Why it’s time to stop talking about ‘race’

LW Opinion

Why it’s time to stop talking about ‘race’

Nadine Simpson-Ataha, an employment lawyer at Taylor Wessing challenges the concept and language of ‘race’.

The past 18 months have impacted us all. The reason, or reasons, for that may be different for each of us but the level of intensity has almost certainly been the same. I’m fortunate enough that at least one of the pandemic events that I’ve experienced has been positive; I now have a daughter, and with her has come a level of contemplation even greater than that forced upon us by lockdown. Top of the list of subjects of reflection: ‘race’. My conclusion: ‘race’ is a dated social construct that has no place in public discourse in 2021. Continuing to use it is akin to continuing to refer to women as “the fairer sex”. Both terms can stay in the archaic version of the world that they come from.

The concept of ‘race’ has been part of day-to-day life for many decades. It stems from a body of theories known as ‘race science’, which was perpetuated in the early 1900s as a tool to secure economic and social power for a few. The theories were used to marginalise people and led to some of the most deplorable behaviour against human beings that the world has ever seen; behaviour that was justified by the idea that nonwhite people were inferior sub-species, i.e. different ‘races’, undeserving of the standard of treatment afforded to the majority of white people. Racism is choosing to ignore the biological fact that we are all one species – Homo sapiens –, and instead believing that a person who happens to have a skin colour that is different to the one that you have is inferior to you and should be treated as such. It can be exhibited to different degrees and in a countless number of ways (a separate topic for another time).

‘Race science’ has never been shown to have any grounding in biology yet the myth that people of different colours are different ‘races’, i.e., different sub-species, continues to be spread throughout society. This happens within schools, businesses, via the media and law. It’s been happening for so long it’s not questioned and is accepted as a norm. This has to change because the myth, and the associated concept of inferiority, has caused, and is continuing to cause, untold damage.

I’m by no means the first person to recognise this. British- American anthropologist Ashley Montagu did so in 1942 in “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race” 1 . Under his leadership the United Nations publicly declared the following in 1950,:

“The myth “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering … The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoints is the main thing. To recognise this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man” 2 ,

yet here we are. Reform in our use of language is needed across all spheres of public life, none more so than in law which creates the framework of acceptable and accepted behaviour. Taking my area of speciality as an example, there is a very obvious starting point: the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act sets out, amongst other things, the bases on which it is unlawful to discriminate against someone. Discriminating against someone on the grounds of ‘race’, defined as including “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins”, is one such type of unlawful discrimination. I find it laughable that the very law that is supposed to be a beacon of inclusivity and fairness implies that because my skin colour is brown; I have dual nationalities (British and Jamaican); and / or I am of English and Jamaican origin, I am of a specific ‘race’ (the connotation being that I am of a specific or other species). My colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin have absolutely no impact on the fact that I, like you, am a Homo sapien; however, my colour, nationality or origin may impact how you treat me. That’s why each characteristic should remain protected as a standalone trait. Lumping them together under a redundant and inaccurate umbrella term gives undue merit to “man’s most dangerous myth” and clouds a fundamental nuance that should be recognised by such an important piece of legislation.

The nuance is this. Unlike nationality or origin, colour is constantly visible. I cannot remove, disguise or choose to withhold the fact that I am brown. By comparison, the only way another person can know my nationality or origin is if I share that information with them. This means that the potential for another person’s preconceptions to negatively impact my life is much greater, and more likely to happen, because of my colour. It follows that colour requires broader protection.

A similar situation exists in relation to sex; however, the Equality Act already affords broader protection in this respect. For example, women can rely on the sex equality clause to automatically “read in” a contractual term that is absent from their terms and conditions of employment (but that exists in a male comparator’s terms) to receive and recover equal pay for equal work. This protection exists on the basis that it’s agreed that it’s not ‘ok’ to pay people different amounts for equal work because of their sex. It’s also not ‘ok’ to pay people different amounts for equal work because of their colour, yet a black or brown woman can’t rely on a colour equality clause to the same effect. This inequity needn’t and shouldn’t exist. The fact that it does presents a very clear case in support of the need for cognitive diversity when it comes to the creation and reform of law.

Will implementing these ideas eradicate racism? Of course not. But it will fundamentally change the narrative away from language that normalises, and excuses, the belief and behaviour of racists whilst positively changing the psyche of future generations. It might also make our anti-discrimination laws more effective. All of which are only good things. Racists will always exist, just like rapists and fly-tippers, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn't do all that we can to let them know that what they do is not ok. Actions that have been taken so far clearly haven’t worked so let's wind right back to the basics and start again. ■

Nadine Simpson-Ataha

Nadine Simpson-Ataha

Employment Lawyer

Taylor Wessing

1. Montagu, A. (1997) Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. 6th ed. California: Altamira Press.

2. The Race question – UNESCO Digital Library – Last accessed 20 October 2021.