3
other. Simply put, discrimination is the unfair treatment of a group or
individual. Such unfair treatment, usually targeted at minorities, is often
described as an –ism, such as ageism, chauvinism, sexism or racism. Each
one of these terms will stir different feelings or levels of distaste, dependent
upon the reader’s own prejudices or point of view. The unfair treatment, or
discrimination, can also be brought about by irrational fears, which are often
described as –phobias, such as xenophobia or homophobia. Some
researchers have challenged the use of the term –phobia when describing
discrimination. Herek (2000, p.2) argues that the term homophobia suggests
an individual irrational fear when really it should be seen as a socially
reinforced prejudice. He suggests the term heterosexism is far more accurate
and descriptive.
Discrimination is often discussed in terms of being direct or indirect. Direct
discrimination is evident when someone is treated less favourably than
someone else because of personal characteristics, or perceived
characteristics, and in the UK such treatment is unlawful. In the workplace,
such examples would include not promoting or training someone, or even
sacking them, because of their sex, sexual orientation, colour or age to name
a few. There are caveats in very limited circumstances. For example, different
terms of employment can be legal based on marital status, and a genuine
occupational requirement can be imposed if absolutely necessary (Sex
Discrimination Act 1975, section 7). Indirect discrimination is when an
individual is subjected to a particular provision, criteria or practice, which
disadvantages a particular group compared to others in the same
4
circumstances (Tobler, 2005, p.57). This area of discrimination is often far
less clear-cut, so it is important that organisations constantly review their
working practices and systems to make sure they do not disadvantage people
of a particular group. Often, such cases come to note when brought before an
employment tribunal, for example the case of bonus payments for police
officers on shift work. Two female officers successfully argued that this
discriminates against women who are more likely to be on different rosters
because of childcare reasons (West Midlands Police v Blackburn and Manley
[2007] UKEAT 0007/07/1112r).
Unlike prejudices that are hard to identify and prove, discrimination can be
seen within processes, and it is for this reason that a raft of legislation exists
to counter it. For instance, the above ruling was made under the Equal Pay
Act. Other obvious legislation includes the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race
Relations Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act. But
there are many more covering everyone’s rights to not be discriminated
against such as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Gender
Recognition Act.
Stereotyping could be seen by an individual with prejudices or who
discriminates as a foundation to justify their hostility towards others. The OED
defines stereotyping as a preconceived and oversimplified idea of the
characteristics that typify a person. Whilst these ideas could be positive in
nature, most stereotypes are seen in a negative sense. An example is hippy
culture, which suffers negative stereotyping that seems to go largely
5
unchallenged. An article on protesters during the recent US presidential
election (Shockley, 2008) was soon hijacked by an anonymous blogger (Dirty,
smelly hippies..., 2008) and retitled to reinforce offensive stereotypical views
of hippies. Modern culture is full of other negative stereotyping of minority
groups, for example, the assertion by the then London Police Commissioner,
Sir Paul Condon that most robberies are committed by black men only helps
to reinforce that negative image (Toynbee, 1995, p.1).
Positive stereotypes should not be overlooked, but it is important to remember
that these positive images can still be harmful. Large generalisations such as
all black men are good at basketball, or all Asians are intelligent (Smith &
Mackie, 2000, p.163) may appear flattering, but actually put unnecessary
pressure on individuals to conform to that image. Another consideration is the
“kernel of truth theory” proposed by Peabody (1985, p.29) that argues that in
general, stereotypes are not biased beliefs but accurate reflections of reality.
Although contested by other academics, such theories allow the individual to
rationalise their own stereotyping. For example, police officers could
rationalise stopping and searching more Asian men by convincing themselves
that they are more likely to catch a terrorist that way (Sugden, 2005).
This point alone demonstrates how stereotyping can impact on the work of
police officers in a potential dangerous way. Sugden argues that it would be
easy for a terrorist cell to counter stereotypical stop and search patterns by
recruiting light skinned suicide bombers.
