Is It Because I'm Working Class?

“It’s not about race, it’s about class.”

I’ve heard variations of this statement at the last few events I have been to about diversity in the television industry. Sometimes the idea comes from the audience other times it can come from the invited guests on the panel or giving a speech.

The idea is that when we talk about the under-representation of BAME people in front and behind the camera we are actually confusing race and class together.

The argument normally goes as follows:

It is in fact working class people who are under-represented in the television industry. For example only 37% of BBC executives went to comprehensive or secondary modern schools. Because black people are more likely to be working class (see statistics on black unemployment and the number of black people in managerial positions) that is why they are under-represented in the media. The fact they are black is almost coincidental. Solve class diversity and everything else will follow.

So do BAME people only reach a certain point in their careers because they are black or because they didn’t go to private school? And does this mean BAME middle-class people do not experience racism and glass ceilings at work?

The leading expert on race and class in Britain is Dr Nicola Rollock of the University of Birmingham, she recently wrote a very interesting paper on this issue called “Race, Class and ‘The Harmony of Dispositions’”, (it’s only 5 pages long and well worth a read).

In it she points out that class is so much more than just the money you earn. It is about where you live, your interests, your tastes and your circle of friends. To use the academic terms class is about your “financial capital” and your “social capital”. (The BBC also did an online survey in which you could find out your class based on these factors). Ultimately the life opportunities which are available to you are usually a result of your social and financial capital.

But here is the interesting part of Dr Rollock’s work; at each stage race plays a part in how much your social and financial capital are worth and which doors they are able to open. Her work is littered with examples of BAME people who would be termed “middle-class” experiencing racism. Also race also plays a role in which class other people perceive you to be in and therefore how you are treated. To put it crudely a white man driving an expensive car might be middle-class but a black man driving the same car might be thought of as a drug dealer.

So how does this help us when we are trying to tackle issues of diversity in the television industry?

Firstly it tells us a reductive approach is not helpful when talking about diversity.There is no doubt class diversity needs to be tackled but so does ethnic diversity, gender diversity, disability etc. There may be “overlap” on some of the issues but solving one issue does not necessarily solve the other.

Second the vast majority of BAME people - irrespective of their class - will experience racism and glass ceilings in their careers. Not to acknowledge this can often be insulting to the very BAME middle-class people are both simultaneously victims of racism while being told they have “escaped” problems associated with their race.

And finally when the next person tells you that “it’s not about race, it’s about class” just tell them to read some of the work of Dr Rollock.

Denying anyone the challenges they face due to their gender, race, class, sexuality or disability is rarely the best way to solve their problems.

Breaking The Glass Ceiling Is All About Belief.

A channel controller.

The head of BBC drama.

The Director General of the BBC.

These are all great, aspirational jobs for anyone at the BBC.  But the sad reality is that for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television such lofty ambitions are completely unrealistic. For the vast majority of us, even reaching management positions is a pipedream. The glass-ceiling faced by people of diverse backgrounds has been described as a “concrete-ceiling”, and the problem is openly acknowledged by all the major broadcasters.  

In an effort to address this issue the BBC has launched a “Senior Leadership Programme” with the specific aim to identify and promote BAME people. A few weeks ago, after rigorous testing and interviews, the BBC finally identified which lucky six colleagues they will support, develop and mentor to break through the “glass-ceiling”.

But how does an organisation identify the right people to break through the glass ceiling? How do you pick the leaders of the future?  

Well, I am quite sure the BBC has picked the right people.

But research suggests they could have picked almost anybody and they would probably have been the “right people”. Let me explain:

In 1963, the Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal led a seminal study on how to identify future genius. He went to an elementary school in San Francisco and tested children from five to eleven on a cognitive ability test. He then shared the test results with the teachers showing how 20% of the students “had shown the potential for intellectual blooming, or spurting” – even if they might not demonstrate that ability now.

