[This is a guest post by Howard Sherwood]
In June 2020, at the height of the campaigning following the death of George Floyd, I watched a two-part series titled The School That Tried To End Racism broadcast on Channel 4. Within the first few minutes I became uneasy about the series which had been conducted with a class of 11-year-old pupils in their first year at a Glenthorne High School, a state secondary school in Sutton, Surrey. When initially announcing the documentary in January 2020, Channel 4’s working title was ‘The Segregation Experiment’ which better describes what was finally shown but doesn’t capitalise on the racism-eliminating element that was a focus of interest in Summer 2020 following the resurgence of Black Lives Matter and its heightened profile within the UK.
A group of 24 pupils volunteered to participate in an experiment to measure unconscious racial bias. Having been tested, the majority were found to have a bias towards white faces, the group then spent the following three weeks taking part in exercises designed to reduce that bias and were finally re-tested. Results showed their bias had reduced.
The exploration of ‘racism’, ‘unconscious bias’ and ‘white privilege’ throughout the series was based on a
definition of racism that is embedded in Critical Race Theory, imported from the US. The Government has,
subsequently, clearly stated that the undisputed promotion of Critical Race Theory in schools is against the law. Section 406 of the Education Act (1996) prohibits “the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school” and Section 407 states “where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils” they should be “offered a balanced presentation of opposing views”. This was not the case in this series.
What happened over the course of the series raised my concerns sufficiently to make formal complaints to Channel 4, the Production company which made the series and Ofcom. I also wrote an article for Don’t Divide Us published in July 2020
The series’ assertions were presented to viewers using a problematic methodology which appeared to be engineered to produce a desired result. The failure to provide context and the errors through omission throughout were blatant. It was not so much a psychological experiment as a manifesto for social engineering driven by flawed science. Worse still was the exploitation of children to provide entertainment dressed-up as documentary. The editorial process (particularly the narrator’s script and editing) failed in its primary responsibility to maintain sufficient distance from its subject to provide an objective view. As such, it fell way below the standard expected and deserved by viewers of a programme presented as a documentary. The series adopted a ‘tabloid’ approach which ignored many inconvenient truths in favour of an attention-seeking headline (the series’ title).
In my original complaint to C4, I raised concerns about the use of the controversial and contested Implicit Association Test (IAT) using 11-year-old children to demonstrate that they had implicit racial bias; the ethics of using children below the age of consent as participants for an experiment shown on national television as entertainment; and various assertions and omissions that occurred throughout the programme that could be construed as misleading to viewers. The replies I have received in response to my complaints from both C4 and Ofcom have failed to answer many of my specific concerns.
Implicit Association Test (IAT)
This test was crucial to the programme’s take on racism in 11-year-olds. It was used as the starting point to establish a level of implicit racial bias in a group who had previously considered themselves to be ‘colour blind’ and was then repeated at the end of the experiment to show the extent to which racial bias had reduced. The IAT was presented as an uncontested and well-established psychological measure but, its psychometric properties and claims about what it purports to measure have been vociferously questioned. In 2015 Greenwald, Banaji and Nosek, creators of the IAT, stated that the psychometric issues associated with various IATs “render them problematic to use to classify persons as likely to engage in discrimination”. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a test that the programme asserted was “now widely accepted as an accurate benchmark of unconscious racial bias”.
The failure to disclose the contested value of the IAT test was crucial, since the test informed the whole basis of the series shaping its editorial thrust and dramatic results. The test was administered before and after the three-week programme of activities designed to reduce unconscious racial bias. When the results of the IAT were announced to the class, they were presented as an aggregate across the group that initially showed a majority bias for white faces, a result that was interpreted as confirming the existence of racial bias in the group as a whole.
Four months after my initial complaint, Channel 4 finally responded: Ian Katz, their Director of Programmes gave a detailed response dismissing my concerns. In their response to my concerns about the use of the IAT, Ian Katz stated using extraordinarily contorted language: “I do [sic] understand that IAT has detractors as well as supporters, but I am satisfied that it was justifiable and properly contextualised to say in the series that it is ‘widely accepted as an accurate benchmark of unconscious racial bias’. This implicitly acknowledges and makes clear to the viewer that it is not universally accepted, i.e., it is contested by some. However, the existence of unconscious bias – and the use of the IAT test to quantify it – is a mainstream idea and testing and training of it is on commonplace.”
