Anti-Racism understanding Racism:
A Response to the National Anti-Racism Partnership
and Strategy Discussion Paper 2012
Submission to the National Anti-Racism Secretariat
11 May 2012
Dr Gilbert Caluya
gilbert.caluya@unisa.edu.au
ARC DECRA Fellow and Research SA Fellow
The International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding
The University of South Australia
With research assistance from:
Kam Kaur
PhD Candidate
The International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding
The University of South Australia
Background
In 2010 the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council submitted their statement on cultural diversity
including recommendations to government. In particular, recommendation 3 called on government
to “establish an anti-racism strategy and adopt the recommendations of the Human Rights
Consultations on a community-wide human rights campaign and an education program for all
Australians, with particular reference to discrimination, prejudice and racism.” (AMAC, 2010: 18)
In response, the Australian Government announced Australia’s new multicultural policy, The People
of Australia: Australia’s Multicultural Policy on February 2011. The policy reaffirmed Australia’s
commitment to a culturally diverse and socially cohesive nation as previous governments had. It also
announced a new zero tolerance approach to racism. Specifically in response to ACMA’s third
recommendation, one of their key initiatives of the new policy was the establishment of a national
anti-racism partnership and strategy.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) was tasked with leading the development of the
National Anti-Racism Strategy. In March 2012, the AHRC released a discussion paper and called for
submissions.
This submission responds to the following questions:
Objective 1: Create awareness of racism and how it affects individuals and the broader community
1. What can we learn from how Australia has dealt with racism in the past? What
achievements should we build on? What mistakes should we learn from?
2. What information would be useful to include in a campaign to prevent and reduce racism?
Objective 2: Identify, promote and build on good practice initiatives to prevent and reduce racism
1. What are the priority areas in which we should be addressing racism (for example:
employment, education, sport, the media, cyber-racism?)
2. What measures should governments at all levels take to address racism?
1. Australian Racism and Multiculturalism: a symbiotic
relationship
In order to address the questions it is necessary to understand Australian racism, which is
interconnected with Australia’s history of multicultural policy. Australian multiculturalism, as a policy
designed to address cultural diversity, has historically been, and at present is, a government-led
initiative. This affected the forms that multiculturalism took to make them relevant to government
portfolios:



Multiculturalism and citizenship: this area regards questions about who could be an
Australian citizen? Who could migrate to Australia and under what conditions? How to
better cultivate migrants into citizens?
Multiculturalism as accessibility: this area focuses on ethnic minorities’ access to
government services as well as service provision more generally in society in business,
education, housing, etc.
Multiculturalism as cultural policy: this area focuses on cultural diversity and its expression
in society through the creative arts.
These approaches to multiculturalism were backed by government funding schemes, which in turn
shaped society’s larger response to racism. Although multicultural policy was never meant to
address racism directly, it has always been implicit that affirming cultural diversity would indirectly
address racism. But as each new policy was put into place, this also shaped the response of racism
and racist groups in society. Thus, in order to understand both Australian racism and Australia’s antiracist programs we need to understand the shape of Australian multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism in Australia emerged in response to increasing non-European settlement in
Australia. Although many non-British Europeans settled in Australia in the post-War period it was
not until Australia began to accept Vietnamese refugees that the Fraser Government announced the
review of its post-arrival programs and services in 1977. The report arising from the review is known
as the Galbally Report, which identified the following rights and needs:
1. The right of all Australians to equal opportunity and equal access to programs and services
2. The right of all Australian to maintain their culture without disadvantage and encouraged to
embrace other cultures
3. The need to provide specific migrant services and programs to ensure equality of access and
provision.
4. The need for services and programs to be designed in consultation with clients
In 1978, the Fraser government agreed to the recommendations and shifted government policy
framework towards multiculturalism. Thus, from the outset Australian multiculturalism was a policy
about managing non-European migrants. Despite Fraser’s public support for cultural pluralism, the
policies that were implemented focused on equal access to government services and programs. This
remained throughout the Fraser Liberal Government and up to the Hawke Labor Government.
On the whole, Australian society seemed hopeful of the new era of multiculturalism. There was
general support for the Vietnamese refugees escaping the Vietnam War. But this focus on migrant
specific services and programs began to draw some public concern and multiculturalism was seen
largely as a policy for migrants rather than for all Australians. By 1982 the Australian Council on
Population and Ethnic Affairs was forced to allay the public’s concerns that multiculturalism was only
about ‘special’ services for migrants. They attempted to form a common platform in which
multiculturalism was a way of co-existing in a culturally diverse society. To counter the ‘special’
status of migrants, the Council advocated social cohesion, i.e. that multiculturalism be placed within
the context of a cohesive society with common commitment to national ideals. A further principle
was added to the list: namely, that everyone has an equal responsibility for, and must participation
in, society. Although strictly not assimilationist, these caveats significantly shifted debate away from
‘cultural pluralism’.
