Jun 23rd, 2009
Conversations with Arabs
While at Notre Dame, I met the new Henry Luce Professor of Islamic Studies–the successor to the aborted appointment of Tariq Ramadan. The Ramadan case was instructive in itself; his work visa was summarily revoked because he had once (pre-9/11) made donations to an organization that is NOW (but was not then) on a list of groups that support terrorism (in this case, Hamas). Ramadan pointed out the contradiction that the State Department expected HE should have known about the connection when he made his donation–although the State Department itself didn’t know at that time!
My new acquaintance stated matter-of-factly that all his mail is opened before he receives it. Why, I wondered? Apparently just because of his Arab name. My jaw dropped; my own country is behaving the way East Germany behaved (remember, part of the Evil Empire?)! A scholar friend of mine who was researching in E. Germany in the 80s reported the same experience; usually they steamed open the envelopes, but once they glued several post-it notes back onto a clipping after “investigating.” We expected that from East Germany–but the United States of America? In E. Germany, terrorizing the observees was as important as any information that was gathered; opened mail was just a reminder that “we’re watching you, so be careful!” Is that how our government wants Arabs in this country to feel?
Last night at a local cafe, I ran into a Lebanese student I’ve known for a while. Every time I see this fellow, he makes some sort of light-hearted joke about being a terrorist. But is it really light-hearted; or is it evidence that he, too, has been terrorized? Right now he’s considering studying in Austria, and asked me whether he would be OK there. Maybe he could pretend to be an American, he thought, since his English is good. Sure, I said; but what kind of life is that when you have to “pass” with another identity in order to feel accepted, or even safe?
I feel for my Arab friends, and other non-Arab Muslims (Afghan, Pakistani) who are being profiled and stereotyped every day. I apologize to them all for this country’s failure to uphold its ideals of equality before the law. The only way forward I can see is continued dialogue and education; unfortunately, that burden falls disproportionately on the “suspects.”
15:02 - 6-23-2009
Looks like America is not so special after all when it comes to treating people with respect. Fear drives us to do things against our supposed moral and religious codes. Unfortunatley many American’s would say we are doing the “right” thing!
15:29 - 6-23-2009
Wow, what a shocking revelation! Can I ask how he knows his mail is being opened? I mean, is it still open when he gets it? Or do they re-seal it? I’m surprised because I would think that with all the new technology available, opening mail is a bit archaic. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s okay, still very surprising though.
16:12 - 6-23-2009
It’s that eternal problem in the political realm and national security, which is more important: the nations interest or it’s values. Where is the balance? Do we preserve our values of privacy and equality or do we try to protect our interest and security by (discriminately) opening people’s mail? I am curious though how your new acquaintance knows that his mail is being opened “just because of his Arab name”. Also, I’m pretty sure Iraq is an Arab state
16:27 - 6-23-2009
He knows his mail is being opened because it’s torn open when he receives it. We both assumed it’s because of the name since there is not other reason, and since many of his Arab friends have had the same experience.
You’re correct that most Iraqis are Arabs (75-80% according to the World Factbook), but 20-25% are Kurdish or other ethnicities. The dominant language is Arabic. Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan would be countries / populations that are falling under similar suspicions primarily because they’re Muslim, though none of these are Arab countries.
19:45 - 6-23-2009
“It’s that eternal problem in the political realm and national security, which is more important: the nations interest or it’s values. Where is the balance?”
To me, this is a false choice – our nation’s interest is never impeded by our nation’s values, because upholding our nation’s values is core to our nation’s interest. Now, perhaps you meant that our individual safety might be impeded by our nation’s values. This has always been something that must be considered thoughtfully, not decided rashly, as was evidently the case post 9/11. Clearly, tactics such as opening all “Arabs'” mail crosses the line, and it is arguably a flagrant waste of investigative resources.
