Asian Australian’s Experiences and Reporting of Racism During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT

Between 13 November 2020 and 11 February 2021, an online national survey of 2,003 Asian Australians measured the type and frequency of their experiences of racism during the COVID-19 context. The survey also aimed to understand the reporting behaviours of targets and witnesses of racism and identify barriers to reporting racism. The survey found that 40 per cent of participants experienced racism during the COVID-19 pandemic, most commonly in public settings such as in shops, on the street, public spaces, and work. A similar 39 per cent of participants witnessed racism. Despite these high rates, Asian Australians overwhelmingly did not report incidents of racism. Lack of trust in statutory agencies and their response to racism reports was a frequent barrier experienced. Feelings of hopelessness, shame or disempowerment and lack of knowledge of reporting tools and human rights were other barriers to reporting. Lifting the confidence of people to report racism remains an urgent task. These findings provide direction for developing targeted anti-racism strategies, reporting tools and support services for targets and witnesses of racism.

KEYWORDS:

• Racism
• COVID-19
• Asian racism
• Asian Australian
• reporting racism
• race hate

Introduction

Globally, there is increasing evidence that vulnerable and marginalised ethnic minority groups have been the target of racism and xenophobia, and/or had their inequalities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and government responses to it. Early in the pandemic, the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner released a topic paper stating:

The COVID-19 crisis and its impacts are disproportionately affecting certain marginalised, racial, national or ethnic communities and population groups. The pandemic has highlighted and exposed underlying structural inequalities and fundamental problems in various areas of social, economic, civil and political life, and exacerbating racism and racial discrimination … there has been significant increase in verbal abuse, harassment and violence in public spaces, particularly targeting people of Asian descent in the context of the current crisis (2020).

A U.S. based study found that racial and ethnic minority population groups reported experiencing more COVID-related discrimination than White adults (Strassle et al. 2022). It also found that people from groups that were already marginalised such as those who speak a language other than English and those with lower levels of education faced more discrimination. Other studies have found the unequal impact of the pandemic on minority ethnic groups' exposure, susceptibility, and treatment of the novel coronavirus (Yearvy and Mohapatrra 2021), economic vulnerability (Elias et al. 2021), safety and mobility (Martin and Bergmann 2021), employment (Hu 2020), and exposure to misinformation campaigns (Mamalipurath and Notley 2022). To explain such disparities, Elias et al. (2021) argued the ‘multidimensional nature of racism’, meant that those who already faced numerous social, economic and health vulnerabilities across various national contexts, also encountered intensified marginalisation and exclusion during the pandemic (2021: 784).

More specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic, incidents of racism and xenophobia targeting Asian communities were reported all over the world, particularly in White settler nations such as the U.S and Canada (Human Rights Watch 2020; Stop AAPI Hate 2020; Kong et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021). As argued by Reny and Barreto (2022) in relation to the U.S context, ‘anti-Asian attitudes were activated [during the pandemic] and were associated with a variety of COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors’. Australia was no exception. In early 2020, one in four complaints of racial discrimination received by the Australian Human Rights Commission were related to the pandemic (Fang et al. 2020), with anecdotal and media reports suggesting increases in racism targeting Australians of Asian background (see Yat-Sen Li et al. 2020). Studies conducted early in the pandemic also documented racially motivated attacks and discrimination against Asian Australians. For example, between 2 April 2020 and 2 June 2020 the Asian Australian Alliance documented 377 racist incidents against Asian Australians (Chiu and Chuang 2020). At the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Biddle et al. (2020) found that while there was no increase in discrimination reported by Asian Australian survey participants in the pandemic study period, the Asian Australian participants were disproportionately negatively impacted by the pandemic in regard to economic outcomes and mental health (findings mirrored by Kamp et al. 2021; 2022). A report by the Centre for Multicultural Youth and The Australian National University (Doery et al. 2020) found that of the 376 young people surveyed, 85 per cent of multicultural young people (over one-third of which were of Asian background) had at least one direct experience of racial discrimination, while 32 per cent had more than six experiences. Further into the pandemic, a survey conducted by the Lowy Institute (Kassam and Hsu 2021) found that 18 per cent of Chinese Australian survey participants had been physically threatened or attacked because of their Chinese heritage, 31 per cent called offensive names, and 37 per cent treated differently or less favourably. Of those who had experienced these forms of discrimination, 66 per cent stated it was linked to the pandemic.

While these studies provide evidence of the unequal impacts of the pandemic along racial lines as well as experiences of racism during the COVID-19 pandemic, previous research shows that racial targeting is a common experience for Asian Australians. Research conducted prior to the pandemic has shown Asian Australians experience racism at twice the rate of other Australians (see Blair et al. 2017; Dunn et al. 2018). More specifically, in their national survey of 6,001 Australians, Blair et al. (2017) found that 84 per cent of participants that were born in Asia experienced racism. For those who were born in Australia, but had both parents born in an Asian country, experiences of racism were just as high (86 per cent). Speakers of South Asian languages and East Asian languages also experienced racism at alarmingly high rates (85 and 88 per cent, respectively). These contemporary racisms can be linked, and are arguably a legacy of, Australia’s longstanding history of anti-Asian sentiment (Kamp 2010; Dunn et al. 2018).

