Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Red Bull Ring, 2021

F1 to detail next steps in diversity drive following Hamilton Commission report

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 has welcomed a report on the state of diversity in motorsport by a commission founded by Lewis Hamilton.

The seven-times world champion said the Hamilton Commission report, which runs to over 170 pages, “shows that many young black people are being closed out of opportunities within STEM [science, technology, education and mathematics] and having their full potential limited.”

“While I have enjoyed a successful career in motorsport, it’s been a lonely path as one of the few black individuals within Formula 1 and, after fifteen years of waiting for the industry to catch up, I realised I had to take action myself,” Hamilton continued.

“Through the commission’s research, we can see there are clear meaningful steps the motorsport industry needs to take towards creating a more inclusive environment where diversity can thrive but also that we must tackle the barriers facing black students that exist throughout their educational journey. Some of these barriers I recognise from my own experiences, but our findings have opened my eyes to just how far reaching these problems are.”

The commission laid out a series of recommendations through which F1 teams and other motorsport organisations can promote an increase in black participants. They include implementing charters to promote diversity and inclusion, expanding apprenticeships, funding programmes to address high exclusion rates among black schoolchildren, supporting the recruitment of more black teachers in STEM subjects and creating scholarship programmes for black graduates.

Formula 1 president and CEO Stefano Domenicali said the series will confirm details of the next steps it will take to address the issue in the near future.

Calling the report “comprehensive and impressive”, Domenicali said “we will take the time to read and reflect on all of the findings, but we completely agree that we need to increase diversity across the sport and we have taken action to address this and will be announcing more actions in the coming days.”

“We want a sport that is representative of our hugely diverse fan base and that is why Formula 1, the FIA and all the teams are working hard to deliver on our detailed plans to create positive change across the sport,” Domenicali continued. “There is always more to do and the report will stimulate thoughts about further actions that are required.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articles, F1 newsTags , , , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 99 comments on “F1 to detail next steps in diversity drive following Hamilton Commission report”

    1. Hi,

      I’m a “brown” guy (Australian of Malaysian Indian decent), and am an Engineer (Electro-Hydraulic Complex Multiplexed Systems Engineer) with 15 years industrial experience, when can I start at Mercedes?

      Thanks :)

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        13th July 2021, 6:28

        If you are willing to move to germany, your chances are pretty good.

        1. @passingisoverrated Or England since the F1 team factory is there.

        2. Did Germany annex Brackley and Brixworth @passingisoverrated? Must have missed that…

          1. They did try it once…

        3. Was thinking more Brackley. ..haha.

      2. I hope you get that call up soon now @jaymenon10! Would be a nice “first step” :-)

      3. @jaymenon10

        Sorry, but when it comes to diversity efforts, those of Indian/Asian descent seem to typically either be ignored or treated as white. Asians are most discriminated against under the guise of affirmative action in elite US universities. ​Big Tech is commonly accused of being too white, even though whites are actually underrepresented at the big Silicon Valley companies.

        This report explicitly states that they care only about black people and then really only about black Brits. Extremely inclusive…

        1. @aapje haha

          According to my mates of similar lineage in the US, they are considered to have “white privilege”.

          I just find all this funny. I have worked in the US, UK and Australia, never experienced a single ounce of discrimination or the like. In fact, the only place I ever experience discrimination, is back in my birth country of Malaysia, where they practise Constitutionalised Racism (look it up). Institutionalised Racism is for rookies!

          Malaysia’s greatest export over the decades has been its minds, which have left in droves due to these discriminatory policies, yours truly included.

      4. Very unfortunate response but not surpised basd on your other comments in related topics.

        Black people face the most racial abuse, And face high levels of exclusion across the globe. The other factors for Hamilton focusing on helping Black kids is because he is Black too. Finally, what applies to Black minorties will surely be used to help the others.

        Better to spend your energy helping others than putting them down.

        1. @david-beau

          Finally, what applies to Black minorties will surely be used to help the others.

          Does discriminating against Asians and in favor of black people, help the Asian minority?

          Black people face the most racial abuse, And face high levels of exclusion across the globe.

          Is this actually relevant when the activists are extremely Western-centric? How is woke activism going to help black people in Sudan, who are oppressed by the Arabic-speaking elite?

          1. It’s primarily focused on motorsport in the western world so it will help the Sudanese in the Western world.

            You want him to solve world hunger while he is as it too? ;-)

          2. @david-beau

            You were the one who was claiming that oppressed black people worldwide would be helped, not me. But apparently that merely applies to the horribly oppressed Sudanese immigrants who not only fled to the west, but are top tier drivers and engineers (by my count that rounds down to zero people). Of course, these people would then stop being oppressed due to migrating, not because of the activism that you boasted would help the most oppressed black people worldwide, before you walked that back so fast that you beat Usain Bolt.

