DOCSLIB.ORG

Retrospective and Prospective Approaches To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Retrospective and Prospective Approaches To SGOXXX10.1177/2158244013484734SAGE OpenAllen 484734research-article2013 SAGE Open April-June 2013: 1 –10 Passing the Dinner Table Test: © The Author(s) 2013 DOI: 10.1177/2158244013484734 Retrospective and Prospective sgo.sagepub.com Approaches to Tackling Islamophobia in Britain Chris Allen1 Abstract Through establishing the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia and Cross-Government Working Group on Anti- Muslim Hatred, the Coalition government has afforded significance to Islamophobia. Focusing on definition, evidence, and politics, this article considers British governmental policy approaches to tackling Islamophobia over the past 15 years. Tracing religiously based discrimination from the 1980s to the publication of the Runnymede Trust’s 1997 groundbreaking report into Islamophobia, this article explores how the New Labour government sought primarily to address Islamophobia through a broadening of the equalities framework. Against a backdrop of 9/11 and 7/7, a concurrent security and antiterror agenda had detrimental impacts. Under the Coalition, there has been a marked change. Considering recent developments and initiatives, the Coalition has seemingly rejected Islamophobia as an issue of equalities preferring approaches more akin to tackling Anti-Semitism. In conclusion, definition, evidence, and politics are revisited to offer a prospective for future British governmental policy. Keywords Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hatred, British government, discrimination, religion Since the 2010 general election, the Coalition government Given Islamophobia’s timeliness, relatively little schol- has brought the issue of Islamophobia much more firmly into arly work has been produced, which focuses on governmen- the political and policy spaces than its New Labour predeces- tal policy responses to tackling the phenomenon. sor. This can be seen in the establishing of the All Party Consequently, such a consideration is possibly somewhat Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Islamophobia, the Cross- overdue. Acknowledging this gap and the shift in Coalition Government Working Group (CGWG) on Anti-Muslim thinking, this article critically analyses British governmental Hatred (CGWG), and in a more populist fashion, in the sug- policy responses and approaches to Islamophobia over the gestion by the cochair of the Conservative Party—Baroness past two decades. Focusing on three key issues—definition, Sayeeda Warsi—that Islamophobia has passed “the dinner evidence, and political differences—this article offers a brief table test” (Guardian, 2011): that the expression of anti-Mus- overview of what Islamophobia might—and might not—be. lim and anti-Islamic sentiment has become socially accept- From here, it contextualizes the contemporary setting able through conversational civility. To what extent also is it through considering historical policy approaches including evidence that the Coalition, unlike its New Labour predeces- “race relations” and equalities agendas. Using the Runnymede sors, is happy to “do God” (Guardian, 2010)? Irrespective of report as a landmark, a critical retrospective of the policies to the drivers, Islamophobia is now firmly established on the emerge under New Labour is considered before focusing on political and policy radar; interesting given that since the recent, Coalition-led changes. In conclusion, this article publication of the Commission on British Muslims and analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the different policy Islamophobia’s (CBMI) report by the Runnymede Trust in approaches to highlight where future British governmental 1997 (the Runnymede report)—the first British policy docu- policy toward Islamophobia may go. As well as reflecting ment relating to Islamophobia—policy responses to the phe- nomenon have been scant, indirect, and somewhat implicit. 1University of Birmingham, England Consequently, developments and discourses emanating from Corresponding Author: the Coalition are as unexpected as they are unprecedented. Chris Allen, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Why then might Islamophobia be on the policy agenda now? Midlands B15 2TT, England. What has changed? Email: [email protected] Downloaded from by guest on June 4, 2016 2 SAGE Open upon a wide range of policy and academic sources, docu- widely adopted, both have been shown to be flawed. For ments from various governmental sources (including some Allen (2010), if the “closed views” equal Islamophobia, then that are unavailable in the public domain) and research notes the opposite “open views”—set out in the report as a coun- from exploring Islamophobia at British and European levels terbalance or more rational “view”—must equal Islamophilia, from the past decade are also drawn upon. itself as unwelcome and unwarranted as Islamophobia. For Acknowledging the international resonance of the phe- those seeking to refute or reject Islamophobia, such a binary