I wonder if anyone could advise me about the right course of action.
How far should you pursue things if another member of your team has made a racist remark (or joke on a racist stereotype), when there is no-one belonging to that particular ethnic group in the office?
For example, is a discreet e-mail to the person making the remark enough? Should it be raised with my line manager, who can pursue it with the staff member concerned?
If there were only a few members of the team present, does the whole team need to know about it?
What should you expect from the person who made the “joke”? Is an e-mail to you enough or does it have to be to the whole team?
Tackling unthinking racism is important, but I’m not sure how far it should go without causing bitterness and resentful behaviour with the team.
Thanks,
S
If i were you I would deal with it one way or another, at least you are thinking of team morale etc, if someone else were to hear their racist remarks (jokes or not) they may not be so lenient as yourself and the person could lose their job - disciplinary panels always come down heavily on racism at every level. Address it if only to save the person from themselves.
I say deal with it.
If its not something you think you can deal with directly I would pass the incident over to their manager so it can be discussed and explored more in depth. Its clearly not acceptable to make racist comments regardless of the intended target being present or not. It shows a lack of understanding particulary around equality principles, values and legislation. Training and increased awareness is requried and if the manager does not think this is recolvable then they can follow disciplinary procedures.
Darren
I would be most likely to have a chat with them, explain why I found what they said offensive and see what their response was. If I got a sense that they understood what I was saying, realised the seriousness of the issue and were apologetic about it I'd probably leave it there - maybe mentioning in my own supervision that I'd challenged racism/inappropriate humour/sexism whatever and was happy with the outcome. If they responded badly I'd take it further, probably after discussion in supervision.
I know I am going against the general view here...but I'm not so sure whether or not its wise to make an issue of it.
I used to think it was essential to tackle it head on, but then watched Morgan Freeman talking about racism and the fact he deplored 'Black History month'. He continued to say that with regards to all aspects of racism... "The only way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it"
It certainly made me think.....
Hi Trixie,
What did Morgan Freeman make you think and what conclusions did you come to?
I agree that 'head on' may not always be the best option but I doubt very much that by ignoring racism which is present amongst health and social care staff it will dissapate. Quite the opposite in fact, it only sends a message that its acceptable without little recognition of the damage it can course in providing and delivering services in an equitable and ant-oppressive way.
Would Morgan say the same about other equality issues "The only way to get rid of child poverty is to stop talking about it", "The only way to ret rid of ageism is to stop talking about it", "The only way to get rid of homophobia is to stop talking about it" ?
Darrenh.. Think its difficult to say without knowing exactly what the 'joke' was. I just think that making any issue of someone's colour often just highlights our differences rather than recognises that we're all human and our colour is actually so unimportant in the whole scheme of things that it's not worth making an issue of it. I don't go around saying ... "we need more people in the office who are brunettes"...so why would I say "we need more black people on our team"? Having a certain identity doesn't make you a better person.
I just don't get the argument that to ensure we have equalities we have to focus on the needs of gay people, black people, women etc... It's doing nothing more than stigmatising those groups! And that's contradicting the whole point of equality!! At what point should we consider having a group for middle class white males?? (That's actually a serious question!!)
Sorry... but for me, I won't focus on whether someone is black, white, gay, straight, rich or poor. But rather what you bring to the world through your actions. And as for jokes ... 99% we're all a bit too sensitive (especially the social work sector!) and I can say that even when I am the brunt of the 'joke'. A little more resilliance is needed ... Some people in social care need to take a trip to the real world.
Becoming increasingly convinced that our well meaning focus on 'equalities' is counter productive!
Nudge Nudge Wink Wink and we all agree with the joke really because we don't wish to appear out of step, is all too prevalent. It is not about well meaning focus on equalities or whether there was any targeted people in the room, it is about what I say above. I feel Tracy is protesting too much regarding her focus on people and needs to take note of my point about life training. Tracy when you talk about racism also think of eliteism, you talk as though you belong to the chosen few when you come up with lists and labels.
Hope you take this as constructive.
Peter. WMCM.
Sorry Trixie was generalising peoples names.
Shirack, No need to apologise on my behalf & I sorry if I came across as generalising.
Think I'm having a problem getting my point across and certainly aren't party to the nudge, nudge, wink, wink brigade.But at the same time... I don't overreact to slightly unpolitically correct comments. My background is a bit unusual... my own identity certainly is not of the norm (whatever that is these days) and my first hand experience of living through apartheid in South Africa has been a 'life experience'. I am just making the point that we're all human, as a human race we are going to offend and be offended. Unless it's really serious I think we need to learn how to be a little more emotionally resilient and just get on with things. Making issues of our differences does nothing for true equality but infact puts a spotlight on our differences.
