2 consultants accuse UNICEF UK of 'institutional racism'

Two global health consultants have accused the United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF, better known as UNICEF UK, of “institutional racism” after withdrawing from working with the charity because of the discrimination they said one of them faced “on multiple levels.”

Fifa A Rahman, principal consultant at Matahari Global Solutions, said she faced discrimination because of her Malaysian birth name, Nur Afifah Binti A Rahman, and during the course of her work with UNICEF UK.

“I won’t stand for racism in global health. No Black or Brown person should,” Rahman wrote to Devex in a WhatsApp message. Her account was supported by Rachael Crockett, another independent consultant who was also hired by UNICEF UK to work on the same health systems strengthening project. Crockett, who is white, told Devex she encountered none of the barriers Rahman faced despite going through the same process.

In emails reviewed by Devex, Rahman formally complained to UNICEF UK but she told Devex she found the response to be “really disappointing,” which led to her and Crockett going public. On Friday, the two published a statement on Twitter announcing their exit from consulting work with UNICEF UK, which read: “Our decision is based on a number of bureaucratic and other hurdles faced which we believe are grounded in institutional racism, including racist language and the contention of UNICEF UK staff that the racism was ‘well meaning.’”

When asked for comment by Devex, UNICEF UK said in a statement that “We acknowledge these allegations and we are sorry for the impact caused to the individuals concerned.” It also promised that the feedback from Rahman and Crockett would be “heard and acted upon” and highlighted the organization’s hiring of a diversity and inclusion lead a year ago, as well as unspecified “action” to ensure its systemic processes are “fair and inclusive.”

“UNICEF UK continues to learn and understand systems of oppression and is dedicated to challenging and interrogating our position within them, in order to individually and collectively dismantle them,” the statement added.

In an interview with Devex, Rahman said that during the background check process with UNICEF UK, she was “repeatedly asked why I had three first names and two surnames.”

“I never had an issue with this with the Home Office [U.K. government department]. ... It hasn’t been a problem. But UNICEF UK were making a big deal about it. I had to explain to three different people that Malaysian names are in the order they are and I got all sorts of questions about [the format of my former name].”

Jenny Vaughan, senior policy adviser at UNICEF UK, suggested she hyphenate her names, according to Rahman. She refused, contending that this adds additional barriers in the hiring process to people with non-Anglicized names.

Meanwhile, Crockett compared that to her own experience. “I have sailed through this process … whereas at every single stage of this onboarding, contracting process, Fifa has had to have hours and hours more administrative burden, as well as the mental fatigue,” she said.

Rahman said that in her first call with UNICEF UK, an employee gave her instructions about how to correctly email staff members at the World Bank — an action that, as an expert consultant with 12 years of experience in global health, she viewed as “condescending.”

Rahman also said that Matahari Global Solutions, which is registered in Malaysia, could not easily work with UNICEF UK because it is a foreign organization. Rahman described this as a “problem” at a time when decolonization remains a key theme in global health, contending that it effectively prohibited UNICEF UK from working with organizations from the global south.

UNICEF UK’s head of policy, Liam Sollis, said in the emails that the decision not to hire from outside of the U.K. was based on legal advice. In its most recent comment to Devex, UNICEF UK maintained that it does work with organizations based outside the U.K. but added that this “can be a lengthier process” and that the procedure is under review.

But Rahman said Sollis’ reply to her complaint was “one of the most disappointing emails I’ve ever read.”

Sollis wrote he was “convinced that Jenny’s comments were well meaning and an effort to navigate the process as smoothly as possible with the least impact on you.” He added, “I hope you’ll feel able to accept her apology in the knowledge that any comments made were in good faith.”

“People being ‘well-meaning’ does not eliminate racism, it just offers a shield to excuse racism,” Rahman replied at the time. “In incidences of racism, it is the experience of the Black and Brown person that should be of utmost priority, rather than be responded to with an explanation how the racist comments really came from a good place.”

The email apologized to Rahman for “anything that has made you feel unfairly treated and the victim of racism” — a phrase she took issue with because “apologies on racism tend to use language about the Black or Brown person ‘feeling’ like they are a victim of racism, rather than acknowledging the racism.”

In a separate statement, Rahman and Crockett said they recognized the “efforts that UNICEF is taking to address racism” but called for the organization to “eliminate performative allyship,” for the head of diversity and inclusion to be “empowered to act openly on racism,” and to adopt the “racism audit” being developed by the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa upon its completion.