Is there universal agreement on what constitutes racism? Does it simply require a person to be offended by words or behaviour which relate to colour, nationality, ethnicity or belief? Or does the context matter? Perhaps there are degrees of racism depending on the circumstances, intent and background: not all black and white, but shades of grey. Apartheid South Africa was perhaps an extreme example, as was Nazi Germany. And consequently, perhaps the degree of reaction to possible racism should vary in seriousness and impact, and so too “punishment” if any, which flows as a result. Does the presumption of innocence prevail until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt? Trial by media is rarely fair.
YORKSHIRE, AZEEM RAFIQ AND THE FALL-OUT
Furore has engulfed Yorkshire Cricket Club in the past few weeks. At most it seems a culture of racial discrimination of a despicable kind was endemic, or at best perhaps, with no conscious malicious forethought or conspiracy, a laddish culture of the club was stuck in a time warp where its moribund leadership was blind to a changing world and attitudes. Following complaints of racism by Azeem Rafiq (AR) an internal investigation into matters resulted in a report which concluded, among other things, not that he was the victim of racism, but rather the behaviour complained of was more like “banter”, even though the relevant panel included three members of Asian descent. The private report subsequently became public.
An ex-Yorkshire player, AR has emotively described to a Parliamentary Committee and on television an overall experience of painful humiliation which he felt he suffered at the hands of team-mates, “the dressing room”, and Yorkshire CC management. He described a dressing room polluted with racism, with certain non-Asian players incessantly referencing Pakistani traits in a way which laughed at Pakistanis, and the same behaviour occurred on social occasions, such as in night clubs. There was clearly an established culture. It is not obvious that players and others knew that Asian colleagues were deeply hurt, or that they intended maliciously to denigrate colour. Certain players, white and of colour, were friends, or they thought so. Nor is it clear whether or not those who were offended explained their hurt or asked the perpetrators to stop.
Some established English players, such as Michael Vaughan and Joe Root, seem to have been oblivious at the time to a culture of non-inclusion and what has become judged as racist to the core. Anyone who has been named as an offender has apologised. Before this, there was widespread concern that cricket as a professional sport was non-inclusive, that Asian and black players were underrepresented despite their talent. Cricket itself and its regulator, the English Cricket Board, are now recognising an urgent need to re-invent the culture. Essex CC has been in the spotlight. Perhaps however there is a serious risk that in seeking to clean out the Aegean stables and also virtue signal, the ECB and all who wish to avoid complicity and distance themselves, and commentators and the media, will shoot anyone who is put in the firing line with any allegation of causing offence. To tar a person with racism is a very serious character assassination and care for justice and fairness must shine through. Is it not a fair question first to ask what degree of racism has occurred?
Is it worth noting that joking about people’s origins, national characteristics and idiosyncrasies certainly was regarded as normal in generations gone by? Perhaps it still is today. Insulting and laughing at each other is often a sign of the strongest friendships. Arguably today it is hard to be a comedian for fear of persons taking offence, not seeing the power of humour, and ridicule of absurd behaviours. But a balance was always needed, and it still is. The context is so important. It is clear that deliberately hurting others with malice is wrong; failing to recognise when others are hurt by making fun without malice, banter, may be careless and insensitive; and when intensified in a group could be cruel. Racism may be an appropriate description. But there are degrees of racism. Yorkshire CC has allowed a racist culture to prevail and now under the guidance of Lord Patel, its new Chairperson, is sworn to change, and about time says the world. It should prove a catalyst for necessary change of attitudes in the English professional cricketing world.
CASTING THE FIRST STONE – NOBODY IS INNOCENT
Michael Vaughan (MV), a much-heralded captain of England men’s cricket team, is alleged by AR, supported by two Asian colleagues, to have said a single sentence some 12 years ago about the Asian Yorkshire team contingent along the lines of too many of “you lot” being about, and something needing to be done. This apparently appears in the Report. MV denies ever saying such a thing, and says he is unaware of any racism in the Yorkshire dressing room or any other team such as England of which he was part. He regards himself as being focussed on inclusion. AR himself does not accuse him of being a racist. Nobody who played cricket with him has come forward suggesting racism. Indeed, Monty Panesar, a distinguished England cricketer and a Sikh, not only never saw any racist side to MV, but he “experienced only positive things with him”. He records MV’s interest in religions “because it would make him a better leader of men” …. how Monty called MV by his Sikh name “Mandeep” and how he loved how MV would say when he got runs “The Sikh Gods must be happy with me today”. “This is what dressing room culture should be about – brotherhood, unity, humour and respect” he said. see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/11/26/michael-vaughan-does-not-deserve-see-reputation-trashed-bbc/.
MV has recognised that through today’s lens perhaps more should have been spotted as wrong with Yorkshire culture at the time he was there. He apologised if he caused any hurt to AR or anyone else. But MV has been sacked by the BBC from his commentary and punditry roles in cricket. He has also been trashed in the media. His reputation is undoubtedly damaged seriously. Even if he said what is alleged once, that does not make him a racist. Does the principle of innocence until proven guilty not apply here?
