People of Colour Face Burn Out As Companies Ask Them To Work For Free to Combat Racism

On May 25th George Floyd was killed by a policeman in the US.

One of the most widespread responses by companies and organisations around the world has been to ask Black people to work for free to work out their corporate response to the tragedy, and their general policies when it comes to race.

That is right. A Black man is killed. Black people are traumatised by the episode. And the most widespread response is to get Black people to work for free. 

This phenomenon is not new and even has a name: “Cultural taxation” 

The term was first coined by Prof. Amado Padilla from Stanford University in 1994. It is a  way of describing the extra workload that is placed on people from ethnic minorities to help companies and organisations combat racism, but importantly the individuals are expected to do this extra work for free.   

“Cultural taxation” prays on non-White people’s desire to create a better world when it comes to combating racism but they are made to do it in the service of an organisation, and ultimately bring accolades and benefit to the organisation in question.

In effect non-White people are being asked to do consultancy work, demonstrating knowledge of their cultural group and specific issues, for free. 

The “taxation” is most commonly levied on employees within an organisation but can also be levied on people outside the organisation. 

Almost every non-White leading industry figure in UK I know has been approached by major British media organisation to give them advice on how to shape their corporate response and policies for free. There are a few examples that I’ve come across that do pay for this kind of work, but these are “the exceptions that prove the rule”. 

So why does this matter?

The main problem is that not only is this work unpaid but it is usually on top of a non-White person’s existing “day job”. Research published in the US showed African Americans are more likely to suffer from burnout than their White colleagues and a major part of that is due to the extra workload placed on them.

Publications like Fortune and Nature have even published articles highlighting the real risk of burning out Black and Asian employees for doing this work for free.

The dilemma facing Black and Asian people however is summed up neatly by Dr Carla Figueira de Morisson Faria at University College London; “Unfortunately, if we don’t do this work, no one will.” And anyone interested in diversity, inclusion and equality, knows how important this work is for multinational companies and major organisations to do, so not volunteering to do it often doesn’t feel like a socially responsible option.  

So what is the answer?

First of all organisations need to recognise what they are asking for - consultancy - and they rarely ask for this for free in other areas of their business.

They also need to realise that they are possibly running the risk of compounding the problem of racial bias if they are unfairly loading non-White people with this extra work without either compensating them financially for it, or reducing their workload in other areas.

However the “to do” list for British organisations to rectify embedded racialised practices is long, and so it is unrealistic to think that this will be rectified any time soon (after all the phenomenon was first identified and named 26 years ago).

So what can non-White people do who still want to be socially responsible but recognise the unfairness of doing this work for free?

For me the problem arises because there are two issues which are separate but often entangled. Combating racism is a “public good” and serves to improve society as a whole. Improving corporate policy and governance serves to improve the organisation,

Therefore when I am approached I try and distinguish between the two.

If the advice they are looking for is to improve the company’s corporate policy then that is consultancy work, and they should attach the appropriate value to it by paying the people involved whether they are internal employees or external stakeholders.

If however they are producing a piece of work that will benefit the entire industry and the whole of society can learn from the process, this is a “public good” and I am happy to do this work for free and I think most Black, Asian and people from ethnic minorities feel the same. 

Of course, part of the problem is there is not always a clear demarcation between the two types of work.

We must guard against seeing our lives through a transactional prism. We devalue the quality of our lives if we think we must be paid for everything we do. However we also devalue the importance of our work if we do not sometimes put a financial value on it.

Like most things in life it is a question of balance.

Let’s work together to make sure we get the balance right. 

The Sesame Street effect. Why UK broadcasters are losing their Black and Asian audiences

UK broadcasters are losing their Black Asian and Minority Ethnic audiences because they are valuing individual characters and actors instead of championing rich diverse communities – a lesson one of the most influential of children’s programmes learnt 50 years ago. - Marcus Ryder explains

There is no doubt that British broadcasting is some of the best in the world. I love a lot of the programmes the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 produce. But the truth is, as a black person, on an emotional level, the BBC and the other broadcasters lost me the year before I was even born. 

The year was 1970. That year Sesame Street launched, with an opening scene of a black male teacher in a suit, walking a young black girl, Sally, down the street and introducing her to a multicultural neighbourhood. They walk to his home and he introduces her to his black wife who gives Sally cookies and milk. 

From the very first frame, Sesame Street put an aspirational, professional black couple at the heart of its programme. And by doing so, it captured my heart.

In contrast, during the 1970s, on a Saturday morning I would flick between Multi-Coloured Swap Shop’ and Tiswas but neither had my undying loyalty. I was neither a Blue Peter nor even a Magpie child, the two flagship children’s programmes of BBC or ITV respectively.

Despite being born and raised in London I looked across the Atlantic and saw myself reflected back at me and in a reality I wanted to be part of. I looked at programmes filmed just down the road from where I lived and failed to find an emotional connection. 