It is fallacious to suggest that by describing the IAT as ‘widely accepted’, viewers would, as a result, conclude that this means it is “contested by some”. It may be true that use of the IAT to quantify unconscious bias has become “a mainstream idea” and that the “training of it is commonplace”, but that doesn’t mean it’s use is uncontested and uncontroversial. There is a wealth of evidence from a wide range of respected scientists, questioning its mainstream use and highlighting its serious limitations, from flawed psychometric properties to whether it measures anything useful at all. Mitchell and Tetlock, in the book Psychological Science Under Scrutiny state that it is “difficult to find a psychological construct that is so popular yet so misunderstood and lacking in theoretical and practical payoff as implicit bias.” A strong case is made that this is in large part due to problems with the IAT.
Jesse Singal, a respected scientific writer, who has had articles published on The British Psychological Society’s website, states that the IAT is “mired in controversy.” He notes that much “scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behaviour — even the test’s creators have now admitted as much”.
Nevertheless, Katz asserts that: the IAT “remains a credible and trusted test used and relied upon today… …In the series, the IAT was used in an illustrative way, at the beginning and end of a wider programme of activities, in order to explain unconscious racial bias to the students, to stimulate awareness and debate and to give context to their participation in a range of activities designed to reduce unconscious racial bias, not to predict behaviour. The IAT was used as part of classroom activities, rather than as part of a psychological study, much in the same way that practitioners use unconscious bias testing as part of their training in order to illustrate the effects. The results were not revealed on an individual level to the children and were provided as an aggregate.”
For Katz to say that “the IAT was used in an illustrative way” and not as “part of a psychological study” is highly misleading: by using the IAT, which he has acknowledged is an established psychological test, and inviting the pupils to participate in it, it becomes a psychological study of the group. The fact that only aggregate scores were revealed is irrelevant – the test still had a notable effect on some of the children who took part, a phenomenon that is acknowledged in 1998 by two of the creators of the IAT (Greenwald & Banaji).
Also, if it the IAT was being used in a merely illustrative way, why was the test run twice (pre- and postactivities)? The only possible explanation was to demonstrate that the activities had reduced the children’s unconscious bias. So, whether the scores were an aggregate or not, it served much as a diagnostic test might.
Dramatic emphasis was placed on the results of the second running of the test, further emphasising its importance in the context of what many reviews of the series have described as ‘an experiment’. Were the shortcomings of the IAT deliberately ignored or were the programme-makers and academics simply unaware of them?
As broadcast, the IAT was presented as an uncontested measure of racism in a group of 11-year-old children and indicates the application of an over-simplified methodology:
1. Demonstrate that the group was implicitly racist by using the IAT as a test indicator
2. Lead the group in a sequence of activities designed to reduce or eliminate racism within the cohort
3. Re-test using the IAT to demonstrate that if not eliminated, racism within the group had been reduced
4. QED: The School That Tried To End Racism – job done!
To state that the key element of the children taking the IAT was merely “illustrative” is astonishing. Indeed, towards the end of Episode 2, after children had voted that the UK was racist, Professor Rhiannon Turner said “So, what we’re hoping now is that this is going to show in their results on the second IAT that they’re going to show a reduction in unconscious bias”.
Furthermore, in Episode 2, Dr Rollick says: “the point of this programme is to look at whether there has been any change in unconscious bias over a three-week period, but for me this is doing far more than just that – it’s inviting us to recognise that race and racism is a part of everyday society.”
In this quote, Dr Rollick is acknowledging that the measure of unconscious bias is central to the course of activities in which the pupils participated.
Jesse Singal cites “one of the best and most substantive critiques of the IAT that has yet been written”, an article by in which they declare “what is relevant is what function the IAT is playing in scientific reality”. They provide many examples where proponents of the IAT treat it as though it is a diagnostic tool, measuring “some hidden, otherwise unobservable attribute within test subjects. He says, “by this logic it’s hard to see how the test isn’t diagnostic”.
https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html,
Singal goes onto argue that the more those taking the test view their IAT scores as ‘diagnostic’ in the sense of providing important information about themselves which they view as coming from a credible source then “the stronger the ethical case against certain usages of the test”.
Even Banaji and Greenwald, co-creators of the IAT “admitted to being surprised and troubled by their own test results” with Banaji stating she was “deeply embarrassed”. This suggests that the very act of taking the test can produce a negative effect in participants, whether or not the scores are presented individually or, as in this series, an aggregate.