nomenon, its different manifestations in different national approach offers convenience: Tackling Islamophobia neces- and international settings, and the differing approaches to sitates the imposition of an unmovable and uncritical tackling it in these same locations, this article contributes (Islamophilic) shield behind which all criticism and ques- knowledge toward understanding governmental policy tioning of Islam and Muslims, irrespective of legitimacy is approaches to tackling Islamophobia as well as Islamophobia deflected or repealed. For critics, therefore, all discussion per se. The wider body of work remains embryonic where and debate is forced into being either “Islamophobic” or the focus has been on theoretical analyses (Allen, 2010; “Islamophilic.” In doing so, the nuance and complexity that Malik, 2010; Sayyid & Vakil, 2010), media (Petley & characterizes much of what sits between the binaries is inap- Richardson, 2011; Poole, 2002; Richardson, 2004), applied propriately referred to in generalized terms and in largely contexts (e.g., education; Shaik, 2006), specific locations patronizing and phoney ways (Allen, 2010). This widespread (Reeves, Abbas, & Pedroso, 2009), political movements and uncritical adoption of the Runnymede definition and (Allen, 2011a), or from within specific disciplines (Sheriden, typology is therefore seen to be causal in the failure to effec- 2006). As Campling (1997) observes from research into race tively communicate not only what Islamophobia is but also relations and equalities, it is easy to be overly “introspective, to convince politicians and policy makers that a response is over-theoretical and disconnected from policy concerns” required (Allen, 2010). (p.1), something which is true of Islamophobia. Where Usage of the term Islamophobia is also problematic. research has focused on policy, most have disproportionately Shyrock (2010) suggests that the usage is oversimplified and focused on associated topics or those conflated with Islam or “impervious to nuance” (2010, p. 9), whereas for Allen Muslims rather than with Islamophobia itself. This can be (2010), it is routinely conceived and used in weak and uncon- seen in the focus on antiterrorism (Kundnani, 2009; Spalek vincing ways. Sayyid (2010) offers differentiation: & McDonald, 2010) and integration (Joppke, 2009; Analytically, Islamophobia is rendered “a nebulous and per- Mandeville, 2009; Modood, Triandafyllidou, & Zapata- petually contested category” (p. 2); polemically, it is locked Barrero, 2006; Schain, 2010; Sinno, 2008) among others. in the discourses of those with grievances, smugly pontificat- Alcock’s (2003) reflection therefore has resonance: “the rac- ing or seeking the ear of politicians. For him, usage is inef- ism that black people in Britain experience is thus not the fectual given the lack of meaning attributed to it by those same thing as reaction to ethnic differences” (p. 290). As the who use it. Similar criticisms are posited when charges of Islamophobia Muslims experience in Britain is not the same Islamophobia are made, lacking specificity, relying on con- as reaction to religious or theological differences, what jecture and accusation, therefore being open to challenge and Parekh (2006) suggests comes under the moniker the rejection (Vakil, 2010). As Vakil (2010) reflects, given such “Muslim question.” As Alcock clarifies, the focus “is thus contention, it might be easier to suspend engagement with not race, but racism” (p. 290). Here, therefore, the focus is Islamophobia linguistically and conceptually. However, as Islamophobia. he adds, this miscasts the issue as the term is established in the contemporary lexicon and has had considerable invest- Knowing Islamophobia ment from critics and advocates alike. Relevant here is the fact that the Coalition government is now openly using the Recognition of Islamophobia, let alone political recognition, term. Although as before, what matters will be what is meant spans little more than two decades (Allen, 2010; CBMI, by the Coalition’s usage of the term. 1997). Those two decades, however, have been marked by at Unsurprisingly, the government’s definition and mean- times emotive exchanges about what Islamophobia is and ings of Islamophobia remain protean. As evidence of this, the what is not. British in coinage, the Runnymede report defined APPG has prioritized the need for a working definition to Islamophobia as “a useful shorthand way of referring to the base its work program on (Allen, 2011a). So does the CGWG, dread or hatred of Islam . and, therefore, to fear or dislike noting how “the term Islamophobia
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Secularism, Racism and the Politics of Belonging