            Your comment actually perfectly demonstrates a common criticism I have of woke activists: there are often grandiose claims of helping the most oppressed, but in reality, the advocacy focuses on extremely privileged people who are falsely presented as the most oppressed people that exist, just because their level of privilege could be higher.

      5. @jaymenon10 After you’ve found a Mercedes job ad that suits your fancy and for which you are qualified, you’ve applied for it, Mercedes completes its application procedures and decides in your favour.

        I don’t know if you’d get the job if you applied, but you’ll have more chance than the people who did not apply.

    2. GtisBetter (@)
      13th July 2021, 6:27

      Actually I care, so your statement is wrong.

    3. One thing that needs to be addressed before you tackle the diversity question, though it is related, is we have an FIA that is obsessed with introduction of single-make formulas as well as cost caps and BoP. This inevitably decreases the demand for innovation and engineering skill.

      So while it is commendable to look at the hiring practices of motorsport business, we have to ask what the business is turning into. The old days of ‘engineering’ classes are being replaced with classes which give one manufacturer absolute control.

      So if demand for good engineers is falling, and you are trying to increase supply then you have a downward pressure on wage demands. I don’t think that’s a good thing for the engineers wanting to get into motorsport, and not good from a diversity perspective either. If you want to be an engineer why would you enter a business where your role is being legislated out of existence. It isn’t a wise investment for a young individual.

      1. On the other hand, there are no junior formula’s if they aren’t single make. It would simply be too expensive for anyone to build cars for. And in F1, the cost cap is also pretty necessary otherwise the smaller F1 teams (Williams, Haas etc) wouldn’t be able to compete with the manufacturers and would just pull out, leaving fewer opportunities for engineers anywhere.

        1. Well it’s extremely complex problem to solve. Super Licence point artificially inflate the price of racing in these ‘junior formula’. I am not sure Formula 2 is a good example of the qualities of single-make racing. But this is where the discussion really needs to be. Formula 1’s monopoly on the sport is some of the issue here because it requires everything else to fall into line under its influence. This has not been a good thing in my view for engineering.

          We know some teams have laid off staff because of the cost-cap. We know F1 is putting in an massive entry price for any new teams. So we aren’t in an environment of ‘job creation’ for engineers in motorsport. I am not sure we can have a successful diversity drive that has to compete with a sport that is legislating against engineering, especially on the innovation and development side.

          I think what Hamilton doing here is commendable, but for it to be truly successful it has to address the cultural shift in motorsport away from engineering and more towards spec and lower-paid jobs (mechanics etc…). The goal should be to create more well-paid jobs that make a career in motorsport worthwhile.

    4. it’s going to be difficult to get people of different “diverse categories” involved when the number of teams if locked at ten and the team sizes are all constrained by a budget cap.

      If this is the kind of thing that you want to improve, then it might be worth inviting teams to join from different parts of the world like India or east Asia.

      If this is the kind of thing you want to change… if you think there is something wrong with the demographics of how racing teams are made up, this kind of thing will take a very long time to change. Improve grass-roots motorsport in different parts of the world, and in a generation or two, those places in the world will produce more top level talent.

      Forcing diversity is not a good way to go.

      1. @napierrailton The Commission looked at the budget cap and suggested that, at the very least, apprentice-style positions should be exempted from the cap for teams that can demonstrate they’re going to people who are just starting their motorsport career. That is a change that could be done immediately to improve potential for diversity (in conjunction with some other changes).

        1. Nikos (@exeviolthor)
          14th July 2021, 7:06

          Judging by the fact that Alonso participated in an F1 young driver test, I do not think that it would be difficult for the teams to exploit this.

          1. @exeviolthor Only because the FIA chose not to bother writing rules that made the young-driver test an actual young-driver test (it successfully managed it in 2003, so failure to do so in 2020/2021 – in this case by selective exemption – simply shows lack of willingness on the FIA’s part to make its tests descriptive of the people who are eligible for them).

    5. I’m not sure how you replace a merit based system with a system that grants special opportunities by looking at a persons skin color. That sounds like true systemic racism.

      1. G (@unklegsif)
        13th July 2021, 14:15

        The point isnt just the simplistic “give jobs to group X or Y” – its starts with the educational opportunities open to these groups in the first place, which then lead onto the job opportunities within the industry and underpinned with the direct racism experienced when someone DOES get there

        1. That’s why I said “special opportunities” not jobs

      2. @warren2185 Part of the problem is that the current system is not meritocratic, and shouting that it is doesn’t help anyone.

        1. You can’t just say that by insinuation, that’s unfair to the people in those positions. State the position and name the guy that has the job based on his white skin color and make an actual accusation, otherwise it’s total virtue signaling. I could be wrong, maybe they are citing names and specific instances in the report that need to be corrected.