By the late 1980s, Australia had a high intake of migrants including significant numbers from Asian
and Middle-Eastern countries. As the racial demography of Australian cities began to change
significantly, public concerns, and in some cases public anger, grew. This provoked an immigration
review, leading to the 1988 Fitzgerald Report. Citing the general public’s mistrust of multiculturalism
and immigration policy, the report titled Immigration: a Commitment to Australia, significantly set
the tone for the ensuing decades. The report cited public fears about immigrants’ commitment to
Australia and its principles and institutions. In response, the review proposed that Australia
strengthen the economic focus in immigrant selection processes to allay public concern. It also
recommended that the government should reaffirm Australia’s identity to counter the divisive
aspects of multiculturalism. It was within this context that John Howard, opposition leader, called for
the abandonment of the term multiculturalism in favour of ‘One Australia’. The principles of the
Fitgerald Report were upheld in the Hawke Government’s 1989 multicultural policy statement.
Multiculturalism in its original form as cultural pluralism was under attack, while immigrants were
accused of mixed loyalties. Migrants were thus called upon to show allegiance to Australia by
committing to Australia’s interests and to recognising their obligations to Australia. While this
seemed a reasonable request from above, the picture on the ground was starkly different. From as
early as the 1970s reactionary groups calling for immigration control grew, but their activity grew
substantially during the following decades. Groups such as the National Front of Australia, the
Australian National Alliance, Australians Against Further Immigration, the Australian Nationalist
Movement and Asians Out! emerged during the 1980s. By the late 1980s, the Perth-based Australian
Nationalist Movement had moved to terrorist tactics by firebombing Asian restaurants to intimidate
Asian communities (see Tavan, 2005; Hage, 1998). ‘Asians Out!’ used intimidation tactics, damaging
property and using public graffiti to scare Asian migrants. Significantly, during this period people
supporting Asians or multiculturalism were also targeted by these attacks. The National Committee
on Violence was monitoring the incidences of racist violence. The National Inquiry into Racist
Violence report is filled with stories of intimidation and bullying, verbal insults and physical assault1.
For coloured migrants there was now a growing contradiction between the government’s call to
become part of Australia and the high levels of violence directed against them that made such
1
Race Discrimination Commissioner (1991). Racist Violence: Report of the National Inquiry into Racist Violence
in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
unison impossible. Indeed, for those who were victims of racist violence it was doubly insulting to be
accused of dividing Australia.
Although there are slight differences in actors (eg. changing governments) and terms (eg. ‘Australian
principles’ are now termed ‘Australian values’), up until now the political scene has remained the
same. White nationalists, and increasingly ordinary Australians, accuse the government of ‘dividing’
Australia, of giving special services to non-white people and of not listening to their concerns. For
non-white victims of racism, government cannot legitimately ask migrants to commit to unity if they
are not willing to recognise racism as the primary barrier to that unity. Thus, the mismatch between
government multicultural policy preaching cultural diversity on the condition that one committed to
unity, without, however, directly addressing racism has led to a growing discontent among a cohort
of younger members of non-white communities who have done as asked but continue to face
racism. The anger and resentment on both sides has been exacerbated by tougher financial times,
which in particular has affected youths entering the workforce.
One thing that is important to note here is that the racism is often a response to multicultural policy
and is shaped by multiculturalism. Those arguing against multiculturalism in Australia do not do so
on the basis of racial superiority. The arguments for ending multiculturalism are usually based on a
belief that no race should be above another and therefore no race should have ‘special services’.
Also, race is usually not even explicitly used. Instead, culture is usually employed. Pauline Hanson’s
speeches reflect this wider shift in public rhetoric from racial supremacy to cultural racism. It is a
racism that is shaped by multiculturalism’s shift from ‘race’ to ‘ethnicity’, from biology to culture
(see Stratton, 1998).
One of the largest problems is the social opprobrium attached to stating that Australia is racist
because to most Australians it is tantamount to lacking pride in Australia. The problem is that this
often masks a flat denial of any racism in Australia, particularly in the media. This is cause for
significant concern since if the problem is not recognised it cannot be addressed. This is why the
government’s new approach to multiculturalism, which includes a zero tolerance approach to
racism, is so vital to Australia’s future. As Berman and Paradies argue, historically Australia
continued to “narrowly define multiculturalism, too often omitting anti-racism as a critical
component of these policies. This omission can be attributed as much to poor and confused
conceptual understandings of racism, anti-racism, multiculturalism and disadvantage, as to a
government reluctance to create controversy by explicitly naming racism” (Berman and Paradies,
2010: 215; see also Ang, 2001: 14).