    Runnymede Perspectives Secularism, Racism and the Politics of Belonging Edited by Nira Yuval-Davis and Philip Marfleet Disclaimer Runnymede: This publication is part of the Runnymede Perspectives Intelligence for a series, the aim of which is to foment free and exploratory thinking on race, ethnicity and equality. The facts Multi-ethnic Britain presented and views expressed in this publication are, however, those of the individual authors and not necessarily those of the Runnymede Trust. Runnymede is the UK’s leading independent thinktank ISBN: 978-1-906732-79-0 (online) on race equality and race Published by Runnymede in April 2012, this document is relations. Through high- copyright © Runnymede 2012. Some rights reserved. quality research and thought leadership, we: Open access. Some rights reserved. The Runnymede Trust wants to encourage the circulation of its work as widely as possible while retaining the • Identify barriers to race copyright. The trust has an open access policy which equality and good race enables anyone to access its content online without charge. Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute relations; this work in any format, including translation, without • Provide evidence to written permission. This is subject to the terms of the support action for social Creative Commons Licence Deed: Attribution-Non- Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & change; Wales. Its main conditions are: • Influence policy at all levels. • You are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work; • You must give the original author credit; • You may not use this work for commercial purposes; • You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
    [Show full text]
  • England Civil Society Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
    Runnymede Perspectives England Civil Society Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Drafted by the Runnymede Trust Runnymede: Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of those who have contributed to this Intelligence for a report. This includes the individuals and organisations who engaged Multi-ethnic Britain with our written call for evidence and roundtables in England. We consulted over 100 organisations and individuals across England in our roundtables, and over 50 organisations and individuals provided written evidence. Their invaluable contributions informed the content Runnymede is the UK’s of this report. leading independent thinktank We would also like to recognise the support of the Equality and on race equality and race Human Rights Commission for providing the funding to make this relations. Through high- report possible. quality research and thought The Runnymede Trust would like to acknowledge the work of the leadership, we: project co-ordinator and lead author of the report, Alba Kapoor, Senior Policy Officer at the Runnymede Trust. We would also like to thank Halima Begum, Director of the Runnymede Trust, Identify barriers to race and other members of the team: John Page, Nick Treloar, Ishan • Alam, Linsey Bholah, Sisanda Myataza and Christina Oredeko. equality and good race We would also like to give special thanks to Barbara Cohen, an relations; independent consultant on this report. • Provide evidence to We are grateful to members of the steering group for their support and advice: support action for social Patrick Vernon, social commentator, campaigner and cultural change; historian • Influence policy at all Professor Iyiola Solanke, Chair in EU Law and Social Justice, School of Law, University of Leeds levels.
    [Show full text]
  • PART III: DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS of ISLAMOPHOBIA 66 a 20Th-Anniversary Report
    Islamophobia: Still a challenge for us all 65 PART III: DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 66 A 20th-anniversary report 12 Islamophobia and the Muslim struggle for recognition Tariq Modood It was not very long ago that Anglophone scholars in terms of how a dominant group negatively of racism understood racism in terms of biology, and and stereotypically imagines that minority as specifically in terms of the black–white binary. At the something ‘Other’, as inferior or threatening, same time, other scholars, especially in continental and to be excluded. Indeed, the dominant group Europe, understood racism in terms of antisemitism, typically projects its own fears and anxieties onto especially in the recent biologized forms that Europe the minority. Minorities, however, are never merely manifested in the 20th century. When it began to ‘projections’ of dominant groups but have their be clear that these two paradigms were failing to own subjectivity and agency through which they capture some contemporary experiences, such challenge how they are (mis)perceived and seek to as anti-Asian cultural racism in Britain or anti-Arab not be defined by others but to supplant negative cultural racism in France, some scholars began to and exclusionary stereotypes with positive and move away from these paradigms. Even so, the pull prideful identities. Oppressive misrecognitions, of these biologistic models was so strong that even thus, sociologically imply and politically demand today many scholars of racism understand cultural recognition. Our analyses therefore should be racism in quasi-naturalistic terms, seeing culture framed in terms of a struggle for recognition or a as a ‘code’ for the biological racisms that they find struggle for representation (Modood 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Training Module a for Academics and Research Organisations Hatemeter \ Deliverable D18 Training Module a for Academics and Research Organisations
