Xenophobia Has No Place in America

Posted on Fair Observer.

On January 16, Amine Aouam was battered on the streets of Philadelphia so badly that he regained consciousness in the emergency room. His transgression? Speaking Arabic. Last November, two men were temporarily barred from boarding their flight in Chicago, causing delays and involving airport security. What was their suspicious behavior? Speaking Arabic. In October, Said Othman was stabbed in Brooklyn, and in February 2015, a man was attacked in Dearborn, Michigan. Speaking Arabic was also the provocation in these acts of violence and hate.

This pattern troubles me, as it should trouble all Americans. These attacks are not isolated and cannot be ignored; they are the implicit consequence of the vitriolic rhetoric that has surrounded Islam and Arabs this election season.

These men, along with countless others whose victimization has gone unreported, bear the burden created by the xenophobic and opportunistic rhetoric and policies proffered by many of our public figures.

While neither Arab nor Muslim, I cannot help but feel that my family has been attacked when I read of such ignorant hatred. My late grandmother was born in 1922 to immigrants who, like all who freely came to these shores, arrived in hopes of living a better life.

An oft-told story of Grandma’s involved social rejection from other children at school because her family spoke Polish at home. Facing ostracization, she vowed to no longer speak her parents’ language. While Grandma regretted not passing on her Polish heritage, her commitment to America never waned. She proudly recalled her time working in a factory in central New York as part of the ubiquitous war effort during World War II.

Yet my repulsion from such bigotry goes beyond my family’s past—they feel like attacks against my family’s future, as well. My fiancée is an Arab Muslim, heiress to the same rich cultural tradition of the aforementioned victims in Philadelphia, Chicago, Brooklyn and Dearborn. Like Grandma, she was raised in a bilingual household that welcomed everyone with open arms and open hearts. If we have a son, he might look like Amine or sound like Said. Will I have to worry for his safety, simply for speaking his mother’s language?

This must be the same worry that every Arab parents faces in America today. Xenophobia and ignorance have once denied my family’s access to the benefits of bilingualism. Do not allow it to happen again.

In every area of American triumph, there are the fingerprints of the hard work and unique insights of new Americans. They are grateful for new beginnings and bring with them the experiences and lessons of the lands they left, enriching the lives of us all. Despite this, since before our founding, conflict between newcomers and those already here has, unfortunately, been a tradition on this land.

But if Americans wish to derive pride as a nation built by and composed of immigrants, refugees, pilgrims and slaves, this is unacceptable.

So let us begin a new American tradition. Let us marginalize the bigots who use hatred as a political tool. Xenophobia should not be an effective tool in America. Let us be not only a diverse people, but an open and accepting people as well. Let us celebrate the cultural and religious flexibility that the founding ideals allow, and embrace our differences, not denigrate or diminish them.

Instead of denying Muslim refugees and attacking Arabic speakers, we should show them współczucie, the Polish word for compassion. That is how Grandma, who loved irrespective of race, religion and even sexual orientation, would have wanted it.

The Presidential Race We Deserve

The political discourse of shouting, speaking in platitudes, making vague and nebulous claims, blatant lies, mis-information, and xenophobia has dominated this election cycle. Individually none of this is new in politics, but they are combined and accentuated to create the worst political discourse that I can remember. While it is easy to blame particular candidates, demographics, or industries, the blame for the degradation of our national politics lies with We The People.

First, political campaigns react to nothing more strongly than polls, perception, and donations. No political candidate could afford repetitious lying or unapologetic scapegoating if there were either financial or electoral consequences. Relatedly, the ubiquitously vilified American media are largely, at the bottom line, private corporations which aim to turn profits. Contemporary coverage and narratives are more often driven by our desires than by civic duty. Our clicks and views tell outlets what stories will lead to greater ad revenue and bigger audiences.  

Next, our understandable frustration with our economy, foreign policy, and other issues has turned the American people against anyone with prior political experience. This is an erroneous approach. By analogy, if an airplane crashes due to pilot error, no one would fire the pilots and hire accountants—instead, better pilots would be employed. Likewise, we should not replace our current politicians with surgeons, businessmen, or preachers, but instead with better politicians. Indeed, when a plane crashes, hundreds can die in an instant, but when a country is led by misguided policies, thousands can die in needless violence, hunger, or disease. The aversion of the American people toward those with even a basic understanding of legislation and governance has decreased the political discourse among presidential candidates and will undoubtedly decrease how we are served by our government.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, we have allowed ourselves to under-fund crucial programs in civics and humanities at both primary and secondary levels. By viewing education as merely a means to employment, teaching only performance on standardized tests, and obsessing over science and technology education, we habitually let our children down by ignoring coursework and lessons which instill citizenship. Studying the humanities, for example, has been shown to increase empathy, a trait badly needed in our public discourse about immigrants, refugees, and Muslims. Greater requirements and resources for courses in history, political science, and government would create a more informed, more engaged, and more diverse electorate than we have now. More knowledgeable voters would have a greater ability to discern fanciful promises from practical solutions, and have a greater understanding of the context and contents of our Constitution.

