Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity - Second Anniversary Gala Speech

(Speech by Sir Lenny Henry delivered at the second anniversary of the Centre for Media Diversity on 20th May 2022)

Hello my people. Don’t you all look fantastic! Everyone having a good time?

 

Big up the Midlands massive! Anybody here from the black country? Can I have a lift home?

 

I am so thrilled to be celebrating two years of the Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity. Can I get a hell yeah?

 

This is literally a dream come true.

 

It was a dream to set up a Centre dedicated to increasing diversity in the media industry. And here we are two years in and going from strength to strength, thanks to all the hard work and support we’ve received from so many of you in this room.

 

Now I’ve been speaking about racism and the lack of diversity in the media since… well, biblical times. Jesus had twelve disciples, the brother can’t have one black friend?

 

When I started my career in the 1970’s there were hardly any Black people on our screens or behind the camera. When I first went to work at the BBC it was me, Floella Benjamin and Moira Stewart - all picking cotton in the Blue Peter garden.

 

I was the only Black person on the Black and White Minstrel Show – which, for the younger people in the room, was a racist TV programme where white people sang and danced in black face. I still struggle with that, but it illustrates the lack of options available to young black people in those days.

 

Fun fact - the UK kept their version of the Black and White Minstrel show - long after the US had dropped its. Americans were like “if we’re gonna get a white guy to wear too much makeup and say racist stuff on TV, let’s at least make him President”

 

I have heard racial slurs.

 

I have been the only black person on a film set.

 

I have been stereotyped.

 

But this isn’t a sob story - I’m simply illustrating how far we’ve come and reminding us progress can, must and will happen.

 

And what I have learnt is that we must turn protest in progress. We need to transform  our complaints about the lack of diversity into real tangible results. And that is what the Centre is all about.

 

Let me tell you something about the key ethos of the Centre. Like I said I’ve been talking to people about diversity and racism for years, and no one paid too much attention. Occasionally it would make the news, but it’s actually not that helpful when ITV runs the headline “Ainsley Harriot calls for more diversity”

 

But in 2014 something changed. In addition to talking about diversity, I also began to address the structure of the film and television industry.

 

I still talked about a lack of Black and Asian people, but now I also addressed how much power we have – or, crucially, don’t have.

 

As well as talking about the number of disabled people on our screens or the lack of women behind the camera, I focused on how many of those people were in the positions that control the money.

 

Because money is power, commissions are power. I learnt that first hand when I started appearing on TV. After growing up poor, suddenly I had money.

 

I bought my mum a new telly, new carpet and eventually a house. In Caribbean families, having money brings huge respect and when I bought her the house, she moved Dad from the head of the table and put me there instead. And then she gave me the biggest cut of meat.

 

That must have been tough for my dad. All day long he had to listen to bigots at work complaining about black people coming over here and taking food out their mouths – then he came home to find one of them was his son!

 

It was when I started thinking about diversity as a structural problem that everything changed.

 

And that for me is what this Centre is all about.

 

It’s not about hunting out the unconscious bias or playing eye spy the racist - it’s something beginning with Boris Johnson by the way - the centre is about how we change the way the industry is run so we can make it more inclusive for everyone.

 

The genesis of this can be traced back to an open letter in 2014 where I teamed up with the likes of Doreen Lawrence Amma Assante Kwame Kwei Armah and Idris Elba to ask broadcasters for ring-fenced money for programmes directed by black people. We also asked them to put more money into programmes directed by women.

 

From that moment on I have always recognised the importance of financing in trying to achieve real diversity and inclusion.

That letter also taught me another important lesson. The power of allies.

We felt that if it was just non white people who signed, we could be dismissed as a bunch of angry black actors with an open letter in their hands.

 

It was a simpler time - these days if an angry black actor is holding something in their hand, it’s usually Chris Rock’s face.

 

So we added Richard Curtis CBE, Russell T Davies OBE, Harry Hill, Sir Richard Eyre CBE, Lord Alan Sugar, Matt Lucas, Emma Thompson and a raft of other people to the letter. It was magic

 

So having the support of allies is key in giving you strength - and even cover from possible push back from the powers that be.

 

Let me illustrate with a section from the book Access All Areas, which I wrote with Marcus Ryder.

 

“If we want to create a culture where people are not scared to speak their truth, we need to create a culture of allies. If you are a Black man, you need to support your female co-workers when she is calling out sexism.