In their research, Fiedler et al., conclude that it is only “fair and appropriate to treat the IAT with the same scrutiny and scientific rigour as other diagnostic procedures” as it produces strong emotional responses from those who are led to believe it is measuring something of which they were unaware. Although the pupils’ individual test results were not revealed, the announcement of the aggregate result produced an observably negative effect on many members of the group.
To support this phenomenon, to promote Episode 1 of the series on the All 4 website, Channel 4 says: “The students are tested for unconscious racial bias. Two best friends are shocked by the results”
One of the children, of black ethnicity, commented at the end of the documentary “Everyone’s been living in a place where white people are more superior. We never knew that until the first test, how that has been embedded in us for 10 years”. This suggests that the taking of test itself was a major factor in changing pupil’s beliefs about racism in wider society.
Katz’s C4 response continued: “the test was not unethical or manipulated to lead to a pre-determined result in order to pursue a particular agenda. The programme-makers worked with highly regarded, established experts in their fields (both on-screen and off-screen) in devising the format of the series and the programme of activities in which the children took part.… we are satisfied that it was credible, and the series was undertaken with expert advice and appropriate rigour. There is a vast amount of literature on the IAT and unconscious bias, which the producers considered in making the series.”
Even though Katz admits that there is a “vast amount of literature on the IAT” which the (unspecified) producers considered – it appears that they discounted all that questions its validity. It is interesting that Katz seeks to downplay the IAT as just one element in a sequence of classroom activities, denying that it was in any way a psychological study or experiment. Without it, the series would have lost its dramatic impact, since it was the key measure of what the programme-makers felt had been achieved.
Ofcom comments thus: “On the issue of the validity of the IAT, Ofcom firstly considered whether the way in which the test and its findings were presented in the programmes may have materially misled the audience as to its value. The programme included the statement made in the voiceover that the IAT was ‘…widely accepted as an accurate benchmark of unconscious racial bias’ and in your view it did not include any statements highlighting the negative aspects of it”.
“While we acknowledge there is criticism of the IAT, it is still, we understand, a widely accepted method for measuring implicit bias which has been extensively used in peer-reviewed research with adults and children since 1998. Channel 4 advised Ofcom that the test taken by the students in the Series was devised independently to the highest ethical standards by Dr Andy Baron, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia who created the very first IAT adapted for children”.
This is an admission that this version of the IAT was completely untested since it was devised specifically for the purposes of the series. The actual test taken by the pupils had never been taken by anybody before, its results had never been measured in different groups (age, ethnicity, culture etc.) and had never been peer-reviewed. In traditional scientific terms it meant nothing.
“The particular criticism of the IAT which you highlight in your letter refers to a more diagnostic function of the test. The quotes you refer to are critical of the IAT where it is used to ‘gauge people’s likelihood of engaging in discrimination’ in other words to predict an individual’s behaviour. In the Series however, the test was not used in this way. In your letter, you said the programme narration had stated that the IAT was ‘…widely accepted as an accurate measurement of unconscious racial bias’. However, the actual statement that was used was ‘…widely accepted as an accurate benchmark of unconscious racial bias’. Further, the IAT results for the individual children were aggregated across the class or children and were not shared individually with the students. In our view, therefore, viewers would have understood the IAT was being used as a tool to ‘benchmark’ the overall level of unconscious racial bias at the beginning of the documentary and again at the end and not accurately measure each individual child’s unconscious racial bias”.
This is nit-picking of the highest order! To try to establish a difference between ‘measurement’ and ‘benchmark’ is abstruse: what else is a benchmark if it isn’t a measure? Also, I did not raise the issue of individual versus group testing in my complaint.
“Ofcom therefore did not consider it was required, in the context of how the IAT was used in the Series, for the wider criticisms of the IAT to be highlighted. The statement “widely accepted as an accurate benchmark of unconscious racial bias” therefore, in our view, would not have materially misled viewers about the value of the IAT in the context of how it was used in the Series”.
