More talking, less criticising

REACTION to the recently published report on race inequality has been disappointing on both sides of that sensitive and highly contentious debate.

Commentators seem to have gone out of their way to adopt extreme standpoints based on the flimsy, unhelpful soundbite summaries of others. If only we could spare the time to seek them out, there must surely be a handful of fundamentals we can all agree on.

The headline claim that Britain’s approach to handling race issues can be viewed as a “model” for others to follow is clearly laughable. Over time, all sorts of strategies have been tried some of which have worked, while others barely left the drawing board before being rejected. And the fact that the situation is now, arguably, better than it used to be is a pretty pointless judgement.

On the other hand, the claim that “institutional racism” no longer exists deserves to be properly evaluated. In putting forward her strong criticisms of the report, Chi Onwurah (Journal, April 2) comments: “I know that I have experienced institutional racism”. For someone of her ethnicity, gender and age that is, sadly, hardly surprising. From Priti Patel to Diane Abbott, such obstacles were, in the past, unexceptional.

But isn’t it revealing that when describing her experience, Chi doesn’t use the present tense. Is she implicitly hinting that something important might have happened? How much more convincing would her arguments be if she identified institutions which used to operate along racist lines but have cleaned up their act and contrasted them with those who have yet to change.

The weakest argument of the report’s critics is a determination to judge everything on the basis of outcome rather than opportunity. Even in a post-racial utopia, equality of opportunity will never lead to equality of outcome.

The automatic attribution of inequality to racism is lazy thinking and often wrong. People who resort to such rhetoric move quickly from reasoned debate to personal insults. In so doing they disqualify themselves from being taken seriously.

With two of my favourite people on opposite sides of the argument, there must be room for resolution and compromise. Chi Onwurah is without doubt (following the retirement of my local MP, the great Ronnie Campbell) the most endearing, conscientious and grounded of the current crop of North East parliamentarians.

The delightful Maggie AderinPocock (the spiritual successor of astronomer Patrick Moore) was a member of the team who produced the race report.

Someone, somewhere get them together. Get them talking. Elevate the tone of this rotten debate. John Hodgkins, Seaton Sluice