Matildas football legend, Sam Kerr, has been accused of something in London. According to reports, she was sick in a taxi after a night out, argued about the fare and called an attending police officer a ‘stupid white bastard.’ She apparently intends to deny this but she has, nonetheless, been, “accused of using insulting, threatening or abusive words that caused alarm or distress.”
If true, this is bad behaviour. Having a ‘night out‘ that results in being sick in a taxi and then presumably arguing about the clean up charge is not a good look, particularly if you are a highly paid sports star. The alleged comment isn’t great either. However, in my mind, it’s of a lower order. The fact that after an inordinately long delay, this is the issue Kerr is being charged over, tells us something has gone deeply wrong with British justice — something we don’t notice until it starts affecting beloved sports stars.
Since her court appearance, we have been treated to a number of articles in the left leaning Australian press explaining that if Kerr really did call the bobby a ‘stupid white bastard’ then this was not an act of racism. Such articles initially seem unnecessary because I’m not even sure this is what the charge sheet claims. But it does raise some questions.
I am of the view — a view I expect is held by many — that racism consists of prejudicial and discriminatory actions towards people based on perceptions of their race. However, a certain camp of US academics have decided — and I use the word ‘decided’ deliberately — that racism does involve this kind of prejudice but only if exercised by those who are in a position of power. And it’s not ‘power’ in the usual sense. It’s not economic either and has nothing to do with class. It’s about belonging to a group that benefits from invisible systems of power. It’s the kind of power a poor white kid from the western suburbs possesses over a wealthy, non-white banker from Sydney’s northern beaches.
I’m not sure I really believe in these invisible systems of power and I’m also not sure that this is how definitions are supposed to work. Nevertheless, some time around 2013, this newer definition started making its way out of the seminar room and into popular consciousness in the same way that many ideas about social justice have escaped American campuses. It’s now the water that many Australian journalists swim in.
And it’s caught Craig Foster wrong-footed.
Foster is a former player for the Australian men’s football team and a human rights advocate who has campaigned against racism. As such, he initially called for Kerr to be sacked as captain of the Matildas if the charges were proven. Now, he’s changed his mind, giving an eloquent description of the prejudice-plus-power definition of racism.
According to The Age:
“Foster said definitions of racism were ‘not designed to protect me, as a white, Anglo, Australian male nor a white police officer who has even greater legal, and racial power’.
‘That’s because I cannot experience racism in Australia,’ Foster wrote.
‘My right to speak is not questioned, I am in the cultural, racial, and linguistic majority, aren’t attacked for my name, colour, head dress or religion as many are, and am made to feel that I have a right to belong which is why, like many of you, I am deeply committed to making sure that no other Australian faces personal, institutional or systemic racism.’”
It is interesting to pose a number of questions here. Firstly, are definitions ‘designed’ to meet specific social ends? If so, that’s very Foucauldian. What would it take in policy terms to ensure non-white people ‘feel’ like they have ‘a right to belong,’ presumably in Australia? Does the fact that Kerr’s comments no longer fit Foster’s definition of racism mean they are lesser and has this recategorisation changed his mind about her captaincy of the Matildas?
Why does any of this matter to teachers?
On a daily basis, we have to deal with comments passed between groups of students in our schools and make determinations about how to deal with them.
For example, imagine a student with an East Asian background who makes abusive comments towards a student from a South Asian background that referenced their skin colour or cultural tropes and stereotypes. Is this racism? Would the school’s behaviour policy see it as racist? If so, what would happen if the parents of the student complained that this wasn’t racism because their child does not benefit from invisible structures of power?
And does defining such behaviour as racism matter? Even if not captured by this definition, such behaviour is still discriminatory and wrong, and could attract a sanction. However, as with Kerr, should it be a lesser sanction?
Should students from different backgrounds receive differential sanctions for making similar comments?
One obvious way to address this would be to remove all references to racism from school policies and instead use a different form of words to capture this behaviour. However, I think this is what the British charge sheet did and yet that hasn’t stopped us having this discussion.
So, schools will need to be clear on where they stand. It may even need to be something parents are aware of and agree at enrolment.
I will leave the comments open to all for your thoughts.
Thank you for writing this Greg. Having a similar ethnic background to Kerr I was excited to celebrate her achievements as an Australian-Indian. Over the last week in conversations with others about this situation, I have noted the excuses we all make for people when we want them to stay on the pedestal we've put them on.
You ask what this means for schools - at school I think we often make these excuses too - we think of the students who have gone without, have done it tough, have walked through discrimination or been a minority and we try to fill the gaps. I can think of very few teachers who take a no-excuses-hardline on kids when we perceive they are just fighting back. We don't have rules for this which results in not addressing the behaviours such as the example a reader shared below.
Over time I have come to think that this is not the best thing for anyone. Constantly moving the needle is not about equality or equity, it's about adults deciding for students what frameworks they are able to adhere to and this can also be a form of discrimination. When we decide that someone from a different starting point is incapable of rising to a standard this shows a lack of belief. I don't think discriminatory comments involving skin colour work any different. Students have all arrived at school from various beginnings and just like with learning, we take their current background knowledge and we build it to a level playing field. There are schools who have changed communities with this thinking.
As you discussed we could look at the American model and argue about privilege and history. If Sam's experience growing up has anything in common with mine, then she could probably stack up the times she has been racially vilified, comparatively to this occasion, and it would be laughable. But it is not about 'tit-for-tat' because the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If those racial slurs in the past had been dealt with appropriately perhaps the behaviours would have been stamped out and prevented.
So if nothing else I hope this brings a great conversation about role models who are occasionally disappointing, and about schools creating high expectations where everyone thrives because we don't (within reason) differentiate our expectations.
Hi Greg--reading this, the thing that comes to my mind is that the racism in the US is real, often denied by conservatives, yet permeates our history and current society as a Godzilla-like monster. We struggle with it, try to find ways to smother it, but it's damned difficult to make progress much less to slay it. Hell, the US Republican Party this election cycle is channeling George Wallace in the current political campaign narratives.
I do wish that our discourse and the ways we try to deal with the monster would stay within our borders. Race issues in Canada, Australia, the UK, France or wherever have their own histories and complications that do not match what happened here. Rather than parrot US academics, finding ways to discuss race that matches those complications would be more beneficial than looking for some universalist way to approach the topic that is heavily influenced by the US experience.