“We then considered your (second) concern about the harm arising to children and wider society from using the IAT with its ‘contested value’ as the ‘whole basis of the experiment’ should the ‘project’ be adopted more widely. As set out above, Ofcom is satisfied that the ‘contested value’ of the IAT as a diagnostic tool was not directly relevant in the context of the limited way in which the test was used in this programme. In addition, it is Ofcom’s view that the Series did not at any time indicate to viewers that the use of the IAT was the ‘whole basis of the experiment’. In Ofcom’s view, there was no suggestion that the racial identity activities that the children undertook during the course of the Series were a direct consequence of the results of the IAT. This was because it had previously been established that the IAT was being used as a benchmark of unconscious bias of the class as a whole. Further, the voiceover described the IAT as ‘the first task’ of the series of initiatives that followed. When the IAT results were made known, one of the academic contributors Professor Rhiannon Turner commented that the class results were: ‘exactly what we would expect to find in a white country like the UK.’ This suggested to viewers that there was an expectation of the outcome of the test and its results were of no surprise”.
This response misses the point (possibly deliberately) that I was raising that, in my viewing of the series, the IAT was presented as the key measure upon which the success or failure of the series’ objectives was predicated. The decision to present the IAT as the opening and concluding element confirms this. “Therefore, in Ofcom’s view, viewers would have concluded from the programme that the initiatives introduced to the children were not dependent on the IAT but rather that the test served as a benchmark from which to judge the effectiveness of the programme of activities that followed. We therefore concluded that the programme did not materially mislead viewers and was unlikely to cause harm and/or offence regarding the use of the IAT test in relation to the experiment as a whole, in the way in which it was presented in the Series”.
Affinity Groups
Ian Katz’s response to my concerns about the lack of scientific research into Affinity Groups was as follows:
“There is far less published research as you say on creating Affinity Groups, and for this element of the series the producers also undertook their own research into the experience of a number of American schools which had used the approach. I understand such groups have been running for more than 25 years in America. The published research that exists – such as Hartness 2012 that you quote – suggests they do good.”
The only published research that appears to exist is that of the dissertation (i.e., not peer-reviewed) by Hartness, a researcher who admits to “an established belief that these groups are effective”; but that “the overall effectiveness of each affinity group was not measured”; and that the data collected “cannot be generalized outside of the Chapel Hill School District” of North Carolina. Hartness was a principal at one of the schools that took part in the research and she had established racial affinity groups at two other schools included in the study. Whether or not the affinity group was only one element of the programme, to cite that only one single post-graduate study as evidence that “suggests” affinity groups work is of insufficient merit for them to be used. Affinity groups may have been running for more than 25 years in the US, but, in academic terms, that is insufficient evidence proving they are effective or appropriate for use with students in the UK.
This is not robust rigorous scientific research – “suggests they do good” is insufficient evidence that merits affinity groups being presented as ‘credible’ particularly when used with subjects of schoolchildren who were 11 years old.
Bias, ideology, legality, politicisation
In addition to concerns expressed about lack of scientific rigour, I also raised questions about the politicised content and impartial nature of the series and its ideological stance that seemed determined to produce a certain result.
The on-screen academics (Professor Turner and Dr Rollick) made it very clear from the outset that they had a particular agenda. Their politicised views and value judgements, combined with contemporary interpretations of racism, social justice, identity politics, critical race theory, theories of oppression and current tropes about slavery were, with the assistance of a diversity practitioner from the US, relayed to the children over a three week period. This is how Episode 2 is described on the Channel 4 website: ‘The students explore white privilege and are re-tested to see if racial bias changed. And a White British student is shocked to hear her Black classmates’ experiences of racism.’
The exploration of ‘racism’, ‘unconscious bias’ and ‘white privilege’ in the series was based on a definition of racism that is embedded in Critical Race Theory. The Government has clearly stated that the promotion of Critical Race Theory in schools is against the law. Section 406 of the Education Act (1996) prohibits “the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school” and Section 407 states “where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils” they should be “offered a balanced presentation of opposing views”. This was not the case in this series.
Evidence of a politicised agenda is not hard to find. One of the series’ key contributors – Dr Nicola Rollick – makes her commitment to Critical Race Theory and the adoption of a politicised viewpoint on racism quite clear on the Goldsmith’s College website where a list of her publications includes: Critical Race Theory in Education, 2018; The Heart of Whiteness: Racial gesture politics, equity and higher education, 2018; A political investment: revisiting race and racism in the research process, 2013.
David DeHaney, founder and Creative Director at Proper Content (the maker of the series), states that reading about Mariama Richards, first gave him the idea for the series. He says: “That’s when I got really enthused about creating something here in the UK.”