Throughout these debates, government generally took the view that multiculturalism would
eventually breed out racism. The focus on ‘cultural diversity’ was, no doubt, an attempt to balance
both sides of the debate and to focus on a positive future. But in doing so, racism was not actually
addressed. Australian multiculturalism was never meant to directly target racism per se. Rather it
worked on an implicit assumption that multiculturalism would indirectly affect racism. Indeed, most
anti-racist programs in Australia were funded by schemes administered under this framework. Thus,
multiculturalism significantly shaped what anti-racist programs in Australia look like. In what follows
I review the kinds of anti-racist programs that exist in Australia with the view to understanding their
underlying assumptions about racism.
2. Types of Anti-Racist Campaigns and Programs and Associated
Problems
Campaigns and programs to address racism in Australia have largely failed because of a confused
understanding of racism, which in turn leads to confused strategies for government, nongovernment organisations, community organisations, workplaces, educational institutions as well as
communities. Due to the breadth and range of anti-racism programs and campaigns conducted in
Australia, I have grouped them into types. While there are a range of ways of typologising anti-racist
programs (see Paradies et. al., 2009), they have been grouped below according to the underlying
assumptions about racism and consequently what strategies to use to address racism: racism as
cultural ignorance; racism as a belief system; racism as a social norm; racism as exclusion. These are,
however, analytical categories rather than purely descriptive. Some programs can combine elements
from each. For example, some cultural awareness programs include racism awareness training. After
each description I provide a brief critique of some of the pitfalls of these programs in addressing
racism.
2.1
Racism as Cultural Ignorance
The underlying presumption of these programs is that racism results from cultural ignorance.
Often, racism is not the target of these programs and campaigns as opposed to ‘celebrating
cultural diversity’. If they do mention racism it is simply presumed that educating participants
about other cultures should naturally reduce the incidents of racism. The majority of programs
in Australia fall under this category primarily because of the Australian government’s historical
focus on ‘cultural diversity’.
2.1.1
2
Cultural awareness training programs:
(sometimes called cross-cultural awareness training) these programs involve either
educating participants about ‘other’ cultures or to be more aware of other cultures
(‘cultural sensitivity’) or to create inter-cultural dialogue. They range from culturespecific half-day workshops (eg. Filipino culture awareness training for health
professionals working with Filipino patients) to longer 2-3 day seminars touching
upon several cultures (eg. cultural diversity training for workplaces). These programs
are popular in the business where ‘quick fixes’ are used to tick cultural diversity
policy boxes, but it also a primary training tool for government, law enforcement2
and health service providers. Some examples include:
 Cultural Awareness program at QCCA Mapleton3, which aims to create
cultural awareness of Aboriginal dance, artefacts, hunting, storytelling etc.,
to build self-esteem, environmental awareness, and respect.
 Cultural Resource Centre in Sydney, NSW4, which includes several business
oriented training programs for cultural diversity, cultural intelligence, etc.
For example, the Cultural Appreciation Project of the Queensland Police Force. See
http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/community/CulturalAdvisory/cap.htm (accessed 9/5/2012).
3
See http://www.qccc.com.au/newsitem.aspx?ID=39
4
See http://www.cultureresourcecentre.com.au/


Multicultural Marketing and Managing in Sydney, NSW5, another business
oriented training program that supplies cultural knowledge of trading
partners to increase better outputs.
Tom Kirk Indigenous Consultant in Qld6, offers several cross cultural training
programs for executives working with Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander
cultures to create greater awareness and understanding their world view.
2.1.2
Cultural appreciation programs
The primary purpose of these kinds of programs is to foster appreciation of another
culture through its cultural products such as art, literature, film and food. These
include small informal groups created in local communities (eg. an Italian film club),
semi-formal groups in educational institutions (eg. a university Chinese cultural
appreciation society), formal campaigns in the workplace (eg. Harmony Day) to
larger government-funded festivals and other creative arts programs that celebrate
various cultures around the world, such as the World Music Festival or OzAsia
Festival. Community groups and religious organisations also run such programs (for
example, a mosque running open houses program to invite non-Muslims to
celebrate Eid with a Muslim family). Examples include:
 Australia-Chinese Cultural Appreciation Society (ACCAS)7 is a university
student club funded by the University of Sydney Union, that creates a space
for people to come and learn about Chinese culture, things like Mahjong,
Karaoke, Hot-pot and more are introduced.
 Cultural Infusion8 is a Melbourne-based organisation that facilitates
intercultural awareness through school education programs using the
creative arts.
