Latest news with #RunnymedeTrust
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The cult of multiculturalism has failed Britain
British multiculturalism did not start when HMT Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in 1948. Nor did it begin in the 50 years after the end of the Second World War. When Enoch Powell rallied against immigration in his 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968, 98 per cent of the UK population was white British. Before the latter half of the 1990s, immigration played a marginal role in the mainstream life of our islands. The 'year zero' of multiculturalism was 1997. Tony Blair's election in May that year marked the start of a new Britain; the nation has changed profoundly since. This might sound odd. We are used to hearing about the Huguenots of the early modern period and the Jews of the late 19th century. But migration to Britain was relatively insubstantial until the late 20th-century. In the 50 years between 1945 and 1995, net migration to this country was less than one million. And much of that number was from the 1990s; before then, more people left the UK than came in. In the 30 years since 1995, net migration has risen to around eight million. But 1997 was significant for another reason. The Runnymede Trust, an anti-racist think tank, established a commission to explore the diversity of the British people. Its remit was 'countering racial discrimination and disadvantage' and 'making Britain a confident and vibrant society at ease with its rich diversity'. The commission's findings – known as the Parekh Report – were published three years later, to controversy and acclaim. Home Secretary Jack Straw described it as 'the most important contribution to the national debate on racial discrimination for many years'. We are still living in its shadow, 25 years on: the debate around two-tier policing; the use of positive discrimination by West Yorkshire Police to hire ethnic minority officers; the grooming gangs scandal; the Gaza activists reportedly instructing Muslim people to vote on the basis of a foreign conflict thousands of miles away rather than on domestic issues. All of this needs to be seen in light of the statements and contradictions at the heart of the Parekh Report. On the one hand, it rejected positive discrimination as a solution to racial inequality. The chairman of the commission, Bhikhu Parekh, stated: 'The report rejects quotas, positive discrimination and all attempts to give any group a privileged treatment.' What it strove for, it insisted, was, 'fairness, equality and common belonging as the necessary basis of a just, plural, rich and self-confident Britain'. It didn't argue that British identity was in itself racist. It was more nuanced. It argued instead that 'Britishness has largely unspoken, racial connotations', and that we should be more inclusive of how we define British identity: black British and Asian British people belong just as much as anyone else. All of this sounds admirable. But it is not the whole story. The commission also argued that we should think of Britain not as a unitary nation, but 'as a looser federation of cultures', or a 'community of communities'. And that we should formally declare ourselves to be 'a multicultural society'. The report was correct to note that diversity, widely defined, is a fact of life. But the report presented diversity not simply as a reality, but an ideology to which we must adhere. Multiculturalism stopped being the same as people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living together, but about emphasising the differences between them. This gave credence to a kind of cultural relativism: if an ethnic minority practice is morally offensive to most of the population, on what basis can that practice be questioned? Shouldn't we practice 'tolerance'? The multiculturalism the report celebrated sealed communities off from each other, rather than bringing them together. It is impossible to generate belonging out of thin air, and it must be grounded in something deeper than 'values' when values are always evolving: a white British person of 1945 would find the 'values' of a white British person in 1995 alien. The world the report aimed to describe has come to pass. Ethnic minority people now play a major part in British life, from politics to popular culture. Their successes at school and at work are a remarkable achievement of which Britain should be proud. But are we a nation at ease with diversity? Compared to our peers in Europe, the answer is yes. We should not, however, be complacent. The riots last summer suggest things are far from rosy. We have acquired a multicultural nation in a fit of absent-mindedness. Britain is more than a collection of communities or a set of abstract values. It is a place with a history and traditions. Unless this is accounted for, the dream envisioned by the Parekh Report will turn into a nightmare. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The cult of multiculturalism has failed Britain
British multiculturalism did not start when HMT Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in 1948. Nor did it begin in the 50 years after the end of the Second World War. When Enoch Powell rallied against immigration in his 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968, 98 per cent of the UK population was white British. Before the latter half of the 1990s, immigration played a marginal role in the mainstream life of our islands. The 'year zero' of multiculturalism was 1997. Tony Blair's election in May that year marked the start of a new Britain; the nation has changed profoundly since. This might sound odd. We are used to hearing about the Huguenots of the early modern period and the Jews of the late 19th century. But migration to Britain was relatively insubstantial until the late 20th-century. In the 50 years between 1945 and 1995, net migration to this country was less than one million. And much of that number was from the 1990s; before then, more people left the UK than came in. In the 30 years since 1995, net migration has risen to around eight million. But 1997 was significant for another reason. The Runnymede Trust, an anti-racist think tank, established a commission to explore the diversity of the British people. Its remit was 'countering