White investigator for racial harassment claim?

[SophieHMS]

If you lodged a complaint at work against a white person of racial harassment, would the ethnicity of the investigator matter to you?

If one believes a white person is less likely to perceive racial harassment, to minimise it, it to victim-blame, then one would want an investigator of colour.

But that choice is itself discriminatory, surely?

Not all black and Asian people are as alive to racial inequalities as others - nor should they be always tasked with responding to, in a sense "owning", race-related matters. There may be a white person whose understanding of and valuing of eg micro aggressions, than their BAME counterpart.

Would you open up more to a person with your ethnic background if you were the complainant? But the white person responding to the allegations might feel an investigator with a minority ethnic background came in to the investigation already biased, and might then behave more defensively in response.

Please help me think this through. I'm a white woman and although I have canvassed the views of my black women friends, perhaps inevitably we have not arrived at a consensus. I generally believe, skills and experience being equal, a BAME investigator would be more appropriate, not least because the unknown unknowns for white people around race, are huge. I'm also clear that people of colour should not be given the role of spokespeople for diversity-related matters.

I'm at a dead end. My work
Is involved in this field and I really want to know how best to respond to clients who say "we want a black investigator" or "this case needs a black woman on it".

OP A woman comes to you who says she has been sexually harassed in the workplace.
Do you allocate the complainant a male investigator?

as a white woman this I would say - people will say racist bigoted things in front of me but they are more likely to hide this or not say this in front of my Asian dh
But I can see your concern - very much depends upon the individual who is investigating

@EchoNan

OP A woman comes to you who says she has been sexually harassed in the workplace. Do you allocate the complainant a male investigator?

I have asked the same question about women in the feminist chat board. I know that my "gut" would be, appoint a woman investigator to a sexual harassment allegation, I know far far too many men at work who simply would not see the behaviour of other men as unacceptable and if they were investigating would be far more likely than a woman to say there was no case to answer. We surveyed the outcomes from over 300 cases for one company and bar a margin the profile of the person least likely to have an allegation upheld was a woman of colour. So black women making allegations of harassment are in my view - statistically and from my 30 years' experience - are less likely than any other person to be believed. My view is this is because the idea of the "uppity black woman" comes alive for far too many white people, when a BAME woman complains. But I recognise that as a white woman I'm seeing through my own lens hence my intrusion to this board asking for your views and experiences.

I know the best person is someone who is neutral, sensitive and hugely aware of micro aggressions and social and personal power, as well of course of process and legislation, but given most investigators are basically "a manager" who has if lucky had a days training to investigate, the best we can do sometimes is whittle out the worst most crass errors in appointment, and gender/race is often one of the only factors a person appointing an investigator can control.

*by a margin, not bar a margin

I agree with you. So I won't repeat back to you what you have written.
I spent more years than I care to remember in similar sounding work. Retired now,

To talk generally for a moment.

No one person, is aware of every nuance surrounding a complaint. It's important that the Investigator believes and understands the complainant, as you say. So there is the ideal world, and there is doing the best for the complainant, in the circumstances.

One day to train an investigator, is woefully insufficient in my view. How do you teach someone procedures, interviewing techniques, listening skills, report writing and so on in that time, as well as relevant legislation, awareness raising and so on? It can't be done.

I'd be arguing, at the minimum, for a much more comprehensive programme to train Investigators.

I presume that: they then would place a report of some kind before a panel / other managers.? They ( the panel) need dedicated education sessions too, similar content to that above. No point having diligent investigators, if the decision makers are on another page/ determined to defend the status quo.

The other thing to consider is your investigators should be volunteers, not, ( for instance) the press ganged manager who happens to be BME, or female, being told that they are now in charge of dealing with harassment investigations.

I didn't see the other thread. But women here too .

Thing is, if you have 30 years experience, and you have reached the conclusions you have....do you keep that same system running, as the future will continue to resemble the past? Otherwise thirty years experience could become one years experience repeated thirty times over. With the same end result for the aggrieved.

I've sometimes had two investigators working with a complainant, if needed, in some circumstances. Perhaps one may be less experienced in cases/procedures, but more able to relate to issues raised by the complainant and to give them confidence that they are heard, and believed.

Not sure that takes you any further, but my thoughts for what they are worth.

(We may have met somewhere along the decades )

Re the respondent. It's not a trail, it's an investigation. An insistence that he or she did not want an investigator of a certain background to interview them on the grounds of being " fitted up" would make me raise an eyebrow.

Respondents are always defensive. A thorough investigation should be able to get to work out what has happened. Hence the importance of skills training.

*trial not trail!
Tired now. Off to bed.

Not black, but Asian

If a white person assigned to investigate racial harassment allegation by Asian. Don’t care if white, black, Asian. Fine by me.

If man assigned to sexual harassment allegation by woman. Don’t care man or woman. Fine by me.

I actually think there should be a bank of trained people who can be assigned investigations and the allocation should be random instead of the process you describe which is more “handpicked”

Any process you personally develop to allocate investigators which is not random, will be influenced by your own biases. Your thoughts in your OP clearly exhibit racial and sex based biases that you have which have led you to the conclusion that the most appropriate investigator should match the complainant in race and/or sex.

And this is assuming you are a genuine and good person who would not abuse the allocation process...but other managers in your shoes could easily abuse any allocation system that is run by handpicking an investigator.

And the OP never returned. Uncomfortable to hear responses being rarely welcomed.

I almost always choose black people to do a job over a white person, all things (that I can account for and factor into my decision) being equal. Jobs for black people is my stance, basically. Sometimes you need a stealthy agent to get the job done. In that instances all things aren't equal, and I'd choose the person who was not black. White people will never understand racism or. the experience of being black as `I do, But I sure as heck will never understand white people the way a white person does, and that seems to be important here. It's worth remembering that despite all that I have written above, some white people are truly trustworthy and incredible, dependable, die-hard allies.