell no. But, when you look over time we should not be all that surpised as, after all, very very few individuals who have gone down in history as true champions of beneficial change, the "saints" and role models of the past - well, they weren't politicians.

[Turtle on 01.11.05 at 21:47]

Well said Nicolette.

Pay attention, you lot!

[silencedogood on 02.11.05 at 12:08]

silencedogood, I don't believe Calvin Smith is in the PLP leadership any more, is he?
Posted by: The Limey | 01 November 2005 at 21:56

Limey--I'm not chained to titles. If a person is perceived as speaking for a significant proportion of a party, officially or no, I consider them to be at a minimum an ideological leader.

Calvin Smith is in the RG beating the drum for independence and serving a function for Alex Scott and the PLP leadership who have echoed many of the same types of comments in regard to independence. Possibly less to no control over the content of his message, but I consider him a leader nonetheless.

It works both ways, I would consider John Swan to still be an ideological leader of the UBP because many recognize him as such and when he speaks, they listen. The fact he holds no official post only relates to how much weight you give to his comments when attributing them to the party at large.