Let’s talk about the commitment of white-led organisations to antiracist work. What does it take for white-led organisations to succeed? And what is the value they really place on it?
These have all been very pertinent questions for me recently. Tribe was inundated with requests to deliver EDI and antiracist work to cultural organisations following George Floyd’s murder. It was a welcome body of work and we really pride our approach and method to making a marked and tangible difference to organisations. But do white-led organisations really have what it takes to do the work?
Before I get into this, perhaps I should first address terminology. We’ve all heard of BAME-led or black-led organisations, but do we really have a sound understanding of what this actually refers to? We recently learnt that the Arts Council has 2 simultaneously live (and contradictory, in my view) definitions: the first, 51% or more of boards and SMT’s comprise of people of colour (PoC); the second, a single PoC leading the organisation will do to classify. Evidently, there is huge disparity between these two definitions – they are not complimentary, as the Arts Council insists.
When I say white-led organisations, I mean exactly that – organisations that are majority white in leadership, i.e., board and SMT.
The first question these white-led organisations should be asking themselves before they embark on the antiracism road is, why they want to do it. There might be a plethora of reasons, but undoubtedly, the moral case should be top of the list. If it’s anything else, then the road will be even bumpier, and the work will be more intense, and they need to consider this carefully.
We recently delivered some consultancy and training work to a well-known Yorkshire-based, local theatre. The request seemed genuine enough, and certainly the commitment seemed to be there. But once we started the process, it was clear from the outset that things weren’t as they first seemed.
Microaggressions started to come to the fore very early on: the first session had us entering the space and being totally ignored, not introduced or any respect shown to us, whilst the board proceeded to have a good chinwag about their external lives; we were resigned to introducing ourselves and taking control. But the control was resisted somewhat, and this resistance gradually got worse as the sessions progressed.
It all came to a head when in one of the last sessions we conducted focused on us interrogating their processes and board operations. The Chair expressed a very bizarre view: “I don’t really see how board diversity necessarily results in diversity of output, but I do think we should have a diverse board.” Is anyone else seeing the contradiction in terms here? Why do organisations want a diverse board if they can’t see a net benefit of all kinds to the organisation? A lot of it is to do with optics: as long as it looks diverse, that’s what matters – regardless of whether they actually are or not. Clearly, this particular board we were working with was trying to preserve their own seats and make-up.
When we began to interrogate this bewildering statement, it became clear that they couldn’t really justify the position, and rather than the rest of the board members seeing the contradiction, they all aligned themselves to the Chair (including the artistic director), supported his assertion and made us, the ones delivering the session, feel isolated and outnumbered.
And then it got really interesting. The Chair exclaimed, “I want it on record that I am not happy with the way [Tribe] is delivering this session – I feel oppressed, and I feel you have an agenda.”
Silence.
That was a genuinely jaw-dropping moment. How could a white person be saying to two PoC that they were making him feel oppressed? How could the people invited to the organisation to deliver the session be accused of having an agenda? Yes, we did have an agenda – the one we’ve been contracted to do, which is to try and make the organisation more racially conscious, diverse and think about antiracist frameworks.
Arguably this was exactly the kind of thing our process was designed to elicit. To us, it was a successful (but difficult) session, but to the organisation, it was clearly not fulfilling purpose, because the purpose evidently, for them, was to merely look diverse and look like they were committed and look like they were doing something about it. But no, their mentalities were not prepared for the work.
Aside from the fact that the board was completely out of line and working against their own objectives, they were woefully ignorant (or maybe not) of the socio-political context within which that comment sat. It was just wrong on so many levels.
Following this outrageous session, we sent an email to the artistic director/board outlining our concerns and asking for a meeting to review before we progressed with any further sessions. They took a good while to respond, and when they did, the response wasn’t surprising: they were classically fleeing from the difficult work. Surprise, surprise. They agreed to pay us in full but have no further progress with the work.
Of course, we accepted the money (seeing it as some form of compensation for the treatment we received); but we weren’t satisfied. For us, the morality of the situation was paramount. The duplicity had to be addressed or exposed, and we would give the organisation an opportunity to decide the course of our action. Consequently, we sent an official summary letter of our engagement as well as a complaint to the board. This outlined in detail all our reservations, providing contexts and offering to meet with them to ensure they understood the gravity of what they had done – but also to help them, regardless of whether we’re being paid to do so or not, to find a way forward on their anti-racist journey, if they so wanted.
It’s been 3 months. We heard nothing back. And so, we are where we are.
To deal with the stresses of being people of colour in this situation, we had to turn to our supporters, other black organisations and leaders, to find sustenance, encouragement and the hope that things will get better. They were, and always will be, there for us; and our determination of working politically black, together and in unison, was further galvanised.
A few points to take from all of this: one, the theatre must understand that they are not only perpetuating ‘corporate’ racism, hindering the progress of the arts sector in this regard, but they’re also contributing to the breakdown and damage of our (PoC) mental health and wellbeing; two, giving money to end the engagement and thinking there won’t be any more on the matter is evocative of colonial mentalities.
White-led arts organisations need painful change to align themselves to Britain’s vision of multiculturalism in the fullest sense. They must come with the commitment to see the work through, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable the process is. There needs to be a recognition that it will, indeed, be difficult and uncomfortable, and that they must be ready to be transparent and open. Organisational or structural politics cannot have an influence on this work. The road is long, still – but we are watching you and you’ve been noticed.