Collingwood Football Club have found themselves in hot water
following the release of Do Better: Independent review into Collingwood
Football Club’s responses to Incidents of Racism and Cultural Safety in the
Workplace. The report is not written by independent researchers but by
activists, who use dodgy methodologies, ‘scare quotes’ as well as deliberately
vague definitions of specific activist jargon to Trojan Horse a crusade of
Social Justice Activism across the AFL and further divide Australians by Race.
My fellow Australian’s, I’m John Andrews and welcome to
another episode of Advancing Australia.
https://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/
Collingwood website’s large footnote on the landing page
reads,:
“We acknowledge the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nations
as the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet. We pay our respects
to them, their culture and Elders past and present.”
From the Guardian:
"Collingwood AFL club's culture of 'structural racism'
condemned in scathing report
Lorena Allam and Mike Hytner, Mon 1 Feb 2021
Leadership on antiracism from highest levels, including the
board, called to replace ‘deny, double-down and deflect’ response.
Collingwood has a problem with structural racism that its
senior leadership must address and it should publicly make amends to those who
have paid a “very high public price” for speaking out about it, an independent
investigation has found.
The report does not rule out financial compensation. It said
making amends could include “reparations, compensation, public apology, and
commitments to reform”.
The report, called Do Better, which was commissioned by the
board in June 2020, has been in front of them since at least 17 December.
Produced by University of Technology Sydney’s distinguished professor
Yuwaalaraay woman Larissa Behrendt, it recommended sweeping changes to how
Collingwood deals with the “toxic environment” of racism in its ranks.
“What is clear is that racism at the club has resulted in
profound and enduring harm to First Nations and African players. The racism
affected them, their communities, and set dangerous norms for the public,” the
report said."
Further the article says:
“The report said comments by Héritier Lumumba were a trigger
for the inquiry, but it was understandable that he did not wish to be involved.
Behrendt said his claims deserved a full and separate investigation.
“It is not appropriate to review those allegations without
Mr Lumumba’s involvement.”"
As Lumumba’s complaints, which have been covered in the
media and are at the moment subject to a court case between the parties, are
excluded from the report I will not include that material in this critique of
the Report.
Do Better — Independent review into Collingwood Football
Club’s responses to Incidents of Racism and Cultural Safety in the Workplace
The report was commissioned by the clubs Integrity
Committee; according to the report:
Our terms of reference were framed as five questions:
“1. How effectively did the Club (including staff, Board and
players) respond to allegations of racism?
2. Were there appropriate supports provided by the Club to
respond to allegations of racism and ensure the cultural safety of all players,
staff and Board members?
3. What changes in relevant policies, processes and systems
have taken place and have these changes been effective?
4. Are the current policies, processes and systems currently
in place adequate?
5. What changes are required to improve the Club’s responses
to racism in the future?”
So within the terms of reference we see the use of the
political loaded term: “cultural safety”, this is the first of many either
undefined, ill-defined or nebulous terms appearing in the report. These terms
have competing meanings: both colloquial - as used day to day, and technical -
as used within the institutions of social justice activism and activist
academia.
https://www.thoughtco.com/racism-definition-3026511
Do Better was written by Distinguished Professor Larissa
Behrendt and Professor Lindon Coombes and carries the logo of the University of
Technology Sydney, UTS, where both of the authors are employed.
According the UTS profiles website:
“Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt OA is the Director
of Research at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of
Technology Sydney. She has a LLB (Bachelor Law) and B.Juris (Bachelor of
Jurisprudence) from UNSW and a LLM (Master of Law) and SJD (Doctor of Juridical
Science) from Harvard Law School.”
Her dissertation at Harvard during her SJD was titled “The
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights in Australia: a study of pluralism and the
politics of identity”.
According to Larissa Behrendt’s own website, in relation to
her book Achieving Social Justice,
https://www.larissabehrendt.com.au/achieving-social-justice/
“Larissa Behrendt attacks the chasm which has grown between
Indigenous lives and aspirations in Australia, and the psychological terra
nullius which continues, despite Mabo, to pervade so much of Australia’s
mythology and policy. She proposes longer term, aspirational initiatives
leading to institutional change that will facilitate greater rights protection
and the exercise of self-determination, including:
• a
preamble to the Constitution
• a treaty
• the
national self-image
• economic
redistribution
• alternative
institutional forms
• regional
framework agreements
• a more
energised politics
• Constitutional
protection.”