Mariama Richards, the American diversity and inclusion practitioner who played an active rôle in the series, is Director of Progressive & Multicultural Education at the Ethical Culture, Fieldston, a private school in New York. In 2015, she was the lead architect of the racially segregated affinity group programme. Parents in the US who have voiced criticism about this programme have pointed out that it has an ‘activist agenda’. In 2015, 100 members of the Fieldston faculty signed a letter expressing solidarity with #Black Lives Matter. In February 2015 a number of parents posted a petition online protesting that Fieldston’s affinity group programme may cause “irreparable harm” to their children and “introduce a victim mentality to some children who might otherwise not have dreamed of it” [See this article]
At no time during the series was there any reference to an alternative point of view. The ‘colour blind’ approach was rejected from the outset without any clear evidence to support the assertion that it was “not working”. It was no surprise that, at the end of the experiment, the children came to the conclusion that the UK was a racist country. It felt as though this was the self-fulfilling prophecy that the academics had predicted. It could be construed that the manipulative methodology followed in the series amounted to simple indoctrination.
The overall presentational style seemed inappropriate to a documentary about psychological research, lacking objective distance and failing to present any alternative perspective. The on-screen academics congratulated themselves, communicating via smiles, knowing glances and patronising asides when the participants responded as they had hoped during the training sessions.
Throughout the series, it seemed at times as though the academics were directing the documentary, blurring the crucial distinction between a documentary programme-maker and their subject. The resulting lack of objective perspective could lead to the programme being seen as little more than a campaigning polemic.
For example, a dramatic sequence in Episode 2 in the National Portrait Gallery gave significant emphasis to the lack of ‘black’ portraits and the revelation that money was paid to the slave owners rather than the slaves but failed to explain why reparations were paid to slave-owners.
The guide introduced herself as ‘Alice’. As nothing more was said about her (either on camera or in the narration), the viewer was led to believe that she is a member of NPG staff as she states, “the whole idea of this gallery is that you can come here and learn about all the most famous and significant people in British history”.
Alice then continued to describe specifically selected paintings in the gallery. I have learnt subsequently, that ‘Alice’ is not a member of staff at the NPG and that she is a freelancer brought in by the programme-makers. In fact, she is Alice A. Procter who describes herself thus on her Twitter feed: “Art historian, author, nuisance. I created Uncomfortable Art Tours and wrote The Whole Picture (Cassel). Procter with an E, I’m not that kind of witch. She/her.”
Channel 4 responded thus: “As to your concerns about the narrative in the National Portrait Gallery, we are satisfied that these were matters of editorial discretion and not issues of inaccuracy. Alice Procter was not identified or presented in the series as an employee of the National Portrait Gallery and, as viewers are likely to be aware, tours are often conducted in public galleries and museums by individuals not directly employed by the establishment. I believe viewers would have understood that Alice was expressing her own views, not speaking on behalf of the National Portrait Gallery. She is an art historian in her own right and it is worth noting that she and the National Portrait Gallery were given separate ‘with thanks’ mentions in the programme’s credits.”
This particular viewer was not aware that Alice Procter was not a member of NPG staff – she certainly behaved as though she was! Channel 4’s resorting to the excuse that she was given a single-line credit presented at speed (and for many viewers in a shrunken window as the series ended) is notable.
Ofcom commented on the National Portrait Gallery sequence thus:
“Ofcom noted that the voiceover explained to viewers that the trip to the NPG was an opportunity for the students to understand how ‘privilege and power shaped white society through history’. At the NPG, Alice explained that the idea of the NPG was to ‘learn about all the significant people in British history’. She focused on a painting ‘The Anti-Slavery Society Convention of 1840’ as a means of introducing the discussion about slavery and the compensation payments made to slave owners”.
“… it is Ofcom’s view that neither of the above broadcast statements were materially misleading as they were statements of fact. Further, we did not consider the programme became materially misleading for not including the additional information you suggest. “On the issue of how Alice appeared in the NPG segment, Ofcom disagrees that Alice ‘purported’ to speak on behalf of the NPG. At no point did the episode indicate to viewers that Alice was linked to the NPG or that she was expressing views on behalf of the NPG. We acknowledged some viewers may have assumed that she was linked to the gallery because she had access, was speaking about the art collection and referred to a painting as ‘the earliest portrait we have of a former slave’. However, in Ofcom’s view any question regarding her relationship to the NPG was not likely to raise issues under the Code in terms of misleadingness unless the statements made were likely to have materially misled viewers so as to cause harm and/or offence. Having reviewed the statements broadcast, in relation to: the slave trade reparations; the portrait of the slave being unusual; and reasons for the lack of representation of non-white people in the collection, these would appear to be factual with no personal interpretation attached to them, and would have, in our view, been viewed as such by the audience.”