Morgan Freeman puts it much better than I ever can... and yes, I DO think the same can be said for all groups http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Trixie, I was apologising for myself as I had referred to you as Tracy in my posting.
I think there is a tendency to see the oppressed as the authorities on their oppression which may or may not be the case. That said I can see the point Morgan is making, which in his world probably passes as OK. However he is hardly typical.
It is easy to trivialise the subject (How about a straight pride march) but humour is often a smoke screen for people to hide behind, to avoid serious debate.
Regards,
Peter.
Trixie: Darrenh.. Think its difficult to say without knowing exactly what the 'joke' was. I just think that making any issue of someone's colour often just highlights our differences rather than recognises that we're all human and our colour is actually so unimportant in the whole scheme of things that it's not worth making an issue of it. I don't go around saying ... "we need more people in the office who are brunettes"...so why would I say "we need more black people on our team"? Having a certain identity doesn't make you a better person. I just don't get the argument that to ensure we have equalities we have to focus on the needs of gay people, black people, women etc... It's doing nothing more than stigmatising those groups! And that's contradicting the whole point of equality!! At what point should we consider having a group for middle class white males?? (That's actually a serious question!!) Sorry... but for me, I won't focus on whether someone is black, white, gay, straight, rich or poor. But rather what you bring to the world through your actions. And as for jokes ... 99% we're all a bit too sensitive (especially the social work sector!) and I can say that even when I am the brunt of the 'joke'. A little more resilliance is needed ... Some people in social care need to take a trip to the real world. Becoming increasingly convinced that our well meaning focus on 'equalities' is counter productive!
Trixie- being a' White, middle class male' means that you are part of a priveleged group. As opposed to being a Black, working class woman, for instance. Equality is not about treating all people the same-it recognises that there are those in priveleged groups and those in disadvantaged and marginalised groups, who have to work harder to get where they get.
I get what you're saying to a point, about, for instance, how far do you go? i.e., should you offer a support group for those with large noses?
I agree with what you have said about each person being an individual and treating people as individuals, despite their gender, ethnicity etc, but some things like racism are institutionalised. I think that's the difference. That's their individual 'real world' as opposed to taking a trip to your 'real world'.
redana: Trixie: Darrenh.. Think its difficult to say without knowing exactly what the 'joke' was. I just think that making any issue of someone's colour often just highlights our differences rather than recognises that we're all human and our colour is actually so unimportant in the whole scheme of things that it's not worth making an issue of it. I don't go around saying ... "we need more people in the office who are brunettes"...so why would I say "we need more black people on our team"? Having a certain identity doesn't make you a better person. I just don't get the argument that to ensure we have equalities we have to focus on the needs of gay people, black people, women etc... It's doing nothing more than stigmatising those groups! And that's contradicting the whole point of equality!! At what point should we consider having a group for middle class white males?? (That's actually a serious question!!) Sorry... but for me, I won't focus on whether someone is black, white, gay, straight, rich or poor. But rather what you bring to the world through your actions. And as for jokes ... 99% we're all a bit too sensitive (especially the social work sector!) and I can say that even when I am the brunt of the 'joke'. A little more resilliance is needed ... Some people in social care need to take a trip to the real world. Becoming increasingly convinced that our well meaning focus on 'equalities' is counter productive! Trixie- being a' White, middle class male' means that you are part of a priveleged group. As opposed to being a Black, working class woman, for instance. Equality is not about treating all people the same-it recognises that there are those in priveleged groups and those in disadvantaged and marginalised groups, who have to work harder to get where they get. I get what you're saying to a point, about, for instance, how far do you go? i.e., should you offer a support group for those with large noses? I agree with what you have said about each person being an individual and treating people as individuals, despite their gender, ethnicity etc, but some things like racism are institutionalised. I think that's the difference. That's their individual 'real world' as opposed to taking a trip to your 'real world'.
as i white, middle class male i'd love to know what privelages i have over any other person. whatever the colour. i would love to know what privelaes i have been affored that others did not when growing up on a horrible scheme in ayrshire? what have i been privelaged with that others have not.
those jumping up and down about apparent racist comments merely drw attention to racism and it is a dis-service to those who challenged real racism in the past. too much handwriging going on.