racial discrimination and disadvantage' and 'making Britain a confident and vibrant society at ease with its rich diversity'. The commission's findings – known as the Parekh Report – were published three years later, to controversy and acclaim. Home Secretary Jack Straw described it as 'the most important contribution to the national debate on racial discrimination for many years'. We are still living in its shadow, 25 years on: the debate around two-tier policing; the use of positive discrimination by West Yorkshire Police to hire ethnic minority officers; the grooming gangs scandal; the Gaza activists reportedly instructing Muslim people to vote on the basis of a foreign conflict thousands of miles away rather than on domestic issues. All of this needs to be seen in light of the statements and contradictions at the heart of the Parekh Report. On the one hand, it rejected positive discrimination as a solution to racial inequality. The chairman of the commission, Bhikhu Parekh, stated: 'The report rejects quotas, positive discrimination and all attempts to give any group a privileged treatment.' What it strove for, it insisted, was, 'fairness, equality and common belonging as the necessary basis of a just, plural, rich and self-confident Britain'. It didn't argue that British identity was in itself racist. It was more nuanced. It argued instead that 'Britishness has largely unspoken, racial connotations', and that we should be more inclusive of how we define British identity: black British and Asian British people belong just as much as anyone else. All of this sounds admirable. But it is not the whole story. The commission also argued that we should think of Britain not as a unitary nation, but 'as a looser federation of cultures', or a 'community of communities'. And that we should formally declare ourselves to be 'a multicultural society'. The report was correct to note that diversity, widely defined, is a fact of life. But the report presented diversity not simply as a reality, but an ideology to which we must adhere. Multiculturalism stopped being the same as people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds living together, but about emphasising the differences between them. This gave credence to a kind of cultural relativism: if an ethnic minority practice is morally offensive to most of the population, on what basis can that practice be questioned? Shouldn't we practice 'tolerance'? The multiculturalism the report celebrated sealed communities off from each other, rather than bringing them together. It is impossible to generate belonging out of thin air, and it must be grounded in something deeper than 'values' when values are always evolving: a white British person of 1945 would find the 'values' of a white British person in 1995 alien. The world the report aimed to describe has come to pass. Ethnic minority people now play a major part in British life, from politics to popular culture. Their successes at school and at work are a remarkable achievement of which Britain should be proud. But are we a nation at ease with diversity? Compared to our peers in Europe, the answer is yes. We should not, however, be complacent. The riots last summer suggest things are far from rosy. We have acquired a multicultural nation in a fit of absent-mindedness. Britain is more than a collection of communities or a set of abstract values. It is a place with a history and traditions. Unless this is accounted for, the dream envisioned by the Parekh Report will turn into a nightmare.
Telegraph
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Climate change can teach children about race, national curriculum review told
Climate change can be used to teach children about race, a national curriculum review has been told. Global warming should be used to allow teachers and pupils to 'explore conversations about race', according to the Runnymede Trust. The race equality think tank told a review into the curriculum commissioned by Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, that such discussions would allow pupils to discuss more openly the impact of race on them and its relationship to 'wider society'. One aspect of the trust's recommendations is thought to be aimed at encouraging teachers to throw light on the unequal impact of climate change on different groups in society, such as in developing countries. Its recommendation states: 'Subjects such as English and history, as well as discussions of climate change in science, should offer students the opportunity to explore conversations surrounding race and its relationship to wider society, as opposed to stifling students and teachers in the expression of opinion surrounding these themes.' The submission is one of several seen by The Telegraph which argue that climate change and sustainability should form a more central part of the curriculum. Teaching 'should be compulsory' The National Climate Education Action Plan Group has stated that teaching about climate change and 'the biodiversity crisis' should be compulsory across several subjects, including science, geography and citizenship. In its submission the group, hosted by Reading University, stated: 'Climate change and the biodiversity crisis impact many areas of human society and the natural world. 'It's therefore right that these topics should be taught across the curriculum, beginning with a strong foundation in science, geography and citizenship, crossing into subjects that allow us to develop and build climate solutions and throughout subjects that allow young people to express their fears and hopes for the future and their connectedness to the natural world through their creative expression. 