 

If you are a White woman, support your Black co-worker when they are advocating policies to combat ethnicity pay gaps.

 

And White men? Well, you guys just have to support everyone!”

 

After we sent that open letter in 2018 I took things up a level - and with Marcus Ryder again, as well as some of the other people on the letter, we campaigned for diversity tax breaks for films and certain TV programmes, that meet key diversity criteria.

 

We went to Downing Street, the Mayor’s office, we met with Nicola Sturgeon and even went to the treasury. Luckily this was before the only way to get a tax break from them was to be married to Rishi Sunak.

 

And this is when we hit a big hurdle – while politicians paid lip service to supporting the idea, we were told by the Treasury that we didn’t have the evidence that diversity tax breaks worked. We hadn’t modelled it.

 

 

 

And that my friends, is why we are all here today – because in 2020 we set up the Centre for Media Diversity at Birmingham City University – so we would always have the academic work to support all of our diversity policies.

 

Two years in and this centre is doing great work, including consultancy for the Financial Times, Channel 4 and the BBC.

 

And I’m very proud to announce this evening that the Centre is now in the process of doing the hard academic work of modelling those tax breaks. We will get there.

 

This Centre has proved that change will happen – people are taking notice, broadcasters, newspapers and trade unions are all using our work to improve their policies and increase diversity.

 

I’m so proud of the achievements this centre has made, but more importantly I am so excited about the road that lies ahead.

 

I can’t wait to see where that road takes us and I’m delighted to have each and every one of you on the journey.

 

Thank you for listening.

(Printed with kind permission by Sir Lenny Henry)

 

Beyond the Tick Box - A New Way To Collect Diversity Data

Diversity data is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an old idea of identity that people are increasingly turning away from  - and seems almost completely broken when it comes to Generation Z.

The other day I was at a conference and during a coffee break got into a conversation with a group of young students about identity. One of the students talked about their sexual identity and told me how they do not see themselves as “heterosexual” but at the same time does not think of themselves as part of the “LGBTQ+” community.

After gently interrogating this apparent contradiction, it didn’t seem like someone who was “in denial” which is how older generations might have labeled the situation. Instead it seemed as if the student basically viewed identity in two ways: Their “personal identity” and their “group identity”

Their “personal identity” was “not heterosexual” (although I can see a problem of defining yourself in the negative I will leave that for another blog post).

However they viewed their “group identity” as “heterosexual”. They said that for all intents and purposes they presented as heterosexual, for the most part lived a “heterosexual lifestyle”, and benefited from “heterosexual privilege”.

The conversation reminded me of a recent episode of the Red Table Talk, in which the singer Janelle Monáe opened up about their identity, saying they are “so much bigger” than the binary. Interestingly she went on to say; “I’m non-binary, so I just don’t see myself as a woman, solely... But I will always, always stand with women. I will always stand with Black women. But I just see everything that I am. Beyond the binary.”

In the context of my conversation with the student about her sexuality I interpreted the singer’s statement to mean their “personal identity” is “non-binary”, while their “group identity” is “Black women”.

The problem with most discussions and forms that ask you about your identity is that there is no distinction between “personal identity” and “group identity”.

The forms ask how you “personally” identify and then assume that is also the same as your “group” identity. 

The irony is in trying to address issues around the lack of diversity and representation organisations are normally trying to address perceived “group identity” not “personal identity”.

The vast majority of the diversity collection forms make little distinction between “personal” and “group” identities assuming they are one and the same. There is however one important exception - the Scottish National Census when it asks about National identity.

One question on the Scottish census is around whether you feel “Scottish”, “British”, both, or another nationality altogether. Importantly your national identity has nothing to do with your nationality, passport or where you were born, the official information states; “National identity is not tied to ethnicity or country of birth. A foreign citizen living in Scotland is free to choose 'Scottish' as their national identity.” 

For me this is an attempt to separate “personal identity” (the fact you might have been born in Pakistan) and your “group identity” (the fact you associate with the label of being Scottish). Interestingly in this example over 50% of people of Pakistani origin identified themselves as “Scottish”, while only 21.2% of people with African heritage identified as Scottish. 

The question on the Scottish census recognises that where you were born and your passport might not be the same as your group identity. Your personal identity might be Pakistani, but your group identity is Scottish.

We see examples of how the group identity and personal identity often break down.

