Race, Identity, and Public Schools

Diana West’s recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times is a lot of things, surprising isn't one of them. Her other articles espouse the same inane, manipulative, accusatory rhetoric found within her straw man arguments.

In an article entitled, “Is there Anyone Left with America's Interest at Heart?” West discusses the media and government reactions to Faisal Shahzad’s attempted attack in Times Square. Over the course of two pages, West critiques “the fuzzy, cultural-relativism-based universalism that orders our society.” Essentially, West asserts that terror attacks happen because the United States (specifically democrats and the “liberal media-elite”) is too concerned with not offending anyone. Take for instance this excerpt:

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Sharia. Even a wartime immigration moratorium would help. Come to think of it, a simple ban on return travel from especially fertile jihad regions such as Pakistan -- a ban on return travel from the Northwest frontier alone -- would do wonders to shore up our vulnerabilities.

In Pakistan, after all, 79 percent of the people, according to a 2007 survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org, favor the "strict application of Sharia."

However, West fails to mention that in the same report that 82 percent believe that "people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs," that a majority of Muslims living in the Middle East support Democracy, greater international communication and trade. She also falls into the league of commentators who believe all Muslims seek to alter the societies within which they live, that “demographic spread” of Muslims is the same as “demographic spread of Sharia.”

It is this sort of one-sided, defensive approach that West wallows in during her recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times. She refers to our nation’s school system as “politically correct re-education camps” which I had to re-read a few times in disbelief. I honestly have no idea what she can mean by this. I wonder if Ms. West has been in a school recently. I never thought that I was being taught a “politically correct” version of anything. I did feel that some more sinister moments in this nation’s history were glossed over, but I never felt like I was receiving any sort of Maoist Cultural Revolution she alleges. What is interesting is that later in her article, West supports a new Arizona law that prohibits any public school from offering classes that “promote resentment toward another race or class of people” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Now, is this not the kind of political correctness she derides, where people are not allowed to embrace their own culture for fear of upsetting others? That a public school cannot provide a perspective and courses based on the needs of its students? Where the needs of an individual are outweighed by the interests of the collective?

In her article she writes, “It will be almost amusing to watch leftists try to slam a law against teaching racial resentment and hatred as ‘racist.’” Well, I’ll do my best to keep her doubled over. First, I seriously doubt that any African American Studies or La Raza course is teaching “racial resentment and hatred.” On the contrary, I believe that it gives students the opportunity to learn about their own culture as well as the culture of others. As much as she may disagree, there is not one definitive American history. We are a nation of immigrants and therefore our history is that of various interests and perspectives. To remove these classes is in effect removing a necessary perspective for students.

I’m sure West has some cultural or religious traditions based on her background. Did learning about the history of her ancestors create resentment against other races? I am sure she will claim that this argument is part of the “multicultural masquerade- the non-Western grievance industry pretending to be ‘education.’” While I love alliteration, I have to disagree with her. Please explain to me how a Hispanic Studies course or African American literature class is “non-Western?” I think West believes because some of these classes acknowledge some of the nastier moments in our nation’s past, that this will somehow raise resentment against whites or the rich, her bread and butter demographic. Now, please don’t attempt to retort to my argument with the tried and true defense, I am not calling West nor the reform in Arizona schools racist. I do not believe “it’s either ‘We are the world’ or you are racist.” What I am saying is that by removing these courses, students in Arizona public schools are not being provided with a well-rounded education. It is an action that harms many people but doesn’t seem to benefit anyone. Who were those classes hurting?

I think what may be at the crux of my disagreement with West is our perceived intentions of recent legislation in Arizona. She claims, “Arizona wants to protect American identity to ensure that all of its citizens, regardless of race or origin, have one.” Now, I agree, it is important for all citizens to feel as if they have an American identity. What I disagree with is that everyone has to have the same identity. Race, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation are all facets in one’s identity and to assert that we all must identify purely as Americans is unfair.

SWITZERLAND NOT SO NEUTRAL WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION: SWISS MINARET BAN

Earlier this week Switzerland, the world’s foremost neutral country, sidestepped impartiality by approving a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets. The referendum put forth by the powerful Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a traditionally conservative right wing party, was approved by a 57% majority. The SVP sponsored the ban claiming the construction of minarets represents the “creeping Islamization of Switzerland.” The ban was advertised through suggestively racist posters that juxtaposed a fully veiled woman in the foreground of what appear to be missile shaped minarets. Such xenophobic posters are nothing new from the SVP’s earlier campaigns to institute harsher immigration laws in the country.

The head of the SVP, Ulrich Schluer, argues that minarets are a symbol of the political aims of Islam. In an interview with Russia Today, Schluer contends that the “minaret is seen as a symbol for political attitudes, for political demands. For instance, to introduce step by step elements of the Shariah right, also in Switzerland.” He defends the ban by referring to various Imams and leaders of mosques, in Switzerland, that have openly stated their goal is for implementation of Shariah law. Rather than symbolize the spirituality of Islam, the minaret, historically used to initiate a call to prayer, is now perceived as a political icon. As a result, the future construction of minarets can be construed as a politically motivated objective to introduce other laws into Switzerland, specifically Shariah law.

There are an estimated 200 mosques in Switzerland. According to the Swiss government, most Muslims are former refugees from the Yugoslav wars waged during the 1990s and comprise approximately 6% or 400,000 of Switzerland’s 7.5 million citizens. The implications of such a ban are not only heartfelt by Swiss Muslims, but for Muslims all across Europe.

Fellow Europeans fear an extremist reaction within their own countries. Concerns have been raised over whether or not Sunday’s vote in Switzerland may provoke more anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. Will the ban in Switzerland promote passage of similar policies in neighboring countries? The European Union is already hard pressed in trying to preserve each countries distinct cultural allure amidst a large influx in foreigners. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the act, remarking on the widespread Islamaphobia afflicting Europe since France’s widely publicized dispute over the burqa, a full length covering worn by Muslim women. Supporters of the ban mentioned that Prime Minister Erdogan has in the past equated mosques to Islam's military barracks, referring to minarets as Islam’s bayonets.

Worldwide criticism over the ban has emerged from Pakistan and Indonesia, to the Vatican. Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey openly rebuked approval of the ban claiming it restricts religious freedom, while other financial officials in Zurich fear losing wealthy Arab and Muslim investors. The UN, along with other international rights organizations, has denounced the Swiss populist vote citing the government’s violation of international conventions on religious freedoms and individual human rights.

President Obama, notorious for having an open dialogue with the Muslim world, demonstrated by his land mark speech in Cairo not long ago, has yet to give any official response on the U.S. position towards Sunday’s vote in Switzerland.