Part 2: Lack of Education about Everyday Racism
and Discrimination
We have a Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency
(Anti-Diskriminerungsstelle des Bundes (ADS) http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/Home/home_node.html) in Germany only since the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeine
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)) came into effect in 2006. Over 81 million people
today are represented by a handful people in the ADS office in Berlin. The
Agency was established due to pressure by the EU. In spite of a critical need
for the agency, the body is underfunded, unpopular, and very controversial.
The General Equal Treatment Act offers
little protection. However, given that discrimination has historically been ignored
in our country, the act has had made a reasonable impact since its coming into
effect. There currently is a discussion to extend the law to offer more protection.
However, subsequent to the general attitude toward the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, a wide-spread support is
lacking, along with financial and educational Resources.
Due to the
higher anti-discrimination standards in the EU, some positive changes are
inevitable, no matter what our position may be. However, since changes imposed
on from “outside” are less effective, it may take a very long time before
anti-discrimination sensitivity becomes more evident. In the meantime, minorities
in our country are destined to continue living their lives facing loss in earnings,
lack of visibility, lack of self-determination, lack of representation, unable
to live up to their potential, marginalized and looked down on.
What is the
reason for the outcry against the Federal
Anti-Discrimination Agency in the first place? Given our history, don’t we
have the moral obligation to be the
leading country in the fight against racism?
The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency is
rejected because it stands for something that the dominant culture is not willing
to recognize.
Here is how
we fight racism: by “pretending” that it is the same as right extremism.
That way, the attention is drawn away from institutions to another group: the
“right extremists.” How well we deal
with right extremism, can be studied at the example of the “Döner-Morde” (Turkish
Döner means Gyros. German Morde is the plural for murder/killings)—a
racist term that was used during the investigation of the killings of 8 Turkish
and a Greek man by a right extremist group between 2000 and 2006. In connection
with these killings, a female German police officer was also killed. Due to its
extent, this event and the disturbing official dealings with it (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/world/europe/german-woman-charged-in-neo-nazi-crime-rampage.html?pagewanted=all) will not be further discussed in
this article.
Because of a
wide-spread denial that discrimination exists, a proper language for
discrimination and related issues has not been established. People
interested in an honest discussion are left with only one choice: to use
English-language terms. English-language terms however, are not very popular in
Germany; especially if a connection to the USA is suspected. Therefore, the
usage of English-language terms often immediately leads to a defensive reaction
and a limited discussion of the pressing issues. A translation of the English
terms into German is not very effective, because of a lack of association with
such translated new terms. A strong, established language for discrimination is
the key to an effective discussion. The lack of such language means that no
wide-ranging effective discussion is taking place. Here are some examples for the limited anti-discrimination and diversity language: in Germany, words “diversity” and “inclusion” are used. However most people do not know what the words or the phrase entails. Both, diversity and inclusion are usually approached from limited perspectives that are preferably not controversial. Diversity is generally used in context of diversity management in organizations. Ethnic and racial diversity are very controversial topics, therefore, diversity management efforts are over proportionately represented by gender or age diversity efforts. Discrimination, in general, is not a preferred topic for diversity discussions. According to a situation, few aspects of diversity are taken at a time and dealt with.
Under inclusion, most of us understand the inclusion of disabled persons only; turning inclusion also into a very limited discussion, inappropriate for what the term should address. These and many more examples explain the “confusion” about diversity and inclusion in Germany. A broad perspective is missing.
Besides the
lack of proper language, most organizations, including the government, do not
have internally established contemporary anti-discrimination procedures. Among
other reasons, they do not have the know-how to establish such procedures
even if they wanted to. Given that the existence of
discrimination and racism has been rejected by a majority of people, and
still is, know-how to do the job was never developed. Therefore, a victim of a
possible discrimination has to consider that during a complaint procedure, she most
likely will end up dealing with people who are not educated about
discrimination, don’t know how to respond and even react with hostility.
