What is the best way to create racial harmony? The traditional liberal ideal was stated clearly in Martin Luther King's famous 'I Have a Dream' speech, delivered in August 1963 in Washington, DC:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character."

When applied to policing this ideal means that individuals should be equal before the law and judged only according to their actual behaviour. From the earliest days of policing this ideal of equal treatment under the law was clearly understood. In 1829 guiding principles for the newly-formed Metropolitan Police Force said:

The police seek and preserve public favour, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing. ⁽¹⁾

In recent times there has been a weakening of the ideal that the police and the courts should be 'colour blind' in precisely the manner that justice is said to be blind. When the Macpherson report accused the Metropolitan Police Service of 'institutional racism', it led the police to reject their earlier belief in colour blind policing. The courts have also been affected. A booklet produced by the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee for the Judicial Studies Board, the official agency for advising judges, begins with the statement that: 'Justice in a modern and diverse society must be "colour conscious", not "colour blind".' And in order to emphasise the point, a list of nine 'dos and don'ts' includes: 'Be "colour conscious" not "colour blind".' ⁽²⁾

We can understand these developments better by considering them in the wider international context brilliantly described by the black American economist, Thomas Sowell. He suggests that we understand campaigns for racial preferences as one among several strategies to become a government-designated group which benefits from government-mandated preferences. ⁽³⁾ The Home Office has taken the lead and introduced targets which assume that because ethnic groups comprise seven per cent of the total UK population they should comprise seven per cent of the police, the fire service and the civil service, including senior grades. The Home Office denies that they are quotas and insists they are only 'targets', but if they constrain the behaviour of managers making appointments there is, at the very least, a resemblance to quotas. Either way, this policy is a departure from the ideal of recruitment solely according to the ability of candidates to do the job.

Many rationales for preferential treatment have been deployed, but here we are concerned with groups who base their appeal on race, whether they are minorities or majorities. According to Sowell, in various countries throughout the world groups calling for racial preferences have used four main grounds: racial superiority; the rights of indigenous peoples; the need to compensate for historic wrongs; and 'disproportionate representation' in sections of society, such as desirable occupations.

Racial superiority was claimed in the Deep South of the USA, Nazi Germany and South Africa. The rights of indigenous peoples have been asserted by the Malays over Chinese immigrants to Malaysia, by black Ugandans against Asian Ugandans, and most recently by native Fijians against Fijian Asians. Historical wrongs have been asserted by the Chinese in Malaysia, American Indians and Aboriginals in Australia. Disproportionate representation is the newest of the strategies for racial preference, and has been successfully deployed by black Americans. It is the strategy favoured by some leaders of ethnic minorities in Britain.

The underlying assumption is that the ratio of one racial group to another in the total population should be reflected in every sub-group. Thus, if ethnic minorities comprise ten per cent of the total population, they should make up ten per cent of every occupational group, such as teachers, lawyers or doctors, including ten per cent at every level of seniority. If there is a disparity, the cause is assumed to be 'discrimination', and if anyone points out that there could be other causes, such as a lack of aptitude or qualifications or even simple personal preferences, they are accused of 'blaming the victim'. As Sowell writes:

By making the issue, who is to blame, such arguments evade or pre-empt the more fundamental question--whether this is a matter of blame in the first place. ⁽⁴⁾

In other words, this line of reasoning confuses causation with blame. To explain a cause is not to attribute blame, but merely to try to understand the reasons for an outcome.

For example, some ethnic groups will be over-represented in some occupations out of choice. Many of the first generation to arrive in the UK from India, for example, chose to run small shops, not least because such businesses permit the whole family to play an active part in contributing to the family's advance. Shopkeepers cannot simultaneously be doctors or lawyers, leading to under-representation in those occupations. None of this is to argue that there is no racism at all in Britain. We have all encountered individuals who are prejudiced, and it hardly needs to be said that if racism leads to criminal actions against ethnic minorities the perpetrators should not be allowed to get away with it. However, if the incompetence of a public service has a disparate impact on one ethnic group compared with another, or if there is disproportionate representation in occupations, it cannot automatically be assumed that prejudice is either the sole, or even a contributing, cause.

To sum up: we can best understand the debate about proportionate representation for ethnic minorities as an aspect of a racial strategy by a group, or its self-appointed champions, to gain political recognition for its 'victim' status in order to demand preferential policies as compensation for alleged discrimination. It is a strategy which can only work in a society made up largely of fair-minded people who are anxious to make all its members feel at home, regardless of their ethnic origin. Essentially, it is a strategy for exploiting their good intentions.