    Deliverable Hate speech tool for monitoring, analysing and tackling Anti-Muslim hatred online D18 REC Action Grant (REC-DISC-AG-2016-04) 24 months (01.02.2018 - 31.01.2020) This document was funded by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020) November 2019 Training module A for academics and research organisations Hatemeter \ Deliverable D18 Training Module A for academics and research organisations D18 – Training Module A for academics and research organisations WP5 Training, dissemination and sustainability events Due Date: 30/11/2019 Submission Date: 30/11/2019 Responsible Partner: UT1-Capitole Version: 1.0 Status: Final Jérôme Ferret and Mario Laurent (UT1-Capitole), Andrea Di Nicola, Daniela Andreatta, Author(s): Gabriele Baratto and Elisa Martini (UNITRENTO), Marco Guerini and Sara Tonelli (FBK), Georgios A. Antonopoulos and Parisa Diba (TEES) Jérôme Ferret and Mario Laurent (UT1-Capitole), Andrea Di Nicola, Daniela Andreatta, Gabriele Baratto and Elisa Martini (UNITRENTO), Serena Bressan, Marco Guerini and Reviewer(s): Sara Tonelli (FBK), Georgios Antonopoulos and Parisa Diba (TEES), Isis Koral (CCIF), Francesca Cesarotti (Amnesty Italy), Bill Howe (Stop Hate UK) Deliverable Type: R Dissemination Level: CO Statement of originality This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both. The content of this document represents
    [Show full text]
  • Islamophobia
    Islamophobia An Anthology of Concerns Edited by Emma Webb Islamophobia Islamophobia An Anthology of Concerns Edited by Emma Webb First Published August 2019 © Civitas 2019 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-906837-98-3 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. Typeset by Typetechnique Printed in Great Britain by 4edge Limited, Essex iv ‘This comprehensive anthology of widespread concerns about the danger to free speech and legitimate discussion in the use of the vague catch-all term Islamophobia, is both timely and welcome. ‘The report will not only help protect free speech and legitimate criticism, but also help us understand why Muslims and other religious communities are sometimes the target for hate crimes that shame society. Perpetrators of such crimes do not carry out a detailed study of a religion before expressing antipathy. Hatred arises out of ignorance in which small differences can assume frightening and threatening proportions. It can only be removed through greater emphasis on religious and cultural literacy.’ Lord Singh of Wimbledon ‘Islamophobia is an otiose word which doesn’t deserve definition. Hatred of Muslims is unequivocally reprehensible, as is hatred of any group of people such as gay people or members of a race.
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Divide? Faith Schools and Community Cohesion
    Right to Divide? Faith Schools and Community Cohesion A Runnymede Report by Rob Berkeley with research by Savita Vij RUNNYMEDE REPORTS Acknowledgements The Runnymede Trust would like to thank the colleagues and organi- zations whose support made this research process possible. These Biographical details include: Dr Rob Berkeley is Deputy Black and Equality Merseyside Network Director of the Runnymede Blackburn Cathedral Trust. Learning Trust, Hackney Leicester City Council Dr Savita Vij is a London Borough of Brent Runnymede Research London Borough of Harrow Associate. London Borough of Newham Southampton Council of Faiths and all of the many respondents – parents, pupils, teachers, community activists and religious leaders – who shared their views so openly and candidly. We would also like to thank the advisers who helped us to establish the research framework. Furthermore, we acknowledge our gratitude to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for their support of the Faith Schools and Community Cohesion Project. ISBN-13: 978-1-906732-12-7 (print) EAN: 9781906732127 (print) ISBN-13: 978-1-906732-13-4 (online) EAN: 9781906732134 (online) Published by Runnymede in December 2008, this document is copyright © 2008 the Runnymede Trust. An electronic version can be read or downloaded from the Runnymede website [www.runnymedetrust.org]. Reproduction of this report by photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, it is not permitted to store or transmit the electronic version of this report, nor to scan or photocopy the paper version for dissemination or commercial use, without the prior permission of the publisher. Researchers and commentators may quote from this document without charge provided they cite the author, the title and the publisher when they acknowledge the source of the material quoted.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Book