 A Taste of Harmony9 is a program set up by the Scanlon Foundation to
coincide with Harmony Day in which participating workplaces encourage
workers to bring a dish from their culture to share at lunch.
 Nexus Multicultural Arts Centre10 is an Adelaide-based organisation that
promotes multiculturalism and inter-cultural dialogue through the visual and
performing arts.
2.1.3
Problems with Racism as Cultural Ignorance
Ultimately these programs are built around the culture contact thesis (Allport, 1954)
of reducing racial prejudice, which hypothesises that stronger cross-cultural contact
will reduce prejudice against that culture. However, Allport was clear in that study
that several factors had to be met for the cross-cultural contact to be effective. In
other words, not just any contact with a culture will reduce prejudice. The following
are common problems with these sorts of anti-racist strategies and programs:
5
See http://multiculture.com.au/index.php/7
See http://tomkirktraining.com/programs
7
See http://www.usu.usyd.edu.au/Clubs__Socs/Find_a_Club/_-_F/AustraliaChinese_Cultural_Appreciation_Society_ACCAS.aspx?t=6
8
See http://culturalinfusion.org.au/portalnew/education/
9
See http://www.tasteofharmony.org.au/home
10
See http://www.nexus.asn.au/
6




Effectiveness of cultural awareness programs are uneven across industry:
Cultural awareness programs are provided by an extensive cultural training
industry with no accreditation system and no clear industry guidelines. Thus,
their effectiveness is heavily dependent on the knowledge and selfawareness of the facilitator. For example, a facilitator who is a middle-class
Filipino migrant from Manila may give participants some good insights to
understanding upper-class Filipinos in the North, but very little insight into
working with the oppressed Filipino Muslim communities from the South of
the Philippines.
Cultural awareness can sometimes reinforce stereotypes or produce new
ones: Cultural awareness training runs a very grave risk of perpetuating
stereotypes by presenting cultures as homogenous and unchanging. That is,
they tend to present people from a particular culture as all believing and
acting in the same way (homogeneity) or as if ‘other’ cultures do not have
debates that change cultural values and practices over time (unchanging).
Facilitators or curators of the program might also promote cultural
stereotypes through a form of bias selection (i.e. choosing cultural products
that fit their idea of what that culture should look like).
Cultural appreciation programs can be elitist: their focus on the creative
arts may become elitist by default, appealing mainly to the educated middleclass. But more importantly, it is elitist in a global sense since they also tend
to ‘appreciate’ cultures that have more established artistic production
histories and industries, which can be a reflection of quite wealthy countries.
Appreciation of a culture is not inconsistent with racism towards people of
that culture: While cultural awareness and cultural appreciation programs
can foster a certain amount of appreciation or even respect for other
cultures, this is not inconsistent with racism. A Board of Directors can
happily meet over an Indian meal but still not be willing to hire an Indian to
be a General Manager. Or a housewife may be very interested in
contemporary Egyptian art but not allow her daughter to date an Egyptian
man. Indeed, her very study of Egyptian culture might be the reason for her
discrimination.
These criticisms should not be taken as an argument for reduction of funding to, say,
multicultural creative arts. Such programs do add weight to Australia’s claim to
promote cultural diversity as a central aspect of Australian life. What these criticisms
do mean is that these programs should be appreciated for what they do (i.e.
appreciate culture), but not confused with addressing racism. On their own they are
little help against racism. But if poorly conceived these can do more damage than
good.
2.2
Racism as a Belief System
The underlying assumption in these programs is that racism stems from an individuals’ belief
system, which may be due to a lack of education, familial upbringing or socialisation. The lack
of education can be expressed as not knowing what racism is or not knowing the truth about a
particular race/ethnicity. Racism in this model is therefore cognitive, or more precisely a form
of poor cognition. These programs thus presume that once individuals are educated they
would cease to engage in racist behaviour.
2.2.1
Racism awareness training
These programs involve training participants to recognise racism. These kinds of
programs frequently occur in educational institutions such as schools and
universities11. These tend not to be run in businesses, which prefer the positive spin
of ‘cultural diversity’ to the negative focus of ‘racism’. The belief here is that gaining
an understanding of racism will create a new norm for behaviour. However, the
definition of racism varies widely between organisations depending on their
organisational interests. For example, Indigenous racism awareness training may be
offered to academics as part of a university’s policy to increase Indigenous staff and
student intake. But this gives a one-sided picture of how racism affects the
institution since it suggests that ‘successful’ ethnic minorities in these institutions do
not suffer racism.
