Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to this lesson today on Ethical arguments related to racial discrimination.

I'm really looking forward to working with you today on this lesson.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain racism and key ethical arguments about justice and equality.

Some keywords that we'll be using today are: discrimination, equality, justice, positive action, and racism.

Discrimination is actions that come from prejudiced attitudes.

Equality is belief that everyone is equal in value and worth.

Justice is what is right and fair.

Positive action is taking steps to support underrepresented groups, such as encouraging applications from ethnic minority candidates in fields where they are underrepresented.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or hostility directed at someone based on their race, ethnicity, or skin colour.

Our lesson today will form two parts.

We'll be looking at understanding racism and at arguments about racism.

So let's get started on understanding racism.

Article two of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without any distinction." It is illegal to treat someone unfairly because of their race in areas such as employment, education, housing, and access to goods and services.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or hostility directed at someone based on their race, ethnicity, or skin colour.

Racism is both individual and institutional.

Those with more power can turn prejudice into action through laws, media, policing, education, and other institutions.

But those who lack power face limited representation, unequal access to opportunities and frequent experiences of prejudice in daily life.

A YouGov survey in 2020 asked 5,146 British adults whether they thought the UK was a racist society.

Have a look carefully at the chart.

What percentage of those questioned viewed the UK as racist? So take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone else nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you worked out that it was 52%.

So what might influence people's views on whether the UK is a racist society? Again, take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

There's a long history of racism, particularly against people of African, Caribbean and South Asian heritage in the UK and other parts of the world.

This timeline shows how racism in the UK has developed over time from the enslavement of people and empire to modern issues such as the Windrush scandal.

In the 17th to 19th centuries, the slave trade and empire entrenched ideas of white superiority.

In 1948, the Windrush generation arrives from the Caribbean.

In the 1950s to '60s, racism in housing and employment is widespread.

In 1963, the Bristol Bus Boycott challenges a local bus company's refusal to hire Black or Asian workers.

In 1965 to 1976, the Race Relations Act is passed, banning discrimination in public places, housing and employment.

In 1999, the Macpherson Report confirms institutional racism in policing.

And in the 2010s to 2020s, the Windrush scandal reveals the mistreatment of Caribbean migrants, and Black Lives Matter protests call out racial inequality.

Here you can see in the photograph, Windrush migrants arriving at Waterloo Station.

Between 1948 and 1971, hundreds of Caribbean citizens came to Britain on ships like the HMT Empire Windrush.

They were invited by the British Government to help rebuild the country after the Second World War.

But in the 2010s, it was revealed that many of the Windrush generation were wrongly detained, denied healthcare, lost jobs, or even deported due to missing paperwork.

This caused national outrage, led to formal apologies, compensation schemes, and demands for justice in the immigration system.

In 1963, inspired by the US Civil Rights Movement, Paul Stephenson led the Bristol Bus Boycott after a local bus company refused to hire Black or Asian drivers.

The result of the Bristol Bus Boycott was a major public victory against racial discrimination in Britain.

The bus company reversed its ban and began hiring Black and Asian workers, and the boycott received widespread national support, including from politicians and church leaders.

It helped build pressure for the first Race Relations Act in 1965, which made some forms of racial discrimination illegal.

Despite laws against discrimination, racism remains an issue in the UK, as shown by the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

And here's a photograph of a Black Lives Matter protest in Hyde Park.

The global Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum in the UK after the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, USA in May, 2020.

Protests took place in cities across the country, drawing attention to racism in policing, education, healthcare, and employment.

So let's check your understanding.

Which one of the following events involved protesting against racist employment practises? Was it A: the Windrush scandal, B: the Bristol Bus Boycott, or C: the Edward Colston statue protest? So take a moment, pause the video, have a think and come back when you are ready to check your answer.

So well done if you spotted that it was the Bristol Bus Boycott.

The Edward Colston statue protest was part of some of the Black Lives Matter movement protests.

There are many reasons why racism exists both in individuals and across society.

