Don't ban uniqueness

Editorial

In the 1920s, when anti-Semitism was a rampant problem on the campuses of several Ivy League institutions, Harvard's administration had what seemed like a logical solution: reduce the number of Jews, thereby reducing the prevalence of anti-Semitism.

Over the years, opponents of liberal immigration policies (in Canada and elsewhere) have argued that curbs should be placed on the number of new immigrants to ensure ease of absorption and in order to prevent a backlash.

Just recently, on CNN, an American military leader was quoted, arguing that homosexuals in the military undermine morale and cohesion among troops.

Each of these arguments, while distinct and not without their grains of truth, fail in the most important sense: They blame the victim for their own exclusion or oppression. It is that which makes minority groups different – and not the reaction of the majority – that is identified as the problem. It has been said before that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism, anti-Semites do. Likewise, immigrants do not cause a racist backlash and homosexuals do not undermine military cohesion, racism and homophobia do.

There is a lesson to be learned from these nasty stories as the French government attempts to "assimilate" a growing population of visibly Muslim immigrants. In the face of concerns that French Muslims are stigmatized and discriminated against, as well as to speed up their assimilation, there is an effort to ban overtly religious clothing, such as Muslim headscarves from "secular" institutions, such as schools. In the interest of fair play, crucifixes and kippot would be banned as well.

French President Jacques Chirac, on Dec. 17, publicly expressed his support for the ban as a method of encouraging integration into French society.

The proposed ban has gained startling, nearly unanimous support among the French public, according to some reports. Sober second thought has come from a few editorialists. The New York Times refutes Chirac's view that the ban would reaffirm the Republic's separation of church and state. Le Monde notes that there is a fundamental difference between wearing a crucifix, which is an act of choice, and the wearing of a Sikh turban, a kippa or a Muslim headscarf, which are religious requirements for some.

There is a basic difference between banning something that is religiously required and banning something that is religious, but optional.

Beyond this, the intended outcome is premised on false assumptions. While it is true that banning the articles that identify individuals as members of a religious or ethnic minority may help "integrate" them, one needs to ask what integration means. Clearly, to supporters of the ban, integration means looking, acting and, hopefully, thinking like a "French" person. This is a 19th-century nationalistic concept of citizenship. Though it is undeniable that this view has its adherents, the movement in Europe and North America in recent decades has been away from an ethnic nationalism toward a civic nationalism. That is, a nationality based less on race or religion than on shared experiences and a set of agreed upon values.

Integration, under this civic nationalism ideal, is more substantive than symbolic. It depends less on looking like one belongs than it does on feeling like one belongs. The very basis of the French Revolution was the right to express one's individuality and adherence to certain values. Multiculturalism, diversity and pluralism are not things that succeed when we attempt to erase the differences between us, these ideals flourish when we celebrate our differences.

This is not to suggest that all values are to be celebrated. There is some truth to the argument that banning religious headscarves is a reinforcement of egalitarian gender principles. Still, if gender equality is a value we seek to encourage, it is not likely to be accomplished through legislation. It is something that needs to be inculcated in a far more subtle and cerebral manner than making such attire illegal.

Most significantly, banning the evidence of our differences is not a step toward making minority members of society feel like they belong. It is a step in precisely the opposite direction. Making us all look the same is not progress toward an idealized, pluralist, multicultural future. It is a lurch backward toward a homogeneous, conforming, ethnic-based ideal that European and North American societies should have advanced beyond.

^TOP