CRT: Some defining elements
The starting point for CRT is a focus on racism. In particular, its central importance in
society and its routine (often unrecognised) character:
CRT begins with a number of basic insights. One is that racism is normal, not aberrant,
in American society. Because racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it looks
ordinary and natural to persons in the culture. Formal equal opportunity—rules and laws
that insist on treating blacks and whites (for example) alike—can thus remedy only the
more extreme and shocking forms of injustice, the ones that do stand out. It can do little
about the business-as-usual forms of racism that people of color confront every day and
that account for much misery, alienation, and despair. (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, p.
xvi).
In this way, CRT argues that racism is “endemic in US society, deeply ingrained
legally, culturally, and even psychologically” (Tate, 1997, p. 234). It is of central
importance that the term “racism” is used not only in relation to crude, obvious acts of
race hatred but also in relation to the more subtle and hidden operations of power that
have the effect of disadvantaging one or more minority ethnic groups. This is a more
radical approach than many liberal multiculturalists are comfortable with.
Nevertheless, it is an approach that is in keeping with recent developments, not only
in the academy, but also in British legal approaches to racism and race inequity. As I
have already noted (above), race equality legislation in the UK was significantly
amended following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. One of the most important aspects
of the Lawrence Inquiry’s approach to institutional racism is the insistence that we
focus on outcomes and effects—rather than intentions:
“Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an
appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to
discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist
stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry:
Macpherson, 1999, p. 321)
By explicitly including “unwitting” and “thoughtless” acts, this approach moves away
from endless debates about intent by insists upon a focus on the outcomes of actions
and processes. The report states clearly that regardless of the type of racism involved
(overt or institutional) the outcomes can be just as destructive:
Racism ... in its more subtle form is as damaging as in its overt form. (The Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry: Macpherson, 1999, p. 321)
In this way, the Lawrence approach, like some longer established definitions, presents
a fundamental challenge to liberal complacency about the realities of contemporary
racial politics and inequalities. As Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton observed
decades ago in what is widely credited as the first attempt to define the term:
. institutional racism . is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of
specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. [It]
originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus
receives far less public condemnation . (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967, original
emphasis, reprinted in Cashmore & Jennings, 2001, p. 112)