I had no conscious understanding of race but something in Sesame Street resonated with me. It got something right in 1970 which British television still fails to grasp.

Over the last 50 years there has been real progress, with most British drama writers now recognising that there should be positive black characters. Casting directors are now more willing to cast black actors in non-stereotypical positive roles. Things are far from perfect, but there is no denying that progression. We see positive black characters on our screen relatively often – from actors in Dr Who to The Hustle and of course Luther. However, there’s something special about these positive characters.

How communities are portrayed

They are often the only black character, inhabiting functioning white communities, or at the very least majority white communities. Black communities on TV on the other hand are portrayed almost exclusively as dysfunctional. While many of the people portrayed in a drama set in a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic community may be likable, the community they were set in is normally anything but. 

The message that comes across loud and clear on our screens is that while there might be good black individuals, black communities are a problem. It suggests that if you are a good or positive black person you should want to leave the dysfunctional black communities as quickly as possible. 

While some might downplay these unspoken messages, the reality is one comes across these implicit negative views about black communities all the time. There are often similar messages about South Asians on TV, while there might be positive individuals from the Indian sub-continent, the communities are invariably problematic, populated with forced marriages and potential terrorists. And unfortunately, in the UK, East Asian representation is still so thin on the ground it is almost impossible to discuss it sensibly.

Yet the reality is that while dysfunctional black communities certainly do exist, there are also incredibly good positive functional communities. Analysis by Dr Nicola Rollock into the black middle class offers strong examples of functional positive black communities that rarely see our TV screens. I for one am very proud to be part of a black community that includes lawyers, film makers, policemen, civil servants, charity workers – but also unemployed people. It’s mixed, but positively so.

British public service broadcasters (PSBs) are on the edge of a precipice. In 2018 the media regulator Ofcom warned that they were at risk of losing a generation of viewers, as younger audiences under 30 turned away from the traditional broadcasters and opted to watch Netflix, Amazon and other SVODs (subscription video on demand) instead, as well as other online content.

Also, according to another recent report by the UK media regulator, when it comes to diversity British audiences are increasingly finding better representation and authentic portrayal on Netflix and other online video-streaming providers. Every executive I speak to at a PSB is aware of these statistics and recognises the need to address them. 

However, in my experience they do not fully grasp the problem facing them with regards to non-white viewers. They know the non-white viewing figures are worse than their white equivalents but they normally just attribute this to the fact that the Black and Asian community is proportionately younger than the overall white UK population and just see it as part of the wider problem of losing their younger audience.

However, I believe the problem is far deeper than this.

In the 1970s I might not have been in love with the BBC or ITV and I might have wished I lived on Sesame Street but, with only three terrestrial channels, I was stuck in the UK. There was no way I could move to the functional beautiful multicultural neighbourhood populated with black teachers and children that looked just like me.

But now, in 2020, our younger children can move to Sesame Street whenever they want. And our older children can see aspirational black communities on HBO’s Insecure or ABC’s Black-ish. So why aren’t these positive, broader messages about our diverse communities coming out on UK PSBs?

What Netflix is getting right

Why have online providers been able to learn from the lessons of Sesame Street and build upon them while legacy broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, still seem to be failing their ethnically diverse audiences?

Are the executives and commissioners at the SVODs and online providers more enlightened and receptive to diversity compared to their counterparts at the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5?

While people are important, I very much doubt that the difference can be attributed to just the different attitudes of a few individuals and commissioners. For one thing many of the commissioners and senior gatekeepers at the SVODs are from the PSBs originally and flip back and forth between the different types of broadcasters.

Instead, I believe the answer can be found in the different economic models between traditional broadcasters versus online video streamers.

Amanda Lotz, a professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, analysed Netflix’s economic model in 2017 and argued that traditional broadcasters still think in terms of attracting large audiences for a single programme as advertisers pay for eyeballs. As an American she didn’t look at the BBC but I would argue the same argument applies as the BBC still looks to large audiences to justify its licence fee.

Online streamers like Netflix and Amazon – on the other hand – are not pursuing large audiences for advertisers. Instead, they are trying to maximize subscribers.

Quoted in The Conversation Professor Lotz says: “To succeed, subscriber-funded services must offer enough programming that viewers find the service worthy of their monthly fee. Each show doesn’t need a mass audience – which is the measure of success for advertiser-funded television – but the service does need to provide enough value that subscribers continue to pay.”

Professor Lotz describes the strategy Netflix employs as ‘conglomerated niche’ and says that because it does not broadcast in a linear fashion most subscribers don’t even know most of Netflix’s content and only concentrate on the series that appeal to them. 