She is also the host of ABC Radio’s “Speaking Out” program,
here are some titles of the show’s episodes:
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/speakingout/episodes/
"Lidia Thorpe
Victorian Greens Senator, Lidia Thorpe is a former
grassroots activist and social justice advocate seeking to make her mark on
federal politics.
The Art of Sovereignty
What are the structural barriers to asserting Indigenous
sovereignty in Australia today?
Writing and Activism
How does storytelling have the ability to change human
behaviour and bring about social change?"
According to his UTS profile:
https://profiles.uts.edu.au/Lindon.Coombes
"Lindon Coombes
"Industry Professor, Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous
Education and Research. Lindon has worked in Aboriginal Affairs for over 18
years in a range of positions. He is currently an Industry Professor at the
Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education & Research at the University of
Technology Sydney"
Given their activist backgrounds, the authors, should in no
way be considered to be unbiased, impartial, apolitical or fair; nor indeed,
experts in relation to the formulation, development and implementation of
workplace policies, procedures or as professionals within human resources.
Neither authors have any specific background, professional experience or
expertise in those key areas in which the report makes many of its most
important recommendations.
Further, the Report has been described as “independent”,
although the authors were commissioned because of their independence from the
club there is no possible way to view them as independent in relation to the
topic or the material and the interpretation of the data gathered. Any fair
minded or independent observer would clearly have a reasonable apprehension of
bias in regard to the authors.
The Report:
To analyse the report it is useful to divide it into four
sections:
The Executive Summary and recommendations;
A review and interpretation of the Collingwood Football Club
including the first introduction of “Key Concepts”;
The report’s reinterpretation of what the club and its
values will be into the future, including another round of “Key Concepts”, the
recommendations in depth, and the author’s vision for the club of being a
“Culturally Safe Workplace”;
And a final section that introduces the authors’ broader
goals to implement their agenda across the entire AFL, a timeline for action
and responsibilities for the club to implement the recommendations.
The Executive Summary
A key to understand this report is revealed in the Executive
Summary by the phrase: “In the thirty interviews undertaken for this review”.
In 2020 the AFL released club membership numbers showing Collingwood Football
Club had 76,862 members. The 30 people surveyed in this report cannot be
considered to be representative of the Club nor could their responses be
considered to be in any way representative of views about the club from within
the club; the sample size is simply too small to make those conclusions, yet
conclusions are made. Further, these are personal interviews, not the
standardised surveys required to gain meaningful insights.
The Executive Summary contains definitive statements such as
“there was no clear consensus about what the values of the Collingwood Football
Club were”, “people we spoke to believed that the Collingwood Football Club
could do better” and “It’s hard to be a Collingwood supporter”; given the
sample size and methodologies there is no statistical basis to justify such
sweeping and firm statements as fact: the sample size is statistically
insignificant; the 30 respondents represent 0.039% of the club’s membership.
The Executive Summary criticises the Club in that responses
to incidents of racism were seen to be “defensive rather than proactive”, and
that Collingwood was “perceived as being defensive, doubling down and denying
allegations instead of taking an active and proactive approach”, statements
that cannot be supported with reference to the methods used to compile the
data.
Critically the Executive Summary hinges on this paragraph
towards the end: “There needs to be clearer processes of complaint handling and
policies around behaviour to give people who wish to make a complaint an avenue
of redress. Without transparency, accountability and consequence, these
policies and procedures will not lead to the shifts needed.” However, much
later and in the main body of the report, on page 21 of 35 pages; within a
15,000 word document, it is acknowledged that: “current policies are new,
coming into effect in 2020. This has meant that not only are the policies new
but that there has, given the challenging climate of COVID-19, been limited
opportunities to implement them and socialise them throughout the Club.”
Further it goes on to say that “These new policies are
significant in that they directly mention racism.” It is interesting to note
these changes are not credited in the Executive Summary as they are evidence of
movement implemented by the Board in 2020, specifically addressing racism
through three separate, actionable policies. It is uncharitable not to mention
these revisions in the Executive Summary, and it is similarly uncharitable to
mention “structural forms” of racism at the Club without defining of the term
or even giving an example. In fact the term ‘structure’ appears in the report
23 times and in each instance it is coupled to the words “racism” or “change”.
