Are you actually anti-racist? | Keon West | TEDxNorthern Quarter

Key Concepts

• Amar Reception: A made-up word used as a hypothetical concept to illustrate how words acquire meaning through associated thoughts and actions, rather than intrinsic meaning.
• Color Blindness (as a social concept): The idea that race should not be considered or seen, often presented as a solution to racism.
• Explicit Racism: Overt and open racist statements or beliefs.
• Implicit Racism: Subtle, often unconscious, racist biases and attitudes.
• Feelings Over Facts Approach: A societal tendency to prioritize emotional responses and deeply held beliefs over empirical evidence when addressing complex issues.
• Dominant Racial Ideology: The prevailing set of beliefs and attitudes about race within a society.

The Power of Words and the Illusion of "Amar Reception"

The speaker begins by introducing the made-up word "Amar reception" and asks the audience to consider its potential meaning and impact. This exercise highlights a core argument: words do not possess intrinsic meaning; they acquire meaning from the thoughts and actions associated with them. The speaker posits that if "Amar reception" were presented as a solution to racism, endorsed by influential political figures (Clare Fox, Baroness Fox of Buckley, Douglas Murray, Ward Connelly) and respected Black role models (Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Shelby Steele, Trevor Phillips), and supported by surveys showing widespread public approval (e.g., 90% of young people aged 14-24 finding it a great idea for tackling race, diversity, and inclusion), it would likely be perceived positively.

However, the speaker then reveals that "Amar reception" is a fabricated term. This revelation serves as a pivot to demonstrate that even seemingly positive concepts, when examined through the lens of actual behavior and scientific evidence, can have unintended negative consequences.

Scientific Investigation: "Amar Reception" and Racism

To investigate the real-world impact of "Amar reception," the speaker, along with Professor Katie Greenland and Professor Colette Vanlar, conducted a survey of 200-300 British individuals. The study measured:

1. Ascription to Amar Reception: How much individuals identified with or believed in the concept.
2. Practice of Amar Reception: How actively individuals engaged with the concept.
3. Levels of Explicit Racism: Overt racist attitudes.
4. Levels of Implicit Racism: Subtle, unconscious racist biases.

The findings contradicted the initial positive perception. The research indicated that the more individuals practiced "Amar reception," the more racist they became, on all measured metrics. This result was consistent with previous research, leading to academic reviews in journals like Current Directions in Psychological Science describing "Amar reception" not as a panacea but as an "obstacle" to constructive race relations. The speaker translates this polite scientific language into a more direct statement: "You might think you are helping. You might think this is a good thing, but it is not. It is sometimes a bad thing. You are making people more racist, not less."

The Real-World Parallel: Color Blindness

The speaker then transitions to a real-world concept that mirrors the fabricated "Amar reception": color blindness. This is defined not as the medical condition but as the social stance of believing that race should not be acknowledged or seen ("I don't think race matters. I don't see it."). The speaker notes that this is often expressed by saying things like, "I don't even think of you as black," a statement rarely made to non-Black friends, suggesting an underlying awareness of race.

The speaker argues that color blindness has been promoted as a solution to racism by the same influential figures and role models previously associated with "Amar reception." This includes political figures like Clare Fox and Douglas Murray, and prominent Black individuals like Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Shelby Steele, Trevor Phillips, and even potentially future UK Prime Minister Kemi Badenoch. The widespread support for color blindness is further evidenced by its endorsement by mothers teaching it to their children, teachers to their students, and the high percentage of young people who view it favorably.

Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a sociologist at Duke and former president of the American Sociological Association, is cited as describing color blindness as the "dominant racial ideology for white America today" and prevalent in other majority-white societies.

Scientific Evidence Against Color Blindness

The speaker reiterates the findings from their 2021 research with Greenland and Vanlar, stating that color blindness is associated with increased racism, not decreased racism. Decades of research consistently show that color blindness leads to:

• Less friendliness towards Black people.
• Less support for movements like Black Lives Matter.
• Less interest in affirmative action.

The review in Current Directions in Psychological Science is again referenced, highlighting that color blindness is a "problem" rather than a "panacea." The speaker emphasizes that intentions do not dictate outcomes; if the actions associated with color blindness lead to negative results, then the concept itself is problematic, regardless of the good intentions behind it.

The "Feelings Over Facts" Barrier to Progress

The speaker explains their deliberate choice to use a fabricated word first, rather than directly confronting the concept of color blindness. This strategy stems from their background as a social psychologist with extensive experience in prejudice and prejudice reduction. They have learned that directly telling people that color blindness makes them more racist elicits strong negative emotional reactions, anger, and rudeness. This is because many individuals have deeply invested their lives and identities in the belief that color blindness is the path to being a "good person" and demonstrating their allyship.

When confronted with evidence that contradicts these deeply held beliefs, people tend to prioritize their feelings over facts. This emotional defense mechanism prevents the facts from breaking through, making constructive dialogue and change difficult.

Beyond Color Blindness: A Broader Critique of DEI Language

The speaker extends this critique beyond color blindness to other concepts prevalent in anti-racist, feminist, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) spaces. They question the actual meaning and impact of phrases and initiatives such as:

• "Our company has a great diversity statement."
• "We've done our mandatory unconscious bias training."
• "Meritocracy, excellence, and intelligence."
• "Cognitive diversity."
• The continued use of "I'm color blind" or "We're color blind."

The core argument is that without critically examining the evidence of what people actually think and do when they use these terms or engage in these practices, individuals may be operating under the assumption that they are helping, when in reality, the evidence suggests they might be speaking "nonsense" and potentially causing harm. The speaker urges humility and a willingness to check the scientific evidence regarding the real-world impact of these widely accepted concepts.