2.2.2
Campaigns Challenging Stereotypes
These campaigns attempt to provide facts which challenge stereotypes of a
particular racial or ethnic group aimed to reduce racial prejudice. Usually run by
NGOs and activist groups, but also sometimes government public information
campaigns, they provide examples of widely held myths and directly challenge such
myths with information. Some examples of these sorts of campaigns are:
 A Reconciliation Australia advertisment12 which shows two men (one white
and one dark) and asks the audience which one is in a gang and ends with
“we’re hoping you couldn’t answer that”.
 The See Beyond Race multi-media campaign13 used in the City of Wittlesea in
Victoria uses pictures of non-White people with text about their occupation,
etc. in order to challenge stereotypes.
To some extent these strategies are useful to individuals who have simply been
misinformed and are open to being challenged, but staunch racists tend to presume
this is merely propaganda particularly if produced by the community the myths are
about.
11
Eg. University of Wollongong’s Indigenous Cultural Appreciation Program see
http://staff.uow.edu.au/eed/indigenousculture/index.html (accessed 1/5/2012).
12
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqeSGElPtho
13
See http://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/your-council/grants-and-major-programs/localities-embracing-andaccepting-diversity-project/see-beyond-race-campaign
2.2.3
Problems with Programs based on Racism as a Belief System
What these programs have in common is a presumption that racism is largely
cognitive, whether this is racist ideology, racial prejudice or simply misinformation
about racial/ethnic minorities. It presumes then that a cognitive approach must be
used in anti-racist strategies to challenge these belief systems. However:
 Racism may be unconscious and therefore untouched by cognitive models:
a model scout for an advertising campaign could unwittingly select a ‘sexy’
model using unconsciously held notions of racial differences in
attractiveness, which are the result of the historical accumulation of subtle
aesthetic codes and not on the basis on any belief in the inferiority of the
model based on their race.
 Racism is not necessarily ideological or cognitive (Berman and Paradies,
2010: 216). For example, racist behaviour does not necessarily proceed from
racist beliefs but can stem from racist norms. The employment practices of
an organisation may equally apply criteria to all applicants not based on any
idea of racial difference, but is nevertheless weighted to one ethnic/racial
group over another. The effect of these practices over time produces a
racially unbalanced workforce despite no intention to do such a thing.
 Challenging stereotypes does not help those members of a group who fall
within a particular stereotype: Stereotypes can only work if there is a grain
of truth to the stereotype. So, for example, some Vietnamese Australians
are members of gangs, some Muslims are involved in political violence, and
some Indigenous Australians are unemployed. The campaign would thus
falter in neighbourhoods where the experience of the community lends
weight to the stereotype. In such cases, the campaign challenging the
stereotype will backfire and be seen as a government, or even worse ethnic
community propaganda. This is what has fuelled the current white
nationalist movements in Australia, who feel that mainstream media and
the government have ‘sided with the ethnics’. Challenging stereotypes here
is felt as denying the reality of their experience. The important point is that
the generalisations applied to some ethnic groups are not applied to white
Australians. Thus, some White Australians are also in gangs, some involved
in political violence and others are unemployed yet these are not seen as a
racial or cultural issue by either media or government.
 Challenging stereotypes can legitimate discrimination: To challenge a
stereotype suggests that discrimination against the stereotype is legitimate.
To challenge the stereotype that ‘Aboriginals are dole bludgers’, suggests
that high unemployment among Indigenous Australians is a fair basis of
discrimination. It thus does not assist those Indigenous Australians that are
unemployed because of institutional/systemic racism, unequal opportunity,
etc. It thus, also misses the actual discrimination in this case, which is in
discrimination in employment.
2.3
Racism as a Social Norm
These programs are based on the assumption that people use racist behaviour and
expressions because it is a social norm. Thus, it does not necessarily have to be a belief but
just a common practice established over time and through social relations and institutions. To
some extent some of the previous programs discussed above are included in this. Racism
awareness training, for example, is also based on the assumption that once enough people
practice anti-racist behaviour and speech this will produce a new social norm, which in turn
becomes self-perpetuating. But the difference lies in the fact that these programs directly
provide legal disincentives for racist behaviour and thus target the institutional factors that
support the norm.
2.3.1
Legal Compliance training
These programs involve educating participants about legally appropriate behaviour
in relation to race discrimination. The assumption is that the law acts a norm setter
and once taught the new laws individuals and organisations will begin to comply
with the new norm. These are typically human resource training courses in various
organisations focusing on discrimination in the workplace. For example the NSW
Anti-Discrimination Board provides training to anti-discrimination officers in the
workplace.