The Summary also contains 18 recommendations, I’ve linked
the document below so you can find those yourself but right now we will
mention:
Club Values
1. That Collingwood Football Club undertake a process to
integrate concepts of anti-racism and inclusion as qualities inherent in the
Club’s values, including the concept of excellence and the goal of winning;
3. That the Collingwood Football Club Board undertake a
Board audit to ensure its membership, through their behaviour and beliefs,
reflects its goals of diversity and individually embrace the values of the
Club, including the principles of anti-racism and inclusion.
Proactive responses to racism
4. That the Collingwood Football Club Board ensure the
development of a framework for responding to incidents of racism that reflects
its values in a way that is pro-active, not reactive.
Policies, procedures and mechanisms for complaint
6. That the Collingwood Football Club review its processes
for addressing complaints of racism to improve them and to include an avenue of
external, independent review and protection for whistle-blowers;
7. That the Collingwood Football Club implement a framework
to ensure that there is accountability and consequences for acts of racism
committed by members of the Club community;
Employment and recruitment
9. That the Collingwood Football Club Board ensure the
development and implementation of an employment strategy that values diversity
and reports against KPIs. This includes the player group and the coaching
staff;
10. That the Collingwood Football Club develop a clear
pipeline for the development of talent from diverse communities into the Club
and which proactively supports First Nations and people of colour into
post-playing positions within the Club and AFL, particularly coaching;
11. That, in its processes for the recruitment of Board
members and the recruitment of staff (including the playing group and coaches),
the Collingwood Football Club ensures that it assesses candidates against key
criteria including genuine support of the Club’s values and anti-racism.
Ensuring a culturally safe workplace
12. That the Collingwood Football Club Board oversee a
cross-Club process of developing a culturally safe environment.
Addressing the past
14. That the Collingwood Football Club develop a strategy to
address and reconcile past acts of racism in a way that is proactive and seeks
to reward, not punish, people who speak out against racism.
Oversight and implementation
16. That an Expert Group on Anti-Racism be established and
resourced to assist the Collingwood Football Club Board in the implementation
of the recommendations and to oversee the evaluation of that implementation;
Community Leadership
18. That the Collingwood Football Club develop a strategy,
led by its Expert Group on Anti-Racism, to share its processes and reflections
with the AFL community and works to proactively support the concepts of
anti-racism and inclusion throughout the Code.
The Executive Summary glossed over the definitions of the
loaded and emotionally charged language of social justice activism found within
the Report. Key terms like “racism”, “structural racism”, “anti-racism”,
“inclusion”, “diversity”, “culturally safe”, and “proactive” are used as if
they are assumed knowledge when in fact, as previously mentioned, these terms
have competing meanings: both colloquial as used day to day, and technical as
used within the institutions of academia and jurisprudence, as well as social
justice activism. Only a pair of these terms are addressed; specifically with
regard to racism and culture however this is done much later in the report.
Before moving into the main body of the report it is
important to understand the ideological lens through which the authors are
advancing their work and the linguistic tools they are using, and the
assertions underlying the premises.
As clearly stated by the title of one of Distinguished
Professor Behrendt’s books, Achieving Social Justice, the lead author is a
self-proclaimed Social Justice Activist. The academic theories that provide the
framework for much of her work, and others in the activist academic circles,
include Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
“Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in
philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the
narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social
theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt
School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished
from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory
is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts
as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the
needs and powers of” human beings.”
Despite the many histories of the implementation of Marxist
theories causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th
century Critical Theory is uncritically described as being of the Marxist
tradition.
Further in that vein “critical theory is adequate only if it
meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at
the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social
reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for
criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation.”
Further still the guide says “any philosophical approach
with similar practical aims could be called a “critical theory,” including
feminism, [and] critical race theory”.
In order to comprehend the magnitude of critical theory
consider the definition of critical:
adj. Judging
severely and finding fault.
adj. Relating to
or characterized by criticism; reflecting careful analysis and judgment.
There is also another way to define critical:
adj. Of the
greatest importance to the way things might happen
This is the heart of the philosophy, to combine a method of
criticism whilst simultaneously and explicitly elevating that method as being
of the greatest importance in order to drive social change within a Marxist
tradition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race
As an example of this philosophy, the Stanford Universities
philosophy website defines the term “race” in a 15,700 word essay that was
“First published Wed May 28, 2008; [with] substantive revision Mon May 25,
2020”. Nothing in the article makes any reference to concepts of race as anyone
outside of the field might understand them to be; that your neighbours may look
slightly different to you, may or may not be susceptible to certain illnesses
or diseases, and may or may not have slight differences in their metabolism in
regard to certain pharmacologies.