It is now widely acknowledged that racism has detrimental impacts on individuals and wider society. This includes negative impacts on targets’ health and wellbeing (Mansouri et al. 2009; Priest et al. 2013; Paradies et al. 2015; Kamp et al. 2022); feelings of safety and mobility (Dunn and Hopkins 2016; Itaoui 2016); educational and employment outcomes (Booth et al. 2012; Hassan 2015); and access to housing (MacDonald et al. 2016; Dunn et al. 2018), healthcare (Paradies et al. 2014) and other essential services. On a broader level, racism has far reaching impacts on inter-group relations, social cohesion, multicultural agendas and international relationships.

The research presented in this paper responds to the urgent need for better understanding of Asian Australians’ experiences of racism during the pandemic via the presentation and analysis of robust empirical evidence gathered from a national survey of over 2,000 self-identifying Asian Australians. Conducted between November 2020 and February 2021, the survey answered Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner Chin Tan’s call for a national response to racism arising from the pandemic, including the ‘comprehensive collection and evaluation of data’ (Tan 2020). However, this paper goes further than presenting data on frequency of racism and characteristics of racist incidents by also presenting findings on how targets and witnesses of racism responded (for example, reporting), and the perceived barriers to reporting racism. This evidence is essential in informing anti-racism strategies and developing the necessary infrastructure for improved data collection on racism and appropriate reporting mechanisms.

Reporting Racism

In the Australian context, Commissioner Tan’s calls for a national approach to collecting and analysing racism data, echo other calls for greater attention to the importance of quality data collection and reporting on racism in Australia. These include recommendations at the government level such as the Parliament of Victoria’s Inquiry into anti-vilification protection (2021) which explicitly recommended improved collection, monitoring and regular reporting of prejudice-motivated crime, and the Australian Human Rights Commission’s The National Anti-Racism Scoping Report which called for ‘comprehensive national data on the prevalence, nature, and impacts of racial inequalities’ (AHRC 2022: 86), with a particular emphasis on its importance for anti-racism action. A systematic review and meta-analysis of racism in Australia, conducted by Ben et al. (2022), also identified unreported and under-reported instances off racism as having serious implications for anti-racism agendas. Research has also shown that existing reporting infrastructure has been deemed problematic in terms of levels of trust towards reporting agencies, the failure to acknowledge and include community-reporting mechanisms, the failure to ensure information sharing and cooperation between agencies and the failure to adequately act upon the data that is reported (Vergani and Navarro 2021).

These reports highlight the limitations in current data collection and reporting on racism. While the recommendations are not specific to the experiences of racism during the pandemic, they are an attempt to address the problem of racism at a broader societal level. The pandemic worked to further highlight these pre-existing limitations, showing that without adequate protections, those most marginalised, in the context of our paper Asian Australians, continued to be the targets of racial vilification and that the extent of the problem is likely to be under-reported.

While improved infrastructure to report racism is clearly an important facet of responding to racism, there are also significant barriers at the practice level. These barriers contribute to what is generally accepted across the literature as racism being an under-reported phenomenon. To understand barriers to reporting hate crimes (such as racism) Wong et al. (2013) and Cuerden and Blakemore (2020) have adapted decision making models for reporting general crimes to develop models regarding (under) reporting of hate crimes. According to Wong et al.’s (2013) model, the barriers can be categorised into micro, meso, and macro social contexts of victimisation. The micro-level context is related to the relationship between victim and offender, personal experiences of guilt and shame, and perceptions of police and other reporting agencies. The meso-level context is about the relationship with family, friends, communities, and organisations available to offer support to the victim. The macro-level context is about the state and the availability of quality responses from state bodies such as law enforcement and the judiciary. Cuerden and Blakemore (2020) proposed that hate crime barriers are related to recognition that a crime has been committed, understanding that the crime was motivated by prejudice, willingness to report, and the need to explain the bias motivation to the police. Numerous studies have explored these barriers, including for example Peel (1999), Lockyer (2001), Herek et al. (2002), Poynting and Noble (2004), and Culotta (2005).

Vergani and Navarro (2021), however, importantly point to the limitations of these models to understand the under-reporting of hate crimes – namely, that the model adapted by Wong et al. (2013) is ‘too general, and […] include too many barriers to provide a meaningful analytical tool for researchers and policymakers working on hate crime’ (Wong et al. 2013: 4); and that the model defined by Cuerden and Blakemore (2020) have ‘some categories that are too broad and important blind spots regarding political and structural forces shaping the decision to report hate crime.’ (Cuerden and Blakemore 2020: 4). Drawing upon the work of hate crime scholar Hardy (2019), Vergani and Navarro (2021) assert that such theoretical models ‘overrepresent specific forms of crime, such as personal and property crimes, and often disregard the unique nature of hate crimes and their victims’ (Vergani and Navarro 2021: 2). They argue that:

Barriers to reporting hate crimes differ from barriers to reporting general crime because of the characteristics of the victims (people from minority groups that face discrimination and other structural disadvantages) and the nature of the crime, which is not motivated by profit but by stigma and prejudice (often systemic and institutional). Hate crime is an expression of political or pseudo-political worldviews and power relations; it is often more violent than regular crimes, and it can trigger unique adverse psychological effects in victims and their communities, which reflect power relations in society. (Perry 2001; Culotta 2005; Chakraborti 2018; Wiedlitzka et al. 2018)

In response, Vergani and Navarro’s (2021) study conducted in the Australian context, proposed a new typology of barriers to reporting hate crime (a broader categorisation than racism alone but consistent with other research on barriers to reporting racism). We have found this typology useful in understanding the barriers expressed by those in our research. These barriers included: internalisation, lack of awareness, fear of consequences, lack of trust in statutory agencies, and accessibility (Vergani and Navarro 2021). In addition, the onus for reporting racism has typically relied on the target of racism to report the incident, an approach that can further exacerbate the vulnerabilities and harms to the target. Without targeted evidence-based interventions to address these barriers, racism will likely remain unreported or under-reported, posing a serious challenge for anti-racism efforts.

Method

This project utilised an online national survey of Asian Australians between 13 November 2020 and 11 February 2021. The Australia-wide online survey comprised a sample of 2,003 self-identified ‘Asian Australian’ respondents aged 16 years and older who were residing in Australia. The sampling frame was provided to the online panel provider Dynata, who have a pool of approximately 300,000 Australian panellists. Dynata employs rigorous quality controls, recruit participants in a variety of ways to ensure a diverse sample, and randomly selects panel participants (within the criteria) to participate in the surveys. It is acknowledged that there may be various limitations in utilising online panels in survey research such as the relationship between completion rates and data accuracy and the relationship between multiple panel memberships and data quality, however, these limitations are not yet well examined (Baker et al. 2010; Callegaro et al. 2014). One obvious limitation of this survey design is that participants must have access to the internet and be registered panellists of Dynata.

Sample

Despite recruitment limitations, the final sample for this project captured a diverse cohort of Asian Australians currently residing in Australia. Of the total sample, 56.6 per cent were female, 42.7 per cent were male and a small number (0.4 per cent) were non-binary/gender fluid. All age categories (16+) were represented in the survey sample, with quite high representation of Asian Australians between 25 and 44 years of age (58.2 per cent). As is typical in survey studies, there was a skew towards the more educated: 70.8 per cent had a university degree or postgraduate qualification; 14.5 per cent had other tertiary qualifications including a trade or TAFE qualification; 12.3 per cent had Year 12 or equivalent as the highest level of qualification; 1.3 per cent had no formal qualifications. The majority of participants were employed (65.2 per cent). The unemployed were over-represented at 7.5 per cent compared to the January 2021 national rate of 6.4 per cent (ABS 2021). A substantial proportion of participants were students (8.9 per cent) and those with caring/home duties (6.7 per cent) and those that were retired (5.2 per cent) were also represented. Approximately half of the survey sample were above the average annual income of $65 K (ABS 2021), with 24.3 per cent of participants earning between $80,000 and $149,999 per annum. The majority (62.1 per cent) of participants were born overseas. The majority of participants were Australian Citizens (63.3 per cent), followed by Australian Permanent Residents (20.9 per cent). Those who hold Foreign Student/Training visas were also represented (6.2 per cent) as were those holding Temporary Work Visas (2.6 per cent), Partner Visas (1.9 per cent), Skilled Work Visas (1.0 per cent), Family or Carer Visas (0.9 per cent) and Refugee or Humanitarian Visas (0.2 per cent). The sample included respondents from across all states and territories, however, the sample was purposefully skewed towards Victoria¹: Victoria (37.8 per cent); New South Wales (36.7 per cent); Queensland (10.6 per cent); Western Australia (7.8 per cent); South Australia (4.4 per cent); Australian Capital Territory (1.7 per cent); Tasmania (0.7 per cent) and the Northern Territory (0.2 per cent). Using participants’ residential postcode information, both metropolitan and non-metropolitan residential locations were represented (89.3 per cent metropolitan²; 10.7 per cent non-metropolitan).

The sample was also diverse in regard to birthplace, cultural/ethnic background, and religious affiliation. The most common overseas birthplaces were India (10 per cent), Philippines (6.1 per cent), Malaysia (6.0 per cent), China (4.6 per cent), Vietnam (4.3 per cent) and Hong Kong (3.5 per cent). Of those 62.1 per cent of participants who were born overseas, the majority (29.1 per cent) have been residing in Australia for more than 20 years. This was followed by 25.7 per cent who have been in Australia for 5–10 years, 22.2 per cent for 11–20 years, 14.5 per cent for 2–4 years, and 8.5 per cent who have been residing in Australia for less than 2 years. The survey allowed participants to select more than one cultural/ethnic background of which they identify. This means that participants may be counted in more than one cultural/ethnic background category (for example, Chinese AND Malaysian). The results indicated that the largest group (31.2 per cent) of participants identify as Chinese. Other prevalent cultural/ethnic backgrounds included Indian (11.5 per cent), Filipino (8.1 per cent), Vietnamese (7.4 per cent), Malaysian (7.4 per cent), and Japanese (4.5 per cent). The majority (57.7 per cent) primarily speak English at home. The most common non-English language spoken at home was a Chinese language (12.8 per cent), followed by Vietnamese (4.1 per cent), Hindi (3.0 per cent) and Filipino (3.0 per cent). The sample was religiously diverse with 31.5 per cent of participants adhering to the Christian faith, 13.4 per cent adhering to Buddhism, 11.4 per cent adhering to Hinduism, 6.3 per cent to Islam, 1.6 per cent to Sikhism, and 0.6 per cent to Judaism. A large proportion (26.5 per cent) indicated no religion/agnostic/atheist.