          1. @warren2185 At this point, it could well be “everyone”, thanks to so many people being denied the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

      3. Because it isn’t a merit based system, it’s an access based system.

        If only one group has access, it is not merit based. If the majority of candidates for F1 jobs come from a handful of UK universities, you are looking for one-in-a-million talent in a village of 200 people.

        1. @hazelsouthwell

          That assumes that access to those universities is not based at least in part on merit…

          Also, the exact same criticism is true for looking just at the UK, rather than the world: If the majority of candidates for F1 jobs come from just the UK, you are looking for one-in-a-million talent in a village of 2000 people.

          1. I flagged that it was a problem that it was a handful of universities in the UK as part of my sentence.

          2. @aapje It’s been known that access to universities is not based at least in part on merit for many years, and The Hamilton Commission provided yet more evidence.

            1. @alianora-la-canta

              I agree that this is partially true, but I disagree that it is fully true. So it is then false to claim that getting into these universities is not at all determined by merit.

              And I didn’t actually see the report show any evidence of a lack of merit. They merely assert that the relative lack of black students at those universities is due to a lack of access, but I can’t remember them actually giving evidence. After all, there are a bunch other possible explanation for a disparity.

            2. @aapje Your claim was, and I quote:

              That assumes that access to those universities is not based at least in part on merit…

              The Hamilton Commission has proven such an assumption would be valid. There is no “I agree that this is partially true, but I disagree that it is fully true” on binary quotes like that one – either you agree completely, or you disagree completely.

              Since the report has shown the access to those universities is not based at least in part on merit, you need to cease this line of argument.

            3. @alianora-la-canta

              I was responding to Hazel’s claim. Her claim is at most partially true, which is what I claimed and stand by.

              I see no evidence in the report that the universities do not select on merit at all, on the contrary. The report argues that these universities have strict grade requirements, which is a selection on merit. In the report, it is shown that black students are considerably less likely to achieve the required grades. This means that the admissions reflect at least in part a lower ability of black students to get the required grades, which is a measure of merit.

              They argue that there is also an issue with predicted grading by teachers, rather than testing, which is an issue that I’m familiar with in my country. Also, they argue that personal statements disadvantage students that don’t get good support in writing such a statement. I agree that both of these make the admissions less merit-based and favor changing those. However, the report doesn’t actually advise doing so, but rather to lower the requirements for certain groups, based on assumptions about the extent to which this person was held back. This is not merit-based either.

            4. @aapje Grades are primarily dependent on access to the necessary opportunities to make those grades possible. Thus an entrance system dependent on grades is access-dependent.

              Thank you for proving Hazel’s argument.

            5. @alianora-la-canta

              That is only true if everyone takes advantage of the opportunities that they get to the same extent, but this is far from true. If Bob and Alice have the exact same abilities, personality and the exact same opportunities, but Bob lives in an environment that values manual labor and Alice lives in an environment that values academia, then Alice is more likely to end up in academia than Bob, despite having the same natural abilities and personality.

              Note that the belief that being a professor is better than being a carpenter is subjective (and cultural), as well as the extent to which one thinks that one is better than the other. (Sub)-cultures that look down on manual labor more, tend to put more pressure on their children to study hard. This also seems to be a major reason why class-differences exist, as different classes hold their children to different standards (on average).

              So the differences in outcome between groups are then not necessarily because the system throws up barriers for some groups, but because members of those groups have a tendency to make different choices.

              If you consider this unacceptable and want to change this, you actually have to change those cultures.

              I object strongly to the narrative that every problem is entirely caused by the system or even worse, the discriminatory claim that every problem is caused by white men who supposedly run the system.

            6. @alianora-la-canta Much of the point of The Hamilton Commission report is that people do not get the same opportunities, and what people do, think and value is strongly affected by that. Your assumption that they do runs counter to the entire stack of evidence the report provides. If you are in any way serious about changing the cultures, the opportunities have to be changed to be more equal (which they patently are not at the moment).

            7. @aapje You appear to object to the claim that the system is not the primary culprit – when the report clearly shows why the system is the primary culprit. (The system is not entirely run by white men, and some white men also suffer under the system, but the system is disproportionately impeding non-white and non-male opportunities to do anything about the station in life to which they are born).

            8. @alianora-la-canta

              The woke ideology is all about blaming white men & the system as a whole, and people who believe in it constantly overstate their case to a huge extent. You are a good example.

              Fact is that poor white boys have the worst educational attainment in the UK right now, not girls and not non-whites. This could not be true if:
              – The system is racist against non-whites and sexist against women
              – A lack of achievement is entire due to the system

              Your beliefs go against the facts…

            9. @aapje Your statements, bar one, are outright false.