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10192274
Additionally Stanford University also has information on
Critical Race Theory through its summary of the third edition of the book
Critical Race Theory.
“Critical Race Theory has become a dynamic, eclectic, and
growing movement in the study of law. With this third edition of Critical Race
Theory, editors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have created a reader for
the twenty-first century - one that shakes up the legal academy, questions
comfortable liberal premises, and leads the search for new ways of thinking
about our nation's most intractable, and insoluble, problem - race.”
And:
“Offering a comprehensive and stimulating snapshot of
current race jurisprudence and thought, this new edition of Critical Race
Theory is essential for those interested in law, the multiculturalism movement,
political science, education, and critical thought.”
The Collingwood Football Club and “Key Concepts”: Racism
The report positions Collingwood as established in 1892 on
Aboriginal land, presumably stolen, within a diverse and disadvantaged
working-class community that has “a history that should speak to inclusion and
anti-racism”.
The report expands a narrative of a long history of racism
in the club, overtly starting in the 1970 VFL Grand Final where the Collingwood
crowd booed Carlton player Syd Jackson. The report quotes a GTV9 commentator
that put the booing down to Jackson being “a coloured man, we know, but he’s
entitled to every bit of self-respect that anybody’s allowed”.
What the report doesn’t mention is that a fortnight earlier
Jackson had struck Collingwood’s Lee Adamson during the prior semi-final,
inside 50. Jackson accused Adamson of racial abuse and as such was let off by
the judiciary. Jackson was booed for the punch, not for being black. In an
interesting footnote Jackson later apologised to Adamson for lying about the
slur. There could be more to say about the interpreted history of the club but
that was the report’s starting point, a false framing devoid of context.
The report goes on to characterise the image of Collingwood
as being racist, an image gained “through honest conversations with us”. In
order to understand the character of these “honest conversations” it is time to
address the first of the “Key Concepts” introduced in the report: Racism.
"Popular understandings of racism often simplify something
that is complex, nuanced, and counter-intuitive for those who don’t experience
it. For this report, we’ve defined these terms as:
Interpersonal racism (direct discrimination) — actions or
remarks that occurs between people or groups of people that intentionally or
inadvertently expresses prejudice or bias against racial groups. An example of
interpersonal racism is calling someone a racial slur, either with intention to
express a racist sentiment or otherwise. Interpersonal racism is sometimes
easier to see than structural racism, but is not always obvious to people who
don’t experience racism.
Structural racism (indirect discrimination) — occurs not
through individual action but through policy, institutional culture,
representations in media, laws, conversational norms and normalised behaviours.
An example of structural racism is an informal expectation that players from
non-white backgrounds be treated as natural athletes, rather than players with
expertise and agency in the game."
It is interesting to note the key differences between the
definitions of individual and structural racism. Individual racism is said to
occur “against racial groups” whist structural racism is “policy, institutional
culture”, which is to say the definition has no object upon which it acts, that
it is something separate in and of itself that is imbedded within an organisation
simply by being. Absent in the definition is any requirement that the
institution expresses prejudice or bias, or indeed action upon people or racial
groups. This is a linguistic trick.
To unpack this further one might imagine a glass of water.
Drinking a glass of water is an action that is analogous to individual racism,
in that it is an action upon something, in the definition above the glass of
water is in itself the racism, which is to say structural racism. Using this
example we see why the authors noted racism as “complex, nuanced, and
counter-intuitive”. Through defining racism this way the authors are able to
define structural racism in such a way that no example is given of a specific
structure or racist policy, in the entirety of the report, but points to it as
a problem, requiring both systemic and proactive change, and going on to
reference it a further eight times.
Indeed the illustration of structural racism that is given
is counter factual, if “players from non-white backgrounds [were] treated as
natural athletes, rather than players with expertise and agency in the game”
they would not be required to attend training or participate in high
performance coaching, sports psychology etc. The illustration is patently
ridiculous.
To further examine this concept it is worth considering the
theory behind contemporary anti-racism. In Ibram X Kendi’s 2019 How to be an
Antiracist Kendi describes racism such that: “To be a racist is to constantly
redefine racist in a way that exonerates one’s changing policies, ideas, and
personhood”. That is to say that unless specifically anti-racist one is in fact
racist.
Further, Kendi defines racism as “any idea that suggests one
racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group” and that also
that racism “is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces
and normalises racial inequalities”.