    PALGRAVE POLITICS OF IDENTITY & CITIZENSHIP SERIES POLITICS OF IDENTITY & CITIZENSHIP SERIES PALGRAVE PALGRAVE TheThe StateState ofof RaceRace EditedEdited byby NishaNisha Kapoor,Kapoor, VirinderVirinder S.S. KalraKalra andand JamesJames RhodesRhodes The State of Race Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series Series Editors: Varun Uberoi , University of Oxford; Nasar Meer , University of Southampton and Tariq Modood , University of Bristol. The politics of identity and citizenship has assumed increasing importance as our polities have become significantly more culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse. Different types of scholars, including philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and historians make contributions to this field and this series showcases a variety of innovative contributions to it. Focusing on a range of different countries, and utilizing the insights of different disciplines, the series helps to illuminate an increasingly controversial area of research and titles in it will be of interest to a number of audiences including scholars, students and other interested individuals. Titles include: Heidi Armbruster and Ulrike Hanna Meinhof ( editors ) NEGOTIATING MULTICULTURAL EUROPE Borders, Networks, Neighbourhoods Fazila Bhimji BRITISH ASIAN MUSLIM WOMEN, MULTIPLE SPATIALITIES AND COSMOPOLITANISM Nisha Kapoor, Virinder S. Kalra and James Rhodes ( editors ) THE STATE OF RACE Dina Kiwan NATURALIZATION POLICIES, EDUCATION AND CITIZENSHIP Multicultural and Multi-Nation Societies in International Perspective
    [Show full text]
  • General Debate on the Definition of Islamophobia Will Take Place in the Runnymede Trust Commons Chamber on Thursday 16 May 2019
    DEBATE PACK Number CDP-0086, 14 May 2019 By David Torrance General Debate on the definition of Islamophobia Contents Summary 1. Definition of Islamophobia 2 A general debate on the definition of Islamophobia will take place in the Runnymede Trust Commons Chamber on Thursday 16 May 2019. The debate was originally Definition 2 scheduled for 11 April 2019. All Party Parliamentary The subject of the debate was determined by the backbench Business Group on British Muslims Inquiry Committee following an application by Wes Streeting MP and Anna Soubry MP. Definition 3 The debate will take place on the motion that: This House has considered the Other definitions 4 definition of Islamophobia. 2. Islamophobia and the This Debate Pack contains information on definitions of Islamophobia, statutory law 5 provisions relevant to Islamophobia and statistics on Islamophobia in the UK. 2.1 Hate crime policy and legislation 5 Stirring up hatred 5 Aggravated offences 6 Enhanced sentencing 6 2.2 Online abuse 6 2.3 Equality Act 2010 7 Subject specialists and contributors to this pack: 3. Religious Hate crime Previn Desai - Religion statistics 9 Islamophobia 10 Douglas Pyper – Equality Islamophobia in London 12 Sally Lipscombe – Criminal law 4. Press coverage of Grahame Allen - Crime Islamophobia 14 Yago Zayed – Religious Hate crime statistics 5. Parliamentary Questions 15 The House of Commons Library prepares a briefing in hard copy and/or online for most non-legislative debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall other than half-hour debates. Debate Packs are produced quickly after the announcement of parliamentary business. They are intended to provide a summary or overview of the issue being debated and identify relevant briefings and useful documents, including press and parliamentary material.
    [Show full text]
  • Pages 2-11 V3 NH
    RunnymedeThe NEWSLETTER OF THE RUNNYMEDE TRUST Bulletin No.307 November 1997 £1.75 The Islamophobia challenge THE Runnymede Trust Commission on British Muslims and Islamo- insensitive to significant differences phobia has published its report Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All. The and variations within the world of report was launched at the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, Islam, and in particular they are Jack Straw, and is the first major study into Islamophobia and the posi- unable to appreciate that there are tion of the British Muslims in the UK. tensions and disagreements amongst The Commission was chaired by Professor Gordon Conway, Vice-Chan- Muslims.” cellor of the University of Sussex and The consequences of Islamopho- was established in 1996. Its members bia, the report says, is injustice, char- included eighteen prominent Muslim acterised by social exclusion; a sense and non-Muslim experts, representa- of cultural inferiority among young tives and academics. The report British Muslims; and an increasing makes 60 detailed recommendations likelihood of serious social disorder. It covering subjects which include edu- also makes it difficult for mainstream cation, health, law, politics and the voices within Muslim communities to media. be heard and prevents Muslims and In February 1997 the Commission non-Muslims from cooperating on published a consultative document finding joint solutions to major prob- and received 160 written responses lems. which were taken into account dur- ing drafting of the final report. Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All is Approximately 100 of these were available from the Runnymede Trust, 133 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A submitted by corporate bodies and Jack Straw .