              The lowest attainment scores in UK education are Gypsy/Roma people (yes, the official statistics describe it thus :( ). They mostly do not see themselves as white (rather, they categorise themselves as Roma, Traveller* or something more specific to their culture, and Mixed Other would be the most accurate descriptor if Gypsy/Roma wasn’t available), and frequently aren’t treated as such by peers or teachers. 33% get 8 GCSE passes including English and Maths.

              * – Just to make this more confusing, “Irish Traveller” is a distinct category, but not all Travellers identify as being part of the Irish Travelling tradition and thus choose either “Gypsy/Roma” or “Mixed Other”.

              The second-lowest attainment category? Irish Traveller (31.8%). Third-lowest? Unknown, at 41.4% (likely to be primarily Black and poor White British representation, because this most often happens with off-rolled students and those in “alternative education” provision, which the Hamilton Commission report shows are primarily these categories). Fourth-lowest category? Black Carribean (44.0%). Fifth-lowest? Mixed White/Black Carribean (44.8%). Sixth-lowest? Black Other (47.4%). Seventh-lowest? Pakistani (49.3%).

              The lowest category of confirmed White students is the eighth-lowest category (49.7 percent) – of sixteen. In other words, halfway up the list. Not exactly a sign that they are more discriminated against than Black people (all but two categories of which score considerably worse).

              (Note: these are the only groups who score below-average in their GCSEs).

              With regard to poverty, the same pattern emerges, except that Irish Traveller students who are not on free school meals outscore Gypsy/Roma students who are not on free school meals. The increase between being on free school meals and not is 15 percentage points for White British people… …and 7% for Black people. This indicates that not being in severe poverty increases opportunities to get to 8+ GCSE passes (including Maths and English) for White British people by over twice as much as it does Black people.

              As for gender: an average of 47% of White British boys get 8 GCSE passes including English and maths. The average for Black boys (including all sub-categories of Black, but not Mixed categories)? 45.1%.

              It is worth saying that girls score better than boys in all ethnicities on getting 8 GCSE passes including Maths and English. In this specific case, the attainment of Black and White girls is equal (52.6%). This means that the only correct statement in aapje’s post is that girls (of any ethnicity) do not have the worst educational attainment in the UK.

              Claiming the results of exams are “the entire system”, as aapje does, is false – as The Hamilton Commission report repeatedly demonstrated. If it were, there’d be equal opportunity for men and women. Since this has repeatedly been demonstrated to be false, and at this point hundreds of research papers have demonstrated it, any theory about what is going on for women needs to account for why GCSEs are more of an opportunity for men than women, or else where the opportunity bottleneck(s) is/are (depending on events relating to GCSEs themselves are among the bottlenecks).

    6. I’d bet my mortgage the majority of the people commenting on this website [and others] haven’t read the commission before rattling off their opinion

      1. G (@unklegsif)
        13th July 2021, 14:12

        Probably not all 180 pages, no – LOL
        However, Scott Mitchell has a a review on the-race website that I am sure will be good… its on my list for reading this evening

        G

        Reply moderated
      2. @aapje ???? that changes NOTHING in the context of my original post

        1. @darth-ecclestone

          I think that it is quite unreasonable to chastise random commenters (many of whom are not actually commenting on the contents of the report or if they are, are making points that don’t require reading the entire thing), while ignoring that in the very story you are commenting under, someone with quite a lot of power and influence is doing the same thing.

          It suggests that your real objection is not so much to making judgments without reading the report, but that the judgments are negative.

          1. @aapje so, rightfully, pointing out that people commenting, within the context of this “story” about the hamilton commision, haven’t read said commission is chastising and unreasonable? Also, because, according to you someone “with quite a lot of power and influence is doing the same thing” that makes it ok I presume? [by ALL means correct me if I’m wrong] That is by definition fallacious.

            You assume my “real” objection when, applying occam’s razor, should tell you I meant what I said: Read the commission before you opine. It’s really that simple.

          2. @darth-ecclestone

            I’m not saying that it is right to do so, but you didn’t even react to an actual example of such, while ignoring the example from the story, where it already happened.

            ‘Predicting’ that commenters are going to engage in certain behavior that you pre-emptively condemn is actually quite trollish behavior.

          3. @aapje my ‘predictions’ are based on actual comments. It’s not like I said what I did before reading 10+ comments already posted below this very article. Have you ever taught people before? Based on their responses it’s quite easy to determine who read the appropriate document vs who hasn’t; because a lot of these “concerns” were addressed and are moot given said context.

          4. @darth-ecclestone

            At the time you posted, most of these comments didn’t actually address the contents of the report. For example, none of the comments in the Jay Menon thread comment on the report.

            Based on their responses it’s quite easy to determine who read the appropriate document vs who hasn’t; because a lot of these “concerns” were addressed and are moot given said context.

            Your objection seems to be that people were sharing their opinion on something other than the report, without having read the report. However, there is no obligation for people to use this comment section to debate the contents of the report, rather than other somewhat related topics.

