Introduction
In July the residents of the picturesque city of York might have been surprised to see their home branded a place of “casual, systemic and structural racism”. It was claimed that the police unfairly discriminated against ethnic minorities in stop and search, that ethnic minorities were under-represented across the economy and public sector, and that there was plentiful race hate crime. Not only that but the report saying so, produced by little-known campaign group Inclusive Equal Rights UK, was endorsed by their own council. Could this really be true?
What did the report say?
The report - A Five-Year Anti-Racism and Inclusion Strategy and Action Plan for the City of York - is 52-pages of colourfully illustrated claims that York suffers extensively from racism and that the report’s plan is therefore necessary because “the evidence-based data reveals the non-adherence of the Human Rights Act 1998 which state “to treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect””. The basic claims made are that ethnic minorities are over-policed, under-represented (especially at the highest levels), and under attack from race hate crimes.
Yet the evidence base they refer to is in fact rather shallow. While they claim that the ethnic minority population of York in “approximately 14%” the census actually shows it is 7.2%. When challenged on this by the Daily Mail, IERUK revealed that they had only compared the number of ethnic minorities to the number of White British (86%) and not to the total number of white people of all backgrounds (92.8%). Naturally this has heavily skewed the figures and it’s hard not to see this as gaming the statistics.
It might seem unfair if 14% of the population made up 6.3% of the council workforce, 9.7% of staff at St. John York University, 7.5% of staff at York University, and 5% of the staff at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Mental Health Trust. However, compared to the real figure of 7.2%, it is clear that ethnic minorities are fairly well represented, being over-represented in some parts of academia and under-represented in health. When you factor in that many of these ethnic minorities will be the result of recent immigration then it is clear that there is no serious racial divide on employment.
Similarly, the report says that black and Asian people are much likelier than whites to be stopped and searched. However, out of the 1,843 incidents of stop and search, only 33 involved Asians, 24 Afro-Caribbean people, 21 Pakistani Asians, and 13 Africans. It is because there are so few ethnic minorities in York that relatively small numbers of stop and searches can deliver seemingly high levels of over-representation. IERUK also fail to take account of some obvious factors which might also contribute, such as ethnic minorities generally being younger, which means they’re likelier to attract police attention.
Another section of the report on personal experiences of racism claimed that ethnic minorities were altering their routines and habits to avoid “racist abuse”. Yet the abuse discussed was largely “racist language, attitudes, and behaviour”, which, while distressing, can be subjective and doesn’t involve physical harm. What’s more, the section was based on interviews of only ten people, six of whom worked at one of the universities. Such a sample is far too small to be meaningful.
Far from examining the evidence, too often the report seems to have decided on the conclusion and then gone looking for evidence. Sometimes it doesn’t even go that far. On page 8 the report claims, “York has had a minority ethnic population since Roman times. For instance, Black slaves were buried in the city in around 200AD…It has been suggested by one historian that at around that time, the population of York, largely a military garrison town, was predominantly Black”. Which historian? The report can’t or doesn’t want to say.
The recommendations make it clear that the intent is to transform York and practice massive preferential treatment (hardly the equal rights of the group’s name). These are to include: “A fully serviced, centralised, and resourced centre/facility led by BAME people which provides information and support to the BAME community” and a “centre for young people for the BAME community where they can gather, connect with one another, and feel a sense of belonging”. What’s more, York Council would “employ a Diversity and Inclusion team to ensure highlighted barriers are adequately addressed”, political parties are “to make…a priority of recruiting BAME candidates and consider establishing a Forum for BAME members” and to “identify an Equality & Diversity Lead”.
Political parties would also have to invest in “diversity training” for their councillors and invest in “positive action programmes” for BAME people. Teachers would have to develop and teach a “Black History Curriculum”, the ethnic profile of teachers must match that of ethnic minority pupils, teachers would get “unconscious bias training”, BAME “mentors and role models” would be engaged, more BAME teachers hired, and there would be “resources for more learning of Black culture through the curriculum, library and learning centre resources and wider enrichment activities”.
At this point it’s worth remembering that, while 7.2% of York is ethnic minority, black people only make up 0.7% of this (or 1.2% if you include mixed race people with some black ancestry). The extensive focus on the needs of black people is therefore highly disproportionate.
Interference in schools would be so great this it would involve overriding grades to ensure that ethnic minorities get into the schools they want. As the report puts it, they “heard from some parents…that minority students from deprived backgrounds or otherwise disadvantaged may be further disadvantaged by not being accepted by the college because of their grades rather than for example, looking at their educational trajectory or other special considerations”.