Sal_Jo: I wonder if anyone could advise me about the right course of action. How far should you pursue things if another member of your team has made a racist remark (or joke on a racist stereotype), when there is no-one belonging to that particular ethnic group in the office? For example, is a discreet e-mail to the person making the remark enough? Should it be raised with my line manager, who can pursue it with the staff member concerned? If there were only a few members of the team present, does the whole team need to know about it? What should you expect from the person who made the “joke”? Is an e-mail to you enough or does it have to be to the whole team? Tackling unthinking racism is important, but I’m not sure how far it should go without causing bitterness and resentful behaviour with the team. Thanks, S
This sounds exactly like a scenario meant to be captured by the Equality Act (2010).
''...employees could bring a harassment claim against a company based on disability discrimination if they were offended - whether they were disabled or not."
"It means that any member of staff can sue their employer if they take offence to office banter, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with them. "
Prohibited conduct
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2
Shirack: I trust most people on here have had some ARP training and am surprised that nobody has mentioned spontaneity. These things are best dealt with at the time and whether you have had training or not you should respond at once to things that make you uncomfortable. You shouldn't be looking for strategies it should be instinctive. If not get some more life training.
I disagree. Sometimes, some things are best not dealt with at the time for a variety of reasons. For example, an individual may wish to speak to the speaker on their own as they could be undermined by others present or could make those others present uncomfortable. Also, the listener might need to sort out their feelings upon some reflection about what has offended them/made them feel confused/uncomfortable. If more people were thoughtful and less impulsive about the impact of their actions on others, I feel this can only be a good thing. Spontaneity works only if you get it right.
Redana - I don't mind sharing that as a child I would have welcomed a support group for large noses as I had one. It was not particulary large and my face has grown into it now but as a child it made me the target of being picked on, bullying and racist comments. I felt I had nobody to turn to except for mournful conversations with a mirror. A bit depressing I know, but I did not have the resiliance to tackle it and the experience reduced protective factors as I found it difficult to mix with my peers.
I think your point of institutionalisation is so relevant here and emphasises the point why things should be challenged. A racist comment in the office which goes unchallenged may identify poor practices based on deeply ingrained stereotypical and discriminatory views.
Darrenh
Redana I did not have you down as a pussyfooter. Yes I know there are times for discretion but as you point out racism is rife. Proponents should be undermined and made to feel uncomfortable. Those around who witness the challenge will also learn something if they need to, or not if they don't. Spontaneity is the best way as it comes accross as natura,l rather than reading a flip chart. Lets get it all out in the open and yes we have a responsibility to get it right.
(Could you expand on your Titchmagoo comment )
Thanks.
Redana; Are you agreeing with Mr. Magoo? Not sure if your tounge is in your cheek when commenting about me. You highlight the polarisation within SW. which make these forums electric.
Then you hit the nail on the head when you list the processes.
When it comes to creating a social worker I am a nature not nurture man.
Also unions have lost their way simply because they have become so bloody reasonable and prepared to dance to establishment tunes. Why else are the poor/ semi poor bailing the rich out?
Don't really agree with you. That's just stereotyping and generalising which is my whole point! Afraid the social care sector actually promotes all this division by constantly making references to different groups.
I think you are massively over-simplifying the "white middle class male" thing here. Who are you referring to? Are you talking about the elite public school, Oxbridge network here or the rest of the male, white, middle classes?
If the former, then you may have a point. If the latter, then I think you will see a hell of a lot of these people sitting on the dole queue shortly with everyone else, with few if any "privileges". I think it is important to make the distinction, not talk about a lumpen whole.
To suggest that all white middle class males have nothing but the Life of Riley is a nonsense, the same as taking the position that men ONLY come into social work so that they can abuse positions of power in mental health, children's teams and management positions. Sure, some no doubt do. But to tar EVERYONE with the same brush purely on account of maleness, class, colour, is no less discriminatory in my view.
Exactly fishski, my point exactly!
I wore thick glasses and was called specky four eyes. But I was told "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" (A saying supported by the renowned Sue Palmer may I add). http://www3.hants.gov.uk/childrens-services/childcare/providers/childcarepublications/foundationstagejournal/fsj-autumn-09/risk-assessment.htm
I was taught that life will continue to throw me a barrage of criticisms and I just had to learn how to 'suck it up' and deal with it. Emotional resilience is so important, but sadly political correctness and over protectiveness is making young people today emotionally unstable, insecure and ill prepared for the big wide world.