            I’m not sure what “concerns” you are referring to that were addressed, since you keep insisting on being very vague, so people have to guess what you actually mean. Is that part of your teaching technique? If so, I pity your students.

      3. @darth-ecclestone Here is a link to the report commissioned by Lewis. The PDF page indicator says there are 93 pages in the report, not 170. I’m not sure why the difference. I suspect reading the Forward can’t be defined as having reading the report.

        1. It has two actual pages on one page of the PDF, except for the first and last page. The number of pages is thus 91 x 2 + 2 = 184 pages, although some of those are just entirely purple.

        2. @drycrust The difference is because it’s edited for A5, most likely for the convenience of landscape iPad users (who would, indeed, see it as 184 pages.

    7. G (@unklegsif)
      13th July 2021, 14:16

      I clicked report, instead of reply, to one of the comments above – my mistake

      G

    8. BTW, here you can find the summary and the report itself: https://www.hamiltoncommission.org/the-report

    9. An honest question, like hockey, how many black people are even interested in racing? The bottom line is most don’t care about it, that’s why they don’t get involved. Do a survey of 1000 black people. How many would say they’re interested in F1, IndyCar or any racing? Same survey, how many would be interested in hockey, basketball or football? We probably should have a commission on the lack of black people in Curling while we’re at it too. That sport appears to have quite the racial bias.

      1. When you have a sport that is almost 100% white, it seems a completely natural reaction for people of colour to think that it is not for them.

        I have noticed more non-white fans at races though, almost all wearing at least one item of Mercedes merchandise, so Lewis has already had a positive effect. He now just wants to do more and why shouldn’t he?!

      2. Don, one of the things addressed by this report is the patterns of interest (which surveyed 2400 young people, 700 of whom were Black). Turns out that the proportions of Black and White people interested in motorsport is similar when young, but for Black people (and White people of low socioeconomic class), it reduces dramatically during their teens – primarily because they believe they couldn’t go there even if they wanted to.

        That indicates it is not a lack of interest, but a lack of opportunity that is preventing attempts to enter motorsport-compatible courses of study (which of course then locks the majority of students out of motorsport).

        1. @alianora-la-canta

          it reduces dramatically during their teens – primarily because they believe they couldn’t go there even if they wanted to.

          That indicates it is not a lack of interest, but a lack of opportunity that is preventing attempts to enter motorsport-compatible courses of study

          The report argues that the perception that they can’t become engineers may be due to subject choices that cut off that career path. In that case, it is not a lack of opportunity that prevents them from going into STEM, but their own choices.

          Also, your assumption that it is solely interest that determines life choices is wrong. People makes choices on other factors than just their own interest and the opportunities they have, like peer pressure, parental pressure, culture, a desire for working with their own ethnicity, etc. These can all be different between ethnic groups.

          1. @aapje Actually, it argues quite a lot of different things contribute, but the perception starts dropping dramatically before the age where subjects that would cut off engineering at university are selected. Try not to rely on claims that rely on time travel, please.

            Also, my post was in a response to a question specifically about interest. Your false assumptions are at risk of derailing the conversation Don and I were having.

            1. @alianora-la-canta

              Again, the report itself claims that this may be a cause. If you deny this, you are arguing against the report.

          2. @aapje If you’d read the report, you’d know that the report advances no such argument. Please stop lying.

            1. @alianora-la-canta

              Page 70:

              This is perhaps to be expected as the respondents might feel that subject choices they have made at age 16 may have closed off opportunities and pathways towards engineering.

              I await your apology for calling me a liar.

            2. @alianora-la-canta Yet the drop-off, as shown in the previous sections, occurs well before 16.

              I await your apology for doubling-down on the lying.

            3. @aapje (And the quotation out of context indicates that either you have subsequently read, but still do not have basic comprehension, of the report… …or that you’re copying-and-pasting quotes from other people, because I’ve seen that quote on social media by other people who did actually understand the report.).

            4. Thanks for proving your dishonesty, by not admitting that the report says what it says.

      3. Plenty. And a lot more probably would be – and visibly so – if that kind of question didn’t get asked.

        Do you think a black kid is less likely to be excited by the sight of F1 cars than a white one?

    10. @balue Judging from the statistics provided by the Commission proving a specific race is being discriminated against, it’s “stopping racism”.

    11. @aapje Next time, try reading the report before lying about it here. There are a lot of sources for the information provided, three types of original research (all delineated in the report) were also done and several of your objections were answered in the glossary of the report.

      Also, as you knew before you posted, the only possible way to be race-blind is to have such a severe visual impairment as to be unable to detect the degree of melanism in someone’s skin (and to also not notice other indicators of ethnicity, such as names).