Ofcom’s comments above are weasel words: they excuse Channel 4 (and implicitly Proper Content) on technicalities that a typical viewer might miss. Ofcom seems more concerned that viewers might be offended rather than that they might be misled – what does that say about the body charged with regulation of broadcast material? I suggest that it means that it’s allowable to mislead or lie so long as nobody is offended! Ofcom’s judgements’ process is integrated into a bureaucratic tick-box exercise of testing content against guidelines, failing to amalgamate the various components of a complaint and view them as a whole. I suggest that there is a temptation to polarise complaints towards either ‘dismissed’ or ‘upheld’. I can only speculate what might have happened had just one element of my complaint had been upheld.
As to impartiality, In their formal response Ofcom states that “We therefore considered whether the due impartiality rules in Section Five of the Code applied in this case. These rules require broadcasters to preserve due impartiality where a programme is dealing with matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. The Code sets out that: matters of political or industrial controversy are political or industrial issues on which politicians, industry and/or the media are in debate; and matters relating to current public policy need not be the subject of debate but relate to a policy under discussion or already decided by a local, regional or national government or by bodies mandated by those public bodies to make policy on their behalf, for example non-governmental organisations, relevant international institutions, etc. Given the subject matter in this case related broadly to the issue of implicit racial bias at the individual level and did not explicitly discuss, support or criticise any particular political matters or issues of public policy, Ofcom has taken the view that the rules in Section Five are not applicable here”.
This is at odds with Channel 4’s response which was careful to state that the measure of implicit racial bias (the IAT) was presented as an aggregate group activity, and specifically did not focus on individual scores. So, who is right – and should Section 5 of The Broadcasting Code apply or not?
Regarding compliance with the law: whilst I accept that Kemi Badenoch MP’s statement was not primarily directed at broadcasters and programme-makers, The Education Act is statute law covering any activity in an educational context and has been in place since 1996. I am unaware that Glenthorne High School has a special exemption, therefore any activity within it is subject to The Education Act including planned activities such as those undertaken in this series which involved delivery by teachers.
Ms Badenoch quoted the relevant part of the Act: “Schools have a statutory duty to be politically impartial.” Ian Katz states: “I am satisfied that the programme was duly impartial.” The programme of activities that the pupils underwent were devised by individuals informed by particular political perspectives.
Ofcom’s judgement: “In regard to Kemi Badenoch MP’s statement on 20 October 2020, which post-dated the production and broadcast of the Series, the provision of the Education Act to which you refer is not directed at broadcasters and programme makers. Nevertheless, as above, I [sic] am satisfied that the programme was duly impartial.”
Ian Katz states that “I am satisfied that all views expressed by the experts were credible and represented a legitimate strand of scientific opinion and expertise, properly used in context in a duly impartial manner.” And “we believe the series covered a sensitive subject in a fair, responsible and measured way.” How can Channel 4 maintain that the ‘views’ and ‘opinion’ of one or more ‘experts’ is “duly impartial” in the absence of any alternative hypothesis or viewpoint? This protestation of impartiality should be considered in the context of Channel 4’s statement that:
“Whilst expert contributors provided input, editorial control of the series remained entirely with the programme makers and Channel 4.”
Whilst Channel 4 failed to address this topic specifically, they make reference to the errors whilst responding to other points. Ofcom covers the errors under a heading of ‘material’ misleadingness and state:
“Although it is a fundamental requirement of broadcasting that an audience should not be misled in the portrayal of factual matters, Ofcom only regulates the accuracy of programmes per se in news programmes. In non-news programmes such as the Series, broadcasters must ensure that they do not materially mislead audiences in relation to the representation of factual issues. Whether a programme or item is “materially” misleading depends on a number of factors such as: the context; the editorial approach taken in the programme; the nature of the misleading material; and, above all, either what the potential effect could be or what actual harm or offence has occurred”.
“Your (third) concern on misleadingness related to the segment of the programme in the NPG (Episode 2) where you suggested certain facts were omitted.”
