The phrase “white privilege” has been omitted from training material for Parliamentary staff after internal documents advised against using the “divisive” term, according to a media report.
“White privilege’ refers to the perceived inherent advantages white people have over non-white people based on their race. Although considered divisive, the phrase has been at the centre of race diversity training.
But internal documents said the staff working at Parliament should not be taught the concept of “white privilege”, as civil servants veto diversity and inclusion training material covering the idea, The Telegraph reported.
There have also been requests to remove references to racial privilege from the training material.
In an internal communication, a member of the Commons’ diversity team said experts from outside company, Inclusive Employers, were set to train employees on how to have a ‘conversation on race at work’.
The e-mail exchange also revealed that the external experts would teach about “unpacking white privilege” and offer “top tips for starting conversations about race”.
The training would also create awareness about “how privilege can be a barrier to open conversation about race”.
Another Parliamentary official’s email seen by The Telegraph said: “We cannot include anything on white privilege or privilege in this context and this needs to be removed.”
A statement from the Lords said the “House of Lords' training focuses on inclusion” and “we do not use the phrase ‘white privilege’ in our training materials.”
A senior government source welcomed the rejection of the language of racial privilege, telling the newspaper: “It is divisive and is not part of any evidence-based diversity training.”
A study last month revealed that one million civil service days were spent every year on equality and diversity training.
The report from Conservative Way Forward estimated that the training costs £150 million a year to the exchequer.
Concept of ‘white privilege’ removed from training material for parliamentary employees
The omission comes after internal documents said the ‘divisive' phrase should not be used.