Sowell's identification of the four main strategies deployed by, or on behalf of, racial groups to secure preferences enables us to see that they all have in common the pursuit of group self-interest at the expense of another group. The typical consequence everywhere has been to increase group selfishness and group resentment, a trend which is incompatible with the ideal of a free society built on equality before the law.

Sowell has also shown that there have typically been some other unexpected consequences of preferential policies based on race. For example, within the groups politically designated as entitled to preferences, the benefits have usually gone disproportionately to those who are already most fortunate. This should not be particularly surprising since the chief advocates of preferential policies are intellectuals who tend to define grievances in terms of their own unmet aspirations. The rationale for group preferences is that the 'less fortunate' members of society should be assisted, but intellectual leaders feel most strongly about appointments to highly-paid jobs. Making it easier to gain access to prestigious or lucrative positions is of most value to those who are already well off or talented and of little relevance to the great mass of people in any ethnic group. ⁽⁵⁾

Second, group polarisation has tended to increase. This has certainly been the result of giving preferences to New Zealand's Maori and Australia's Aboriginals. As Sowell comments, a sense of group grievance has seldom been a prelude to justice--the more likely refrain is: 'Now it's our turn'. For instance, if ethnic groups pursuing a 'victim' strategy were concerned primarily with justice they would be likely to sympathise with other ethnic groups, but in recent years riots by black Americans targeted their hostility on other minorities, such as Korean and Vietnamese people who ran successful local businesses. The lesson from overseas is that justice is among the first casualties of heightened inter-group resentment.

The practice of finding new words to ban because of their racial connotations is one manifestation. Police sensitivity over harmless expressions like 'nitty gritty' and 'a good egg' means that we have come a long way from live-and-let-live liberal values under which people are free to speak their minds, even if what they say is hurtful to someone else. The ordinary freedom to speak out on controversial matters should not be the subject of police action. And accidentally upsetting someone because you don't know what upsets them should certainly not be a police matter. What, for instance, should the police make of individuals who are easily upset--'touchy' in common parlance? A free society rests on mutual respect: 'live and let live', 'give and take', 'agree to disagree', 'go our separate ways' are among its watchwords.

Since the Macpherson report, a 'racial' incident has been defined as any event which is said to be 'racial' by a witness or participant. This criterion obliterates the distinction between the truth and falsehood and offers encouragement to individuals with a grievance who find it useful to make a false claim that an event was 'racial'. There have already been some episodes in which the 'race card' has been played by individuals with something to gain personally. Mohammed Bashir, an Asian businessman in Newcastle upon Tyne, was well known locally because his shop was alleged to have been burnt down by racists. However, in June 2000 he admitted at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court that he and another man had agreed to destroy the shop. He had previously claimed that racists had made his life 'sheer hell', but it turned out that he had been very popular locally and that the store had been burnt down to claim the insurance. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit arson. ⁽⁶⁾

The Macpherson report was a watershed in British race relations and has led to the adoption of policies which are likely to diminish rather than improve racial harmony. The fundamental danger is that, in our efforts to ensure that everyone within our frontiers feels at home, we fall prey to the subtle arguments of groups demanding racial preferences. A free and democratic society depends first and foremost on equality before the law and it relies on the sense of solidarity we all feel because we agree to live under common rules which, by restraining us in certain agreed respects, release the potential of everyone to make the most of his or her talents. Such solidarity is a far better safeguard for good community relations than policies of racial preference.

This essay first appeared in the Civitas publication Institutional Racism and the Police: Fact or Fiction, 2000. This version is only slightly amended.

1. Quoted in Kelling, G. and Coles, C., Fixing Broken Windows, New York: Free Press, 1996, p. 106. (The version of the principles quoted by Kelling refers to 'race and social standing', whereas the version in the Metropolitan Police archives says 'wealth and social standing'. The most salient social division in the 1820s was social class and the term 'race' was probably a later addition. Either way, the central concern is with equality before the law.)

2. Race and the Courts: A Short Practical Guide for Judges, Judicial Studies Board, 1999.

3. Sowell, T., Preferential Policies, New York: William Morrow, 1990, p. 14.

4. Sowell, Preferential Policies, p. 150.

5. Sowell, Preferential Policies, p. 15.

6. Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2000.