Data Collection and Analysis

The survey questionnaire included closed-response questions that were used to obtain up-to-date and rigorous information relating to experiences of racism (type, frequency, changes over time), actions of bystanders, responses to racist incidents and reporting, morbid effects of racism and impacts on wellbeing and resilience. In this article, we report findings on the type and frequency of racism and changes over time (pre- and during the COVID-19 context) and the morbid effects of racism and impacts on wellbeing and resilience. Descriptive statistics (primarily frequencies and bivariate cross-tabulations) were used to generate an in-depth quantitative understanding of experiences of racism among Asian Australians, and the extent to which these experiences varied across a number of demographic and social groups (for example, age groups, gender, cultural/ethnic backgrounds, geography, Australian born vs. overseas born). Cross-tabulations were also used to examine relationships between experiences of racism during the COVID-19 pandemic and health and wellbeing, mobility (for example, avoiding situations), anticipation of racism and sense of belonging. A p-level of .05 was used to interpret significance of associations between variables. By examining the descriptive statistics, the experiences of Asian Australians across various subgroups of the population were examined.

Open-response questions were also included in the online questionnaire to invite further detail and explanation as to whether experiences of racism had increased in the COVID-19 context and further information or detail regarding COVID-19-related incidents of racism experienced. For example, if the setting/context in which a racist incident occurred was not already listed, open responses were invited. Participants were also invited to provide qualitative information to help explain why they believed racist experiences were COVID-19-related. An open response was also offered in relation to reporting of racism that was experienced or witnessed, in cases where the reporting body or person(s) were not already listed. Similarly, if participants witnessed racism but did not report the incident, and a relevant reason as to why they did not report was not listed, an open-response option was provided. In this paper, we draw upon the qualitative data to support the quantitative findings relating to experiences of racism during the pandemic and barriers to reporting.

Results and Discussion

Frequency and Type of Racism During the Pandemic

It was a priority of this study to gauge whether the frequency and characteristics of racism experienced by Asian Australians had changed in the COVID-19 context. To achieve quantitative insights, the online questionnaire prompted participants to answer questions relating to their experiences of racism in the 12 months prior to January 2020 (that is, in the 12-months prior to the World Health Organisation declaring the outbreak of COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency). These questions related to the frequency of racist experiences across a range of settings and the types of racism experienced. To examine changes over time, we asked the same questions for the period since January 2020.³ For this latter period of investigation, we also asked questions relating to the reporting of racism, and whether they perceived the racism experienced was related to the COVID-19 context.

Our survey indicates that Asian Australians’ experiences of racism declined in the COVID-19 context compared to the 12-months prior to January 2020. This contrasts with media and other reports of increased racism. Almost half (47.9 per cent) of participants indicated that they experienced racism prior to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, this number decreased to 39.9 per cent of participants after January 2020. In Victoria, the decrease was more pronounced. In the pre-COVID-19 context, the number of Asian Australians in Victoria who experienced racism (45.7 per cent) was on par with the national level. In the COVID-19 context, this dropped by 10.4 per centage points to 35.3 per cent. Despite this sharp decrease in Victoria (and 8 per centage points less at the national level), the number of participants who experienced racism in the COVID-19 context remained worryingly high.

COVID-19 related restrictions on movements/access to public spaces (including lockdowns) may be one potential reason for decreases in experiences of racism. Such restrictions removed opportunities for racist offenders for an extended period. Several survey participants reflected upon the correlation between lockdowns/restrictions and reduced racism:

After Covid 19 outbreak people started staying more indoors, hence there were less public interactions (survey participant, qualitative response).

It is hard to quantify because COVID has reduced the interactions we have with people. So I haven't been out as much, or seen many people, especially strangers (survey participant, qualitative response).

Since COVID we all are mostly working from home, so no use of public transport. The lockdowns restricted the movements and hence public interaction. So naturally any experiences I had before have gone down (survey participant, qualitative response).

The fact that the Victorian population experienced the longest duration of lockdowns, and the sharpest decreases in racism during the reporting period supports this assertion. Survey participants also pointed to the avoidance of Asian Australians (due to discourses linking ‘Asians’ to COVID-19), as a potential reason for decreased experiences of racism. As one participant noted, their experiences of racism decreased because ‘After covid [sic], I have seen Chinese people are avoided more’ (survey participant, qualitative response). However, this avoidance is arguably another form of racism. Finally, decreases in racism may also be attributed to Asian Australians’ avoiding situations themselves because of the anticipation of racist interactions. The survey found that over three-quarters (77.4 per cent) of participants avoided specific situations because of racism.