It can be social and cultural.

So the society we live in can normalise racist ideas.

It can be psychological.

Racism can stem from unconscious bias and a fear of difference.

It can be economic and political.

Racism can be caused by unfair access to jobs or housing, and by politicians blaming ethnic minorities.

And it can be structural.

Systems in society can disadvantage certain groups.

So let's check your understanding again.

I'd like you to give me one cause of racism.

Pause, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

You could have said: unconscious bias, fear of difference, normalised racist ideas in society, politicians blaming ethnic minorities, unfair access to jobs or housing, systems that disadvantage certain groups.

There are many options, but well done if you managed to find one example of a cause.

Nell has been discussing racism with her classmate, Tia.

Nell says, "I hear people talk about white privilege, but I'm not sure what it is.

It sounds like they're saying white people have it easy, which isn't always true." Tia says, "White privilege is the unearned advantage white people may have because society is structured in their favour.

It means their skin colour isn't one of the things that makes their life harder.

White privilege is about the unspoken advantages someone has because the system is set up in their favour, like being less likely to be stopped by police or followed in a shop." Nell responds: "If the privilege is unspoken, then how do white people know they have it?" Tia responds: "Well, they don't.

Peggy Macintosh, an American activist, described it as like carrying an invisible backpack full of unearned assets.

You don't realise you have it because it's always been there, making things easier for you.

Examples of assets are seeing people of your race widely represented in the media, being able to find the hair products you need in the shops and not being asked to speak for your entire race." So have a think.

Why can it be difficult to understand what is meant by white privilege? If you're able to pause the video and turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can turn and talk to me, please do and then come back when you are ready to move on.

What is white privilege? So have a think.

Pause the video, write down your answer.

Come back when you're ready to check it.

White privilege is the unearned advantage that white people may have because society is structured in their favour.

Well done if you've got something close to that for your answer.

For Task A on understanding racism, we're going to look at that power imbalance diagram.

I'd like you to annotate the image with notes that explain: what the imbalance shows about racism and power in society, a real example of an event and how it illustrates this imbalance, for example, the Windrush scandal or the Bristol Bus Boycott.

So take your time, pause the video, use the diagram and think about how it is a visual representation of racism and power.

And don't forget to use that example to illustrate it.

Come back when you are ready to see what you could have done.

So here's the diagram, and your annotations could have looked like this.

The heavy side shows how power in society is unevenly distributed.

It suggests that some groups have more influence, protection and opportunity because of their race, while others have less power and are more likely to experience discrimination.

And over on the right hand side, we have the example of the Windrush scandal when Black Britons were wrongly detained and deported is an example of this imbalance because they were originally asked to come to the UK, yet decades later were treated with suspicion and denied their basic rights.

So well done if you managed to show how racism is about power being used against people in society.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at arguments about racism.

Justice and equality are key concepts related to understanding ethical arguments about racism.

Racism prevents the fair distribution of rights and resources and justice requires correcting this disadvantage.

Racism denies equality by creating and reinforcing inequality.

Yet equality requires ensuring everyone has equal opportunities.

True or false? Justice and equality require not only equal rights, but also addressing existing disadvantage.

Take a moment, pause the video, and as you think about your answer, can you also think about why? Come back when you are ready to check.

So well done if you put true.

And the reason why? Well, simply giving everyone the same rights isn't enough if some people have already been unfairly treated, fairness requires actively addressing those inequalities.

Eleanor Roosevelt reads the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights ethics is grounded in the belief that all people are born with equal dignity and deserve the same fundamental rights and freedoms. Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, actively opposed racial injustice.

She used her public role to support civil rights and she believed that racial equality was essential to human dignity and justice.

So equality means that human rights are universal and it condemns segregation.

That means the separation of individuals.

Justice supports civil rights, and it led Eleanor Roosevelt to back anti-lynching legislation.

Here's a photograph of Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher.

