In recent years, the term BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) has become ubiquitous in discussions surrounding race and ethnicity. Originally coined as a convenient catch-all phrase for data collection and statistical analysis, it has been used for decades by governments and organisations alike. However, as our understanding of racial inequalities deepens, it has become apparent that BAME fails to recognise the individual identities and unique experiences of different communities.
The Pitfalls of BAME
BAME’s origins trace back to the 1980s and 90s when it was introduced as a means to categorise non-white ethnic groups. Over time, it became the default term for referring to diverse communities, often masking the significant differences between them. This broad categorisation not only overlooks the rich tapestry of identities within these communities but also leads to misleading interpretations of data and can be exclusionary.
The Impact of COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the shortcomings of the term BAME into sharp focus. Reports on “BAME disparities” highlighted the disproportionate impact of the virus on minority ethnic groups yet failed to acknowledge the diverse experiences within these communities. The term was used extensively without proper definition or consideration for its implications.
Moving Towards Change
Recognising the inadequacy of BAME, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities recommended discontinuing its use in favour of addressing ethnic minority groups individually. In response, UK broadcasters committed to avoiding the term, setting a precedent for other organisations to follow suit.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
While the Equality Act 2010 does not explicitly ban the use of BAME, it emphasises the importance of addressing race and ethnicity with sensitivity and respect. Using umbrella terms like BAME can perpetuate division and fail to recognise the individual identities of marginalised groups.
Best Practices for Inclusive Language
In the pursuit of fostering inclusivity and equity, organisations must recognise the importance of co-production and collaboration with the communities they serve. The principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us” emphasises the necessity of involving those directly affected by decisions in the decision-making process. This ethos should extend to language and terminology, ensuring that any changes are influenced by the communities they involve.
- Co-producing Documentation: Instead of unilaterally deciding on language choices, organisations should collaborate with community members to review and revise written materials. From staff handbooks to recruitment tools, language should be clear, specific, and respectful of individuals’ chosen identities. By co-producing documentation, organisations can ensure that the language used accurately reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the communities they serve.
- Collaborative Education and Training: Inclusive language training should not be a one-way communication from the organisation to its employees. Instead, it should be a collaborative process that encourages open dialogue and mutual learning. Provide opportunities for employees from diverse backgrounds to share their experiences and insights, fostering a deeper understanding of the nuances of race, ethnicity, and culture. By co-producing education and training initiatives, organisations can create a more inclusive learning environment that empowers all employees to contribute to meaningful change.
- Community-informed Data Collection: When collecting data on race and ethnicity, organisations should strive to involve community members in the process. Instead of relying solely on predefined categories, consider inviting employees to self-describe their preferences, ensuring that data collection methods are sensitive to the diverse identities within the community. By co-producing data collection processes, organisations can gather more accurate and meaningful data that better represents the complexities of individual experiences.
- Ongoing Collaboration and Reflection: Inclusive language is not a static concept; it requires continual reflection and adaptation. Organisations must prioritise ongoing dialogue with community members to ensure that their language remains respectful and inclusive. Instead of reacting hastily to headlines or trends, organisations should engage in meaningful conversations with the communities they serve, seeking input and feedback on language choices. By co-producing language guidelines and policies, organisations can demonstrate their commitment to collaboration and inclusivity.
Conclusion:
The move away from umbrella terms like BAME represents a significant step towards recognising and celebrating the diverse identities within ethnically diverse communities. However, true inclusivity requires more than just changing language; it requires collaboration, co-production, and ongoing dialogue with the communities we serve. By adopting collaborative approaches to language and terminology, organisations can create environments where all individuals feel valued, respected, and empowered to shape their own narratives. Together, we can build a more equitable society where every voice is heard, and every identity is celebrated.