Unsurprisingly, racist experiences most occurred in public settings such as in shops and on the street (see Table 1). In the COVID-19 context, the online setting was the most frequent setting in which racism occurred; with 15.1 per cent reporting having experienced racism ‘often/very often’. As was the case prior to the COVID-19 context, the subtler forms of racism have been the most common. For example, 59.6 per cent of participants indicate that they have been ‘treated less respectfully’ (hardly ever – very often), and 50.5 per cent have been ‘not trusted’ (hardly ever – very often). Less frequent but significant were other forms of racism such as being called names, physically assaulted, verbally abused, denied entry/service, and vandalised property, have occurred (Table 2).

Table 1. COVID-19 racism settings (%), n = 798.

	Work	Education	Housing	Police	Shops	Public transport	On the street	Health care	Online	Friend's/family’s home	Neighbours	Uber/Taxi	Provision of services	Sport	Public space
Never	28.8	39.4	40.0	46.0	16.2	32.0	23.3	53.1	33.6	58.2	51.6	58.0	52.1	50.1	28.4
Hardly ever	36.1	32.2	24.5	20.7	41.0	34.2	40.0	24.5	27.2	22.4	26.4	23.4	25.3	24.2	37.9
Sometimes	26.4	21.3	15.9	13.0	31.1	24.7	25.9	17.0	24.1	13.6	15.1	13.4	15.7	16.6	23.6
Often	6.0	5.2	5.9	6.8	8.1	6.5	7.4	4.2	9.1	4.5	4.8	4.1	5.2	6.1	6.8
Very often	2.6	1.9	2.8	2.3	3.6	2.6	3.4	1.3	6.0	1.3	2.1	1.0	1.8	2.9	3.4
N/A	−0	0	10.9	11.2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Question wording: ‘Since January 2020, how often have you experienced racism or racial discrimination … ’. Response wording: Never (0 times), Hardly ever (1-2 times), Sometimes (3-7 times), Often (8-10 times), Very often (12 + times), Not Applicable (N/A).

Note: The smaller sample size reflects the fact that only participants who stated that they had experienced racism or racial discrimination in the COVID-19 context were asked to provide details in terms of context/settings.

Table 2. Types of COVID-19 racism (%), n = 2003.

	Treated less respectfully	Not trusted	Called names	Assaulted	Ignored	Treated as inferior/less intelligent	Left out	Property vandalised	Verbally abused	Denied entry/service
Never	40.4	49.5	56.8	77.5	48.1	50.7	50.4	76.7	60.6	76.1
Hardly Ever	35.4	28.3	23.9	11.9	29.3	30.4	26.4	12.1	22.3	13.4
Sometimes	17.7	15.1	12.7	6.3	16.0	12.4	16.1	7.3	11.5	7.5
Often	4.5	5.1	4.7	3.4	4.2	3.4	4.3	2.9	3.9	2.1
Very Often	2.0	2.0	1.9	0.8	2.3	2.2	2.9	1.2	1.7	0.9
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Question wording: ‘Since January 2020, how often do you feel that because of your cultural /ethnic background, you were … ’; Response wording: Never (0 times), Hardly ever (1–2 times), Sometimes (3–7 times), Often (8–10 times), Very often (12 + times).

The survey data also indicates that 39 per cent of participants witnessed racism during the pandemic. Like experiences of racism, the most frequent settings to witness racism were in shops (17.3 per cent), on the street (15.3 per cent), on public transport (14.1 per cent) and online (12.8 per cent; see Table 3). The most frequent types of racism witnessed were targets being treated less respectfully (19.9 per cent); called names (16 per cent); and verbally abused (13.9 per cent; see Table 4). Marginalisation, in the form of being left out or ignored, comprised 15.9 per cent of the manifestations of racism witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 3. Settings where COVID-19 racism was witnessed, n = 779.

	n	%
Work	179	8.9
Education	146	7.3
Housing	75	3.7
Police	62	3.1
Shops	347	17.3
Public transport	283	14.1
On the street	306	15.3
Health care	49	2.4
Online	257	12.8
Friend’s/family’s home	31	1.5
Provision of services	48	2.4
Neighbours	65	3.2
Taxi/Uber	41	2.0
Sport	31	1.5
Public spaces	126	6.3

Question wording: ‘Where did these incidents occur?’

Note: The smaller sample size reflects the fact that only participants who stated that they had witnessed incidents of racism during COVID were asked to provide details in terms of context/settings.

Table 4. Types of COVID-19 racism witnessed, n = 779.

	n	%
Treated less respectfully	399	19.9
Not trusted	173	8.6
Called names	321	16.0
Assaulted	119	5.9
Ignored	190	9.5
Treated as inferior/ less intelligent	143	7.1
Left out	128	6.4
Property vandalised	46	2.3
Verbally abused	279	13.9
Denied entry/service	66	3.3

Question wording: ‘What form did the racist incident take?’

Note: The smaller sample size reflects the fact that only participants who stated that they had witnessed incidents of racism during COVID were asked to provide details in terms of the types of racism witnessed.