Now utilitarianism is an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

It judges actions by their outcomes and aims to maximise overall happiness while reducing harm.

Racism causes widespread suffering, exclusion and injustice, so utilitarians view it as morally wrong.

Peter Singer is a contemporary utilitarian who applies the theory to global and social ethics.

Singer argues that racism violates the principle of equal consideration of interests and cannot be justified if it leads to greater harm.

So using utilitarianism, we can see that equality is important because treating people unequally leads to unnecessary suffering.

Justice is also important because injustice causes harm and a just society is one that promotes the most overall happiness.

So therefore, utilitarianism based on the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, argues that racism violates its principles and it's therefore wrong.

So which ethical theory says racism is wrong because it causes widespread harm and reduces overall happiness? Is it A: human rights ethics, B: virtue ethics, or C: utilitarianism? Take a moment, pause the video if you need to, jot down your answer and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted that it was utilitarianism.

Aisha is researching ethical issues surrounding racism.

She's talking to Danielle about free speech and racism.

Aisha says, "Racist speech can become hate speech and it should be banned." Danielle says, "Well, the problem is that it's not always clear where to draw the line between free speech and racist speech." Aisha replies: "So people disagree on what's racism and what's just free speech." "Exactly, and on whether banning the expression of certain views infringes on our right to freedom of speech." So we can see here that Aisha and Danielle have laid out the difficulties surrounding whether we should have free speech and whether that means that potentially, we could allow racist speech or whether we have to limit free speech in order to protect against racism.

Here are two arguments for and two arguments against protecting racist free speech.

Arguments for: Well, if we limit free speech, free speech becomes meaningless.

And maybe allowing racist views to be expressed could make it easier to deal with them, to confront them.

So why might someone's belief in personal liberty, so personal freedom, lead them to defend other people's right to say offensive things? Take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's look at the arguments against.

Well, the argument against is that speech that incites hatred threatens other people, their safety and their dignity.

And the other issue is that if we allow racist speech, we are normalising it.

We are normalising prejudice, we are creating fear.

So how might someone's experiences shape their belief that some speech should be restricted? Have a think about those arguments against, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me again and then come back when you are ready to move on.

The terms positive action and positive discrimination are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing.

Now, one big difference is that positive action is legal and positive discrimination is not.

So it's really important that you know the difference between these two.

Positive action is supporting disadvantaged groups where underrepresentation exists.

An example of this was in 2018 when the Metropolitan Police ran workshops and outreach events to encourage more Black and Asian applicants.

Positive discrimination is choosing someone just because of their race or their gender or their background.

An example of this was in 2019, when a white Royal Mail employee won a case after missing a promotion in favour of a less qualified Black colleague.

So that was considered illegal because they were discriminating against the white colleague.

Aisha is talking to Warren about racism and positive action.

Aisha says, "I don't see why people argue about positive action.

Doesn't it just make things fairer?" And Warren says, "The problem is that some people think fairness is about treating everyone in exactly the same way." Aisha replies, "So people disagree on whether fairness means equal treatment?" And Warren responds, "Yes, and whether giving disadvantaged groups extra support is the right way to achieve equality or whether it is unfair." Here are two arguments for and two arguments against the use of positive action.

Arguments for: Well, it helps to remove the barriers that people from underrepresented groups might face, and it improves representation because it encourages diversity.

So unlike someone's experiences or background, lead them to see positive action as fair and necessary.

Take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me and then come back when you are ready to move on.

Let's look at the arguments against.

So it could be seen as favouring groups based on their identity and not on their skills or their merit.

And it could lead people to think that someone was chosen just to tick a box.

What influences might lead someone to believe that treating everyone the same is actually the fairest approach.

Again, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Aisha is talking to Asher about active anti-racism.

Aisha says, "Why is there a debate about active anti-racism? Isn't just being non-racist enough?" Asher says, "Yes, some think it is, but others believe that staying silent is a form of racism as it allows it to continue." Aisha says, "So people disagree on what responsibility we have?" And Asher responds, "Yes, it's about whether action is a moral duty or a personal choice." Here are two arguments for and two arguments against anti-racism.