“Ofcom assessed the editorial context of the programme to determine whether the information broadcast would have materially misled viewers so as to have caused harm and/or offence.”
“From your letter, it is our understanding that you are not of the view that the statements made by Alice were misleading in themselves rather that further information should have been broadcast to viewers to provide context. While the additional information you suggested may have provided viewers with more detail, it is Ofcom’s view that neither of the above broadcast statements were materially misleading as they were statements of fact. Further, we did not consider the programme became materially misleading for not including the additional information you suggest.”
“On the issue of how Alice appeared in the NPG segment, Ofcom disagreed that Alice ‘purported’ to speak on behalf of the NPG. At no point did the episode indicate to viewers that Alice was linked to the NPG or that she was expressing views on behalf of the NPG. We acknowledged some viewers may have assumed that she was linked to the gallery because she had access, was speaking about the art collection and referred to a painting as “the earliest portrait we have of a former slave”. However, in Ofcom’s view any question regarding her relationship to the NPG was not likely to raise issues under the Code in terms of misleadingness unless the statements made were likely to have materially misled viewers so as to cause harm and/or offence. Having reviewed the statements broadcast, in relation to: the slave trade reparations; the portrait of the slave being unusual; and reasons for the lack of representation of non-white people in the collection, these would appear to be factual with no personal interpretation attached to them, and would have, in our view, been viewed as such by the audience”.
“We should add that Ofcom’s rules on Fairness in Section Seven of the Code enable all individuals and organisations who appear in programmes to make a complaint about any alleged unfair representation. However, the NPG has not raised any concerns to Ofcom about their participation and representation in this Series”.
Ofcom’s conclusion: “Given all the above, we do not consider the Series raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 2.2 of the Code”.
“Whilst we acknowledge your concerns about this Series, it is Ofcom’s assessment that due care was provided to the students who participated and that viewers watching it would not have been materially misled on the issues you raised. As the Series did not raise substantial issues requiring further investigation under the Code, your complaint will now be closed”.
The Department for Education, responding on behalf of Gavin Williamson (Secretary of State for Education) has stated: “unfortunately, government ministers and officials must remain impartial and therefore unable to comment on specific views highlighted in programs (sic) that appear on television.”
These responses indicate a somewhat ‘laissez-faire’ attitude on behalf of Government under current legislation regarding schools – the most positive response was that of Nick Gibb replying as Minister of State for School Standards, stated unequivocally that schools should not teach contested opinions: “As the Secretary of State has made clear, political impartiality in our education system is an incredibly important principle to uphold. The Government is committed to ensuring children and young people receive a balanced education and will act where necessary to help schools do this. It is important that when teaching about politically contentious subjects, schools must uphold their duties with regards to political impartiality and should not teach contested opinions.”
Due care of children
Is it ethical, either morally or scientifically, to use 11-year-old schoolchildren in a psychological experiment such as that conducted in the making of the series? Channel 4 has guidelines for working with under-18s which include specific measures to protect children. To this viewer, it was very apparent that the children’s involvement in this experiment caused them to suffer demonstrable distress. Is it ethical to present identifiable children in a psychological experiment who cannot legally give their consent? Inviting children to reflect on the ways in which they may currently be or become racist towards their friends and others, is inevitably going to lead to self-doubt and, in this instance, there was clear evidence that it did. The children’s personal values and beliefs were exposed and challenged on national television. One white pupil became tearful on more than one occasion, expressing concern that his personal friendships were under threat and another, of mixed heritage, experienced stress, confusion and anger about the way she felt she was being forced to choose whether she was black or white. Contrary to C4’s description of the programme on their website “a 12-year-old bi-racial girl is keen to find out what racial group she belongs in” – it was clear to the viewer that she was not at all ‘keen’ to find out but very angry and upset.
Ian Katz drew particular attention to the measures taken to protect the children: “Psychological support was available throughout the filming period (and beyond) if required.” and “The clinical psychologist was contacted for advice when it was felt necessary or prudent to do so. Children were offered the opportunity to discuss issues with the psychologist should they wish to”.
“the physical and emotional welfare and wellbeing of all children participating in the series was, and continues to be, a priority. Careful measures were put in place to safeguard the physical and emotional welfare and dignity of the children, and to ensure that their involvement did not cause them to suffer unnecessary distress or anxiety”.