6
The impact of stereotyping is an important consideration when we examine
how police officers make judgements to form a reasonable suspicion. Police
officers use reasonable suspicion to justify the exercising of their powers, for
example the power to stop and search. Forming such a suspicion often occurs
in fast moving and tense situations, where the officer is required to make rapid
decisions. It is acknowledged that officers will rely upon stereotypical
templates to help them streamline their decision-making processes (Jordan,
2000, p.19). We should differentiate between the negative stereotypes used
to define social identity and the stereotypical templates used by police in
decision-making. Decision-making stereotypes are formed through training
and intelligence-led policing, as well as previous experiences built up whilst
working as a police officer. This is very different to negative stereotyping, but
it is still hard to identify a clear gap between the two, especially as negative
stereotypes tend to come to the fore in stressful situation, such as a resented
police stop (Devine, 1989, p.16). The use of stereotypical templates can also
mask real prejudices. How easy for a prejudices police officer to target a
group and hide their actions behind intelligence-led policing. It would appear
that using stereotypical templates is an acknowledged part of a police officers
decision-making process. But we should remember that these ‘useful’
methods of stereotyping are susceptible to abuse of power. Jordan (2000,
p.20) argues that in an ideal world, the personal stereotypes formed by
individual officers, and their decision-making ones would be separated and
analysed to help the officer create and justify a less muddied stereotypical
template.
7
How prejudice and discrimination impacts on the work of police officers can
be viewed from two perspectives. Firstly, the way police officers are
discriminated against by their own colleagues is an important area to
acknowledge. Secondly, we should examine how prejudice and discrimination
affects the interaction between police and the public. Discrimination within the
police is a topic often coming to our attention through the press. Within the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), a recent employment tribunal brought by
Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur cited racism and discrimination by
the Commissioner himself (Laville, 2008, p.25). Commander Ali Dizaei, the
current head of the National Black Police Association, is suspended from duty
whilst investigated for wrongdoing, but has already won damages from a
previous botched internal investigation against him (Dodd, 2007, p.9). Defined
by Sir William Macpherson as institutionally racist, the MPS often appears
hamstrung by these ongoing internal allegations and investigations. Such
cases continue to cause grievances within the ethnic minority workforce and
have been suggested (Bland, Mundy, Russell & Tuffin, 1999, p.8) as a reason
for the problems of recruiting and retaining these officers, with ethnic minority
officers twice as likely as white officers to resign from the police service.
The interplay between the police and the community is also affected by how
prejudice and discrimination are perceived to exist within the organisation. An
ICM poll suggests that over one in three people feel that a police officer will
discriminate on the grounds of race (BBC News, 2002). 1576 adults were
interviewed in person and the data was weighted to represent a national
8
profile. Even with the usual margin of error the results were very interesting.
When asked “Do the police discriminate on the grounds of race?”
♉ 55% of black respondents said yes.
♉ 47% of Asian respondents said yes.
♉ 37% of white respondents said yes.
Such high numbers, even in the majority white populace is a worrying
concern. In response to the poll, Fred Broughton, the Police Federation
chairman at the time, said
Since perceptions and reality are not always one and the
same, we would be interested to know whether the results
were based on people’s personal experience of the police
or second hand media reports.
(BBC News, 2002).
But whether a perception or not, it is still vitally important that the police
address these concerns and become, and be seen to become, a less
discriminatory and prejudiced organisation. Otherwise, the police risk losing
the co-operation and consent of large sections of the community, making
their job very difficult. Since the Macpherson Report, the MPS has made
efforts to improve relationships with minority communities, and to educate
officers in diversity. Its Race and Diversity Strategy (Metropolitan Police,
2006) looks at both inward and outward facing policies. Internally, it seeks to
operate as an employer of choice, recruiting a workforce representative of
the population. Externally, it looks to engage with individuals and
9
communities in ways that recognise their differences. Also, every police
officer and Community Support Officer has receives Community and Race
Relations training so they can better understand the harm done to the
organisation by individual prejudices. This process has not been painless
however, with the training courses leading to a number of discrimination
allegations and counter-claims (Cowan, 2005, p.8). It seems that removing
these prejudices will require perseverance by the organisation.
In conclusion, our views of prejudice have developed over the years with
considerable academic discussion. Simply, it could mean an attitude towards
members of a group just because they are in that group. On the other hand,
there has been less debate over the meaning of discrimination, but a lot of
legislation to counter its effects, notably in the workplace. Stereotyping can be
positive in limited circumstances, but is usually seen in a negative form. As a
means of simplifying our world, stereotypical images can often lead to
someone being unfairly labelled. The impact of these three areas on the work
of a police officer is tangible. Whilst stereotyping by an officer is unhelpful, the
use of a stereotypical template to aid decision-making is shown to work.
Harmful prejudices and discrimination should have no place in a police
service, but still persist both towards colleagues and the public. The police are
making efforts to resolve these issues, and must continue to do so, or risk
losing the confidence and support of the wider community.
10
References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley