Race Equality, why lived experience and institutional action both matter
This morning, Voice of Islam Radio invited me onto The Breakfast Show for a short interview about race equality, focusing on what lived experience can teach institutions that policies alone often miss.
What stood out in the discussion is a simple message, progress depends on listening closely to lived experience, then translating what we learn into concrete institutional change, not just statements.
Why lived experience belongs at the centre of race equality
Lived experience matters because it shows how racism operates in day to day reality, not only how it appears in policies, laws, or organisational values. Data can quantify disparity, but lived experience explains mechanisms, the small decisions, assumptions, and everyday interactions that create the numbers.
A clear example is the seemingly casual question, “Where are you from” followed by, “Where are you really from.” That follow up is often experienced as a microaggression, it communicates that the first answer was not accepted, and that “belonging” is conditional.
Another recurring pattern I experience is the surprise people express about my professional status and achievements. There is often visible shock that I hold a PhD, that I am an Associate Professor, and that I am the Year 2 lead on the Cardiff University medical course, because stereotypes quietly shape what some people expect me to be.
These moments may feel minor or harmless, but to the person on the receiving end, their cumulative impact is anything but minor. Repeated microaggressions like these can instil self doubt, undermine our sense of belonging, and over time erode wellbeing, confidence, and performance.
Lived experience also prevents oversimplification. There is no single story within any racialised group, experiences vary by gender, class, disability, religion, and other factors. If we want solutions that work, we need accounts that capture that variation.
Where institutions can make the most meaningful improvements
Many organisations already have formal policies that claim fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity. The recurring problem is not the existence of policies, it is how consistently and fairly they are applied.
A common pattern raised in the interview is an unequal pathway through the workplace lifecycle, recruitment, contracts, raising concerns, disciplinary action, recognition, and progression. When disparities appear across multiple stages, it suggests structural issues, inconsistent application of standards, and accountability gaps.
Meaningful improvement tends to cluster around a few levers:
- Clear leadership accountability, outcomes owned at senior levels, not delegated as optional side work
- Action over statements, visible follow through, resourcing, timelines, measurement
- Training that changes behaviour, not tick box compliance that satisfies legal requirements but leaves culture untouched
- Standards for conduct that are enforced, racist behaviour is not dismissed as banter
- Safe reporting routes, support for people who raise concerns, and protection against retaliation
Inclusivity is not achieved by a single workshop or a policy refresh. It is achieved when institutions reliably reward good conduct, challenge harmful conduct, and close gaps in opportunity and progression.
How to have more constructive conversations about race
Race conversations often feel uncomfortable because fear is present on all sides, fear of saying the wrong thing, fear of offending, fear of being labelled racist, fear of not being believed.
A practical approach is built around responsibility and curiosity.
First, it is not the job of minoritised people to educate everyone else. People who want to engage should do initial learning themselves, then come with thoughtful questions rather than demands for emotional labour.
Second, lead with curiosity, ask open questions, listen fully, reflect back what you heard, then respond.
Third, do not dismiss lived experience. Even when you disagree with an interpretation, the experience is still real, and dismissiveness shuts down learning immediately.
Guidance for young people who want to challenge racism
Challenging racism is a skill, not a personality trait. One method I shared in the interview is designed to reduce defensiveness and increase the chance of change.
Start with emotional regulation. If you challenge while highly emotional, you may be stereotyped as “angry” or “overreacting,” which can derail the conversation and shift focus away from the behaviour.
Then focus on behaviour, not personal attacks. Use impact language.
For example, “When you said or did X, it made me feel Y, and it had Z impact.”
It is hard for someone to argue with your stated feelings, and because you have not attacked their identity, they have less incentive to get defensive.
Where possible, challenge in private. Public correction can trigger face saving, making denial more likely. Private conversations can still be firm, but they reduce the social threat and increase the chance of reflection.
What this adds up to
Race equality work fails when it stops at declarations. It succeeds when lived experience informs decisions, and when institutions translate principles into consistent practice, accountability, and safer workplace culture.
If you are working in an organisation, a school, a university, a health setting, or any public facing institution, the question is not whether you have an equality policy. The question is whether people experience fairness in recruitment, progression, daily interactions, and how concerns are handled.
That is where trust is built or lost.