Even AR himself has had to apologise for racist remarks he made 10 years ago aged 19, which he recognises were anti-Semitic. His apology has been accepted, and clearly it is possible for of colour people to be racist too. But again, does this stupid exchange make AR a racist? No. Earlier this year Ollie Robinson, playing cricket for England, was suspended for inappropriate remarks made 8 years earlier when a teenager. Tim Paine has stepped down as Captain of Australia and from cricket for now due to a revelation of a private indecent self- photo shared between consenting adults.
All these incidents have been endlessly dragged through the media, attracting various levels of condemnation. Matthew Syed in the Sunday Times of 21 November laments “A new spectator sport has emerged – and it is destroying our way of life”. People’s most private interchanges, or comments made on the spur of the moment, years ago, can be dragged up. No context around them. The real impact at the time, the intention behind them, the state of mind of the person, all unknown. But a reputation can be ruined for life by absurdly extreme judgements and conclusions, perhaps made by people with distorted agendas of their own, which are out of all proportion to an event or communication which at the time was insignificant. Decent lives can be ruined wrongly. See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-new-spectator-sport-has-emerged-and-its-destroying-our-way-of-life-wjdkcqjn2
Matthew Syed refers to things he will have said which could eviscerate his reputation if not contextualised. He said “As Azeem Rafiq has found, our pasts have become a vast database of potential recrimination”. Saints may exist, but even they normally confess to being sinners, but most people, or perhaps all people, have said things or set in permanent stone in an email or tweet or other media, which some malicious hostile may trawl for, and which can be portrayed as racist or sexist or homophobic or otherwise offensive to someone. For example, simply to ask a person where they may originate from can be hailed as racist, when more likely it is genuine interest. This practice of dredging up history and clothing it with poison surely needs to stop. If people are getting pleasure out of resulting trials by media of minor possible misbehaviours (whether or not seen as such when perpetrated, given the norms of the time) and the meting out of retribution to virtue signal without any natural justice or fairness, that practice is as dreadful as nasty racism. The media influencers perhaps need to condemn the practice rather than encourage it.
ENDING RACISM IS RIGHT – PERSPECTIVE IS NEEDED
Fear of being tarred, even unfairly, with a racist brush is becoming endemic perhaps to the extent that people are afraid of expressing opinions which may, while merely being honest efforts to understand issues, be characterised as racist. In “Woke Racism” by John McWhorter, a black Associate Professor at Columbia University, he describes how a new religion of anti-racism has betrayed black America, and that new religion is promoted by extremists who see the world through the racist prism , the sort of people who got Leslie Neal-Boylan, Dean of nursing at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, sacked: her crime in short , while condemning a tragic history of racism and bias still thriving in the USA, was to include a phrase “everyone’s life matters”. The book is worth a read. Today, a philosophy is taking hold that people not of colour can have no view on racism; for a white person to deny they are racist is to prove they are; where meritocracy is set aside for fear of a discriminatory accusation; where failing to recognise racism in others is itself racism. Anti-racism cannot stifle free speech of honest and decent opinion.
However, there is at least in the UK a groundswell resisting this religion. It is notable that recently the Head of the American School in London was forced to resign due to parental complaints that their children were being taught life through an anti-racist telescope. Perhaps a form of brainwashing.
As for Yorkshire CC, Lord Bhikhu Parekh, once Chair of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, said that “What we are witnessing is the crudest form of racism that you could ever imagine.” see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/racism-fuelled-by-tory-rejection-multiculturalism-lord-parekh-azeem-rafiq
A critic of the Sewell report, he nevertheless said “… [in the UK] the changes that have come about in the last 20 years are remarkable” and he does not consider the UK a racist society. Whether the Yorkshire style of racism is the “crudest form” is surely debateable. In any event there are far more extreme examples of racism.
Racism exists around the world. One Muslim sect may persecute another. Some Hindus despise Muslims and vice versa. In the Middle East there are groups who would wipe out Jews. In Africa there are tribes who would destroy others. In China the Uighurs are selected for ethnic cleansing. There is some very serious racism practised on a daily basis, in the UK, the USA and almost everywhere. It is perhaps clear that in the UK most British people, whatever their colour or ethnicity, want racial justice. But in seeking and allocating justice, all points of view must be heard, degrees of guilt must be recognised, and punishment must fit the crime. Does making a single comment or even two or three which some determine to be racist make the person a racist? Surely not. If a man as a teenager dodged his bus fare or once stole a single apple from a stall, is he a thief forever to be damned?
Yorkshire CC allowed a culture of a certain level and kind of racism to thrive and ignored it. Clearly wrong. But that the media frenzy and all the important people who had to show their correctness by total condemnation and disgust perhaps over-played a sad but small chapter in the fight against racism. There are degrees of racism and perspective, and honesty are required to ensure proportionality and fairness. Yorkshire CC received a multiple of the media coverage allowed to the tragedy of human suffering in Afghanistan – surely such hypocrisy needs to be stamped out too?
See also:
UMPIRES OF PAST INDISCRETIONS, LINGUISTIC FASCISM AND PROPORTIONALITY
THE SEWELL REPORT – FINDS OVERT RACISM IN UK BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR SOME