'To achieve this, we need a curriculum that offers an improved, broad and compulsory climate and sustainability education.' Ms Phillipson ordered the audit of England's education system within weeks of Labour's election win last year, pledging to 'breathe new life into our outdated curriculum'. The review, which she promised would deliver a 'broader, richer, cutting-edge' curriculum, is the first in more than a decade. Responding to hundreds of submissions, its interim findings, published on Tuesday by Prof Becky Francis, designated global warming as a key area of improvement for teaching, saying that the review would examine adding 'scientific and cultural knowledge' to the curriculum 'to meet the challenges of climate change'. The interim findings also call for greater diversity, equality and inclusion. The review will make final recommendations to the Government this autumn, with the shake-up expected to apply to all schools in England from next year. It said that it hoped to do so 'without compromising the reliability of results' and the trust of schools, teachers, parents and pupils in qualifications. Academies must take policy on board However, it will also mean academies, which are currently allowed to divert from the national curriculum, will be forced to teach it for the first time and has prompted warnings that children will leave school 'less prepared' for the real world. Among the submissions was also one from the Quakers, who said the impact of climate change and environmental breakdown should not be 'sanitised'. They stated: 'While young people's climate anxiety is not to be underestimated, circumspection is not the solution.' Wildlife and Countryside Link argued in its submission that the teaching of climate change could be used across the curriculum, such as applying data sets in maths to modelling and sustainable designs in D&T classes. It said the principles of an environmentally sustainable circular economy could be taught in economics classes. The Runnymede Trust has already called for a rethink on teaching about the British Empire, saying that history lessons were too focused on 'narrow, celebratory, accounts of 'our island story'.' It called for a revised national curriculum to 'embed statutory topics on race, migration and the British Empire'. In its full submission the trust criticised current Key Stage 2 history teaching for failing to highlight the 'contribution of migrant communities, their struggles for recognition, or the long history of settlement in this country' and missing out 'crucial parts of Britain's colonial history' or the 'histories of decolonisation across the globe'.
The Guardian
31-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Illegal' among words most often linked to migrants in UK politics, report finds
The word 'illegal' has been one of the terms most strongly associated with migrants in UK parliamentary debates over the past 25 years, research has found. Findings from the Runnymede Trust, published on Friday, examine how politicians and the media have portrayed migrants, refugees and Muslims in their discourse. The first of two reports, A Hostile Environment: Language, Race, Politics and the Media, analysed parliamentary and media discussions from 2010 to 2014. It found that 'illegal' was the most commonly linked word to migrants in parliamentary debates. Researchers say this framing reinforces the perception of migration as inherently unlawful. Other frequently associated words during that period included 'non-EU', 'skilled', 'economic', 'temporary' and 'influx'. A forthcoming second report, covering 2019 to 2024, is due to be released soon. However, early findings shared exclusively with the Guardian indicate that 'economic' and 'illegal' remain the top two words linked to migrants, alongside 'undocumented', 'cross', 'former' and 'skilled'. The report also notes that after Theresa May's 2012 pledge to 'create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants', media coverage containing hostile rhetoric around migration and migrants more than doubled (a 137% increase) compared with the two years before. At least 60 racial justice, migrants' rights and Muslim organisations have written to the government, urging action against what they describe as growing levels of racism. The letter, sent six months after riots erupted across England, calls for urgent action to address the root causes and warns against treating them solely as a law and order issue. 'In the context of growing far-right sentiment across the globe, there is a real threat of renewed and increasing racist violence if we do not reset our approach,' the statement reads. 'Racist violence on the streets, and its explosion into online spaces, is a manifestation of the deep racism across our society. This painful anniversary should serve as a reminder of the need to address that and prevent further violence.' The statement has been signed by the Runnymede Trust, the Institute of Race Relations, Migrants Organise, IMIX, Inquest, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and Maslaha. The signatories call for the government to consult with racial justice and migrants' rights organisations to develop a long-term anti-racism strategy. They also urge the government to acknowledge the role that hostile rhetoric and policies towards Muslims, migrants and refugees have played in fuelling far-right extremism. They demand an end to policies shaped by far-right narratives and call for an official definition of racism against Muslims. Dr Shabna Begum, the chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said: 'Last summer's racist riots are the outcome of normalised and intensifying racism, fuelled by politicians and the media and allowed to fester in online spaces. This anniversary is a stark reminder that hostile immigration policies and the racism they fuel can lead to devastating violence.' Liz Fekete, the director of the Institute of Race Relations, added: 'Last summer's riots should not be seen as a one-off event but as part of an ongoing problem of racism, with continued physical attacks, abuse, and death threats online. What is needed from the government is a strategy that, from the outset, recognises that economic justice, anti-racism and community cohesion go hand in hand. Is the government capable of meeting that challenge?' Zrinka Bralo, the chief executive of Migrants Organise, said: 'The racist riots of August 2024 have exposed the government's catastrophic failure to protect refugees and people seeking asylum in our country. For years, we warned that inflammatory rhetoric and inhumane policies would embolden far-right extremists. 'The government's refusal to provide safe, community based accommodation and its insistence on housing vulnerable people in disused barracks and profit-driven hotels continue to put them at risk of attacks and harassment.' The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was approached for comment.
