"A Rose by Any Other Name"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“A Rose by Any Other Name”

July 11, 2011

What do Post-Reconstruction in the U.S., Yale University and European Multiculturalism have in common? They all practice (or practiced) a form of segregation.

Slavery ended in the United States with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The end of the Civil War, in April 1865, brought a period of Reconstruction when federal troops and northern carpetbaggers went south, the troops to maintain order and the carpetbaggers to make fortunes off the broken backs of the defeated Confederacy. Knowing the impact on their former southern enemies, they helped install recently freed African Americans in sensitive political positions. The Post-Reconstruction period began just after the disputed presidential election of 1876, which ensconced Republican Rutherford Hayes in the White House, in return for an agreement to remove federal troops from the South.

The Post-Reconstruction period is generally said to have lasted until the early years of the 20th Century, but the de facto consequences of segregation remained a fact of life until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Armed Forces of the United States were not desegregated until 1948. The last all-black unit was not disbanded until 1954. Following induction into the Army in1962, I was assigned to the 4th Training Regiment at Fort Dix in New Jersey for basic training. That regiment was located about five miles from the main base and had been used to train African-American troops during World War II. I remember feeling a sense of shame that my country had separated men in the armed forces for training, men who would only be joined in dying.

Yale University, letting political correctness trump intellectual honesty as well as common decency, decided to shutter the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA), the only program of its kind in the United States. The university says it has been replaced by a better program, the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. There are grounds, though, for questioning what Yale has done. The new program focuses most of its attention on the history of anti-Semitism, rather than today’s. That anti-Semitism is on the rise is well known; that in its most virulent form today it emanates from Arab and Muslim regions is also well known. It is also a given that the “politically correct” in our country and, in fact, in most of the West find it abhorrent to offend Muslims, no matter the cause, including the calling for the destruction of Israel. Last August, following a YIISA hosted conference – Global Anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity – Maen Rashid, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador urged Yale University President Richard Levin to “publically dissociate himself from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display.” Also, Iran placed Yale on their list of institutions to “hate.” Instead of viewing such acknowledgement as a badge of honor, Yale considered it a problem; it apparently interfered with their efforts to raise money from Arab nations, and their self perception as a liberal institution. YIISA was disbanded.

There have always been debates as to how to integrate, or assimilate immigrants into an existing society. Europeans coming to the United States in its earliest days had little option other than to assimilate. While it is true that most immigrants to this country toward the end of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th came from northern Europe, Noah Webster pointed out that as many as 50 languages were spoken in Pennsylvania at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants. Historically, people coming here have chosen to become Americans, to live as others already here live, to speak a common language. Culturally the United States is an amalgamation of all the people that have come before us. It is true that our laws are based on English law, but they have worked fairly for over two hundred years. Our Constitution is a living instrument that embodies common principles with roots that date back to English, Greek and Roman law, but is also one that has been amended twenty-five times.

As a nation of immigrants, many families cherish their unique heritage and celebrate their own personal history and customs, but our success is based on the fact that assimilation has worked. Children of immigrants in the U.S. have a much better chance of success when they learn English, obey our laws and understand our culture. But it is also true that each person and every generation influences that culture. To live apart, to insist on speaking only their native language or adhering to customs that conflict with those of society, condemns that immigrant and their children to substandard lives.

Proponents of multiculturalism, while perhaps well-intentioned, have failed to consider the consequences. Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, was chastised by liberal groups when she said that immigrants were welcome, but must learn the language and better assimilate into society. She was right.

Multiculturalism is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as “a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short…recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required.” The question becomes, should the rights of society be superseded by the demands of individuals? Where does the common good end and anarchy begin? The roots of multiculturalism are intertwined with those of political correctness. Their origins lie in political convenience. It is far easier for a politician to appeal to distinct groups, be they gays, Hispanics or Muslims. Politicians compartmentalize their constituents, appealing to cultural and social differences, rather than encouraging what bonds us. They are hesitant to tackle major issues, for example: What should be the role of government? How do we live within our means?

The demands of multiculturalists in Europe, especially when it has come to Muslims, have not helped those Muslim immigrants, nor have they helped the native population. They have prompted the rise of populist politicians, like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Jimmie Akesson in Sweden and Timo Soini in Finland. The New York Times, in an article last week by Kenan Malik, pointed out that British Prime Minister David Cameron has joined the chorus against multiculturalism. Ironically, multiculturalism encourages segregation. It urges people from abroad to live in separate, distinct neighborhoods, to speak their own language. Multiculturalism has led, as Mr. Malik writes to the “creation of fragmented societies, the scapegoating of immigrants and the rise of populist and Islamic rhetoric. “The challenge facing Europe today,” writes Mr. Malik, therefore is how to reject multiculturalism as a political policy, while embracing the diversity that immigration brings.” Amen.

Segregation, no matter its name, works against the long term interests of society. The unintended consequences of well intentioned people (whether naïve or cynical), whether in Europe, at Yale or in Post-Reconstruction United States, can have devastating implications.