10:06 - 8-11-2009
There are a lot of people in the world that cannot be educated out of their beliefs, especially in circumstances where the situation is subjective. i.e. The perceived answer to the question, “What happens after we die?” will affect the way people live now no matter how much education they receive. The fact is that we all die at some point, which tells us nothing about how to live now, unless they think they have the answer to that question. On what basis has one formulated that answer? (Religion, culture, education, family, personal inquiry, etc) Everything a person thinks about the world, hinges on their beliefs about that question. So more education and more dialogue only goes so far until they hit a wall. If someone believes living one way merits eternal reward and living another way merits eternal punishment, it’s awfully hard trying to dialogue someone out of it. However, if we knew what happened then that changes everything; like, if the God of the universe came to earth and told us how to live and what will happen after death. Once one figures out what worldview they believe provides the most convincing and reasonable answer to that question, they will follow it hard. Perhaps your answer to that question results in a religion based on tolerance and acceptance? But for someone else, that might seem like a rather recent western, postmodern, philosophical idea and wouldn’t give it too much weight. Either way, dialogue is a good thing, but perhaps it should start with that first big question and then move from there to questions like why or why not it is OK to check mail for any reason. If one group believes checking mail saves more lives than not checking mail, then you will not convince them out of it on moral grounds. On what grounds have you come to your conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of checking mail based on a profile?
11:24 - 8-11-2009
Michael: we could get into a debate on the right to privacy–it is in fact a felony to open someone else’s mail if you’re not the government!
But my real issue is the profiling. It wasn’t right when we did it to Japanese-Americans in WWII (or German-Americans in both world wars); it’s not right when African-Americans are stopped for driving-while-black (or being housed while black; see Stanley Fish’s remarks on the H.L. Gates case!); and it’s not right to do it to Arabs or Arab-Americans now–at least not based SOLELY on their ethnic identity, without any other reason for suspicion.
Nor do I believe this is merely a subjective issue. If someone “believes” that more lives will be saved than ruined through a discriminatory practice (which would otherwise be illegal or unethical), the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this. I don’t think there is any data to demonstrate that more lives were saved by the internment of Japanese-Americans than lives ruined by that same internment.
14:45 - 8-11-2009
Kristie – I gotta say that after reading this, I am both sympathetic and suspicious. Honestly, I feel that you may have overstated your case, and I’m a bit wary of some things that have been asserted. First, it may be fair to assume that 3/4 of all visa applications get rejected. As much as your colleague may have trusted Mr. Ramadan, contributions to Hamas should have rightly sent up some red flags! While it is in the realm of possibility that the contributions were made innocently, keep in mind that it only took Hamas five years to become armed and militant, and that they have been so since 1992. If visas are so limited, it wouldn’t seem so unfair that a former Hamas contributor might not make the cut. Second, there are about 1.85 million Muslims living in this country. With all due respect to your acquaintance, its a pretty enormous assertion that our gov’t is wading through the mail of all (or even many!) of those with Muslim-sounding names, all without any major investigation or the notice of media or opposing politicians.
I guess my point is this; a former hamas contributer who was denied a visa, a professor who suspects the gov’t of opening his (and other arab’s) mail, and a student who cracks terrorist jokes, are not, I believe, a strong enough argument that Arabs or non-arab muslims are “terrorized” in the United States. Not only do I think that is unfair and overcritical, I actually think that the US does better than most other countries in the world in this respect. There is little ghettoization of muslim communities here as there is in much of Europe, and there are no official limitations placed only religious minorities as there are in the Muslim world.
16:03 - 8-11-2009
My blog posting, reporting on one conversation with a distinguished Arab scholar, wasn’t intended to offer exhaustive proof of “Arab profiling”; it’s one instance.
To learn more about the revocation of Tariq Ramadan’s via, see the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
Revoking a visa is far different from not granting one in the first place. Ramadan never donated money to Hamas; the allegation was that two Palestinian aid organizations to which he donated had been funneling money to Hamas:
“Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens and the Association de Secours Palestinien.[18] The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003.[19] The U.S. Embassy told Ramadan that he “reasonably should have known” that the charities provided money to Hamas. In an article in The Washington Post, Ramadan asked: “How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew?”[18][20][21][22]” [from the Wikipedia article]
It is nothing new for our government to suspect people based on their support of the Palestinians; Edward Said, who never advocated or supported terrorism, nonetheless had a whopping FBI file long before 9/11.