Divrsity Dictionary: The meaning of BAME

Why our EDI Surveys and Strategies avoid the phrase BAME.

11 October 2024 by Mark Holt

The landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has been through significant changes in the UK over the past decade. Organisations are recognising the need to rethink how we discuss and address ethnic diversity in the workplace, particularly regarding terminology that has become outdated or harmful.

One such term is the acronym "BAME", which stands for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic. While this term was once seen as a helpful, catch-all descriptor, it is increasingly recognised as inadequate and even damaging.

This is yet another example of how it's important to work with a company like Divrsity. Our surveys questions are constantly evolving to track the changing landscape of EDI in the UK.

In this article, we explore the etymology, evolution, and controversy surrounding BAME, the backlash it has faced, and why its time has come to an end.

The Origins and Evolution of BAME

The acronym "BAME" has been used in the UK for several decades to describe people from non-white backgrounds. Originally, its use was driven by the need to create a unified term that could encapsulate the experiences of individuals who often faced systemic disadvantages in society. The intent was to ensure that discussions around policy, equity, and support could be inclusive of all ethnic minorities and reflect the diversity of the UK population.

Historically, the term "BAME" emerged out of the broader political and social movements of the late 20th century, as attempts were made to better address the specific challenges facing ethnic minorities. Its precursors, "ethnic minorities" or "BME" (Black and Minority Ethnic), was gradually replaced by "BAME" to ensure that Asians were explicitly included, given their unique experiences and specific systemic issues. The evolution from BME to BAME, while seemingly a positive step towards inclusivity, also highlighted a tendency to lump different groups together rather than acknowledging their distinct experiences.

In many ways, BAME was a product of its time, reflecting the social and political landscape of 1980s Britain, which saw growing anti-racism activism and a recognition of the need for racial equality legislation (as evidenced by the Race Relations Act of 1976). This period also witnessed an evolution in language around race, with terms such as 'political blackness' being used to unite communities against systemic racism.

While the initial intention was to simplify the discussion of diversity and facilitate targeted policy intervention, BAME has increasingly become viewed as problematic. The acronym masks the significant differences between ethnic groups, reducing a wide array of cultural, social, and historical identities into a singular, monolithic term. This lack of granularity can inadvertently erase the specific needs and experiences of different communities.

The Backlash Against BAME

In recent years, there has been growing backlash against the use of the term "BAME" in DEI discourse. Advocates and members of minority communities have voiced concerns that the acronym is reductive, vague, and perpetuates the invisibility of distinct groups. Critics argue that the term creates an "us versus them" mentality, categorising all non-white individuals as "other" in contrast to a supposed homogeneous white majority.

Moreover, BAME fails to acknowledge the intersectionality within and across ethnic groups. Experiences of discrimination vary significantly, not only between groups but also within them, depending on factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and religion. By grouping all these individuals under a single acronym, the nuance required to address specific challenges is lost. For example, data shows that the experiences of Black Caribbean individuals in the UK differ widely from those of Indian or Chinese communities in areas like educational attainment, health outcomes, and workplace discrimination. Yet, BAME lumps all these communities into one broad category, which risks flattening the complex picture of systemic inequity.

The term also tends to place Black and Asian individuals at the forefront, while people from other ethnicities (such as Middle Eastern or Roma communities) remain largely invisible. This hierarchy of visibility has meant that policies and initiatives, which are supposedly designed for all ethnic minorities, may actually favour a limited subset of groups while failing others.

The Impact on Data and Understanding

One of the most significant challenges with the BAME acronym has been its use (and misuse) within data collection and analysis. Aggregating data under the broad category of BAME can mask important disparities between ethnic groups, leading to an incomplete understanding of specific community needs or issues. This aggregation also fails to capture intersectional experiences, where individuals may face multiple forms of discrimination due to their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, or disability

For example, a recent report by the Women and Equalities Committee highlighted significant disparities in pay between different ethnic groups. The report found that, on average, workers of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage faced larger pay gaps than those of Black African or White European backgrounds. However, these nuances may be lost if the data is simply categorised under a broad BAME heading

Additionally, the lack of specificity in the term can make it difficult to develop targeted and effective solutions. By failing to acknowledge the unique experiences and challenges faced by specific ethnic groups, organisations risk implementing 'one-size-fits-all' diversity and inclusion initiatives that may not address the root causes of inequality or adequately support individuals.

Moving Towards Person-Centred Language

The growing discomfort with the term "BAME" has led to a series of significant shifts within UK government institutions, non-profits, and businesses. The UK government itself, in response to public feedback, announced in 2021 that it would no longer use the acronym BAME in official documents. The decision was made based on recommendations from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which pointed out the inadequacy of the term in addressing the lived experiences of various ethnic groups.

So, what alternatives do we have? How can we move beyond BAME while still recognising the importance of language in shaping our understanding of race and ethnicity?

A growing number of organisations are opting for more specific terminology that acknowledges the diversity within Britain's ethnic minority communities. Terms such as 'Black, Asian, and Ethnic Minority' (BAEM) or 'African, Asian, Caribbean, and Tribal' (AACT) have been suggested to provide greater clarity and specificity. While these alternatives may not be perfect, they represent an attempt to move towards a more nuanced understanding.