A year later, all the students took the cognitive ability test again and the “bloomers” improved more than the rest of the student body. In fact, on average, the “bloomers” increased their IQ by a staggering third more than their counterparts.

The results were conclusive and irrefutable. Prof. Rosenthal had identified future genius. Only… he hadn’t.

The 20% of future geniuses Rosenthal had identified had been picked completely at random, and the other 80% were a control group. The only difference between the two groups was the teachers believed one group was full of future geniuses and the other group was not. The teachers’ beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies. Once a group had been identified as “bloomers” the teachers treated them differently and they did indeed “blossom”.

But children are impressionable and a teacher’s actions can have massive consequences on them.  So is the Rosenthal study relevant to adults in the workplace?

The answer is “yes”.

Variations of the seminal study have been conducted in different workplaces around the world with management – instead of teachers – being told whom their “potential bloomers” were. Management researcher Brian McNatt conducted a comprehensive analysis of these studies involving almost 3,000 employees. When managers were assigned random employees as “bloomers” they invariably “bloomed”.

So how does this relate to fulfilling ambitions at the BBC?

Well, through the new Senior Leadership Programme the BBC has now identified six potential BAME “bloomers”. As I said earlier, to be identified the lucky six had to undergo rigorous testing and interviews and I have no doubt they are extremely talented. The thing is, based on the above, I suspect whichever of my BAME colleagues were picked would “bloom”.

Nevertheless, that does not negate the huge impact this “picking of six” can have. The reality is that management in the BBC, and throughout the TV industry, identify “bloomers” and future leaders every day - formally and informally. But outside of a few special schemes, the employees who are usually identified are nearly always white, and far too often male. And the rest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That’s why I am so pleased to see my six colleagues get into the scheme, and I wish them all the best in it.  Research suggests they have a very exciting future ahead.

But there is a bigger lesson for those in the BBC and other broadcasters in management positions, which goes beyond the special six.  We must always make sure we don’t just look for potential in the usual places. We should believe in all our employees. Almost everyone can have potential if they are nurtured and treated right.

Indeed, if we really believe in the potential of diverse talent, management in the BBC must not take its eyes off the ball now that six people are being nurtured. However much we try and identify potential leaders all the research shows "bloomers" are invariably made not born. Our job is to make sure we make a few more leaders from diverse backgrounds and not just wait for diversity schemes. And then hopefully more black and Asian people will be joining the lucky six as channel controllers, genre heads and even Director Generals. 

In fact according to the academic studies all management needs to do is believe the diverse talent is good enough to break the glass-ceiling and the rest will follow.

To Boycott Or Not To Boycott? That Is The Question.

“Are there any women on the show tonight?”

I was greeted with this question as I popped my head round the door of the greenroom to say hello to the guests who were appearing on the nightly current affairs programme Scotland2014 (the Scottish equivalent to Newsnight).

I am the editor of the programme and most nights I like to meet the guests who are appearing in the studio to make sure they are happy, and that our researchers and producers have properly briefed them on the issues we will be discussing with them later on the programme.

That night, one of the guests was far from happy. He had obviously looked around the green room and noticed the lack of anyone with XX chromosomes.  In fact, five men – including two politicians, an environmental campaigner, a newspaper editor and a journalist – aside from myself were in the room that night.

“So is it all men tonight?” he asked again.

I quickly thought about all the guests on the programme that night. There were the five people in the greenroom but on any news programme you also have other guests who appear down the line from other studios and outside locations. I went through a mental checklist of all the items we were doing and the corresponding guests. I then thought about that night’s presenter and the reporters

“Yup. It’s all men tonight. There are no women tonight”. I replied trying to sound as factual as possible.

There then followed a brief conversation between us about how he thought it was wrong to appear on all-male panels and all-male programmes and there is really no excuse in this day and age for any programme to be all-male. He agreed to go on the programme but said he wouldn’t appear on future programmes if there were no women.