She uses the metaphor of a library to describe this phenomenon: “If you were to ask different Netflix subscribers about the service’s brand, you’d likely get different responses. There is no one Netflix; rather, think of it as an expansive library with many small nooks and rooms. Most subscribers never wander floor to floor. Instead, they stay in the corner that matches their tastes.”

The strength of niche audiences

This means channel executives at traditional broadcasters think completely differently when it comes to commissioning content versus commissioners at Netflix. The BBC executive, for example, is thinking: “Will the programme get a large audience?” while the Netflix executive is thinking: “Will this new series be able to get a new different section of the audience to subscribe?”

The Netflix execs are constantly seeking out programmes that will get a different niche audience to subscribe or continue to subscribe.

Take my favourite series at the moment Insecure, which I mentioned earlier. It finally tipped the balance for me to finally take out a subscription for HBO Go and I am sure I am not the only one. ‘Insecure’ is therefore a win for HBO, in a way that commissioning yet another ‘non-diverse’ programme would not be, as it wouldn’t attract new subscribers.

Compare this to ITV or BBC. All things being equal the ITV and BBC commissioners would prefer to commission another series like Call the Midwife as it would bring in a far larger audience, even if it is the same old non-diverse audience that already watches the majority of their programmes, than commission Insecure, which relatively speaking would be a ratings flop.

Television executives could even make Call the Midwife more ethnically diverse by adding a few Caribbean nurses. This is the type of diversity that is often favoured by executives as broadens the programmes appeal without risking the core audience. However, this approach does not address the fundamental Sesame Street strategy of creating a community.  

For this reason, the SVODs approach leads to far deeper diverse programmes being commissioned by broadcasters who are financed by subscribers. The irony is that in targeting niche audiences streaming services often create quality content, which over time has a far wider appeal.

If you talk to executives of traditional broadcasters they all recognise the importance of commissioning for non-linear viewing and targeting certain demographics. But it is still incredibly hard for commissioners to break out of a linear ‘big-audiences-matter’ state of mind.

The truth is as traditional broadcasters worry about big audiences now, they risk having no audiences in the future. Only by recognizing the rich diversity of their audiences, and creating programmes that they want to watch, will broadcasters survive. Sesame Street may have been launched in a time before SVODs but its entire model has been based around this idea.

Just two years after Sesame Street began in America it launched a Brazilian version. Importantly, it did not simply dub the American version into Portuguese or add a few Brazilian characters. It relocated into a new community that reflected Brazil’s diversity.

It has repeated the same trick in at least 34 different countries including South Africa, Russia, Palestine and Israel. Interestingly, the UK broadcasters consistently rejected working with the producers of Sesame Street and so there was never a British version I could identify with. Instead I fell in love with the American one.

I will leave you with one more Sesame Street-related fact.

When the first episode of Sesame Street was aired in 1970 the US was 87.65 per cent white. According to the last census conducted in 2010 it is now 72.40 per cent white.

The year I was born, 1971, was the first time the UK census specifically gathered ethnicity data. That year they found the white population made up roughly 97.7 per cent of the population. Today the non-white population in the UK is 13 per cent, a larger percentage than the non-white population at the time Sally first met all the Sesame Street characters in the first episode.

In 1970 a children’s television show had already worked out the importance of appealing to the country’s non-white population, an appeal that made a small child born in London a year later fall in love with it.

British broadcasters do not have the luxury of waiting another 50 years to finally work out what Sesame Street got right. Because unlike 50 years ago Sesame Street is literally just one channel hop away, as is all the other great diverse content that prioritises community representation over simple diverse representation of individuals. 

Originally published in The Generation Game: Can the BBC Win Over Today's Young Audience? Edited by Michael Wilson and Neil Fowler and now available from Amazon as a Paperback and a Kindle

Disability Need Not be a Punchline: Representation of Disability in British Comedy - By Bethany Dawson and Tobias Soar

British television and British humour are two worlds that go hand in hand.  British comedy television contains many representations of various groups, but disability often meets comedy at an intersection where disabled people sit at the butt of cheap jokes: from the severely sight impaired Mr Magoo to the use of mental health problems for comedic gain in Peep Show.

However, done correctly, comedy can challenge prejudice and increase better understanding of representation in society. This is why it is time for comedy commissioners and creators of comedy television to be bold, and to write disabled characters that exist beyond their disability, with lives as complex as able-bodied characters have had for decades. Writers can, and should, go a step further and write dislikeable, morally flawed disabled characters.

With thousands of Brits tuning in to their favourite programmes every week, the mass reach of television has simultaneously become the greatest ally and enemy to disabled people — a single disabled character in a mainstream comedy show can hugely influence audiences' preconceptions of people with disabilities, for better or worse. Oftentimes, poor decisions lead representations to lean towards the worse. 

This is not two people moaning about more Political Correctness in comedy. This is how we actually make British comedy fit for purpose for the 21st Century.