      1. @alianora-la-canta

        The report doesn’t have a glossary and I never argued that they didn’t have sources, so you might want to take your own advice and actually read both the report and the comment you are responding too, before ‘lying.’ Note that I don’t actually think that you are lying, but are simply not competent.

        Also, as you knew before you posted, the only possible way to be race-blind is to have such a severe visual impairment as to be unable to detect the degree of melanism in someone’s skin (and to also not notice other indicators of ethnicity, such as names).

        The term isn’t literal. It means that one treats people the same to a very high degree regardless of their skin color, rather than the common claim that all white people are constantly being racist (systemic racism).

        1. If you’d read the report, you’d know that it does have a glossary.

          You asserted there were no sources in the first sentence of your post:

          it is full of anecdotes and unproven assertions.

          If you’d read the report, you’d know that the assertion proofs were listed at the bottom of each page.

          The term is literal – again, as you knew before typing.

          Take my advice, read the report (properly – there’s no way you could have read it in 20-minutes given that it’s over 100 pages) and try again.

          1. @alianora-la-canta

            The word glossary doesn’t appear anywhere in the report. Perhaps you are referring to the LANGUAGE AND TERMINOLOGY annex, which definitely isn’t a glossary. Perhaps you should look up what a glossary is, for example, in a glossary.

            And if you believe that part of that section rebuts some of my claims, then tell me what part.

            You asserted there were no sources in the first sentence of your post

            I said that it was unproven, which is not the same as a lack of sources. If I link to a site that claims that Bill Gates is injecting us with tracking chips, I have provided a source, but I have not proven that Bill Gates is doing that. To do so, my sources have to contain (strong) proof.

            BTW. The particular claim I rejected is on page 58 of the report and the source at the bottom of the page is a paper that simply asserts that racial neutrality is impossible and undesired, rather than prove that it is.

    12. To be fair, there has been representation in F1 from many other ethnic backgrounds, from an ownership perspective downwards.

      Other than Lewis, representation from the black community has been minimal and, before Lewis, it was probably zero.

    13. I really like the ‘new’ Lewis Hamilton.

      As a human being he is pondering his place in the universe and how he can do something more meaningful with the success he has achieved.

      Some drivers set-up karting circuits that bear their name and provide grassroots opportunities to young drivers.

      Most drivers don’t even consider their place in society and how they can make a difference.

      In Lewis’ case he is addressing an imbalance that he has been best-placed to observe, one that he probably thought would have diminished as his own career flourished.

      I applaud him for what he is doing and hope he is able to make the changes he and F1 are seeking.

      ‘Get in there Lewis!’

    14. Diversity cannot be manufactured. F1 has always been a rich person’s (read man’s) sport with a few exceptions of extreme talent so it will be especially hard to manufacture in this case.

      Also they had a half thai driver for two seasons and no one seemed too interested in keeping him around so I’m not sure exactly what they are looking for. I think having the most competitive drivers should be the goal regardless of race.

      1. @ryanoceros Funnily enough, that driver (called Alex Albon) did fine at Alpha Tauri. Driver-team non-connections are fairly frequent in F1, even among the best drivers. So assuming a driver isn’t one of “the most competitive” drivers on the basis of one driver-team non-connection is erroneous – on your part and the teams’. Of course, by the time Red bull got around to saying he wouldn’t be with the Red Bull/Alpha Tauri teams (it’s the same ownership for both), it was too late for most other teams to have picked him even had they wanted, due to seats already being contractually spoken for.

        Also, as the report proves, team bosses not wanting an employee isn’t always to do with merit.

    15. Every time an article like this appears, you know ‘someone doing something to make the World a better place’ I cant help but be reminded of that Douglas Adams gag in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that goes something like.

      ‘And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change’

    16. I skimmed the report and it isn’t generally about diversity in motorsport but specifically about the lack of black people in motorsport. I’m surprised this article doesn’t mention that once. It seems really odd to focus just on bringing black people into racing when nearly all other non-white ethnicities are conspicuously absent from racing. There are just a handful of indian and east asian drivers that are associated with F1 but otherwise not much. There are historically very few south american drivers, no middle eastern drivers despite motorsport being popular in some middle eastern countries, and no drivers from other west asian countries either. I think it would be cool if the drivers on the grid came from a greater potion of the areas where F1 races rather than mostly just european countries and the occasional brazilian or japanese.

      1. It’s not even about black people in general, but about black Brits specifically. There is roughly zero interest in actually helping black people in other western nations, let alone in Africa. You know, the black people who are extremely unprivileged compared to those in the West…

        When the activists use their deceptive terminology, I often add little asterisks like so: Black lives matter*

        * Offer only valid in the West unless otherwise noted

        1. @Aapje

          Your comment doesn’t seem to include references to all oppressed peoples in the world, so can’t be taken seriously, on those grounds.

          Evidenced research about a specific group is not invalidated by not being about something else.

