Today's blog post is written by Runnymede's director, Dr Rob Berkeley

The report of the Communities and Victims Panel on the riots of summer 2011 makes a series of bold statements and recommendations to government in order to avoid similar levels of unrest in the months and years to come. Many of the recommendations are more forthright than was to be expected from a panel set up by government to sidestep a public inquiry into the events of last August. However, the report’s authors seem to have gone to extreme lengths to avoid discussion of structural and institutional racism and the role that it played in the riots. The avoidance of discussing racism is currently fashionable in policy circles, but in this case such avoidance serves only to obscure the analysis and misdirect the solutions.

The panel’s report highlights the levels of hopelessness in our communities, stemming, they argue from respondents’ views that they felt that common goals for their age group, such as getting a job or going to college were unachievable.

They also point to problems that have been identified over decades for young people from many Black and minority ethnic communities – exclusion from school, low levels of attainment, poor careers guidance, little contact with employers,  and patterns of intergenerational unemployment. Yet they do not articulate that these patterns for some are also often driven by structural barriers and patterns of discrimination which make some groups more vulnerable to exclusion from the labour market.

Today's blog post is written by Vastiana Belfon, a research associate at Runnymede

Researching the Runnymede archives for our new website “The Struggle for Racial Equality – An Oral History of the Runnymede Trust, 1968-1988” showed just how much has changed and, equally important, how much history will repeat itself – unless we take steps to make radical changes.

The language of race has certainly changed - witness recent media coverage of the use of the word 'coloured'. There's still a sense of unease when you read in 1969 of 'immigrant schoolchildren' with IQs that 'work out below their English contemporaries'. In 1971, Conservative MP Gerald Nabarro, addressed the Malvern Conservative Ladies' Tea Club, saying, 'We have enough black men in this country. I call a chair a chair. I mean black men, not immigrants. I don't mind Australians and South Africans or any other white immigrants, but I do object to more impoverished black men, Indians and Pakistanis, coming in.' It is unimaginable that today an MP would confidently say such things in public without fear of recrimination.

In our schools, black parents in the 1970s expressed their concerns about their children being labelled as 'educationally subnormal' or 'remedial'. By 1985, the Swann Report on Multiracial Education was arguing that the problem facing the education system was not how to educate ethnic minority children, but how to educate all children for life in a multiracial and multicultural society. Today, parental worries might focus on exclusions, bullying or school choice.

Today's blog post is written by Klara Schmitz, research and policy analyst at the Runnymede Trust

In the past few months several developments have reignited concerns about the prevalence of racist murders and the role of the far-right across Europe. 

Firstly, the passing of Holocaust Remembrance Day and the six month mark since attacks in Norway at the hands of far-right sympathiser Anders Breivik, have both renewed calls to tackle right-wing extremism in Europe. 

Secondly, some influential figures have recently highlighted the urgent need to combat racism, both in the UK and across the continent. In the wake of the convictions for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, mother of the victim Doreen Lawrence has called for the UK government to do more to tackle racism in the UK. In addition, Europe’s human rights commissioner Thomas Hammarberg recently stated in a speech to the Council of Europe that not enough political leaders in Europe are taking a stand against racism and xenophobia in their countries.

Today’s post is written by Dr Robin Oakley, a Runnymede Fellow

The successful prosecution of two men for the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 may at last provide some closure for members of the Lawrence family.  However this should not be allowed to justify – as some seem to be arguing – any relaxation of efforts to eliminate racism, whether in its overt forms such as racist violence, or in the more subtle institutional forms identified by the Lawrence Inquiry. 

As regards racist violence, it is also important that continuing to focus on the task of bringing perpetrators to justice should not be allowed to divert attention from the need to address also the issue of prevention.  Nearly 20 years after Stephen’s death, the reality is that racist violence continues to take place extensively across the country, as both official statistics and several recent serious incidents demonstrate.  And the great majority of these incidents are still perpetrated by young people – and in particular by young men, as in the case of Stephen’s murder.