THE COMEDY FORM

In comedy shows, particularly sketch-based programmes, many characters are written around one immediately recognisable gimmick. In many ways  Monty Python’s Flying Circus, set the template for sketches based around a repeating joke, as they do with the Spanish Inquisitors, whose entire  shtick is announcing their arrival because they are the Spanish Inquisition, after all. But where Monty Python laid the foundation, others have followed; from the Fast Show’s character who thinks everything is “Amazing” or the Chuckle Brothers’ ever-recognisable “to me to you” gag.

This simplistic approach to comedy writing can be effective in creating humour, however, it has trickled down into wider forms of comedic television, with countless television programmes writing in disabled characters whose entire existence and evolution revolve around their disability for the sake of a laugh.

DISABLED LIVES ARE MULTIDIMENSIONAL

To allow for disabled characters in comedy to exist on the same level as their non-disabled counterparts, they must have the same level of complexity and depth audiences expect from any given on-screen character.

Netflix’s hit comedy drama series Sex Education presents an array of characters, and introduced Isaac into the cast in the second series. The introduction of a funny, mischievous, and emotive character who uses a wheelchair sees the show depicting disabled people as they should: as complex humans who exist beyond their disability. 

Isaac’s character shows multiple roadbumps of teen life; anxiety around unrequited love, the inaccessibility of aesthetically pleasing cottages which are coincidentally the only party destination within the village, and the ability to delete an answerphone message so heartbreaking and pinnacle to the show, that Twitter collectively turn against you behind the fourth wall. With these common, relatable challenges, Isaac is humanised, as he is more than just a “token disabled character”.

JOKE ABOUT DISABLED CHARACTERS WITHOUT JOKING ABOUT THE DISABILITY 

Classically speaking, disabled people are hugely infantilised. With ableist stereotypes depicting disabled people as weak, unintelligent, and wholly incapable, a lot of disabled people are  seen as sweet and helpless children. To combat this, not only do disabled people need multidimensional representation within television and film: some of them need to be unlikeable. 

A great example of this unfavourable character is within the short-lived appearance of Alistair Scott in The Inbetweeners. Casting our minds back to the episode where Alistair appeared in 2010, he was depicted as wrongfully popular amongst everyone whilst he revealed his true unlikable character to the protagonists of the group. The trope that Alistair should be universally liked and seen as an inspirational person is highlighted for comedic effect within the episode, as Alisdair is ultimately revealed to be deeply unlikeable to only Will — the main character — and the audience. 

Here we can see the butt of the joke not be the disabled person themself, or, more crucially, their disability, but the stereotypes that are attributed to disability form the punchline. Not only does this make for better and more multidimensional characterisation of a disabled person, but it highlights the nonsense that forms the foundation of ableist stereotypes, allowing the audience to recognise their incoherence and thus unravel their own participation in said stereotypes. 

SUBVERTING THE STEREOTYPES

Stand-up comic Rosie Jones also uses this tool within her own work. As a woman with cerebral palsy, she uses brash and dry humour to juxtapose the expectation that she’ll be an introverted, shy, and weak woman. Her outwardly sexual and oftentimes rude comedy allow her to create hilarious sets which allow people to constantly question their preconceived understanding of disabled people; the preconception of disabled people as childlike is at extreme odds with Jones’ outgoing and shocking personality.

For too long disabled people have been represented in a wholly reductionist light. Their disabilities are punch lines and their multidimensional lives within ableist systems are not addressed unless said experiences can be ridiculed. Comedy writers have a responsibility to write characters that minimise the misrepresentation of the group they belong to, whether they are a second-generation immigrant, a posh person from London, or a paraplegic schoolboy.

HERE’S LOOKING TO YOU, COMEDY COMMISSIONERS

Representation on screen is hugely important for many viewers, as some appreciate seeing someone that looks like them on telly while others can learn about people who appear to be different to them. Yet the surface level gimmicks are insufficient, these characters need to grow and interact with others beyond the limitations of their most noticeable trait. In the case of disabled people, they need to be able to exist beyond their disability — they’re people that can be likeable or unlikeable, cunning or sweet, and many other things while happening to be disabled.

The representation of disabled people in comedy needs to be accurate. There needs to be funny people, annoying people, people who are loveable and in love. Disabled people need to be shown as people, all whilst highlighting the multidimensional and intersectional realities of disabled life. Writers should take risks and shouldn’t be afraid of writing unlikeable and morally flawed disabled characters — they’re human, after all.

Bethany Dawson is a freelance journalist writing with a speciality in disability and gender. She’s discussed disability diversity projects on many national platforms, and has discussed her lived experience of disability in a 2018 TEDx Talk with over 11,000 views. 

Tobias Soar is a film critic and freelance writer with an academic background in Politics and International Relations. His areas of expertise are popular geopolitics and representation in film and television.