And Darrenh, imagine if there were support groups for 'specky four eyes' and 'big nosed kids' and other groups. Just think about the impact on the public purse!! How utterly ridiculous! Everyone will be bullied to some extent or other. Everyone will be a bully to some extent or other. Of course it should be minimised...but we really need to put alot more emphasis on teaching kids how to have a 'water off a ducks back' reaction and just get on with what really interests them!
fishski: I think you are massively over-simplifying the "white middle class male" thing here. Who are you referring to? Are you talking about the elite public school, Oxbridge network here or the rest of the male, white, middle classes? If the former, then you may have a point. If the latter, then I think you will see a hell of a lot of these people sitting on the dole queue shortly with everyone else, with few if any "privileges". I think it is important to make the distinction, not talk about a lumpen whole. To suggest that all white middle class males have nothing but the Life of Riley is a nonsense, the same as taking the position that men ONLY come into social work so that they can abuse positions of power in mental health, children's teams and management positions. Sure, some no doubt do. But to tar EVERYONE with the same brush purely on account of maleness, class, colour, is no less discriminatory in my view.
''the elite public school, Oxbridge network here''
what is your assertion based on? i agree it is discriminatory to describe white middle class males as privelaged in a lumpen whole. it is also discriminatory to lumpen public schools together as well.
I would always be inclined to challenge racist comments (although you don't have to be aggressive about it).
And the reason is based on my experiences of working in a sexist environment, the thing that hurt most was not the actual sexism. It was the fact that my colleagues and workmates never said anything to support me. I always felt as if I was alone when the jibes came. I looked round and they were all too busy feeling awkward and pretending nothing had happened.
That's why I agree with Shirack. You should say /something/.
Trixie - It was tongue in cheek suggesting a support group for large noses. My school was rife with bullying directed towards whatever perceived negative differences existed amongst children and I agree that emotional resiliance is so important, it's part of the ingredient for success in adult life. There are many strategies schools employ to tackle bullying such as school councils and peer buddying which helps to promote emotional resiliance. But its also what goes on at home and the wider community such as media pressures which develops emotional resiliance or not. The water off a ducks back reaction may be easier for some children but others will still suffer and be particulary sensitive to bullying and discrimination and will have long lasting effects. I say that emphasis must also be put on educating the bullyier and discriminator. Some people have little ability to empathise with others or reflect on how their own behaviour impacts on others especially when it may fit wider stereotypical views.
Trixie.
You might light to read Lord Of The Flies again.
Focus on Simon not Jack.
Then think about what happens to Simon and what would you have evolved into on that island. Unlike Simon you would have survived but at what cost for civilization.
Totally fair point about the elite public schools. I have neither the time nor the inclination to list every person in a position of influence (define influence, etc, etc) who has been to any particular public school. Although just as a "for instance" - the current British Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the chief architect of recent Conservative party policy, Oliver Letwin, are all Old Etonians. (Letwin's father was also Emiritus Professor of Economics at the LSE, but that's another story.) We could get bogged down in semantics and definitions till we're blue in the face but I acknowledge your reservations in what was a more general argument.
However, if you have a look at the CV's of male Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members you will see a lot of similarities. The recent labour leadership campaign threw forward a number of male candidates with remarkably similar educational backgrounds and career paths including being "special advisers" to various ministries, effectively "straight from school". All had Oxbridge backgrounds, Ed Balls had also been to Harvard. This limits the choices available to people in a democratic society. Effectively the "best equipped" had been equipped in advance by the party machine. I use Labour as an example here, although I don't mean to be party political.
I don't intend to get any more specific as you will always find a number of exceptions. The point was the general trend of "old school tie". As I'm sure you are aware.
:)
fishski: Totally fair point about the elite public schools. I have neither the time nor the inclination to list every person in a position of influence (define influence, etc, etc) who has been to any particular public school. Although just as a "for instance" - the current British Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the chief architect of recent Conservative party policy, Oliver Letwin, are all Old Etonians. (Letwin's father was also Emiritus Professor of Economics at the LSE, but that's another story.) We could get bogged down in semantics and definitions till we're blue in the face but I acknowledge your reservations in what was a more general argument. However, if you have a look at the CV's of male Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members you will see a lot of similarities. The recent labour leadership campaign threw forward a number of male candidates with remarkably similar educational backgrounds and career paths including being "special advisers" to various ministries, effectively "straight from school". All had Oxbridge backgrounds, Ed Balls had also been to Harvard. This limits the choices available to people in a democratic society. Effectively the "best equipped" had been equipped in advance by the party machine. I use Labour as an example here, although I don't mean to be party political. I don't intend to get any more specific as you will always find a number of exceptions. The point was the general trend of "old school tie". As I'm sure you are aware. :)
sounds like oxbridge is a fine educational establishment that continues to churn out well educated and responsible people.
beacaue someone or some people are educated in a particular school it limts the publics choice in a democratic society. people vote for candidates and parties, its up to them if they do or not. your views sound a wee bit like secret societys in a dan brown novel. tin foil hats all round. its no-ones fault except those toffs in their secret society. :)
Oxbridge does indeed churn out well educated and responsible people. As no doubt does Eton (with the possible exception of Darius Guppy).
