Should the Church condemn 'institutional racism'?

 

“There is no doubt when we look at our own Church that we are still deeply institutionally racist. Let’s just be clear about that.” 

It is no small thing for an Archbishop of Canterbury to accuse his own Church in such strong terms. I imagine that the exact nature of accusation remains mysterious to many Anglicans. When asked to define ‘institutional’ or ‘systemic’ racism, one typically receives an answer along the lines of ‘it’s racism built into the system’ , which is hardly illuminating. 

A document just published by the Church of England’s ‘Anti-Racist Task Force’ does offer a definition, which it borrows from the much earlier MacPherson report on racism in the Metropolitan Police: 

 “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.” 

This definition is reasonably clear on a number of important points, namely the identity of the perpetrators of institutional racism, i.e. ‘organisations’ rather than individuals, and its effects, i.e. ‘disadvantages’ for minority ethnic groups. Interestingly though, it is ambiguous as to the role of racist ‘attitudes’ and intentions. Does an institution actually need racist individuals within it, in order to be racist? Or not? The wording of the definition seems to imply the latter – ‘racist stereotyping’ is apparently listed as a possibility, rather than a necessity. But this is admittedly unclear. 

Fortunately, the MacPherson report itself clarifies the matter, in a passage included just before the above quote: 

 “Institutional racism is the process by which people from ethnic minorities are systematically discriminated against by a range of public and private bodies. If the result or outcome of established laws, customs or practices is racially discriminatory, then institutional racism can be said to have occurred. Although racism is rooted in widely shared attitudes, values and beliefs, discrimination can occur irrespective of the intent of the individuals who carry out the activities of the institution” (emphases mine)

Unequal ‘outcomes’ or ‘results’ are thus not only a necessary but a sufficient condition for institutional racism. In particular, racist ‘intent’ is explicitly not a necessary condition. 

This echoes both academic and popular definitions of the term. For example, leading anti-racist scholar and activist Ibram Kendi tells us that “racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups” (cf. How to Be an Antiracist, p.18). Similarly, sociologist David T. Wellman maintained that “the essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception, but rather the defence of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race”. In both instances, the outcomes of the practises are all that is said to be relevant. In the second, the relevance of racist beliefs, desires and intentions is expressly denied (many more examples here). 

This ‘consequentialist’ understanding of racism is reflected throughout the CoE document, which treats the low minority ethnic representation in Church leadership as definitive proof of institutional racism. Many will no doubt praise the Archbishop and his Task Force for taking a stand against injustice. I have no wish to question the motives of anyone involved. Even so, I am convinced that the Church is taking a wrong turn, for the following reasons. 

An incoherent concept 

Obvious examples of racist institutions include race-based slavery and Jim Crow Laws, both of which were rooted in racist convictions and prejudice. As we have just seen, the relevant concept of ‘institutional racism’ does not require this at all; negative outcomes for ethnic minorities are all that matters. 

As it happens, the logical impossibility of a ‘racism without racists’ is easily demonstrated. Consider the following thought experiment from philosopher Jorge Garcia: 

“Suppose, for example, the government of a hostile planet, free of any bigotry toward any Earthling racial group, but unenamored of all Earthlings, launches a missile to destroy the Earth. Suppose it lands in Africa. This institutional (governmental) action has a disproportionally adverse impact on Black people, but it is silly to describe it as racist. (It remains silly even if the aliens decide to target all their attacks on the same continent-ay, because its size or subterranean mineral deposits make it easier for their tracking systems to locate-and the effect thus becomes ‘systematic’.)” 

If an institution can be ‘racist’ just as long as it generates unequal outcomes, even if the individuals within it lack racist motives, it follows that the extraterrestrial government in the above scenario is racist. But this is obviously ridiculous. Therefore, is no such thing as ‘institutional racism’ as defined above, for the same reason that there are no square circles: a racist action logically requires a racist motive, just as squares logically require four angles. 

 A Church professing to believe in the transcendent Logos should know better than to peddle incoherent concepts, even if they are fashionable. We are to be full of grace and truth, and neither should come at the expense of the other. 

This alone would be reason enough to dispense with the concept. Unfortunately, there is worse.

 Consequences for doctrine 

In a section entitled ‘Theology’, the CoE document specifically tells us of “theological frameworks which entrench racial prejudice across the Church of England’s traditions and doctrines”. Notice that Church doctrine and theology is being targeted here, rather than simply Church policies or leadership. The authors express the hope that “alternative theological paradigms which facilitate diversity, inclusion and equity” will be embraced by the Church. 

Frustratingly, they do not tell us which parts of Christian theology are to be discarded, or what we ought to replace them with. But they do indicate the single criterion by which doctrine is to be evaluated: namely, the extent to which it hinders or promotes “diversity, inclusion and equity”. 

This is puzzling, to say the least. In formulating doctrine, surely our primary concern ought to be with truth, not with practical benefits. Truths of all kinds (religious, moral, scientific etc.) can and have been used to nefarious ends – that doesn’t make them any less true. Similarly, ‘noble lies’ are still lies. 

Given the concept of institutional racism at work in the document, it is no surprise that the authors should adopt this approach. Indeed, if racism is necessarily bad (which it is), and your religion is racist just in virtue of perpetuating disadvantages for ethnic minorities, then it follows that your religion is bad and needs to be changed. 

Take, for instance, the orthodox Christian belief that Christianity is the one true faith, and that other religions are deficient, since they deny or ignore important truths. There is obviously nothing inherently racist about this belief. It is equally obvious that holding it can sometimes give rise to and/or maintain religious, cultural and, tragically, ethnic arrogance. If your ‘tribe’ largely accepts some deeply important fact while another tribe does not, there is a chance that you will think less of members of the other tribe, human nature being what it is. Scripture repeatedly excoriates these prideful attitudes, which threatened the unity of the Early Church (cf. Romans 2-3). And so should we. 

Being aware of these realities should not lead us to deny that the Christian Gospel is absolutely true, any more than it should cause us to rethink our condemnation of female genital mutilation or pedophilia. But given their chosen methodology, what is to stop the Church’s Anti-Racist Task Force from ‘problematising’ any claim to Christian particularity as institutionally racist? 

Nothing, as far as I can see. Progressive evangelicals in the US routinely equate Christian missions with colonialism. Time will tell whether the Church of England is to follow in their footsteps.