It is also important to note that while our survey indicates that experiences of racism have decreased in the COVID-19 context, when asked if racist experiences that have occurred were COVID-19 related (Question wording: Do you think the experience/s were COVID-19 related?), the majority of participants (approximately 70 per cent who experienced racism across each setting) selected ‘Yes’ or ‘Sometimes’. When prompted to indicate why they perceived the racist incident to be COVID-19 related, participants most frequently indicated because ‘COVID language was used’ (5 per cent–12.6 per cent across the settings).

Demographic Variations

When cross-tabulated with various demographic indicators, the survey results indicate that male participants were more likely to experience racism than females in the COVID-19 context (46.5 per cent of males experienced racism compared to 34.7 per cent of females). Results also show that younger age groups were more likely to experience racism than older age groups with 44.7 per cent of 16–17-year-olds and 52.9 per cent of 18–24-year-olds indicating that they experienced racism compared to 20 per cent of 55-64-year-olds. These demographic findings are consistent with existing research on the COVID-19 (and pre-COVID-19) context (for example, Markus 2019, 2020, 2021). The 2021 Mapping Social Cohesion survey results showed that 18–24-year-olds (22 per cent) experienced the highest rates of discrimination, and this proportion steadily decreased with age (Markus 2021). While the 2021 Mapping Social Cohesion survey results also showed an even experience of discrimination between males and females, in 2020 and 2019, males experienced higher rates of discrimination as compared to females (Markus 2021).

Our study also found that higher numbers of Australian-born participants reported experiencing racism during the pandemic than overseas born (56.3 per cent vs. 30.2 per cent). Far less new migrants (those that have been in Australia for less than two years) reported that they experienced racism compared to those overseas born who had been in Australia for more than two years (for example, 21.9 per cent who had been in Australia for less than two years compared to 30.6 per cent who had been in Australia for 2–4 years, and 38.2 per cent for those who have been in Australia for 5–10 years). English speakers at home experienced much higher rates of racism than those who primarily speak a non-English language at home (42.2 per cent vs. 36.7 per cent).

Understanding the reasons for the demographic variations in experiencing racism is still relatively under-researched. As discussed by Kamp et al. (2022), factors such as higher racism ‘literacy’ (that is, the ability to recognise racism) may explain why English speakers at home and those born in Australia, or migrants who have been in Australia for a long time, indicate higher rates of racism. The variations can also be tentatively explained by understanding the settings in which racism usually occurs. For example, the gendered experiences of everyday Australian life which continue to place males (compared to females) more often in public settings, and younger people’s increased exposure and presence in online settings may be key factors (see for example Doery et al. 2020; Kamp et al. 2022). Racism literacy may also be higher in younger generations of Australians as education and communication around discrimination have become more accessible. However, further research is needed to understand why these demographic groups of Asian Australians are more likely to experience racism.

Reporting and Responding to Racism During the Pandemic

Data obtained from participants who experienced racism during the COVID-19 pandemic confirms that Australians are overwhelmingly not reporting incidents of racism. When targets were asked ‘Did you report any of these incidents?’ the most frequent response across each setting in which incidents of racism occurred, was ‘never reported’ (30.4-52.3 per cent). Exceptions were when racism occurred in the healthcare setting, where the most frequent response was ‘rarely’ (32.4 per cent), friend/family home which was ‘occasionally’ (31 per cent), and in an Uber/Taxi (33.7 per cent ‘occasionally’). Across all settings, only between 1.9 per cent (public space) and 7.6 per cent (friend/family home) of participants who experienced racism indicated that they reported ‘all the time’.

Similarly, the most frequent way in which witnesses responded to incidents of racism were to ‘do nothing’ (12.2 per cent), followed by ‘made a comment or discussed the incident with friends, passer-by, or colleagues’ (9.5 per cent). Only 3.8 per cent reported the incident to the police and the same proportion reported to an anti-discrimination authority. This is not surprising as existing research indicates that hate crimes, such as racism, are less reported than ‘general crimes’ (see for example Freilich and Chermak 2013; Mason et al. 2017; Lantz et al. 2019). When asked how satisfied they were with the way they responded to the incidents of racism witnessed, only 19 per cent were satisfied (satisfied/very satisfied). In contrast, 37 per cent had some level of dissatisfaction (dissatisfied/very dissatisfied). These results provide strong grounding for further bystander action education and training in Australia.

The most frequent recipients of reports of racism (that were experienced or witnessed) were by friends/family (21.6 per cent). This was followed by reporting to the police (12.4 per cent). Only 2.9 per cent reported racism (experienced or witnessed) to the Australian Human Rights Commission. This suggests that the record number of complaints submitted to the commission in February 2020 is an underrepresentation. The preference to report racism to friends/ family aligns with responses to witnessing racism which also favoured talking to friends/family (9.5 per cent). It also aligns with data regarding whom participants primarily went to for support after a racist incident, which was most frequently friends (24.8 per cent) and family (21.7 per cent).

Barriers to Reporting Racism

Participants who experienced and/or witnessed racism but did not report it (n: 621) were prompted with a follow-up question asking them what the reasons for non-reporting were. Using a five-point Likert-scale measure (strongly agree – strongly disagree), participants responded to 11 potential reasons. If relevant reasons were not provided, participants were able to provide other reasons why they did not report the incident using an open-ended qualitative comment box. Of the 621 participants, 576 indicated at least one of the 11 potential reasons for non-reporting. In the following presentation of results and discussion, we draw upon Vergani and Navarro’s (2021) typology of barriers to reporting hate crime that includes internalisation, lack of awareness, fear of consequences, lack of trust in statutory agencies, and accessibility, to provide targeted evidence of barriers to reporting racism during the pandemic (and beyond).

