After the publication of the “Institutions and Racism” (InRA) study by the Research Institute for Social Cohesion, Federal Commissioner for Anti‑Racism Natalie Pawlik (SPD) urged action against discrimination in public authorities.
Pawlik told the “Rheinische Post” (Saturday edition) that the InRA study shows racism extends beyond hate and violence to include prejudices and thought patterns that unconsciously shape us. “Racism does not stop at the door of authorities either” she said. “It can influence practices and routines that appear discriminatory. The conduct of state institutions-administration, police, education, justice-determines trust in the state, participation and equal opportunities”.
Decision‑makers in these areas carry a “great responsibility to recognize discriminatory mechanisms and counter them without creating a generalized suspicion of our institutions” Pawlik added. “No form of racism should have a place in private or state institutions”.
The anti‑racism office, along with the Federal Ministry of the Interior, will analyze the results. “We will examine the InRA findings closely and incorporate insights and recommendations into a revised edition of the National Action Plan against Racism, which I coordinate within the federal government”.
For the study, scientists gained unprecedented access to public institutions and spent three years examining racism in job centres, youth offices and immigration authorities. The final report documents racist discrimination in all examined institution types, showing it in individual staff attitudes, official practices and discretionary powers, and in how complaints are handled. Racism in German authorities rarely manifests as overt hatred; it is embedded in routines, decision leeway and organizational culture, the report noted.
Structurally, the study reveals that key loopholes in the legal framework foster discrimination. The General Equal Treatment Act currently does not apply to the relationship between authorities and citizens, so people discriminated against by a state institution cannot rely on the primary anti‑discrimination law.