          1. @hazelsouthwell

            The report is utterly absurd in that it addresses the question of getting more diversity in Formula 1 by looking at how you can get more black Brits in UK motorsports, but Formula 1 is not a UK domestic sport!

            You can’t have it both ways. Either the the sport should reflect the countries where the teams are, where the racing happens, where the fans are, or the diversity that exists in the world; or it shouldn’t be a problem that there are few black Brits in Formula 1, because the UK teams are based in a part of the UK with few black people, so they actually reflect the region they are based in.

            It’s just the typical double standards and lack of logic that typifies this ideology.

            1. @aapje

              But that is not what it addresses. The report, from its commissioning to its title is about why black people are underrepresented in the UK motorsport industry, which includes a large number of F1 teams.

              Formula One’s response is part of its overall diversity initiative, which this extensively researched report feeds into.

              There are a lot of black people in the UK (1.8 million in England alone) Considerably more than French people (164,000 in the whole UK) yet you visibly see more French people in F1 than black people.

              There is no “perfect” diversity report that would satisfy you because you are opposed to any attempt to address the issues, as you’ve repeatedly stated. This is not your playground for attempting to invalidate the concerns of black people.

            2. @hazelsouthwell

              The report, from its commissioning to its title is about why black people are underrepresented in the UK motorsport industry

              But why is that the topic when it displays an utter lack of inclusive thinking? Why are the Italian and Swiss based teams totally ignored? Is it actually inclusive for so many teams to be in the UK? Is it inclusive for the UK-based teams to be staffed in large part by Brits? Shouldn’t they recruit more people internationally, rather than focus on getting more black Brits rather than white Brits? Why are none of these questions addressed by this commission or Formula 1?

              Don’t you ever ask yourself those kinds of questions?

              Considerably more than French people (164,000 in the whole UK) yet you visibly see more French people in F1 than black people.

              This is a nonsensical comparison, because those French people are presumably mostly from Renault, which is a team that is mostly based in the UK, but brings in a lot of engineers from the car company Renault, which is based in France.

              This also demonstrates why the report is so short-sighted, as it assumes that British-based teams recruit from the UK and that this is how it should be, which isn’t true. Also, if you recognize engine suppliers as being part of formula 1, then Formula 1 is a lot more international, with Honda engines being designed and built in Japan, Renault engines being designed in France and Ferrari engines being designed and built in Italy. This also results in engineers from those countries being stationed with the UK teams, to help their engine customers.

              There is no “perfect” diversity report that would satisfy you because you are opposed to any attempt to address the issues, as you’ve repeatedly stated.

              I’ve never stated that. I think that you are confusing my opposition to the ideology that you believe in, and which is never actually going to solve the issue, because it is utterly inconsistent and based on falsehoods, with opposition to the goals.

              Interpreting opposition to the ‘solutions’ and ‘facts’ of your ideology as opposition to the end goals is actually a common falsehood that is also part of your ideology. In fact, the Hamilton report makes the same mistake and refers to a paper that makes this error as well.

              This is not your playground for attempting to invalidate the concerns of black people.

              You don’t speak for black people and neither does Hamilton or this commission. The pretense that all black people have the same concerns and that far-left activists (or far-left journalists) are the ones expressing these concerns, is rather totalitarian behavior.

            3. is rather totalitarian behavior.

              So is using your mod power to remove comments that break no rules.

            4. @aapje

              All reports have a remit; that is how research is done. It is scientific and academic practice.

              Your refusal to accept the report’s validity is because it does not support your views. You cannot pick only to accept research on your grounds.

            5. @hazelsouthwell

              If a report excludes aspects that need to be addressed to answer a certain question, then it cannot be used to answer that question. If you want to answer questions about Formula 1, which is not British motorsport, then you can’t limit yourself to just British motorsport.

              Your refusal to accept the report’s validity is because it does not support your views.

              No, I refuse to accept it because it makes false claims (including mismatches between the data it present and the conclusions it draws from that data), is based on false assumptions and because it is not fit for purpose. I have explained some of those errors in detail. You simply dismiss my objections without properly rebutting them.

              Is it not you who ignores the flaws in the report and how it is used, because it support your views? Note that you have been misrepresenting the report in the comments section and that Racefans has been misrepresenting it in ‘your’ reporting.

              You cannot pick only to accept research on your grounds.

              No offense, but I doubt that you have anywhere near the understanding of proper scientific practices and how to find the truth in the vomit of research papers that I do. Do you understand what p-hacking is? The various causes for the replication crisis? Why Open Access and pre-approval is important?

              Can you recognize that (and why) the Hamilton report doesn’t adhere to scientific practices and could never be published in a journal?

            6. @Aapje

              You are simply resorting to personally attacking my intellect now. Stop it.