Thus, once these terms are defined, Kendi goes on to say “if
discrimination is creating equity it is anti-racist.” This is at the heart of
the anti-racist struggle, it is not a war against discrimination, anti-racism
is proactive and ongoing discrimination in order to produce equity.
Discrimination along racial lines is now a good thing in order to fight against
structural racism. One could interpret that that the response to structural
racism is structural racism, through genuinely racist structures.
These quotes are from pages 17, 18 and 19 of the book, in
the chapter Definitions. At my local council library this book has been
borrowed seven times since 2019.
It should be noted that this book contains 238 pages of
direct text, not including notes and references; and in those 238 pages the
author refers to himself 114 times. This book is marketed as a scholarly work,
not an autobiography. This point is raised to highlight the introspective,
self-referential and circular logic used by advocates within the field: that
anecdote builds upon anecdote, which then forms a foundation for a skewed
ideological world view, the opposition to that view then becomes demonstrative
racism.
Recommendation 16 of the Report says, in part, [an] “Expert
Group on Anti-Racism be established and resourced”. We have examined the
ideology that an expert group will bring to the table. That racism is in fact a
set of ideas and actions that create their own structures, to deny that idea
alone is racist, because racism itself is institutional.
Later in his book Kendi goes on to say that “To be
antiracist is a radical choice in the face of history, requiring a radical
reorientation of our consciousness.” This will be the express purpose of the
“Expert Group on Anti-Racism”, “to radically reorient the consciousness” of the
club.
The report’s authors decide that “While a set of values have
been articulated – belonging, commitment, realising potential and caring –
there was no clear and consistent sense of what the values of the Club are”.
Interviewing 0.039% of the Club’s base is not consistent with an approach
focussed on determining the Clubs values; now that they are unclear they can be
discarded and replaced with a “clearer set of values that integrate the
concepts of inclusion and anti-racism” via the report’s recommendations and by
extension the Expert Group on Anti-Racism.
“An important observation was also made that, in taking
steps to address racism and encourage inclusion, there needed to be a greater
appreciation of the complexities around diversity. Almost all the steps taken
to improve the Club focused on Indigenous people. While that was appropriate
for a range of reasons, it meant that the different experiences, history and
perspectives of other people of colour, particularly those of African players,
were not appreciated.”
What are some of those past steps to improve the Club? Prior
to commissioning the Report the Club created the Collingwood Reconciliation
Action Plan:
https://resources.collingwoodfc.com.au/aflc-coll/document/2019/12/08/45295856-adf6-478b-8b34-86d5a414d6aa/CFC-RAP-2019-2021.pdf
Within that document we find a message from Reconciliation Australia CEO Karen Mundine:
“Collingwood continues to play an important leadership role in a growing community of over 1,000 organisations that have formally committed to reconciliation. With over 80,000 members and approximately 1 million supporters nationwide, Collingwood is in a prime position to make a deep and positive impact on reconciliation in Australia.”
https://www.reconciliation.org.au/team/karen-mundine/
Previous roles include Mary Mackillop Board Director, Deputy
Chief Executive and General Manager Communication and Engagement,
Reconciliation Australia; Senior Consultant, CPR Communications; senior public
affairs and communications roles with federal government departments including
Prime Minister and Cabinet and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
https://www.reconciliation.org.au
Reconciliation Australia was established in 2001 and is the
national body for reconciliation in the nation. We are an independent
not-for-profit organisation that promotes and facilitates reconciliation by
building relationships, respect and trust between the wider Australian
community and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
In the Reconciliation Action Plan, endorsed above by
Reconciliation Australia, is a message from the Collingwood President Eddie
McGuire:
It says, in part:
“Through this RAP we will continue to develop our Barrawarn Program to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people providing employment and educational opportunities and tackling disadvantage through increased engagement and participation. At Collingwood, we believe in a society in which all can participate, prosper and reach their full potential. Our ethos is ‘Side by Side We Stick Together.’ Our purpose is to unify and inspire people through the power of sport. We seek to make a genuine difference in our community and to play an important role in the reconciliation process.”
What is the Barrawarn Program?
http://barrawarn.com.au/about-barrawarn/
“The Barrawarn Program is the key Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander community program run by the Collingwood Football Club
Foundation.”
The site goes on,:
“The program is delivered in two streams – the Barrawarn
Direct Employment Program and the Barrawarn Trainee Program. Each have operated
with tremendous success over the past three years having secured 46 full-time
work placements with a range of host employers along with 15 AFL Sports ready
traineeships and four full-time traineeships with AFL Victoria.”