More importantly, there is a shift towards person-centred and specific language in the field of DEI. Language matters deeply in DEI work—it shapes how people perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others. To create more inclusive workplaces, it is crucial that we use language that acknowledges people's identities and experiences without reducing them to broad, impersonal categories.

Consequently, the best approach is to avoid broad acronyms altogether and instead utilise specific ethnic group labels when discussing race and ethnicity. This involves naming individual communities (e.g., Black British, Black Caribbean, Indian, Somali, South Asian, Middle Eastern etc) and acknowledging their unique histories, cultures, and contributions to British society. This strategy helps to highlight the richness of our multicultural landscape while also drawing attention to the lived experience of individuals rather than generalising entire populations.

Parallels with the Rise and Decline of the Term "Woke"

The trajectory of BAME draws interesting parallels with another term that has seen both a meteoric rise and significant backlash: "woke". Initially used to describe awareness of social injustices, particularly related to racial inequality, "woke" became popularised as a call to be alert to issues of inequality and oppression. However, over time, it was co-opted, misused, and weaponised, particularly in political and media discourse, often used as a term of derision by those opposed to progressive social change.

Similarly, BAME began with good intentions: to highlight racial and ethnic diversity and to enable effective policy discussions. However, like "woke", the term has become laden with negative connotations. It is now increasingly seen as a symbol of bureaucratic language that obscures rather than illuminates the real challenges faced by people from different ethnic backgrounds. Both terms underscore the complexity of language in DEI work—what begins as a tool for positive change can easily become outdated or appropriated in ways that undermine its original intent.

Other Terms That Have Fallen Out of Use in DEI

The journey of the term BAME is not unique. DEI language is constantly evolving to better reflect the nuanced and lived experiences of individuals. Here are some other terms that were once commonly used in DEI discourse but have since fallen out of favour:

"Coloured": Once a widely used term to describe non-white individuals, "coloured" is now considered offensive and reductive. It fails to acknowledge the distinct racial and ethnic identities of individuals.
"Ethnic Minority": This term is still in use, but it is increasingly being questioned due to its inherent suggestion of "otherness". It frames diverse groups in relation to a supposed "ethnic majority", often white British people, rather than allowing communities to define themselves on their own terms.
"Non-White": Like "ethnic minority", "non-white" defines individuals by what they are not rather than who they are. It positions whiteness as the default and everyone else as deviations from that norm.
"Third World": Previously used to describe countries outside the Western or Eastern blocs during the Cold War, this term has been widely replaced by "Global South" or "developing countries", although these terms are also subject to critique for oversimplifying complex socioeconomic realities.
"Diverse Candidates": In hiring contexts, referring to "diverse candidates" has been criticised for being vague and for suggesting that only certain individuals bring diversity to an organisation, rather than recognising that diversity includes a wide spectrum of experiences and characteristics.

The Importance of Keeping Language Evolving

The rise and fall of terms like BAME, "woke", and "ethnic minority" remind us that language in DEI work is not static. It evolves as our understanding of race, identity, and inequality evolves. For HR professionals and DEI practitioners, staying up to date with language is crucial not just to avoid offence, but to genuinely support and empower all employees.

The challenge, then, is to be adaptive—to listen to the communities we serve, to understand the implications of our language choices, and to ensure that the terms we use reflect our commitment to equity and justice. Ending the use of the term BAME is not simply about semantics; it is about recognising that each community’s experience of racism and inequality is distinct and deserves to be treated as such. Only then can we create workplaces that are genuinely inclusive and equitable for all.

Conclusion

The retirement of the term "BAME" marks a positive shift towards more nuanced and inclusive language in the UK’s DEI landscape. It reflects an understanding that diversity is not a monolith, and that different communities have different needs, experiences, and identities. Moving forward, DEI practitioners and organisations must continue to critically assess the language they use and ensure it genuinely serves the people it aims to support. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and inclusive society where everyone feels seen, heard, and valued.

The journey towards effective DEI is an ongoing one, and language is an integral part of that journey. What terms we use today may well change tomorrow as we learn more and grow in our understanding. The important thing is to remain open, attentive, and committed to making those changes—always striving for a workplace culture where belonging is not a blanket term, but a deeply felt experience for every individual.

References:

Women and Equalities Committee, 'Ethnic Minority Pay Report', UK Parliament, 2021, https://committees.parliament.uk/work/564/ethnic-minority-pay-gap-report/

McIntyre, C., 'Why the Term BAME Should Be Retired', Personnel Today, 2020, https://www.personneltoday.com/hr-news/bame-term-retired-explain-94519/

Bernard, H., 'Beyond "BAME": Why We Need New Language for a Nuanced Conversation on Race', gal-dem, 2020, https://www.gal-dem.com/life-and-style/beyond-bame-why-we-need-new-language-forIterations-and-evolutions-of-the-term-have-sought-to-offer-greater-clarity-and-specificity

Ali, S., & Lemos, H. (2018). Beyond 'BAME': why we need to retire this term in favour of more nuanced discussions about race. The Conversation.

Caballero, A. (2020). Why BAME is not fit for purpose and should be dropped from official use. British Medical Journal, 371, m4586.

Rollock, N., Johnson, C., Sanmi-Gbalegba, K., & Lambert, Y. (2015). Intersectionality, 'BAME' and the arts: Challenges and opportunities for intersectional approaches to diversity in the arts. Arts Council England.

Ahmed, S. (2018). The problem with 'BAME'. Runnymede Trust , 1-4.