Today's blog post is written by Runnymede's director, Dr Rob Berkeley

Some justice being delivered 19 years after the murder of Stephen Lawrence is, in the words of the indefatigable Doreen Lawrence, ‘not a cause for celebration’.  The successful conviction of these brutal killers after 19 years is a stark reminder about the ways in which racism operates in our society. Stephen Lawrence was killed simply for being black. His family had to wait so long for justice simply because they are black.

In the aftermath of this court case we must resist the temptation to declare mission accomplished on tackling racism in our society. More than 100 people have died at the hands of racists in the UK since Stephen Lawrence’s murder. Many other families are still waiting for justice. The way the Lawrence family were treated was disgraceful; institutional racism, pure and simple. Despite changes in the law, our police, schools, councils and health service still regularly offer a worse service for people from black communities; black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, three times more likely to be excluded from school, have to make twice as many applications before getting a job interview if they have an African or Asian sounding name, and are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to their white neighbours.

Click here to access Runnymede's report The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On

* This blog post was written by Helen Barnard of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation *

I have spent a good part of the last couple of years developing a new programme for JRF, focusing on the relationship between poverty and ethnicity. It's been fascinating and lots of people have been incredibly generous with their time and expertise. It has also been very challenging: the area is extremely broad, tensions often run high, language is vital and issues tend to become more and more complex the further you examine them.

Research so far shows that the poverty and ethnicity are linked: the differences in poverty rates across different ethnic groups is one clear indicator of that: 17% for white British people, 23% for Indian people, 24% for black Caribbean people, 25% for people from Chinese or 'other' backgrounds and 52% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi people.

There are also big differences in employment rates, pay, education and caring responsibilities. However, here things become more complicated. The simple story of people from all ethnic minority backgrounds having uniformly worse outcomes than people from white British backgrounds doesn't hold. Two key areas are work and education; in both of these the evidence so far shows some interesting and complex patterns.

In the workplace, research has demonstrated very clearly that there is discrimination in recruitment against people with names that do not appear to be white British. This tends to be more common in the private sector and smaller employers than in the public sector and larger employers. However, discrimination does not explain all of the differences in employment rates, nor levels of in-work poverty across different ethnic groups. Part- time work and self employment are more common among some ethnic groups, as is working in particular types of sectors – all of which affect pay. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black people are also paid less on average than those with similar qualifications from either white British or Indian backgrounds. All of these patterns are affected by the decisions that people make, where they live, and the social networks they have.

In education, when children start school, those from Indian, Chinese and Bangladeshi back grounds tend to be behind those from white British backgrounds. However, this changes over time so that Indian and Chinese pupils end primary school with the highest attainment. In secondary school, young people from Traveller backgrounds have the lowest attainment overall, while white British boys from poor backgrounds make the least progress. However, recent analysis has highlighted variations across the country in results for children from the same ethnic and social backgrounds; another reminder of the dangers of making broad statements about ethnicity.

Thirty years ago on April 11 we saw the riots, or uprisings, in Brixton. Thankfully those now seem to be distant days and the chances of another summer marked by racialised violence appear to be remote (though not many predicted the riots of 1985, 2001 or 2005).

What the riots made clear was that ignoring discrimination and social exclusion is not a recipe for building harmonious communities. We pride ourselves on the progress made since 1981, in terms of legislation and political representation, but is that progress as great as we would like?

After all, much has changed in the past 30 years, right?

• In 1981, black youth unemployment was estimated at a shocking 55 per cent. Last year we saw unemployment among black 16-24 year olds reach 48 per cent.
• In 1981, there was an 18 point gap in achievement of 5 or more higher level CSEs or O-levels between white students and black Caribbean (West Indian) students. Last year there was an 18 point gap between the achievement of black Caribbean boys and white boys.
• In the mid 1980s, black Caribbean men made up 8 per cent of the prison population. Last year that figure had nearly doubled to 15 per cent of the prison population.