From school funding decisions to clicking sensationalist headlines, and from tolerating xenophobic statements to shunning policy nuance, we have built a political discourse that reflects the worst in us. In this election, our candidates represent how little we collectively think about and pay attention to public policy. In order to change our politics, we must change ourselves. Thomas Jefferson tasked us to do so, famously writing, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” It may be too late to change 2016, but by improving our civic knowledge and engagement, we can lay the groundwork for a better 2020 and beyond.

The “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom” Claim to Defend the Constitution. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

Three days ago, a group of armed individuals took occupation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a federal building in remote Oregon. They did so on behalf of fellow ranchers who recently turned themselves in for setting fire to federal land. In both traditional and social media, a national debate has emerged as to how the government should address this situation, and whether those involved are protesters, occupiers, terrorists, insurgents, or a militia. While these are important discussions, at the heart of the matter is an invocation of the U.S. Constitution which has largely been overlooked.

Cliven Bundy, one of the individuals, has argued, “The United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch management.  These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited power.” Thus, Bundy and the others view the federal government’s ownership of the land as unconstitutional. As such, they have now labeled themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

The relevant clause in Article IV of the Constitution that Bundy referenced reads, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…” Bundy proffered no further explanation as to why the refuge does not fall under this language. Regardless, the acquisition of control of federal land within states has long been settled in Supreme Court cases such as Hutchings v. Low, 82 US 77 (1872) (affirming the constitutionality of Yosemite National Park) and Alabama v. Texas, 347 US 272 (1954) (“The power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine.”). Supreme Court decisions are law, which only can be overturned by later Supreme Court rulings or constitutional amendments, not by armed occupation.

As such, allow me to suggest an alternative label for the “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom”: criminals. Under 25 CFR 11.411 a person is liable for criminal trespass if he or she “knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure.” The refuge has now been closed, and they remain in the building. Further, they have the aggravating circumstance of possessing firearms within a federal building while committing a crime, as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. §930(b), which could land them up to five years in prison.

In the United States, processes and institutions exist for the redress of grievances. Government structures are of course not always well-functioning, and civil disobedience is a route other Americans have taken in order to initiate structural changes. However, civil disobedience does not come at the end of a gun barrel. It comes willing to accept the punishment and actions of the state as a means to show onlookers the injustice of the law. By being armed, and declaring a willingness “to kill and be killed”, these individuals present a threat to any federal authority who might arrive to lawfully remove the group from the premises.

Ensuring governmental authority remains limited is an important part of American citizenship, but the “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom” would gain more sympathy if they had a credible claim. They treat the Constitution as a legal code, expecting the document to anticipate all governmental actions in 4,543 words. However, John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland 17 US 316 (1819) that a Constitution contains the “great outlines” of a legal system. So when we read the document looking for absolutist interpretations, “we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.”

The Constitution is not a static document, but comes to us through centuries of adjudication and interpretation. Ignoring the text and the path it has taken since 1787 renders one’s interpretation and analysis incomplete. Our political discourse would benefit greatly from more detailed and nuanced discussions around both the strengths and flaws of our foundational legal document. Committing armed trespass while making vague constitutional references injects no such detail or nuance, and only further obfuscates how the Constitution influences our interactions with each other and our government. 

Safe spaces and court cases: what protesters and professors get wrong on political correctness

The recent protests on college campuses, particularly at the University of Missouri–Columbia and Yale University, targeting insufficient actions to act against racism on the parts of respective administrations, has brought to the fore a complex and important set of questions for all Americans to consider. The rhetoric in both support of, and opposition to, the angered students has made straw men of the arguments on the other side. A more informed and nuanced discussion of the role of free expression in a community with rampant racial tensions could be a step toward understanding between the opposing viewpoints.

The actions at these universities across the country have poured forth stories of the disheartening experiences of black students, both past and present. After a string of high-profile murders of black men at the hands of police officers, the country again finds itself publicly acknowledging the racial tensions that have never truly gone away. However, the story many Americans have received over the past week seems to have been twisted, with those students claiming to be victims of racism being questioned, without similar discourse around those who have been accused of actually creating victims and furthering racial tension. As Virginia Pasley has argued, “Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the students who ask that others consider their feelings and their histories, the ones who don't want to talk to reporters, the ones who would like people to stop wearing Native American headdresses or blackface to Halloween parties.”

