Words by Azryah Harvey
Racial literacy is the cornerstone of effective anti-racism work – and if you want to be literate, there are some things you should know.
A few weeks ago, the charity Mind posted a thread on Twitter and a post on Instagram offering support to those affected by the death of Chris Kaba. It was neutral, non-accusatory, and not even remotely contentious (not by my standards, anyway). But of course, racism reared its ignorant head, and the police sympathisers were frothing at the mouth.
Mind went into damage control, PR took the wheel, and a thread – twice as long as the one for Chris Kaba – was written, profusely apologising for the offence caused and ensuring the public (by public I mean the white majority) just how much they do really care about police officers. What started off as a solid attempt at anti-racist advocacy was, very quickly, derailed by yet another case of white fragility.
Now, before I continue, I would like to stress that this piece is not for the sole purpose of criticising Mind. From what I could glean from their website, their efforts to tackle racism and become an anti-racist organisation are sincere. I do, however, believe that their ‘police lives matter’ thread was indicative of where they currently are in their anti-racism journey and I will be using them as a case study to make my point.
The reason companies are starting to use the language of anti-racism, as opposed to EDI, is because the ruse is up (and of course there are some who actually care). You can’t lump race, disability, LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality and neurodiversity together and expect everyone to be grateful for the ‘inclusion.’ Organisations recognise that repudiation of the bare minimum is growing, and they understand that more and more people are prioritising morality over money. While this shift is welcomed and necessary, I would like to remind these organisations of some of the challenges they’ll face on their anti-racism journey.
You have to be prepared to p*ss some people off
You can not be anti-racist and please everyone: it is impossible. In fact, if no one is upset, defensive or offended, you probably aren’t doing it right. Anti-racism, at its very core, is oppositional and will naturally call people’s entire worldview into question. So, while I understand that Mind has a brand to protect, and tweets accusing their charity of ostracizing the entire metropolitan police force can’t make for the most soothing night time reading, you don’t get to call yourself anti-racist if you are not prepared to remain steadfast in confronting an institution (or its minions) that is routinely oppressing black men, women and children with impunity.
Those in the highest positions will frequently get it wrong because those in the highest positions are mostly white.
Considering what we know about racism (or should know, as competent adults with the capacity to read in 2022), it should come as no surprise that, in 2021 research by Green Park revealed, of the top 3 positions of Chair, CEO and CFO only 6.2% are held by those racialised as Black, Asian and other non-white minorities. What’s even more disappointing, but certainly not surprising, is that the diversity of senior leadership within the sub-sectors of Health, Mental Health & Disability; Housing & Social Care; and Justice & Welfare is significantly below the overall average of 8.1%. Now, while I acknowledge my scepticism and potentially biased perception, the non-existent ocular representation of the senior management team on the Mind website – who I’m certain are all white based on my impeccable detective work on google and LinkedIn – contrasted against the beautiful portraits of the more diverse board of trustees leads me to suspect they know it doesn’t look good. And this is pure conjecture, but I think the utter lack of any diversity at that level (white women absolutely do not count) is to blame for their ‘back the boys in blue’ thread. I don’t know any of the thread authors personally, but once Mind sounded the “white is right alarm”, it became clear, either the first thread was purely performative, or someone who yielded greater power and influence got spooked, folded under the pressure, and made a mistake. The thread highlighting their work with police wasn’t necessary: one, because it undermined the one they wrote for Chris Kaba and two, those who responded negatively don’t actually care about the truth, they want to maintain their delusion that the Metropolitan Police aren’t institutionally racist and Black ‘criminals’ deserve to die. Although I don’t think that was their intention, it demonstrates the racial literacy those with decision-making power have. They should have simply ignored the fallout from the original thread because prioritising the hurt feelings of those who do not understand the complexities of racism or the Met’s relationship with Black communities in London is why conversations about the issue are rarely fruitful.
Not giving white people all the power, is a pre-requisite to giving equal power to Black, Asian, and other non-white people.
According to Mind’s website, they are aware that “the deep-rooted inequalities in society and in the mental health system are also found within Mind.” And they communicated that they “will invest in building an inclusive organisational culture with diverse leaders.” I can only hope that they, along with all other organisations who are committed to anti-racism, understand that relinquishing their positions of dominance is necessarily required to create space for the Black, Asian and non-white leaders they say they so desperately want and need.
If Mind – and other organisations – do so happen to read this, I’d like to be clear about the main takeaway: if the right people, with the right experience, are in the right positions, threads like the one shared in this article won’t be written and we can prevent causing greater harm to the people we are trying to protect.