2.3.2
Institutional Policies and Procedures for addressing Racism
These involve procedures and protocols at an institutional level to address racial
discrimination or racist behaviour in the workplace. These include:


2.3.3
Equal Employment Opportunity policies to abide by the laws
Complaints/grievance resolution processes for racism in the workplace
Problem with Programs based on Racism as a Social Norm
Although racism is a social norm and any program that targets this should be
welcome, there are several problems that arise.


Anti-racist legal compliance program can only ever be as effective as the
legal understanding of racism employed: For example, the law against racial
discrimination only applies in employment if it can be shown that the hiring
process was based on racial differences. But even though individual
appointments may not be racially motivated, the overall effect of a hiring
process can create an all-white upper management structure.
Racist behaviour will only change if the disincentive or incentive is strong
enough: Thus, although Australian Communication and Media Authority has
clear guidelines and codes on the responsible conduct of journalists in
reporting on racial matters, the disincentives are not strong enough as
evidenced by the continuous infringement of these policies by some media.
Editors and journalists are generally unaffected by the meagre fines imposed




2.3
if the code is breached and the media coverage that ensues usually gives
them greater voice.
The law should not cover all instances of racism: For example, to criminalise
individuals based on their beliefs would be opposed to Australia’s
commitment to democracy. Thus, even if racial discrimination law was more
effective, to extend the legal reach beyond clear instances of racial
discrimination may be detrimental to the cause of anti-racism.
Legal compliance can be an excuse for not dealing with institutional racism:
These programs run the risk of making individuals and organisations believe
their duty has been fulfilled once they are compliant with the law. This can
be detrimental to individuals fighting racism in an organisation since the
organisation usually points to such legal compliance as proof that there is no
racism in the organisation.
Institutional policies are unevenly implemented and not evaluated or
measured: the success of these policies relies on thoughtful administration
and careful HR planning with a clear understanding of institutional racism.
Often the policies do not meet up with practice, for example, an institution
may have an EEO policy in place but still ask applicants to provide details of
nationality, which is also given to the interview panel. But more importantly,
even good policy that is well implemented may be based on a poor
understanding of racism, and institutional racism in particular, and thus miss
the target of the policy entirely.
Grievance procedures against racist behaviour in the workplace can be
detrimental to the complainant: many individuals who face racism in the
workforce do not complain because of the strong likelihood that this will
negatively affect their working relationships, particularly if the offending
individual is of a higher authority. The burden of proof often rests on the
complainant who is also offered no protection from the potential hostility
from her/his colleagues. The person making the complaint may be seen as a
‘trouble maker’ and socially isolated from the workforce, thus decreasing
other workplace opportunities. Since many non-white migrants and
Indigenous Australians are in casual employment, which affords little job
security, this increases the likelihood they will not initiate or proceed with
grievance procedures.
Racism as Exclusion
Influenced by the government’s service provision model of multiculturalism, these programs
are designed primarily to ensure access and participation of ethnic minorities and Indigenous
Australians in organisations and organisational decision-making processes in which their
communities are stakeholders. The underlying presumption is that racism is a form of
exclusion and to include ethnic minorities will reduce racism.
2.3.1
Ethnic access programs and policies
These programs and policies aim at increasing ethnic access to services and
programs. Racism here is seen largely as exclusion from services and is interpreted
as an accessibility issue, employing terms like ‘language barrier’ or ‘cultural barrier’.
Since these programs and policies are practiced throughout government, I will
merely list them here:



2.3.2
Translation of media campaigns
The use of interpreters at point of service delivery
Hiring ethnic and Indigenous persons to staff the point of service delivery.
Increasing Ethnic representation
These policies and programs appear usually in organisations where ethnic minorities
are invited to be involved in decision-making bodies. Racism here is seen as the
exclusion from the decision-making of policies, programs and strategies in which
ethnic minorities are considered stakeholders. These are mainly employed by
government, NGOs and community organisations and include different strategies
such:


2.3.3
Collecting ideas or feedback from ethnic and Indigenous communities: whether
through surveys, summits, or community consultations
Ethnic representation in decision-making groups: whether on panels,
committees, working groups, councils or boards.
Problems with Programs based on Racism as Exclusion
While overall these programs, policies and practices are an important way of
addressing the unbalanced racial representation of decision-making boards they do
not necessarily address racism.



Exclusion is not always based on language or cultural barriers: for example, the
exclusion of rural Indigenous Australians to high quality education may not be
based on language or cultural barriers but the geographical distance to such an
institution from their area of residence.