And;
“The Barrawarn Program also offers all Collingwood Football
Club staff and players the opportunity to participate in Cultural Awareness
Training.”
In the introduction to the report it “acknowledge the time
and advice of the Collingwood Football Club Board and Integrity Committee
members Jodie Sizer”. Jodie Sizer is a board member of the club.
According to the Herald Sun, Sizer joined the board in 2018.
According to the Club’s website:
“Board Member Jodie Sizer, a founding partner and co-CEO of
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Indigenous Consulting, is a Djab Wurrung/Gunditjmara
woman and one of Australia’s foremost Indigenous leaders.
A life-long Collingwood supporter who has been the chair of
the club’s Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) sub-committee, Sizer has worked
with tertiary institutions, governments, sports codes and major businesses in
creating meaningful change for Aboriginal people.
Presently 12.5% of the Collingwood board identify as Aboriginal,
therefore there is strong over representation of Aboriginal people on the
board, considering Victoria’s demographics.
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/2
"In the 2016 Census, there were 5,926,624 people in Victoria.
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people made up 0.8% of the population."
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/IQS2
"Respondents had the option of reporting up to two ancestries
on their Census form, for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people in
Victoria, the most common ancestries were Australian 46.6%, English 19.6%,
Australian Aboriginal 9.2%, Irish 7.2% and Scottish 4.6%."
More specifically we can examine the 2016 Census Statistics
for the suburb of Collingwood itself.
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC20612
"In Collingwood (Vic.) (State Suburbs), 51.9% of people were
born in Australia. The most common countries of birth were Vietnam 4.0%,
England 3.8%, New Zealand 3.5%, China 2.6% and Ethiopia 1.4%."
It is interesting to note that 6.6% of Collingwood residents
come from just two identified Asian countries and make up a higher proportion
of the population than either English or New Zealanders.
It is evident that prior to the report Collingwood had made
significant investment into issues of Reconciliation and addressing racism
through policy changes and outreach programs, many of which are not detailed
here. What is certain is that these measures have been dismissed by the
report’s authors as being “not of themselves enough to shift structural racism
within the Club”, the evidence or examples of which are not given. We remember,
from the activist ideological lens, that the Club itself is an example of
structural racism. In order to counter this the Club must become pro-active and
anti-racist, and per Kendi, “if discrimination is creating equity it is
anti-racist.”
A Different Approach, a Better Direction
That is the title of the report section that outlines, in
detail, the actions the Club must take and it is here that more “Key Concepts”
emerge; concepts around culture, awareness, competence and, most interestingly,
safety.
The chapter “Proactive Responses to Racism” introduce
recommendation four, “development of a clear set of Collingwood Football Club
values that embrace the concepts of anti-racism and inclusion [that] will set
behavioural standards within the Club.” The report makes no effort to define anti-racism,
however that definition has been provided from some of the ideological source
material such that anti-racism is, as Kendi noted, “a radical choice in the
face of history, requiring a radical reorientation of our consciousness.”
The requirement for a proactive policy is to ensure that
racial consciousness is at the core of any framework, or decision made, and
also to provide ongoing work for the Expert Group on Anti-Racism.
Later in the section the report looks for guidance on
“evolving norms and standards. These include:
• the
United Nation’s Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People
• the
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria)
• the
Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent: COVID-19,
systemic racism and global protests, 21 August 2020
These influential human rights documents can provide useful
guides that are more specific about the protection of groups that are often
missing from general anti-discrimination legislation.”
No longer do the Board or Expert Group on Anti-Racism need
to confine themselves with individual instances of interpersonal racism within
the Club, they are now should look to the UN, or indeed global protests as
useful guides on issues that require addressing. This is exactly what the
report means when it speak of being ‘proactive’.
Of the eighteen recommendations made by the Report one is
beyond reproach,
“7. That the Collingwood Football Club implement a framework
to ensure that there is accountability and consequences for acts of racism
committed by members of the Club community.”
If the report confined its definition of racism to interpersonal racism, and narrowed its definition of structural racism to policies that did not address individual racism then recommendation seven would have been the beginning and end of the report. Instead the report uses vague definitions to Trojan Horse the “Key Concepts” that lie at the heart of the report, that sit well outside of a reasonable persons expectations of a response to racism.