However, the creation of safe spaces by protesting students at Mizzou and the outrage of Yale students toward an administrator’s view on racially insensitive Halloween costumes has put free expression and political correctness in the titles of critical commentaries. Shockingly few of these critics, of course, have acknowledged that students at Mizzou may have good reason to distrust the media and its discourse. Many Americans are uncomfortable with addressing race as such, and instead would rather drip of cowardice by denigrating political correctness; a heuristic for defending racial insensitivity. Indeed, these objections to safe spaces and political correctness often come from positions of privilege: those who have experienced no need for safety and for whom culture need not be corrected.

And so the type of political correctness found on the modern university campus is a public attempt toward empathy. Supporters view the wrongs of history as seeds which bring forth the perennial pain of inequality in American society. Political correctness is one step toward denying nourishment to those seeds, in hopes they will not bloom again. Without this empathic listening and a willingness to understand the realities of others, a person with privilege often cannot see their own advantages. Urging politically correct expression, then, is one way of encouraging and displaying an understanding of the lack of socioeconomic privilege that comes with race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, and other differences. It is a way of saying that society is at least trying to recognize hardships based on these immutable characteristics.

But these realities do not render the protesters infallible. Previously, political correctness dealt exclusively with social and private constraints: violators of these norms would be shunned, boycotted, named, and shamed. However, now those seeking to uphold a more socially just culture call for the imposition of legally or institutionally punitive measures on those who utter undesired expression. This is a fundamental shift.

American law is based on philosophical liberalism, which requires the accommodation of contrary views for consideration in the marketplace of ideas. While free expression is not absolute in the U.S., protections remain broad. When striking down a statute aimed at banning cross burning, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in a 2003 case that the government can justifiably limit “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals”. This “serious expression” of an intent to commit violence is a very specific standard for limiting expression. In 2011 the Court found the Westboro Baptist Church protected by the First Amendment when protesting a soldier’s funeral with outrageous signage. It held that the group had the right to address public issues on public property in a peaceful manner. The police can, at times, punish an expressive act for the potential results or context of that speech, but vanishingly rarely for the content thereof.

Is our legal tradition at odds with state-enforced political correctness? UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh seems to think so, objecting to the Mizzou university police’s request for the reporting of “hurtful” speech. University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone would agree, arguing that no university should take positions on matters of substance. One Mizzou professor has accused the student protesters of having an “a la carte” approach to the First Amendment. So while supporters of these student protesters assert that free expression does not equal the freedom to bully, outraged detractors view their political correctness as a denial of legitimate political discourse, and some have gone to hyperbolically compare it to fascism.

The critics, however, have lost sight of their own context. Almost all people have a list of topics not worthy of public debate. Take miscegenation as an example: most modern-day Americans would be troubled by a university giving prominent speaking time to an individual wishing to convince others of its immorality. In classes, we would be troubled if our children were ‘taught the controversy’ that inter-racial marriage may or may not be morally defensible. We do not need to actively censor these ideas; a vast majority feel that society has resolved these issues and moved beyond these discussions. But this is generational; many Americans felt differently about miscegenation only three generations ago. Thus with present college students: what many of them find unworthy topics of serious public discourse (racially insensitive Halloween costumes, for example), older commentators find to be legitimate political issues about which reasonable people may disagree.

The modern challenge of racism is that few people are consciously or actively engaged in overt discriminatory practices which lead to evidenced subjugation of those who are not straight white males. One could sardonically note that blacks just so happen to be arrested, jailed, and killed at astronomical rates, for example. But even if racism is less legally identifiable, it is no less important to combat. Advocating for political correct expression sets the tone of acceptable discourse in society. However, involving the machinery of the state to compel socially responsible expression creates a conflict between social justice and individual liberty. Resolving that conflict in favor of social justice would require a wider re-cognition of the American legal system, which is largely based on individual liberty.

The institution of American law, of course, has been created, shaped, and maintained nearly exclusively by white males, many of whom view their job as simply calling balls and strikes. This is a problematic claim that one can and should hold inherently objective views, with no subjective reflection of one’s experiences. There rarely exists the recognition that a biased strike-zone renders the mere calling of balls and strikes an act of bias itself. Thus, yelling ‘First Amendment!’ at students of color when they demand safe spaces or institutional condemnation of racist expression comes across as tone deaf to the greater challenge of re-understanding what is fair for all in America. Many of the students making headlines have moved beyond the colorblind fallacy, understanding that race-blind policies entrench the structurally unequal status quo.

Yet here lies the nuance: while the First Amendment was in fact written entirely by white males, many of whom owned slaves, and has been almost exclusively interpreted and applied by white males, it is not inherently void. Rendering it so would be fallacious. It can be considered voidable, and the context of its creation should be understood when assessing it. Such an assessment should subject the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution itself to debate on college campuses, full of vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp criticisms. Students should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open in their discussion of these documents, so that all races, genders, and experiences have a voice. Indeed, an inclusive discourse, where subjective experiences are expressed, where hot emotions clash with cold reason, would be most fitting for the First Amendment. Because that is all it asks for.