However, people don't vote for who they want - they vote for the people that are put up for selection by political parties.
While no doubt you exaggerate for effect with your secret society analogy, the world IS full of alliances and "networking". It exists in all walks of life. And if you can forgive me for being pedantic, I didn't blame any particular group for all the world's ills. That would be treat them as a lumpen whole. :)
Anyway I am starting to get the feeling this is a political discussion that belongs on a different forum and will probably never be resolved, so I will do my best to bow out and leave you with the last word. :)
Darrenh- you have articulated my point so much better than I did.
Shirack-not agreeing with Mr Magoo, in agreement with the assertion that these things need to be challenged. However, my way of challenging would be different to your way. Sal_jo sounds like (she?) may be new to the team and I feel she is right to be cautious about how she challenges in order to protect herself. Becoz those that feel she should just take stuff like water off a duck's back and if she's offended then she's the one with the problem, may go for the jugular.
Woooah!!! You have completely misinterpreted me if you think I would EVER 'go for the jugular' ! That's quite a strong allegation there. I am just making the simple point that (a) I believe that constant references to colour, gender, sexual orientation etc can actually be more harmful than helpful as it contributes significantly to creating division through highlighting differences. As such, I personally believe it actually more constructive to ignore prejudiced comments and show your principles through actions .. the way you live and work & by setting an example. (b) I think over the past 20 years we have put too much emphasis on trying to stop bullying which is a completely unachievable aim .... “The main problem has to do with a natural, evolutionary human and animal trait: "social dominance" (Pratto & Sidanius 1999). Importantly we've lost our focus on promoting and ensuring emotional resilience. So in short I think society, schools and parents have a duty to teach children the 'sticks and stones' philosophy.
Specky Four Eyes.(Trixie)
Are you related to Nigel Farage?
He's my personal pilot
When we are practising our social work, we generally try and take the approach that we think will work best. Some families (or whatever user group you work with) need lots of TLC until they can flourish, others need a fairly firm explanation of how it is to 'encourage' them to make progress - and plenty of other techniques in between.
If somebody makes an 'off 'remark, I'd be tempted to think what might work. If the person is a racist knob, report them. If they are misguided, let them know they've made an error with the degree of firmness/ kindness that you think will generate the best outcome and, similarly, with the degree of discetion/ exposure that you think will have the best outcome.
Cheers everyone, this has been a good debate !
Sal it is really sad.
All those responses to your response but no one could give a clear answer to your question.
There is no one of that ethnic group in your work place but what would happen if someone joined your work place tomorrow. After 16 years in social work over 14 local authorities I have seen and heard it all as a black woman.
Very little is done and sadly lots of money is paid out in compensation as a result of nothing being done to addres the bad behaviour of staff. .
It is hard for you to address this as no one in your office seemed to mind and that is not only to do with the culture of your office but the people that work there.
I am just glad that there are still people like you at a place where it has concerned you enough to try to do something about it.
Years ago someone said dreadful things about a black social work manager and someone in that person's office reported them and they were actually sacked from their job or should I say 'transferred elswhere.'
Speak up and speak out then leave it there. For your own sanity and in the event some poor soul joins your office - that is if they get past the selection process.
Take care
Kebab and chips makes a point that there's been too much 'debating' and not enough helpful advice for Sal_Jo. I think one of the difficulties has been that there's not been much detail about what was said in the office. It so often comes down to communication, tone, intention etc. What could have been an innocent and actually even appropriate comment can be misinterpreted as offensive. Lets admit it .. we've all had the experience.
So... Sal_Jo, I think at the end of the day this really doesn't need input from qualified social workers. Its an issue of values and principles which anyone is qualified to have an opinion on. You just need to reflect on what was actually said, by whom and in what context. Only you can judge if it was inappropriate and the impact of addressing it or letting it lie. I am sure that you'll make the right decision.