He’s not the only one who believes this. Two years ago Rebecca Rosen, in the Atlantic, suggested that men should sign up to a pledge not to speak on all-male panels. And last year Danny Cohen the Director of BBC TV declared the end of all-male comedy panel shows.

The frustrating thing for me and the team is that we did – and still do – pride ourselves on the diversity of both our on-screen representation and the staff working on the programme. From the output editors to the studio directors, the majority of the team are women. The majority of our reporters are also women and our main presenter is Sarah Smith (she was off sick that night). Also, when we launched the programme, one of our aims was to represent the whole of Scotland and not just hear from the usual “male and pale” men in suits.

But the truth is, we had become complacent. We thought we were doing so well that we stopped thinking about diversity. And so it was a shock to the system when the guest in the green room pulled us up on it.

That day I learnt three lessons which might seem obvious but I think are worth repeating

1. We live in a white, male-dominated world.

Yes, I know I sound like a teenager who has just discovered feminism by stating that. But in a white, male-dominated society unless you actively think about it productions can have a natural tendency to drift towards a non-diverse status quo.

2. Guests have power.

The guest was not rude about it. He asked a simple question and reminded us of what so many of us claim we are trying to achieve. Along with the possibility of a boycott of appearing on future programmes.

Which brings me to possibly the most important lesson.

3. People follow the leader.

While I gave a perfectly polite answer in the greenroom, I came out to the production office with much more stern words for the team. Despite all our best intentions, we were about to put out the very type of programme I had said I didn’t want to broadcast when we started. The team could see diversity was important to me as the head of the production. I didn’t brush it aside as an annoying guest asking for the equivalent of special blue M&Ms in the greenroom. Since then, they have made sure it is equally important to them when putting a show together.

The BBC is currently running a series of workshops to identify experts from BAME backgrounds to appear on the range of their output, which builds on the experience of having previously run workshops to identify female experts. There is no doubt that there are brilliant potential expert guests for TV programmes from all different backgrounds in all different shapes, sizes, sexes, disabilities, sexualities and colours.

As an editor, this initiative is welcome. But I also think lesson no. 3 above is critical for the BBC and other broadcasters to take on board.

I am looking forward to continuing to bring diverse experts onto Scotland2015 (the programme’s new name for the new year), and I hope other editors and other teams out there will not need guests to talk about potential boycotts in order to ensure our screens remain – and become even more – diverse.

Diversity Talk Is Cheap

The last year has been a rollercoaster of a ride when it comes to the issue of diversity. Everybody from heads of Britain’s largest broadcasting organisations to government ministers have been publically declaring their commitment to diversity. Frankly, I’ve never seen so many people saying they are committed to improving diversity in the television industry.

This is all great. But what is increasingly worrying me is the possibility that all the strong words supporting diversity might actually have the opposite effect. Here’s why.

The two best examples of how important the issue of TV diversity has become were at the Edinburgh Television Festival during the summer and more recently at a debate at the House of Commons between ministers and their opposition counterparts. At both events some of the most important people in British broadcasting – such as Ed Vaizey and Peter Fincham – were fighting to prove why their commitment to diversity was greater than the person sitting next to them.

With all these strong words coming from channel controllers, television executives and politicians part of me wants to pat people like Lenny Henry and others who have been making proposals to address diversity recently and say “job well done”. The temptation is to  sit back, relax and wait for the media industry to become a more diverse and inclusive industry.

But perversely, a number of psychology experiments suggest now is not the time to relax. In fact, with all the fine words, these experiments suggest now is the time for those of us interested in increasing diversity to be even more vigilint.

In 2009 a psychologist – Professor Peter Gollowitzer from NYU – published a paper that tried to show the gap between people’s public declarations and their actual behaviour.

Prof. Gollowitzer looked at charitable giving and discovered that people who went public with their intentions to give to charity - (in this case signing a “kindness pledge”) - were significantly less likely to give to charity than people who kept their intentions private. According to Gollowitzer it’s all about how you view your own identity.  