“Key concepts
Cultural Awareness — training programs that educate about
different cultures, cultural perspectives and histories to create a deeper
understanding of them.
Cultural Competence — the skills to deal with people from
backgrounds other than one’s own.”
To explore more deeply the ideas around cultural “awareness”
and “competence” it is useful to look to the SBS who advertise training in the
area. According to their website:
https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/training-and-resources
“Maximise the benefits of cultural diversity in your
workplace
The Cultural Competence Program (CCP) is Australia’s leading
online training course aimed at building capability around cultural diversity
in the workplace.
The CCP explores topics including:
• Cross-cultural
communication
• Addressing
stereotypes
• Unconscious
bias
• Diversity
• Benefits
of multiculturalism in the workplace
There are over 60 animations and films, including real
people telling real stories. Also included are fun, interactive activities,
plus options for further reading.
Learning Outcomes
Individual learning outcomes are geared toward developing
understating in culture, diversity and inclusion through looking at some of the
following:
• Ways that
cultural diversity contributes to competitive advantage
• Unconscious
bias in decision making and how to remedy it
• Different
cultures’ ways of thinking, acting and communicating
• How the
above is affected by values, attitudes and beliefs
• How
different people of different cultures adapt to new cultures"
Clicking through the websites links to the course material a
few examples of content and topics can be noted:
https://cultural-competence.com.au/course-content
"Unconscious Bias
• Types of
bias
• Effects
on recruitment and career
• Groupthink
• Stereotypes
• Managing
unconscious bias
Cultural Adaptation
• Stages of
cultural adaptation
• Impact on
management"
The Harvard University Implicit Association Test (IAT) has formed the platform for the notion of Unconscious Bias. The test does not produce repeatable results and has been savaged in scientific literature.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-we-really-measure-implicit-bias-maybe-not/
The Chronicle of Higher Education has the [America’s]
largest newsroom dedicated to covering colleges and universities. As the
unrivalled leader in higher education journalism, we serve our readers with
indispensable real-time news and deep insights, plus the essential tools,
career opportunities, and knowledge to succeed in a rapidly changing world.
Can We Really Measure Implicit Bias? Maybe Not
Tom Bartlett JANUARY 5, 2017
The article quotes Anthony G. Greenwald, a psychology
professor at the University of Washington, and the co-author of the 2013 best
seller Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People, a book that’s based on the
IAT, a test the he helped create has criticised the use of the IAT and
Unconscious Bias saying that, to quote from the article: “We do not regard the
IAT as diagnosing something that inevitably results in racist or prejudicial
behaviour”.
Additionally, the NYPD notes, in their report The Impacts of
Implicit Bias Awareness Training in the NYPD, July 2020;
“The effects of the training on officers’ attitudes toward
discrimination, and their motivation to act without prejudice, were fairly small,
though prior to the training, most officers considered discrimination a social
problem and felt individually motivated to act without bias.”
Another article:
Mandatory Implicit Bias Training Is a Bad Idea
It's all the rage. But in the view of some, it's seriously
counterproductive.
Lee Jussim Ph.D. Dec 02, 2017
"“Implicit bias” seems to be everywhere. What is it? “Bias,”
to your average layperson, seems to mean something like prejudice or
discrimination. “Implicit” is usually taken to mean unconscious or outside of
awareness. So “implicit bias” is, supposedly, something like prejudices of
which people are not even aware.
However, the research on so-called implicit bias has its serious critics. Almost everything about implicit bias is controversial in scientific circles. It is not clear, for instance, what most implicit bias methods actually measure; their ability to predict discrimination is modest at best; their reliability is low; early claims about their power and immutability have proven unjustified."
It should be obvious from the course and marketing material
from SBS, one of the lead training providers in the field, that “cultural
awareness” training and “cultural competence” are not learning about the
peoples of the world and sensitively helping them to adapt to Australian
culture, rather they are tools to reprogram ones “unconscious bias” such that
it can be “managed” through ones “cultural adaptation”.
The simple definitions of terms offered in the Report are
not that simple at all but act as a gateway drug for the cultural imperialists
to leverage their dogma across training and “truth telling” struggle sessions,
recommended by the Report, and to propagate their ideas across the rest of the
AFL.
Through investigating concepts of Cultural Awareness and
Cultural Competence we are introduced to the Report’s final Key Concept:
“Cultural Safety — an environment in which a person from a
diverse background feels valued and accepted.”