Arguments for: Well, if we actively challenge racism, it helps to change structures that disadvantage some groups.

And if we don't act, injustice might continue.

So how might someone's experiences shape their belief that being actively anti-racist is necessary? So pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's have a look at the arguments against.

So one problem might be that being actively anti-racist could increase division.

Sp we might be focusing just too much on race and identity.

And it could be that people might feel pressured to act, even though they perhaps don't want to or aren't able to, to avoid criticism.

So why might someone believe that simply not being racist is enough? Again, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

What are the missing words? Number one: Some people debate whether it's acceptable to use racist speech because they disagree on where to draw the line between and hate speech.

Number two: The debate around often centres on whether it is fair to offer extra support to certain groups.

And number three: People disagree about whether staying silent is enough, or whether active is required.

So take your time, pause the video, come back when you're ready to check your answers.

So well done if you spotted that the words were free speech, positive action, and anti-racism.

For part one of our Task B, arguments about racism, here are some arguments that you might hear in a debate about issues surrounding positive action and positive discrimination.

What I'd like you to do is fill in the missing counter arguments.

So here's an argument for positive action.

Positive action seeks to correct a disadvantage by encouraging applications, offering extra support, or targeting outreach without guaranteeing outcomes.

So have a think about what a counter argument would be.

So an argument to disagree.

And there's a sentence starter there for you: Positive action is unfair as it can disadvantage.

So secondly, the issue of positive discrimination.

Well, an argument for is that positive discrimination ensures underrepresented groups are given opportunities and positions they have long been denied.

But I'd like you to think about a counter-argument to that as well.

Positive discrimination is unfair and illegal because.

So don't forget, of course, that positive action is legal, whereas positive discrimination is not.

So take your time, pause the video, think carefully about how to respond to those arguments using a different point of view, and then come back when you are ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the first counter-argument: Positive action is unfair as it can disadvantage others who do not have a protective characteristic, leading to perceptions of reverse discrimination.

And for the second counter-argument, positive discrimination is unfair and illegal because it involves selecting someone based on a protective characteristic rather than merit.

So well done if you managed to include a counter argument to both of those arguments for.

For part two of our task, Aisha is explaining why she agrees with positive action and not positive discrimination.

I'd like you to help her to explain why she thinks the argument in favour of positive action is strong and the argument in favour of positive discrimination is weak.

Aisha says, "The argument that positive action helps correct disadvantage and achieve equality is strong because some groups in society face.

For example, the argument that positive discrimination is fair because it ensures underrepresented groups are given opportunities is weak because treating someone preferentially based on a protected characteristic.

For example.

So take your time, pause the video, think about your answer, and write it down carefully and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said: The argument that positive action helps correct disadvantage and achieve equality is strong because some groups in society face barriers that others don't.

For example, encouraging more Black candidates to apply for teaching roles can help address underrepresentation.

The argument that positive discrimination is fair because it ensures underrepresented groups are given opportunities is weak.

Because treating someone preferentially based on a protected characteristic is still a form of discrimination.

For example, if a more qualified candidate is rejected in favour of someone chosen solely because of their race, it unfairly discriminates against them.

So well done if you've managed to really develop that skill of stressing the importance or value of an argument.

Really useful for GCSE RS answers.

In today's lesson, we've learned that racism can be individual or systemic, caused by bias, history and structures, but that it continues despite legal protection.

That white privilege and positive action show how inequality operates and how it can be challenged.

Events like the Windrush scandal, the Bristol Bus Boycott, and Black Lives Matter highlight both past and present injustice.

Possible ethical responses include the application of a human rights focus and utilitarianism.

Ongoing debates include whether racist speech should be limited, whether positive action or positive discrimination is fair, and the need for active anti-racism.

We've learned a lot today and we've tackled some really challenging issues.

So well done for all of your efforts.