The Guardian
31-01-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Ethnicity not key factor in England school exclusions, study finds
Poverty and special educational needs, rather than ethnicity alone, are the key influences on individual children's school exclusions and attainment in England, according to analysis. The findings, by a multi-ethnic team of academics from Durham and Birmingham universities, challenge widely held views that children in some ethnic groups are disproportionately affected by exclusions and suspensions. But campaigners for race and equality argue that the research downplays the complex intersection of ethnicity and class that deprives many children of fair access to educational opportunities, and overlooks other methods of exclusion and measures deployed against disadvantaged groups. The research found that once adjusted by free school meal eligibility or special educational needs status, there were no significant differences between ethnic groups in rates of exclusion or academic attainment at primary or secondary school. Prof Stephen Gorard, the lead author and professor of education and public policy at the University of Durham, said the findings had uncovered a correlation rather than a 'causal model' linking special needs and poverty with exclusions. 'But if you were trying to predict or explain who is going to be excluded at an individual level, then if you include poverty and special needs, knowing the ethnicity of a child doesn't help a prediction. That's equivalent to saying: this is not driving exclusions,' Gorard said. 'You could argue that black children, for example, are more likely to be labelled with special needs because they are more likely to be considered for some other reasons. And that is possible. But assuming we accept that the special needs label has validity, then after taking it into account, ethnicity doesn't matter for patterns of exclusions.' Dr Shabna Begum, the chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said the educational experiences of minority ethnic groups were the result of 'a tangled matrix of race and class' that was difficult to measure. Begum said: 'This should not lead us to conclude that racism is not a factor in attainment or exclusion experiences but that there is no single, linear relationship. 'For instance, we have to interrogate the reasons for why some minority ethnic pupils are more likely to be in the free school meals (FSM) category, which is used as the imperfect proxy for working-class status. 'By focusing on FSM status as some kind of fixed category, we risk ignoring the structural racism in labour markets and the wider housing system that explain why many black African, black Caribbean and Traveller children are more likely to experience those wider economic conditions in the first place, and how race and racism is constitutive of their class and therefore their poverty experiences – not incidental to it.' Dr Kulvinder Nagre, a research and policy coordinator for Race on the Agenda, said 'informal exclusions' such as off-rolling – where families were persuaded or put under pressure to remove a child from school – were often missing from official data. 'Our research has found that black and global majority children, and especially those from our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, are disproportionately subject to informal exclusion, and this practice is not captured in the models used by the authors to draw their conclusions,' Nagre said. Nagre also cautioned policymakers against overlooking ethnicity as a critical factor in a child's potential. 'Research has shown time and time again that cultural awareness is hugely important for educational interventions – that which may improve the attainment of a white, working-class pupil from the rural north-east [of England] is unlikely to be as effective for a working-class child from a first-generation migrant family in Tower Hamlets, and vice versa,' he said. The research, published in the journal Education Sciences, used official records from the Department for Education's national pupil database from 2019, for all pupils at state schools in England. It concluded that 'prior attainment and special needs/disability status are the main drivers of attainment at both [key stage 2 at primary school] and [key stage 4 at secondary school]. Individual pupil ethnicity did not help to explain either attainment or exclusions, over and above these other factors'. But Gorard said the data did reveal that schools with high concentrations of pupils with particular special needs, disadvantage or ethnicity were more likely to exclude pupils – and that the government should change national admissions policies to tackle such segregation. 'There is a lot of evidence that, in heavily disadvantaged settings, children are punished differently from how the same individual and the same offence and characteristics might be treated in a low segregation setting. It's one of the dangers of having highly segregated schools,' Gorard said. Pepe Di'Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: 'Schools and colleges work incredibly hard to support these young people but we do need to see more government action to offset the risk of exclusions and improve attainment.' Di'Iasio added: 'It is a stark reality that an obdurate attainment gap persists between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers, and that this feeds through into a cycle of generational disadvantage that we must break if we are to create a fairer and more productive society.'