            7. Readers,

              Hazel abused her power by removing my comment, where I explained that I didn’t comment on her intellect, but on her lack of knowledge (which can be remedied, with study, or by deferring to the better educated).

      2. @ryanoceros There’s a context to this report. Its initiator had been discriminated against for many years for being Black, and finally was in a position where the social environment was potentially ready to accept something being done to pave the way for other Black people to join motorsport without the discrimination Lewis and others in his ethnic group had suffered. His primary expertise was Britain due to having mostly worked with British organisations throughout his career. He commissioned a group to investigate what could be done to make the path less blocked for others like him.

        Some of what is in the report directly speaks to other ethnic groups, but the scope of the report was defined by a Commission that had a specific interest in this specific aspect of discrimination in this specific context. So that’s what happened.

        That’s how research generally works. Those who would like other aspects of the situation researched might wish to consider arranging for research into said aspects, just like Lewis has done.

    17. NeverElectric
      14th July 2021, 3:39

      @aapje – correct.
      Speaking as a Black person, with recent roots in Africa, I can tell you that the whole “white privilege” thing is, in my opinion, political hogwash.
      I don’t even know if this comment will be allowed, @keithkollantine, but if it is, here goes:
      Western countries today are the most accommodating, fairest societies that have existed. EVER, with ZERO exception.
      There are inequalities in the West, of course, but they are social inequalities, not racial ones. The incessant beating of the “racism!” drum is in fact a political tool of an easily identifiable political group that has existed in one form or the other since the 60s at least.
      Not to turn this into a political forum, but you will have noted, quietly, that the only places where a Black person can actually get real justice are…in the West. Why, ask yourself, isn’t BLM organising protests in Africa, where Black lives really are in peril – Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burundi, the like?
      Don’t fall for the lie.

    18. @Balue

      It is a report into, specifically, the lack of opportunity for black people in motorsport. That’s why it’s about black people.

      If you demand that every investigation into diversity has to be about everything, ever then you are saying “I don’t want to talk about this, I want to shout about other things over it.” It’s a report about black people. We can – and should – do other reports on other areas but this is a report about black people’s access to motorsport, so we are going to talk about why black people don’t have equal access to motorsport.

      If you don’t want to talk about that the option not to is entirely open to you.

      1. @hazelsouthwell No the push is specifically for diversity. It seems you deliberately sidestep that this is the topic and what that means. Why?

        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diversity

        diversity
        noun [ S or U ]
        the fact of many different types of things or people being included in something; a range of different things or people:

        Promoting one race over others is in reality the opposite of diversity.

        1. @balue

          Formula One’s push is about diversity. One aspect of which is taking on board the evidence in the Hamilton Commission’s report – which includes clear descriptions of racist language used in team situations, of HR practices that ignore diversity as a concern, include wildly insufficient monitoring and have no reporting practices.

          Those are applicable to everyone. Where you are reading things specifically and only about black people is in the report, which is about black underrepresentation in motorsport.

          From your past comments, there’s no discussion of diversity that would be acceptable to you and quoting a dictionary definition doesn’t demonstrate a depth of understanding about the issues.

          1. @aapje What makes you think F1 is British motorsport? It’s global motorsport (that happens to be restricted to certain passports at this time due to a variety of exclusive national- and regional-level employment policies). The Hamilton Commission spent about 1/3 of its time discussing it despite nominally being about British motorsport due to its commissioners having particular expertise in that area and preferring to actually get a high-quality study released rather than miring it for years while trying to organise the same quantity of evidence across a broader geography’s range.

            Now that The Hamilton Commission has shown how it can be done for one country, it becomes feasible for others to copy the template to assess the situation at larger (and smaller) scales, and with regard to any segment of society.

          2. @alianora-la-canta

            I think you misunderstood me. My argument is that F1 is not British, so it is strange to then limit the investigation to the UK and make all kinds of assumptions (like that F1 workers should be from and represent the UK).

            Note that much of the study and most of the recommendations have little to do with motorsports and are about a lack of black British engineers. In my view, the researchers should have stuck with their actual topic. They could just have concluded that the lack of black British engineers is the primary reason for the lack of black F1 engineers in the UK.

            Then another, generic report could be made about that issue. Currently, the report is a bit of a mess, with a heavy focus on changes to be made in British education and the like, which has almost nothing to do with motorsports. So it makes more sense as a report that looks at engineering as a whole and the UK as a whole, rather than as a report about motorsports.

            In short, I think that the report does both too little and too much. It focuses too little on motorsports and too much on things outside of motorsports.

          3. @aapje You contradicted yourself in your last two posts on this thread. I suggest you sort this out before discussing the matter further.

          4. @hazelsouthwell From your past comments and deleting of comments you don’t agree with, there’s obviously no discussion with you on any topic, but denying that Hamilton’s push has been for diversity means you have no qualms about purposefully denying clear demonstrable facts and that is more than telling.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.