Religious and ethnic disadvantages in Britain must be separated analytically to explain Muslim outcomes.

Evidence

Scholars interested in explaining the disadvantages experienced by Muslim groups in Britain such as those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi background initially focused on ‘ethnic penalties’ in order to explain these disparities between ethnic groups (Heath and McMahon 1997, Cheung and Heath 2007). The remaining gaps between the minority group and a majority, after adjusting for age and educational qualifications, are termed ethnic penalties. However, at the turn of the millennium academics realized that ethnic group status was not sufficiently explaining the gaps, because empirically they were not separating between religion and ethnicity, which are highly correlated. They then turned their attention to disentangling religious from ethnic penalties — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 271

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘ethnic penalty’ and explains why the field shifted from ethnic to religious penalties.
• XREF: Connects to the Islamophobia-definition debate: it is a social-scientific concept-formation move analogous to Bleich’s neutral definitional stance. — connects to: Ethnic categories fail to capture the distinct experience of British Muslims. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 59; Scholars moved from ethnic to religious penalties to explain Muslim disadvantage — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 265; Survey indicators of Islamophobia need comparison baselines to isolate the Muslim component. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 50 (+3 more)

Related

• Scholars moved from ethnic to religious penalties to explain Muslim disadvantage (similarity 0.93)
• Ethnic categories fail to capture the distinct experience of British Muslims. (similarity 0.89)
• Ethnic data categories cannot capture the Muslim penalty in British institutions (similarity 0.87)
• Census ethnicity categories poorly capture British Muslim experience as proxies (similarity 0.86)
• Existing census ethnicity categories fail to capture Muslim experience as a distinct category. (similarity 0.85)
• British ‘ethnic minority’ communities are internally diverse and not segregated ghettos (similarity 0.84)
• Lack of religious census categories hid Muslims within ethnic and birth-country data (similarity 0.84)
• British Muslims were ethnicized before being recognized as a faith group (similarity 0.83)
• Survey indicators of Islamophobia need comparison baselines to isolate the Muslim component. (similarity 0.82)
• Muslim people in the UK face heightened risk of poorer health outcomes. (similarity 0.82)
• Suspicion of Britain’s Muslims predates modern biological racism (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.82)
• The ethnic makeup of Muslims varies widely by region in England. (similarity 0.82)
• British racial categories for Muslims changed labels while retaining racist content. (similarity 0.82)
• Muslim organizations won religion’s inclusion in the UK census. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Ethnic data categories cannot capture the Muslim penalty in British institutions #corroborates (0.88) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 54
• Scholars moved from ethnic to religious penalties to explain Muslim disadvantage #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 265
• Census ethnicity categories poorly capture British Muslim experience as proxies #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 112
• Survey indicators of Islamophobia need comparison baselines to isolate the Muslim component. #expands (0.80) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 50