Ethnic representation suffers from tokenism: the selection process may be
politically motivated such that ethnic representatives are chosen for their
affinity with the decision-making body’s pre-defined programs. In these cases,
the ethnic person is merely there to ‘rubber stamp’ the decision and to protect
the committee from accusations of racism. Similarly, ethnic representatives may
be involved in very narrow pre-defined roles that are considered by white
Australian members to ‘involve’ ethnic communities, but not included in making
other decisions. Thus, an Indian woman may be called in to assist an
organisation to formulate their cultural diversity policy, but not be involved in
creating their human resource policy.
Ethnic and Indigenous persons invited onto decision-making bodies may not
be representative of the community: non-white people may be selected
through a number of factors including nepotism, political connections, etc.

which can sometimes result from the relatively high financial status of the
person selected rather than their ability to represent the community.
Ethnic representatives may not be the best people to make decisions: even if
an ethnic or Indigenous person is representative of the community this does not
necessarily mean they are good decision makers or creative strategists. For
example, the Australian government is not representative of the ‘average
Australian’ financially speaking. But it is not their job to be representative in this
sense, rather it is their job to be good leaders and to make good choices partially
based on listening to the Australian community’s desires but also through their
own assessment of the community’s needs based on their expertise. Similarly,
ethnic representatives, by virtue of being representative, may not necessarily be
the best people to make decisions. If an Indigenous Australian is on a
committee, which makes a decision that is detrimental to Indigenous Australian
communities, it will make little difference to these communities that an
Indigenous Australian was involved. Procedural inclusion does not necessarily
lead to equal outcomes.
These critiques should not be used as an excuse not to include non-white people on
decision-making panels or decision-making bodies. It is, however, a provocation to
be thoughtful in the selection of such appointments from the point of view of the
outcomes to the stakeholder community. Procedural inclusion should not be used as
an excuse for unequal outcomes.
3. The Myths of Racism
As we can see from the above, one of the obstacles of anti-racist strategies, programs and
campaigns is that there is a poor understanding of racism. Campaigns and programs often miss their
target and in the worst case scenario can exacerbate racism. In what follows I briefly summarise
some of the common myths of racism so that we can come to a better understanding of racism:
Racism is not psychological
One of the obstacles of anti-racist research, strategies, programs and campaigns is
that racism is often psychologised. The use of psychological concepts in research to
understand the roots of racism dates to the early twentieth century. This
psychological paradigm portrayed racism as a belief system or ideology (such as
white supremacy), a cognitive activity (prejudice and stereotype), a personality type
(authoritative personality), a behaviour or an affective disposition (racial hatred and
fear). While these have been useful for identifying the most overt forms of racism –
such as white supremacism, media stereotyping, etc. – these tend to individualise
the problem, seeing it as a fault of the personality or character of the individual. This
has made it extraordinarily difficult to challenge racism because to claim that
something someone said is racist is tantamount to calling them a person of bad
character. This is why people usually respond in an offended way and this is also why
people accused of racism will use appeals to their good character. Many messages of
anti-racist campaigns are not taken to heart, because to do so will amount to them
admitting they are of a faulty personality. All programs and strategies should strike a
balance between inspiring individual action and not individualising the problem.
Racism is not ill-will and hatred towards, or fear of, another race and need not be intended
Often individuals will defend against an accusation of racism by claiming they meant
no ill-will, that they don’t hate other cultures/races or that it wasn’t intended.
However, a company through no intention, no ill-will nor hatred towards a particular
race/ethnicity may, nevertheless, through multiple minor incidences, promote one
race/ethnicity over another. For example, a worker from a Chinese background may
show respect for her company and fellow workers through deference to authority
and seniority, which might be misread by those promoting as passivity, unwillingness
to show responsibility or lack of leadership. The same company might have many
worker functions, which a Muslim worker may politely decline to attend because it is
mainly around the consumption of alcohol, but in doing so he misses an important
networking opportunity with the bosses in attendance while his white colleagues
utilise the advantage to press their interest in an upcoming promotion. In this
scenario, no party (not the ethnic workers, their white colleagues or the bosses)
have any ill-will or hatred towards, nor intention to discriminate against, a particular
race. But the outcome of the promotion practices of the company as a whole creates
the effect of racial discrimination.
Indeed, the most pernicious forms of racism are often those arising from good
intentions. But good intentions do not always lead to good outcomes. For example,
some, if not many, of the white Australians involved in forcibly removing Aboriginal
children from their parents and community in the Stolen Generation thought they
were doing ‘the right thing’, trying to provide them with education, a new life, etc.
But these ‘good intentions’ led to significant cultural and familial damage in
Indigenous communities that has since been well documented.