I’ve been thinking about many of the issues that arose out of the UN’s Third Forum on Minority Issues. One question that I keep returning to is why the term ‘minorities’?

In the UK, we’re familiar with the idea that ‘ethnic minorities’ experience a range of disadvantages, and that similar phenomena occur across Europe and in North America. However, one of the examples the conference highlighted – black South African people – made me think twice about whether being a minority is really what we or other organisations fighting discrimination and disadvantage should focus on.

I arrived in Geneva for the Minority Issues Forum at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In the afternoon session I heard horrific stories and saw brutal photos of minorities in the north of Uganda being tortured. We also heard a women's rights campaigner...

Today's blog post is written by our public affairs intern Ashley Burton-Lynch

In the House of Lords earlier last week, the government confirmed their commitment to recording hate crime. This affirmation came in response to a question from Lib Dem peer Lord Avebury asking if the government will “ensure that police forces routinely keep records of the religion or beliefs of defendants and victims in cases of racially or religiously aggravated offences”.

Responding for the government, Earl Attlee stated that the government recognised “the importance of the recording of hate crime”, and this was demonstrated in their present liaising with the police to ensure that the earnest implementation of this commitment begins in April 2011. 

The government stated the recording of hate crime data will take the form of five categories – disability, gender identity, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. However, the government stated that, in terms of the level of detail, this data recording will only go so far because of their desire to end “Whitehall” imposed bureaucracy on police forces. Therefore, Earl Attlee stated that in the wider context of the government’s work to remove targets and review the data burden placed on police forces, the police will not be required to log the particular religious persuasions of the victims or offenders.

In the final wave of answers to written questions pre-summer recess, the government has stated that it intends to publish data on victims of racist offences in the summer of 2011. The announcement was made following a written question tabled by crossbench peer Lord Ouseley asking whether the government has, or intends to publish, national data on victims of racist incidents broken down by ethnicity. No such data is currently available.

Lib Dem peer Lord McNally responded for the government, adding that such data has been collected and returned centrally on victims of racist offences, but have not yet been published “due to concerns over the quality and comparability of the data”.

You can read the full answer here.

Westminster became a hotbed of discussion on race and equality issues throughout yesterday’s parliamentary debates.

In an exchange about knife crime and police bureaucracy, police and criminal Justice minister, Nick Herbert said that the coalition government is dedicated to reducing ’time wasting bureaucracy’ and will make hospitals share non-confidential information with the police so that they can target stop-and-search in gun and knife crime hot spots.

This could have a significant impact on race equality, as ethnic minorities are often the target of stop and search investigations. However, it has not yet been made clear as to what ‘bureaucracy’ will be scrapped.

See our latest report Ethnic Profiling: The Use of ‘Race’ in UK Law Enforcement for more on the effects stop and search has on the black and minority ethnic (BME) community.

Following the ippr’s findings that immigration does not increase BNP support, the Guardian has published a letter today calling for the three main political parties to publicly declare that racism has no place in politics.

Signed by 17 high profile activists – including Runnymede’s director Rob Berkeley, journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Operation Black Vote director Simon Woolley – the letter argues that due to closely fought nature of this election, there will be the temptation to make concessions to placate supposed racist voters. In addition, the letter adds that whilst the three main political parties all oppose racism, it “is not enough”.

Highlighting that some sections of the media are “unrestrained in their anti-immigrant and anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric”, the letter argues that we are drifting towards the normalisation of racist discourse. Its adds that “those who would like to promote racist policies towards asylum seekers…have learned to disguise their views in emollient and euphemistic words”.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has today published the findings of an independent review that looks at the current provisions to prevent the promotion of racism in schools. While the report recommends an annual review on whether teachers belonging to racist organisations should be banned, it also finds that measures currently in place to protect pupils from racist teachers are sufficient.