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnicity, Race and Inequality in the UK
    “This is simply a must-read book for all those who want to understand the UK in and Inequality Race Ethnicity, racial inequalities in British society. It provides an up-to-date and convincing case that we have a long way to go in terms of achieving racial justice.” John Solomos, University of Warwick Available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. Fifty years after the establishment of the Runnymede Trust and the Race Relations Act of 1968, which sought to end discrimination in public life, this accessible book provides commentary by some of the UK’s foremost scholars of race and ethnicity on data relating to a wide range of sectors of society, including employment, health, education, criminal justice, housing and representation in the arts and media. It explores what progress has been made, identifies those areas where inequalities remain stubbornly resistant to change and asks how our thinking around race and ethnicity has changed in an era of Islamophobia, Brexit and an increasingly diverse population. Bridget Byrne is Professor of Sociology at The University of Manchester and Director of Khan, Nazroo and Shankley Byrne, Alexander, the ESRC research Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE). Claire Alexander is Professor of Sociology at The University of Manchester and Deputy Director of the ESRC research Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE). BRIDGET Omar Khan is Director of the Runnymede Trust, the UK’s leading independent race equality think tank. BYRNE ––– James Nazroo is Professor of Sociology at The University of Manchester, Deputy Director of the ESRC research Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) and co-director CLAIRE of the Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research on Ageing.
    [Show full text]
  • Runnymede Trust Activities Report 2005-2006 FINAL Page 1 of 9
    RUNNYMEDE TRUST ACTIVITIES REPORT 2005/6 Introduction The Runnymede Trust is an independent policy research organization focusing on equality and justice through the promotion of a successful multi-ethnic society. Founded as a Charitable Educational Trust, Runnymede has a long track record in policy research, working in close collaboration with eminent thinkers and policymakers in the public, private and voluntary sectors. We believe that the way ahead lies in building effective partnerships, and we are continually developing these with the voluntary sector, the government, local authorities and companies in the UK and Europe. We stimulate debate and suggest forward-looking strategies in areas of public policy such as education, the criminal justice system, employment and citizenship. Since 1968, the date of Runnymede’s foundation, we have worked to establish and maintain a positive image of what it means to live affirmatively within a society that is both multi-ethnic and culturally diverse. Runnymede continues to speak with a thoughtful and independent public voice on these issues today. Chairman’s Statement 2005 and 2006 have been excellent years for Runnymede and on behalf of the Runnymede Board of Trustees I am pleased to present this report. The period has seen substantial growth on previous years and we have every expectation that it will be sustainable for the years to come. This is due to the excellent hard work, commitment and dedications of all who work at Runnymede, under the direction and leadership of Michelynn Laflèche. Of particular importance over this reporting period is the way in which, through our growing areas of work and demonstrated by the outcomes of our various projects, Runnymede has become engaged with the urgent and important issues of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Experiences of Diversity in Uk Universities
    Not Enough Understanding? STUDENT EXPERIENCES OF DIVERSITY IN UK UNIVERSITIES A RUNNYMEDE COMMUNITY STUDY BY JESSICA MAI SIMS NOT ENOUGH UNDERSTANDING? – STUDENT EXPERIENCES OF DIVERSITY IN UK UNIVERSITIES About Runnymede Community Studies In reflecting on the changing nature of ethnic diversity in Britain, it becomes increasingly clear that we have to move beyond binary notions of white and non-white to explain the ways in which racisms operate, identities are formed and people live out their lives. The societies in which we live are becoming more diverse and will continue to diversify as migration patterns change, and the impacts of globalisation are reflected in labour markets as well as in transnational movement of capital. This series of community studies aims to promote understanding of the diversity within and between different ethnic groups. Our intention is to build up a collection of studies which focus on communities; their demography, links to civil society, and key political and social issues. We hope that over time this will provide a rich resource for understanding how diversity is lived and experienced away from the necessarily crude ethnic monitoring form, in a vital and dynamic multi-ethnic society. Published by Runnymede in March 2007 in electronic version only, this document is copyright © 2007 the Runnymede Trust. Reproduction of this report by printing, photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, it is not permitted to store or transmit the electronic version of this report, nor to print, scan or photocopy any paper version for dissemination or commercial use, without the prior permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]