Westminster City Council, one of the UK’s most prominent local authorities and currently Labour-led, is under the national spotlight after it emerged that staff were being asked to take a so-called “white privilege” test. The council, often described as “Britain’s wokest” due to its diversity-focused policies, is pushing forward a controversial initiative aimed at promoting inclusivity, reducing unconscious bias, and increasing the number of “global majority” individuals in senior roles.
The announcement has stirred intense political and public debate, drawing applause from those who see it as a bold move toward workplace equity—and fierce criticism from others who claim it enforces racial quotas and promotes division. At the heart of the issue lies a sensitive question: how far should public bodies go to correct historical inequalities?
Westminster’s efforts reflect a broader trend in the UK’s public sector: redefining recruitment practices in the name of fairness, representation, and systemic change. But the lines between inclusion and perceived exclusion are becoming increasingly blurred, and this case may be the testbed for how far the pendulum can swing.
What Is the ‘White Privilege’ Test?
The so-called “white privilege” test introduced at Westminster Council isn’t a formal test in the traditional sense—it’s more of a self-assessment or workshop exercise. Referred to as a “privilege walk” or virtual privilege quiz, the initiative encourages employees to reflect on their life circumstances by scoring themselves based on a range of social, economic, and racial factors.
The premise is straightforward: privilege can be invisible to those who have it. By breaking down factors such as race, class, gender, and upbringing, the test aims to make employees more aware of how their background may afford them unspoken advantages—or disadvantages—compared to others.
According to reports, employees earn or lose points depending on statements like:
- “My parents read to me when I was a child.”
- “I’ve never been stopped and searched by the police.”
- “I drive a new car.”
- “I don’t worry about how others perceive my accent.”
Notably, being a white male adds 15 points to one’s score, underlining the systemic advantages often associated with race and gender.
The exercise is intended to be reflective rather than punitive, but critics argue it crosses into ideological territory that can alienate staff rather than unite them.
How Points Are Scored
The scoring system within the privilege walk is where much of the controversy lies. While it aims to illustrate how people benefit from societal structures depending on race, class, or family circumstances, detractors believe it risks oversimplifying deeply nuanced issues.
For example:
- +15 points for being white and male
- +5 points for having parents who attended university
- –5 points for being part of a religious minority
- –10 points if you’ve experienced financial insecurity growing up
Supporters of the program argue that this self-reflective model can reveal blind spots in recruitment and workplace behavior, helping create more equitable systems. But opponents see it as a reductive and potentially divisive tool that classifies people based on characteristics they have no control over.
Defining the ‘Global Majority’ Hiring Strategy
Parallel to the privilege testing, Westminster City Council is pursuing a strategy to increase the representation of the “global majority” in senior leadership roles. The term “global majority” refers to people from Black, Asian, and other non-white ethnic backgrounds—who collectively make up around 85% of the world’s population.
The council argues that if the global majority forms such a large portion of humanity, it should be better represented at all levels of governance and employment—especially in public sector leadership where decision-making power resides.
To implement this policy, the council has adopted several bold practices, including mandatory diversity checks during hiring and shortlisting.
Mandated Shortlisting of Ethnic Minority Candidates
One of the most debated parts of the policy is the rule that every job shortlist must include at least one ethnic minority candidate. If hiring managers fail to comply, they are required to consult personally with the council’s Chief Executive, Stuart Love, before proceeding.
This rule is designed to ensure fair visibility for diverse applicants in the hiring process. It’s not a quota system, per se, as the final hiring decision isn’t bound by race—but the process insists that opportunities be accessible and inclusive from the very beginning.
The council has defended this as a form of “positive action,” not discrimination, noting that it aligns with UK equal opportunity legislation. Nonetheless, critics argue it could indirectly create pressure to hire based on identity rather than merit.