Unlike i.e.,
in the USA, moving forward with an anti-discrimination complaint in Germany is most
certainly associated with attorney fees. The burden of proof is on the organization
that allegedly discriminated. However, the initial cost of a possible law suit
is the responsibility of the person who feels discriminated against; discouraging
someone with limited financial means from pursuing her rights. Another
discouraging factor may be that the financial reward for detecting
discrimination is very nominal. The fact that the effort and resources put into
detecting discrimination does not return appropriate financial reward makes
pursuing a complaint even more difficult. It is common that law suits in
Germany don’t yield as much reward as they do i.e. in the USA. Compared to what it may cost to pursue a lawsuit, one needs
to consider if it is "worth" pursuing it in the first place.
The status quo of anti-discrimination is striking, given our status in
Europe and the rest of the world. Germany claims to be the leader in many disciplines, but why are we so
backward when it comes to dealing with discrimination and racism?
The idea of
equal treatment is not new in Germany.
It has been anchored in the German Constitution (Basic Law) (Article 3,
Paragraph 3) since 1949, however has had little to no public attention until
recently. For example, practices such as racial profiling at clubs have been
standard procedure and continue to take place, in spite of the General Equal Treatment Act as many club
owners either don’t know that racial profiling for entry to a club is illegal
or don’t care that it is because the number of complaints are very limited and
the fines for breaking the law are nominal.
As late as end
of October 2012, an upper administrative court in Koblenz overruled a decision
that was made beginning of the year, that racial profiling by the police was a
lawful measure (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-german-court-forbids-police-checks-based-on-skin-color-a-864455.html). Today, due to the lack of a
formal ruling, racial profiling remains a grey area (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/germany-neo-nazi-investigation-institutional-racism).
Regardless
of the resistance and lack of education about discrimination, there is one
aspect of “diversity” that is a popular discussion topic in Germany:
“integration.” Integration is non-controversial and comfortable way to discuss
the lack of diversity and representation of minorities. This discussion revolves around “blaming”
minorities and their lack of language and other skills for the missing
representation in the society.
As opposed
to the severe lack of studies and education about discrimination there is an
over-supply of studies related to integration. Studies which document that the
minorities, especially the “Turks” are unable to integrate into our society (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article7222075/Tuerken-sind-die-Sorgenkinder-der-Integration.html).
Usually, these studies lack explanation that discrimination, ethnocentrism,
oppression, lack of cultural sensitivity and lack of diversity are some of the
major causes of the problem.
On the one
hand, we have inadequate anti-discrimination strategies, policies and
procedures, but on the other, we have a Minister of Integration Migration and Refugees
(Beauftragte für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration). The existence of this
position signifies the importance of integration versus anti-discrimination
efforts. Similar to most decision makers, this Minister too, is (a) white (woman).
As to the
question why minorities are not represented in public institutions and offices,
the official claim is that minorities are difficult to recruit, because they do
not speak German well enough. The language requirement is usually that one
speaks “perfect” German; apparently, something that our minorities are not
capable of, but the “real” Germans are. There is also a claim that minorities simply
do not meet the educational and other qualification-requirements to be hired.
In this
context, it is important to mention that many minorities that are also put into
the category of immigrants/people with migration backgrounds were born and
raised in Germany, have a German passport. They are Germans. The question here
is: why would Germans born and raised in Germany not speak German as well as other
Germans?
Our society
communicates over and over on a daily bases that discrimination is a given.
Racist jokes are made with little or no hesitation. Stereotypes are communicated
as a given.
Due to the
denial that discrimination, every day-, and institutional racism exists,
minorities are left to deal with the severe impact of different forms of
exclusion and hurt on their own. The lack of encouragement, education, standard
operating procedures, and resources to detect and deal with discrimination and
racism sends a clear message that if minorities want to continue to live in our
country they are going to have to put up with the status quo, until the EU
forces us to comply with higher standards.