Nor does the list stop there. Other demands include “an independent racial inequality, review of Stop and Search”, a “lead Equality & Diversity Manager” to work on equality action plans, “annual mandatory cultural, sensitivity and unconscious bias training which includes a community listening and learning event”, “BAME representation on every recruitment & selection panel and promotion board”, the police being made to “collaborate with external groups, including IERUK, to share information and work together to address issues of racism and hate crimes in the area”, and “positive action programmes and pay audits by ethnicity” for BAME staff in the NHS.
Inevitably the report also calls for authorities to “examine the extent to which statuary, names of places, buildings tell a one-sided story of the contribution of people that have made to the mainstream account of the city’s history. This might include people and places such as prominent mansions funded by slavery proceeds, which may have had an impact in York, such as Harewood House and Thirkleby Hall”.
Who is behind the report?
IERUK is a fairly obscure organisation. On Twitter they have a mere 148 followers and on Instagram only 76 followers. Therefore it’s unlikely that they represent the ethnic minority communities in York. The leading figure is Haddy Njie, who runs Speak Up Diversity, which is a diversity, equity and inclusion consultancy. Their Instagram is equally small, with only 156 followers. Posts include supporting the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, attacking the Sewell Report for not finding enough racism in Britain, a quote from the notorious black communist Angela Davis, promoting books endorsing transgenderism, and a long rant about TV presenter Andrew Pierce for saying that when he looks at Meghan Markle he sees an attractive woman rather than her race.
Njie was behind the campaign to get York Council to pass a motion committing the city to become the North’s first “Anti-Racist and Inclusive City”, which was passed unopposed in October 2021 by members of all political parties. That motion called for the setting up of a working group to deliver the report previously discussed and for the council to “act swiftly to implement” it. Although not present in the final motion, the draft motion included the claim that “Britain’s economic wealth has historically been created through its slave trade and trading and processing of good that were either grown by slaves or stolen by the British from colonised people’ ancestral lands” and that “racism from its inception underpinned the nation’s social, political, and economic systems”. Both of these are untrue.
The report was therefore funded by York Council, to a total of £25,000, with IERUK launched at the same time. In an interview with the York Press, Njie discussed the racism she’d experienced in York. This “constant racism” included being “overlooked in queues”, “refused entry to a restaurant”, and people who “hold onto their bag or purse” when passing her. She claims this is worse racism than she felt in Huddersfield and London. In another interview she reveals the worst racism she had to face in York: “in June 2015, I experienced a life altering incident. Taking a taxi to the station, I suggested to the elderly white driver, a shorter route. He immediately stopped at the traffic lights, got out of the car, opened the boot to take out my suitcase, then opened my door, called me the N-word, and told me to get out of his car”.
Njie also reveals in that interview that her mother came to Britain from the Gambia on a scholarship and went on to work for the United Nations. Njie herself studied for a degree and then a Masters. She describes herself as “a privileged woman, highly educated, with a good job”, whose “aunties” work for the World Bank.
Comment
The Anti-Racist York campaign reveals how dubious the diversity industry is. Haddy Njie is, as she admits, a “privileged” woman, whose family have seemingly done very well out of Britain, despite the racism she decries. Her personal experience of racism is very thin indeed. The worst she has faced is a slur, which isn’t nice but equally is not something which can be prevented from ever happening. That this was seemingly a one off in eight years of living in York doesn’t seem to occur to her. The evidence of racism in York is even more slight, resting on dubious - if not manipulated- statistics.
There is also an obvious conflict of interests in someone running a diversity company while writing a report which inevitably finds problems and demands the council hire more diversity workers (like herself). The focus on black people, despite them making up a minority of the ethnic minorities also seems like a case of racial favouritism. The draft motion prepared by her diversity company make clear that she has an extreme view of British history, which sees the world entirely through a racial lens.
The report’s recommendations go far beyond any attempts towards equality, instead explicitly calling for “positive action” (i.e. discrimination in favour of minorities), the funding of minority assets for them alone, a massive programme of hiring minorities and placing diversity professionals in key places, and even forcing schools to overlook grades so that minorities can go to the schools they want (something unavailable to non minorities). In other words, far from equal rights, this is an attempt to reshape the city around providing additional rights for minorities, which effectively means racial discrimination against white Britons.