Lack of trust in statutory agencies and their response to racism reports was among the most relevant barriers for the respondents, with 62.8 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing that the report would not be taken seriously, 59.6 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing that the incident would not be dealt with properly, and 40 per cent not trusting the recipients of the report. As one participant noted: ‘To be honest, I don’t think the police would do much, they are always saying they are under-resourced so why would they spend time and resource trying to locate some hooligan who was being racist’ (survey participant, qualitative response). Another participant voiced a more strident distrust of reporting bodies: ‘If there is a white person and an Asian person in Australia, they always side with the white person even if the Asian is the victim’ (survey participant, qualitative response). Lack of trust in the recipients of the report is the most common barrier to reporting hate crime identified in numerous empirical studies across the world, and it is generally related to the relationship between the community of the hate crime target (or the witness) and the police (for example, Wickes et al. 2016; Mason and Moran 2019; Cuerden and Blakemore 2020). This barrier can also be explained by previous personal reporting experiences of the target (or the target’s community), and it may be attributable to the perception that police officers will not trust the target, will not take the incident seriously, or will be unwilling to act upon the report (Sin et al. 2009; Wickes et al. 2016). Chakraborti, Garland, and Hardy (2014) found that certain groups, such as young victims and those with disabilities, experience this barrier more intensely. Young victims are often hesitant to report to the police, while those with disabilities tend to report hate incidents to other authorities, such as social workers or healthcare professionals (Sin et al. 2009; Thorneycroft and Asquith 2015).

Feelings of hopelessness, shame or disempowerment were other important barriers to reporting among the respondents, with 62.8 per cent of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that reporting would not help, 53.8 per cent feeling uncomfortable or embarrassed, and 49.9 per cent wanting to forget about the incident. As one participant noted: ‘I can’t know what I have to say because really that makes me cry when I remember’ (survey participant, qualitative response). These findings are consistent with previous research that found that feelings of powerlessness and shame are associated with individuals’ self-recognition as a target of racism, as well as being expressed via social values, beliefs and ideologies that perpetuate historical trauma and marginalisation of some groups (Swadling et al. 2015). These feelings are also associated with the perception of hate victimisation as inevitable, leading to hopelessness, resignation and acceptance of repeated harassment and hostility (Chakraborti et al. 2014). It includes normalisation and acceptance of everyday abuse, feelings of self-deprecation, shame, and disempowerment, as well as social values and beliefs that marginalise some groups (Swadling et al. 2015; Wickes et al. 2016). Unfortunately, 46.5 per cent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the incident was not worth reporting.

Lack of knowledge or awareness of reporting tools and human rights was also another important barrier to reporting: 56.2 per cent of the respondents did not know who to report to and how to report, and 48.3 per cent did not know that they could report the incident. Some participants provided the following qualitative explanations: ‘I would not know how to report a person whose name I do not know’; ‘No direct proof of who did the damage of my brickwork mail box in front’; ‘I don’t know who they were and how to report. Wherever this happened there was not security camera so that police could trace the person’. This is consistent with numerous studies that have found a widespread lack of clarity about the meaning and definitions of terms such as hate crime, racism, prejudice, discrimination, and harassment (Chakraborti and Hardy 2015; Swadling et al. 2015; Wickes et al. 2016). It is also consistent with existing research that has pointed to lack of familiarity with reporting processes and tools, including ways to report to police, human rights commissions or civil society organisations, as barriers to reporting (Chakraborti 2018).

Fearing the consequences of reporting was another important barrier, with 51.2 per cent of the respondents being scared of what would happen if they reported the incident. This fear is usually associated with fear of retaliation by the offender or the offender’s group (which can be a family, a political group or a community). This was indicated in participants’ qualitative statements such as ‘Fear of retaliation’ and ‘Fear for my own safety’. One participant provided a specific instance in which they not only did not trust the reporting body to take action, but also feared personal repercussions if they reported the racist incident: ‘The perpetrator of the incident was a client of the company I am working for. I’m sure that if I reported the incident, it would have been ignored. Even worse, I feared that I would have to face ramifications for reporting the incident’ (survey participant, qualitative response). Retaliation can take the form of violence and re-offending, but can also take subtler forms, such as the withdrawal of benefits, services, rights, care or supporting assistance in the case of dependent people (Chakraborti 2018). This fear is often prevalent in contexts of dependency and unequal power relations, and it is more likely to be present among certain intersectional identities. For example, individuals from LGBTIQ+ communities have expressed fear of being publicly identified as a barrier to reporting hate crime (Chakraborti and Hardy 2015; Antjoule 2016), while individuals living with disabilities fear losing their limited social relationships and care provision by their caregivers (Sin et al. 2009; Clement et al. 2011). Recent research has also provided evidence that migrants often fear compromising their migration status if they report an incident to the police (Fathi 2014).