And later:
"In working to create a culturally safe workplace it is important to emphasise diversity. Often steps in relation to better understand First Nations programs overlook other experiences and cultures. A focus on the cultural safety of people from diverse backgrounds, such as African or African descent, further improves the inclusiveness and culture of the Club.”
This paragraph and the definition of “Cultural Safety” focus
not on the Cultural Safety of the Club, nor it’s expressed values of belonging,
commitment, realising potential and caring, but of the deliberate, proactive,
social rehabilitation of the club to protect and nurture the values of those
exclusively from a “diverse background” and how the culture of the Club adapt
to respect those cultures.
The Board have adopted the eighteen recommendations of the
report in full and the final section of the report detail specific
responsibilities for Board Members and Executives to implement and report on
the progress of the recommendations.
Conclusion:
A poet, Audre Lorde, is often quoted as saying “It is not
our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and
celebrate those differences” but it works both ways. The middle class women
that dominate the university systems racial and gender study fields fail to
recognise a universal truth in human behaviour, that respect and recognition
work both ways.
Attempting to impose middle class aspirations upon
hyper-competitive elite male athletes and working class men excludes the
possibility of recognising the differences between the cultures of
institutions. Indeed the professors that created the report made no meaningful
attempt to understand the culture of the Club before imposing their own
cultural ideals upon it, as such their critique of the Club’s culture is
invalid. It is its own form of cultural imperialism, of cultural colonialism.
The Report carries the image of the University of Technology
Sydney logo and was written by two eminent professors employed by the
University, however the Report does not live up to any rigorous academic
standards, carries no statistical credibility and relies heavily on ‘scare
quotes’ to impart critical information that is relied upon to support
conclusions and actions. Although dressed to appear as a scholarly work from a
respected University it is not.
Further this report demonstrates that diversity is not a
strength, it is by its very nature divisive: this report has airbrushed
Collingwood’s Asian population from consideration as board members, coaching
and technical staff, players and members. They are not addressed specifically
in the report despite making up 6.6% of the population of the suburb of
Collingwood, compared to the African population that is specifically mentioned,
indeed as are black and brown people, despite the 2016 Census reporting 1.6% of
the population coming from Ethiopia. By the reports own methodology and
definitions it is structurally racist.
This simple example highlights the authors’ fixations on
dark skin/light skin narratives that are used as tools to wedge power out of an
organisation and to effect social change through cultural imperialism rather
than the through the ballot box or discussion. The Leftist can only destroy,
never create and this report and its inherent and racist flaws are a classic
example of this.
‘Robin DiAngelo is a key promotor of ideas around
anti-racism and recently wrote a very successful book called “White Fragility”.
An Open Letter to Robin Di Angelo about “Anti-racism”
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/open-letter-robin-diangelo-anti-racism/
June 2020
The essay says, in part:
“You would turn us against each other by teaching us to see
how we’re all “complicit” in a “system” of racism. You would have our children
become obsessed with racism and poisoned with it. You do this so that you will
not feel so alone. And for this crime against us and our children, we would
like to sit down and have a word with you.
Many of our children have been led astray, taught to obsess
over race, to attempt to see it all around them in every interaction and every
object around them. This has only happened in recent years under the
“educational” direction of “anti-racism” advocates such as yourself. We’re
terrified. Those who have fully embraced this poison may be lost, possibly
forever. They’re our children, and they’re already turning on us. Imagine for a
moment how that must feel for every parent, every sibling experiencing this
right now.
We write this in the pale hope of saving them, not to save
you, and to stand in true solidarity with one voice—brown, white, and even
black—to deliver a very simple message to you.
You are wrong.”
And at the end of the letter:
“Signed,
A group of professional brown Americans (if you must know) who worked their way up in a free country. We cannot sign our right names because, thanks in some significant part to you, we know what will happen if we do. Those who feel they can, can add theirs in the comments.”
Collingwood supporters, none of the language used in the
report is used in a definition that you or I might understand it to be, these words
have specific definitions within activist academia and these are the
definitions that will be used when policy is created and implemented and it
will be done in your name, to your club and it will be aimed at you.
In the never ending quest to find racism, to be anti-racist,
the Expert Group on Anti-Racism will analyse every aspect of the Club, and
having done that will then look to the game itself:
Is there enough diversity in passing and marking?
Are the share of inside 50’s proportional to the diversity
of the team?
On and on it will go.
Collingwood: Do Better!
No comments:
Post a Comment