“Whilst I do [sic] understand these may have been challenging moments for those children and for viewers, the children who showed signs of being upset recovered quickly and were properly cared for and supported. I am acutely mindful of our responsibilities as a public service broadcaster and that it is sometimes necessary to show the uncensored reality with true and perhaps uncomfortable reactions of individuals in challenging situations”.
“As set out above, careful measures were in place throughout to ensure that the children were supported prior to and throughout production and that no unnecessary distress or anxiety was caused to them. The experience was overwhelmingly positive for the children and families who took part, as evidenced by their feedback and comments in the series.”
However, via a Freedom of Information request, the school stated, “There was no independent clinical child psychologist appointed for the duration and aftermath of the C4 project.” Surely, the school should have known about this essential requirement since the series involved children in its care and was filmed on its premises?
Ofcom’s response is even more damning: “Having carefully reviewed the response from Channel 4, we are confident that best practice was followed before, during and after production and there are no issues warranting further investigation under the Code.” In other words, they took Channel 4’s word that all appropriate guidelines had been followed – there was no evidence provided in their judgement that they checked that this was what actually happened.
“Ofcom is satisfied that the level of distress shown during the Series was editorially justified and viewers could see that the children who showed they were upset or distressed recovered quickly and were shown being supported and cared for both within the school and at home. From carefully reviewing all of the measures Channel 4 took Ofcom is also of the view that the children were not placed in any risk of being caused harm by their participation in the Series.”
The decision to broadcast
Ian Katz, responding on behalf of Channel 4 said: “I am satisfied that the series was fair, accurate, duly impartial and properly produced in compliance with the law and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code as well as our own Working and Filming with Under 18s best practice guidelines… … this was a responsibly produced and carefully considered series.”
In their formal response to my complaint, Ofcom stated that; “Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator and it is not our role to assess a broadcaster’s commissioning process or the editorial decisions taken by a broadcaster pre-broadcast. Rather, our role is to assess post-broadcast whether broadcast content has complied with the Code”.
Conclusion
The process of making a complaint has been protracted due to the consequences of the pandemic and its effect on the ability of organisations to respond in a timely manner. Nonetheless, it has been an education in how large corporate bodies deal with complaints. Both in the cases of Channel 4 and Ofcom, similar defence tactics are deployed:
1. Re-defining the terms of a complaint by not responding to specific points, rather re-grouping responses according to their own terms of reference. Whether intentional or not, this provokes a response of frustration in the complainant: I have often found myself thinking and saying out loud “Why won’t they just answer my specific queries?”
2. Expressing responses by referring to codes or guidelines which fail to capture or clarify meaning – the best example in this case citing a distinction between ‘benchmark’ and ‘measurement’. My suspicion is that Proper Content (the programme-makers) saw an opportunity to pitch (and therefore obtain funds for) the series idea to Channel 4, who were on the look-out for edgy, ground-breaking content that enhanced their profile as the social justice champions of UK broadcasting by providing a new breed of current affairs/documentary style programming. I also suspect that Channel 4 failed to appreciate that the series’ content and methodology contained such scientifically dubious elements as the IAT and affinity groups in the context of an approach that embodied Critical Race Theory.
Similarly, I suspect that the school was misled by Proper Content and Channel 4 in failing to disclose the contested status of the ‘science’ deployed in the series. Ofcom seem to be more concerned with offence than with maintaining standards of truth and accuracy. Their recent announcement to extend protection for certain groups – including schoolchildren states:
“Broadcasters should take due care over the welfare of a contributor who might be at risk of significant harm as a result of taking part in a programme, except where the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor.
A contributor might be regarded as being at risk of significant harm as a result of taking part in a programme for reasons including (but not limited to) the following:
• they are considered a vulnerable person;
• they are not used to being in the public eye;
• the programme involves being filmed in an artificial or constructed environment;
• the programme is likely to attract a high level of press, media and social media interest;
• key editorial elements of the programme include potential confrontation, conflict, emotionally challenging situations; or
• the programme requires them to discuss, reveal, or engage with sensitive, life changing or private
• aspects of their lives.
Ironically, if these recent additions to the Broadcasting Code been in force at the time of broadcast, my complaint may have been upheld by Ofcom. Despite the evidence presented otherwise, the school, the programme-makers, the broadcaster and Ofcom maintain that the series met all of their respective obligations.
I beg to differ.