Racial/Cultural Stereotypes are Not Necessarily Racist
Stereotypes only become racist within an interpretive context. Let us take a single
statement, a stereotype, about a racial group we will designate as ‘X’. The statement
is: “X are usually unemployed”. It is a stereotype since it makes a generalisation
about a particular race, which may or may not be true. But the statement in and of
itself is not racist because it can be used very differently when placed in different
contexts. One might begin with ‘X are usually unemployed’ as a reason for
decreasing the number of X immigrants or repealing the rights of that group to
welfare payments because they are supposedly not contributing taxes. Alternatively,
one could use ‘X are usually unemployed’ to begin thinking about the racial barriers
to employment for X and then initiating programs to increase their employment
rate. The former is racism because the stereotype is used to unfairly regulate one
racial group by providing them with unequal opportunities. The latter is anti-racist
because it uses the stereotype as an instance of racial discrimination and uses this to
provide equal opportunity. In short, the use of a statement within a particular
context, i.e. how a statement is deployed in an argument or a discourse, is what
makes a particular statement racist. This argument would hold true regardless of
whether stereotypes are positive or negative.
It is important to stress the point that not all generalisations about a race, a culture
or its practices are racist, because failing to understand this plays into the hands of
racism. Many white people will complain that anti-racist discourse is itself racist
because it uses generalisations in portraying white people, culture or their practices.
For example, a migrant worker might complain about the mainly white upper
management of a company only promotes white Australians. Her white colleagues
might complain that she is being racist because she is making a generalisation based
on race. But the generalisation is not used to create differential treatment; it is used
to provoke the company to ensure equality of opportunity in promoting practices.
Belief in the superiority or inferiority of a particular race is not necessary for racism to occur
As we can see from this, racism does not require a belief in the inherent superiority
or inferiority of a race. The belief in the superiority of a race is called racial
supremacy, and is clearly seen in Social Darwinism under Nazi Germany. Although
racial supremacy is indeed racism it is not the only form. Its use as a paradigmatic
case of racism makes society blind to other manifestations of racism. Racist
discrimination is possible without ever having to rely on a belief in hierarchies.
Indeed, the most pernicious forms of racism are those that pretend there are no
hierarchies in society and therefore refuses to see, or vehemently denies, that racial
inequity exists.
Recommendations:
1. Past experience shows that anti-racist programs, policies and strategies, although wellmeaning, often miss their target because of a misunderstanding of the nature of racism. The
National Anti-Racism Strategy should have as a priority a public information campaign
creating awareness of the less visible forms of racism.
2. To overcome some of the inherent flaws in some of the anti-racism programs, a suite of
programs should be funded across society at all levels. This should be a whole of society
approach (so that messages are reinforced in the classroom and the home) and a lifelong
learning approach (so that anti-racism can be applied across all stages of one’s life).
3. Government should prioritise research on racism and anti-racism in its national agenda.
Most of the research is completed overseas, from which Australia borrows many concepts.
Australian-based research will ensure that future programs and policies will be locally
relevant.
4. A zero tolerance approach to racism is welcome, but the government should be role models
in this approach. Government cannot ask society to take on anti-racism on the one hand,
and on the other hand, suspend the Race Discrimination Act when it sees fit (as it did during
the Northern Territory Intervention). The public interprets this as a government admission
that race discrimination is allowed under certain circumstances. Zero tolerance to racism is
precisely that: zero tolerance. It should be a whole of government approach including their
agencies (especially law enforcement and security, which are the hotspots for both white
and non-white communities’ concerns).
References
Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (2010) ‘The People of Australia: The Australian
Multicultural Advisory Council’s statement on cultural diversity and recommendations to
government.’
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Ang, Ien (2001). On Not Speaking Chinese: Living Between Asia and the West. London: Routledge
Berman, Gabrielle and Paradies, Yin (2010). ‘Racism, disadvantage and multiculturalism: towards
effective anti-racist praxis’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(2): 214-32.
Hill, M. E., & Augoustinos, M. (2001). ‘Stereotype change and prejudice reduction: Short- and longterm evaluation of a cross-cultural awareness program,’ Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11: 243–62.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1998, Race for Business: A Training Resource
Package, HREOC, Sydney.
Hollinsworth, David (1992). Cultural awareness training, racism awareness training or antiracism?:
Strategies for combating institutional racism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 13(2), 37-52.
Paradies, Y., Chandrakumar, L., Klocker, N., Frere, M., Webster, K., Burrell, M., & McLean, P. (2009).
Building on our strengths: a framework to reduce race-based discrimination and support diversity in
Victoria: Full report. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation: Melbourne.
Race Discrimination Commissioner (1991). Racist Violence: Report of the National Inquiry into Racist
Violence in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.
Stratton, Jon (1998). Race Daze: Australian Identity in Crisis. Pluto Press: Sydney.
Tavan, Gwenda (2005). The Long, Slow Death of White Australia. Scribe: Melbourne.