When people made their plans public (or their identity public) by signing a “kindness pledge” that effectively stated: “I am the type of person who gives to charity”, they were able to claim the identity without actually following through on the behaviour. By contrast those who did not sign the pledge let their actions do the talking and in the end donated more to charity.

In another experiment at Northwestern University psychologists randomly asked a group of people to write about themselves. Half were asked to use “positive” terms like caring, generous and kind, and the other half “neutral” terms. The psychologists then distracted them for a while, then asked the whole group whether they wanted to donate to a charity. I’m sure you can now guess the result. Yes - those who described themselves in neutral terms donated an average of two and a half times more to charity than those who said they were kind!

According to psychologists – whether it’s signing a pledge or describing yourself as a charitable – such public acts seem to give people a psychological licence to actually give less.

The lessons for TV diversity are obvious. Could the public commitments to diversity actually have a negative result?

I think it would be churlish to criticise the politicians and television executives for making public commitments to creating a more diverse work force. We should welcome the change in tone surrounding the debate on TV diversity in the last year. But what experimental psychology tells us is that when we hear everyone committing themselves to diversity initiatives, rather than relaxing, we should redouble our efforts to make sure the strong words translate into real concrete results.

Lastly this could also explain why the decline in the number of Black and Asian people working in television seems to have directly correlated with the Creative Diversity Network Pledge. (The pledge was a public declaration made by nearly every major broadcaster in the UK and a lot of the major production companies to increase diversity in their workforce).  

 

The Politics of Diversity

Everybody wants TV to become more diverse – but is there the political will to act on it?

There is a scene in the HBO comedy series Flight of The Conchords in which Murray, the hapless manager of the titular band, warns the group against singing an “anti-AIDS” song as it might alienate all the people who are “pro-AIDS”. When the band members tell him that’s ridiculous, he tries to find someone, anyone, who is “pro-AIDS”. Obviously, he fails.

Talking about diversity in the television industry can feel like this, but in reverse. It’s almost impossible to find anyone who does not want a more diverse workforce both in front and behind the camera – and for good reason.

Between 2009 and 2012, more than 2,000 Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people have left the creative industries. At the same time, the industry has grown by 4,000.That effectively means that for every BAME person who left their job in this three year period, more than two white people have been employed.

Against this backdrop, the BBC is currently negotiating its charter renewal with UK politicians. The charter outlines the six official purposes of the BBC, the fourth of which (or purpose ‘d’ to be precise) is focused on diversity. The BBC, it says, should be ‘representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities’.

The last charter renewal clearly set out guidelines on how the BBC should represent the first three of these. To represent the UK, there should be a clear number of primetime hours of news and current affairs television. For the nations (Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland), there should be a set number of programmes produced in each nation, and similarly it set out criteria for the regions (or outside of London at least). The specific details of these guidelines are determined by the BBC Trust.

But on the fourth group, ‘communities’, the charter is strangely silent. The question is whether the next charter renewal will tackle this issue, specifically for BAME communities?

Put another way: do the politicians negotiating the next charter with the BBC need to step in and legislate, in the same way they previously legislated on how the BBC should represent the UK, nations and regions? Everybody wants diversity – but will the politicians have the political will to act?

On 17 November, the Royal Television Society will be holding the first ever political hustings on TV diversity. Ed Vaizey, minister of media and culture, will be going head-to-head with his Labour and LibDem counterparts Helen Goodman MP and John Leech MP. All of them will be stating their case for how they would increase diversity in the television industry – and why if you want to increase diversity you should vote for them at the General Election in May 2015.

Charter renewal is unlikely to decide the hue of the next government but the details of the negotiation will make a difference. Knowing what the possible ministers think of diversity might affect the future on BAME people in television for the next twenty years.

I would be surprised if any of the politicians take a stance equivalent to the “pro-AIDS” line. They will all be for diversity, but to get the diversity vote, they might just need to go further and set out exactly how their approach to achieving diversity will deliver.

(This article originally appeared in Broadcast on 14th November)