Finally, 24.9 per cent of the sample agreed or strongly agreed that there are barriers (like language or physical barriers) that prevented them from reporting. Sometimes targets might have special needs in terms of language (for example, some ethnic communities might have low levels of English proficiency; Swadling et al. 2015; Chakraborti 2018). Physical barriers, including poor wheelchair access at police stations, can affect the possibility of a person in a wheelchair reporting an incident to police (Sin et al. 2009). The barriers identified broadly mirror the barriers to reporting found in recent research conducted in Victoria (Vergani and Navarro 2020).

Conclusions and Moving Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic was reported to have resulted in an increase in incidents of racism and xenophobia towards Asians (particularly from Chinese backgrounds) worldwide. Thus, the impetus for this project was to examine Asian Australians’ experiences of racism (the nature, type and frequency), changes over time (pre- and since COVID-19), and the reporting of racist incidents and the (in)actions of witnesses in Australia. This project utilised an online national survey of over 2000 self-identified Asian Australian residents aged 16 years or older.

Males, younger people, Australian-born participants, migrants who have been in Australia for more than two years, and English-speakers at home, reported higher rates of racism. This was consistent with previous research in pre- COVID-19 times. The main manifestations of racism were disrespectful treatment, being called names, abuse, physical assault and being left out and ignored. Interestingly, participants’ experiences of racism decreased nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic (39.9 per cent), as compared to the 12 months prior (47.9 per cent). This decrease in racism is likely due (at least in part) to the COVID- 19-related restrictions (such as the severe lockdown in Melbourne) limiting the opportunities for racist offenders to harass Asians, and increased avoidance of Asian Australians due to racist discourses linking ‘Asians’ to COVID-19.

Asian Australians (both as targets and witnesses) overwhelmingly did not report incidents of racism. In line with Vergani and Navarro’s (2021) typology of barriers to reporting hate crimes, the survey participants did not report incidents of racism due to lack of trust, internalisation and fear of consequences, lack of awareness of reporting tools and processes, poor accessibility to reporting tools, and believing that it will not make any difference or have any impact or outcomes. Targets of racism are more likely to do nothing about it than report it to an authority. When asked ‘Did you report any of these incidents?’ most respondents who experienced racism in each setting did not report it. Regardless of whether they were targets or witnesses of racism, participants were far more likely to tell their friends and family about the incident rather than the police (12 per cent) or Human Rights Commission (2.9 per cent). This means that the record number of complaints submitted to the Human Rights Commission in February 2020 is likely an underrepresentation.

Without trust in institutions or adequate data on reported incidents, the full extent and impact of racism remains hidden. The ability for authorities to act upon racist incidents is also limited without accurate reporting. Lifting the confidence of people to report racism therefore remains an urgent task. We need continued strong messaging encouraging people to report hate incidents and racism, and assurance that the incident will be taken seriously.

Transparency and dissemination of information detailing what happens to the report once it is lodged and how it will be used by authorities will strengthen trust in reporting bodies. This will also reinforce the importance of reporting racism and hate crimes. We also need to remove barriers to reporting as 1 in 4 people who experienced and/or witnessed racism agreed or strongly agreed that barriers (like language or physical barriers) prevented them from reporting. Access to reporting should be a priority, with resources available across multiple platforms/technologies (for example, phone, online, in person reporting), and in multiple languages with trained interpreters available.

Lack of knowledge of reporting tools and human rights was another important barrier to reporting: 56 per cent of the respondents did not know who to report to and how to report, and 48 per cent did not know they could report the incident. Educational resources/messaging about individual rights and available reporting tools are essential to lift rates of reporting.

Feelings of hopelessness, shame or disempowerment were other important barriers to reporting among respondents, with 63 per cent of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that reporting would not help, 54 per cent feeling uncomfortable or embarrassed, and half wanting to forget about the incident. Recipients of reports should be aware of these emotions and sensitive to them in the reporting process. Community responders (for example, police, support staff) require culturally sensitive responder training to offer genuine support in the moment, to raise provider/ community awareness, and to decrease shame of target/witness as this validates the experience. Embedding support services in reporting processes will also counter emotional barriers and provide much needed mental health support to targets and witnesses of racism.

Ethics approval statement

The study reported in this paper was conducted in line with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated 2018) and approved by Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval # H14116, 10 November 2020).

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this article benefitted from the contributions of Kevin Dunn (Western Sydney University), Rosalie Atie (Western Sydney University), Susan Sisko (Western Sydney University), and Jessica Walton (Deakin). We would like to acknowledge the administrative and in-kind contributions of Western Sydney University and Deakin University in the conduct of the research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data reported in this paper is available upon request. Please contact the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

This project was funded by the Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies and the Department of Premier and Cabinet (Victoria, Australia).

Notes

1 Due to funder requests.

2 ‘Metropolitan’ areas are defined by the Greater Capital City Statistical Area boundary delineation (ABS 2012).

3 The two periods of assessment (prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic) are of differing lengths. The survey was open between November 2020 and February 2021, therefore participants’ experiences (and reflections) of the COVID-19 pandemic spanned from approximately 10 months to 13 months (from January 2020).