|
 olipsism
is only human, and we can all be forgiven for asking sooner or later,
"What does September 11 — and the war it began —
mean for me and my business?" I am no different, but perhaps
the war's impact on the business of the Center for Equal Opportunity
will be of some broader interest.
CEO opposes
discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity, and favors assimilation.
This gives us a conservative agenda in most respects (opposing racial
and ethnic preferences — a.k.a. affirmative action — and
bilingual education), but liberal in some others (generally opposing
racial profiling and favoring relatively liberal immigration policies).
Being anti-discrimination but pro-assimilation may seem at first
to create some tension, but in fact our view has always been that
the two are not only consistent, but mutually reinforcing —
and, indeed, the events of September 11 and their aftermath show
why.
If human beings
are to treat one another well, they need to recognize their common
bonds. One can certainly believe that such bonds exist simply because
we are all human, but as a practical matter it's better if there's
more than that. We will feel closer to our family than to those
of alien cultures a half-world away. That can't be helped.
A promising
bond, especially for purposes of nondiscrimination, is patriotism.
But for it to be effective, it has to mean more than simply being
born here or having once parroted a few words before a magistrate
somewhere. We must share a common commitment to certain political
and moral principles, a common tongue, and a common loyalty. Toleration
is much likelier when we know that the other fellow shares some
bedrock set of beliefs, can be communicated with, and is willing
to salute — even die for — one flag above all others.
This is not to say that Americans should view monarchists, non-English-speakers,
or aliens as subhuman, but it is harder to convince us that such
people are our countrymen and are entitled to be treated as such.
At a minimum, we want to know that our toleration will be reciprocated:
that our beliefs won't provoke a death sentence. All of this
is especially true when our country is at war.
We can be,
should be, and are a multiethnic and pluralistic country —
but America ought not to be multicultural. There are, as I've suggested
before on National Review Online, ten basic principles to which
all Americans must subscribe. They are not outrageous, but they
are irreducible: Don't disparage anyone else's race or ethnicity;
respect women; learn to speak English; be polite; don't break the
law; don't have children out of wedlock; don't demand anything because
of your race, ethnicity, or sex; don't view working and studying
hard as "acting white"; don't hold historical grudges;
and be proud of being an American.
September 11
brought home to us the fact that we live in a world where many would
like to destroy our country and kill our citizens. That is a problem
our military and diplomats must deal with abroad, and they are.
But, meanwhile, Americans in their own country should not have to
live with either the reality, or even a reasonable fear, that their
neighbors are anything less than steadfast in their opposition to
the evil fanatics who have already murdered thousands of us.
Does this mean
that Islamic Arab Americans should be singled out for abuse? To
the contrary: Loyalty is a two-way street, and if these citizens
are to be expected to put America ahead of all other, competing
loyalties, then America cannot abuse them. The government must protect
them from bigots and reaffirm that they are Americans and welcome
ones, too. But, again, loyalty is a two-way street, and so these
Americans must acknowledge that they can maintain neither ties to
nor sympathy with our enemies. It was entirely appropriate, then,
that many Arab Americans went out of their way to condemn terrorists
and affirm their patriotism, and that President Bush went out of
his way to condemn bigotry and affirm the American-ness of
Muslims and Arab Americans.
It will be
more difficult, I am sure, for Americans of Middle Eastern background
or appearance to be patient when the government refuses — as
it must — to turn a blind eye to the fact that a clear and
present danger to America is presented by some Islamic Arabs, and
so unfortunately people with those characteristics (among others)
must be scrutinized especially carefully. This is not bigotry, and
the spokesmen who assert that it is do their "constituents"
no favor. We are talking not about internment camps, but about closer
checks in airport security, and being more likely to get a call
from law-enforcement agents as they comb flight lists and pursue
other leads. Putting up with some polite but undeniably heightened
scrutiny is not an unreasonable request, and should be cheerfully
acceded to.
I don't like
racial profiling, as NRO readers know. I hate that it might be necessary
— principally because of the discrimination it entails, of
course, but also because I know that the Left will take this as
proof of America's racism. Still, I like mass murder even less.
I'd like to assert that government consideration of ethnicity is
never, ever permissible, period. But I can't, because if the stakes
are high enough, it is.
Finally, our
country will be much less secure if it is a patchwork of ethnic
communities that don't speak the same language, and that identify
more with their race or country of origin than with America. This
reaffirms the correctness of the Center for Equal Opportunity's
message: Assimilation is essential, and people should not be encouraged
to assert that they are entitled to special treatment in college
admissions, government contracting, public-school assignments, employment,
or redistricting because of their skin color or ancestry. It's both
ironic and lucky that Arab Americans are the only non-European ethnic
minority that is typically not granted preferential treatment
— lucky, because it would otherwise aggravate tensions that
already exist. America will not be united when it most needs to
be if, on a day-to-day basis, we are at each others' throats, nursing
historical grievances and refusing to be held to common standards.
|