Assured Dysfunction: Egypt’s Parliamentary Constituencies Law

This post can also be found at the Atlantic Council.

Earlier this week Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi approved a law to govern the upcoming parliamentary elections, presently scheduled to occur “before the end of March 2015.” The law creates an electoral system which is overly complex, marginalizes political parties, and allows for easy government manipulation. 

In accordance with Article 102 of the Egyptian Constitution, the law calls for the House of Representatives to include 567 members: 120 members chosen from closed party lists, 420 individuals elected by geographic districts, and 27 member appointed by the president. Each elected official will serve a 5-year term. 

Regarding the 120 seats chosen from closed party lists, Egypt will be divided into four large geographic regions. Each party will have a separate list with candidates from each region. The final 120 members must include at least 24 Christians, 21 females, 8 Egyptians living abroad, and 8 handicapped persons. Regarding the 420 individuals, they will be elected as independents from 237 electoral districts. Of those districts, 83 will elect a single representative, 123 will elect two, and 30 will elect three representatives. Presidential spokesperson Alaa Youssef stated that each elected member would “represent equal segments of the electorate.” 

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS TIMELINE June 9: The Parliamentary Election Law is issued by then-interim President Adly Mansour. December 8: The Electoral Districts Committee sent the bill to the cabinet for approval of the proposed 231 electoral districts. December 10: Egypt’s cabinet approved the bill and sent it to the State Council. December 15: the State Council increased the number of independent constituencies to 237 and approved the law. December 16: The High Electoral Commission approved the law. December 22: President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi approved the law.

This electoral system, like others of Egypt’s past, is complicated. The presence of a parallel voting system, similar to that of the 2012 constitution, is not by itself overly complicated. It is used in countries such as Japan and the Philippines. But a parallel voting system which includes new electoral districts of variable district magnitudes (the number of representatives elected in a given district) and four regional party lists is a lot to digest for any political community, especially one which has seen several new constitutions and heads of state within the past four years. The political process, for voters and parties, of learning the incentives of new electoral structure will be gradual, and will be based more on experiences from previous elections than detailed analyses of the current law. 

The benefits of the system’s complication, however, are not sufficient. Regarding district magnitude, only 30 districts will elect three candidates and 80 will elect only one, with the majority electing just two. These variations in district magnitude could have different effects on strategic voting, how centrist or extreme the elected representatives are, and to what extent elected officials deviate from the desires of voters. While each elected official will represent about 131,000 voters, Egyptians in different electoral districts will be asked to vote and think in different ways. As such, Egyptian in districts which are physically much smaller in cities like Cairo and Alexandria will vote differently than Egyptians in physically larger districts in the desert and in Upper Egypt. Generally, the simultaneous use of a majoritarian system in parallel with a proportional system is motivated by the desire to mitigate the drawbacks of each. However, it is unclear if this goal is actually achieved in practice. 

The marginalization of the political influence of parties by restricting them from participating in the majoritarian contests could be one such goal. Only 120 of 567 members of the legislature are allowed to carry the banner of a party. Even if all 120 proportionally-allotted seats were won by a single party, no governing legislative majority would be possible in order to present a unified voice to challenge the political power of the presidency. This was likely a desired result of those who crafted the electoral law: parties are given far fewer seats than they were during the late-2011 through early-2012 legislative elections which were dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. The past electoral strength of Muslim Brotherhood has likely turned the present government sour to political parties, thus leading to a conscious decision to marginalize their potential strength within electoral politics. Nonetheless, the Conference Party supports the law, and theWafd Party, the Reform and ‎Development Party, Egyptian Front, and Democratic Alliance will participate in the election, with many expressing criticism of the law. Both the Egyptian Social Democratic Party and al Dostour Party have opposed the law. 

A related, though distinct, decision which strengthens the present government’s hand is the prevalence of geographically-based representatives. Farid Zahran of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party expressed concern the government might gerrymander, engaging in the splintering and packing of opposition-heavy geographic areas. Zahran is right to be concerned: the drawing of electoral districts by a unitary, partisan body is the easiest way to manipulate the results of an election while maintaining the veil of legitimacy. Moreover, these elections are particularly important as the first parliamentary plebiscite under the 2014 constitution, as they will set the precedent of electoral behavior in all future elections. 

This law creates the need for both voters and parties to perform complex political calculus, nearly eliminates the ability for any party to form a legislative coalition, and gives the government an unchecked ability to draw electoral lines. In the context of a strong executive as both enshrined in the 2014 constitution and as seen in practice, this law assures that Egypt’s legislature will be too dysfunctional and manipulable to act as a legitimate check on executive power.