The other day I  was talking to a senior BBC executive who I have known for over twenty years. When I first met them they identified as “working class” but in our most recent conversation they confessed to me that they now felt like "a bit of a fraud” calling themselves “working class” as their lifestyle and their community now are not working class.  

On a diversity form they would still be seen as working class due to their schooling, and parental occupations, but they did not feel that this represented their present “group identity”. Just like 50% of Pakistanis in Scotland who identify as Scottish as opposed to Pakistani - the senior exec might have been born working class but they see themselves as middle class.

You can even see examples of this when it comes to race and ethnicity with people feeling they should tick the “mixed” category but may see themselves as part of a different “group identity”. Whether a person of mixed heritage (for example Black and White) sees themselves as Black, White, Black and White, or mixed (the group identity they feel best describes them) is just as important as their "personal identity" - especially when thinking about issue of culture.

I believe this one question on the Scottish census on identity might lead the way in how we should collect diversity data. It is still important to measure your personal identity; how many people from Pakistan (and other nationalities) live in Scotland, but we should also find a way to capture group identity (which group they identify with). 

What Scotland has got right is thinking that simply by adding up everyone’s “personal identities” you can measure the “group identity”.

Understanding the difference between “individual identity” and “group identity” is also critical when it comes to thinking about “inclusion” - the culture of an organisation -  and not just diversity - the simple headcount of people who have ticked a certain diversity box.

In a world of increasing identity complexity it is important that we measure both.

How we view identity is changing - how we record it and measure it needs to change too.

Twitter, diversity and the existential threat to democracy

(Speech for the Digital Czech Republic 2022 Conference - delivered by Marcus Ryder on 13 May 2022)

Dear friends and fellow Europeans,

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. 

I have been scheduled in today’s programme to talk about media diversity and digital democracy.

I fully recognise that for many people on mainland Europe that diversity, and the political rhetoric that surrounds it, is often seen as an Anglophone import from the US and the UK and not relevant to the political realities and culture of the rest of Europe.

Diversity can be seen as a politically correct agenda only relevant in societies obsessed with so-called “identity politics”.

Therefore I do not want to use the word diversity today and instead I will be using another term today instead - “democracy”.

Let’s start with a simple thought experiment.

A lot of people are concerned about the prospect of a single person controlling Twitter - one of the most important mediums of communication on the planet - influencing elections and political discourse. 

Now what would we think of it being a single billionaire would it be OK if it was two people?

What about 100 people?

What about 1,000?

Now imagine it was a million… but they were all white men in Europe. Or - given the current war in Ukraine - maybe all white men in Russia.

How would we feel about that?

All of a sudden it becomes less about quantity and more about quality. While the number of people controlling Twitter is still important - the idea of that degree of concentration of power and control into a single person is alarming - the problem is not solved simply by increasing the number of people. It is also about the qualities of those people. 

With the current Ukraine crisis the problems are obvious if it was controlled by a million Russians. But let’s take another example; how would you feel if you were a Black person and you knew Twitter was disproportionately controlled by White people - White people in the US who overwhelmingly voted for a presidential candidate who made comments supporting white supremacist groups. 

This is not a hypothetical of course.

This is the reality - in the 2020 US presidential elections almost 60% of White people voted for Donald Trump.

We see variations of this reality being played out all the time with one powerful group in charge of social media platforms making decisions that affect another group.  

Last year Facebook, who owns Instagram, apologised after it was revealed it had been blocking Instagram posts which contained the hashtag #AlAqsa or its Arabic counterparts #الاقصى, or hiding them from search results. According to Facebook the mistake occurred due to the Al-Aqsa name, a famous mosque, being associated with terrorist organizations.

A few days earlier Twitter blamed technical errors for deleting posts and suspending accounts mentioning the possible eviction of Palestinians from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

The question that Facebook or Twitter did not answer was, what was the demographic of the people making these decisions on which hashtags to promote or block?

The suspicion of course is that the people making - what are effectively editorial decisions - are disproportionately based in the US, white and male -  although the people implementing the decisions might be based in Kenya or anywhere else in the world. 

Social media and other digital platforms are increasingly deciding the flow of information and what makes up our political discourse. The problem is the people deciding which conversations and which issues to prioritize are from a small global minority. 

One of the core principles of a representative democracy is equal representation. Unless we have equal representation of who decides what we should be talking about we do not have democracy. 

The lack of equal and fair representation in the editorial decision making on the social media platforms is an existential threat to our democracies in the same way as if they were controlled by a single billionaire.