Ungenutzte Potentiale der „Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund“- Notwendigkeit von Diversitymaßnahmen

In Deutschland wird hochwertiges Potenzial verschwendet. Anstatt Wege zu finden, das Potential das vorhanden ist, auszuschöpfen, beklagt man sich über angebliche „Mängel“.

Das Potenzial, das oft ungenützt bleibt, gehört, unter anderem, den „Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund“. Sie besitzen oft hochkarätige kognitive Fähigkeiten, die sie durch das Ausgesetzsein zu unterschiedliche Kulturen, Herangehensweisen und Sprachen entwickelt haben. Sie haben wissenschaftliche, technische und künstlerische Vorteile, die unbeachtet bleiben. Sie machen einen enormen Anteil vom Talent in Deutschland aus.

Mehr dazu finden Sie unter: http://www.migration-business.de/2013/01/ungenutzte-potentiale-der-menschen-mit-migrationshintergrund-notwendigkeit-von-diversitymassnahmen/


 

“Woher kommen Sie?“ – ein Beispiel für den alltäglichen Rassismus

Woher kommen Sie? Eine scheinbar harmlose Frage. Doch was versteckt sich dahinter? Was möchte der Fragende damit wissen? Woher man kommt oder den ethnischen Hintergrund? Wenn Letzteres: Wieso wird dann nicht direkt danach gefragt?

Mark Terkessidis hat erkannt, dass Rassismus der Apparat ist, der Menschen systematisch zu „Fremden“ macht. Terkessidis, M. (2004): Die Banalität des Rassismus. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

 

„Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund“ werden in Deutschland durch die Frage „woher sie denn kommen“ zu „Fremden„ gemacht. Durch den unkritischen Umgang mit dieser Frage tragen viele von uns – auch Betroffene – zu dem Kreislauf des alltäglichen Rassismus und „Unterordnung“ der „Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund“ bei.

 
Mehr dazu finden Sie unter:

http://www.migazin.de/2013/01/29/woher-kommen-sie-ein-beispiel-fur-den-alltaglichen-rassismus/#comments

 

Moralisch und wissenschaftlich bedenkliche Studien

In Deutschland gibt es einen Überfluss von wissenschaftlich und moralisch zweifelhaften „Integrationsstudien“, die gemäß der Definition von Albert Memmi rassistische Elemente aufweisen.

Mehr dazu finden Sie unter:
http://www.migazin.de/2012/12/18/integration-in-deutschland-moralisch-und-wissenschaftlich-bedenkliche-studien/

Unfaire Rollenverteilung - Die Theorie der selbsterfüllenden Prophezeiung

Die Theorie der selbsterfüllenden Prophezeiung besagt, dass Vorhersagen aufgrund der positiven Rückkopplung zwischen Glauben und Verhalten, von selbst wahr werden.

Mehr dazu finden Sie unter:
http://www.migazin.de/2012/11/19/unfaire-rollenverteilung-die-theorie-der-selbsterfullenden-prophezeiung/

 

Barriers to Inclusion, Diversity and Integration in Germany:

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. 

Diversity and the US Presidential Election—Questioning President Obama’s Identity

On 6 of November 2012, American voters elected President Obama into office, for a second term, reaffirming their historic choice in 2008. Mr. Obama’s path to the Oval office was an extra difficult one, full of questions and challenges about his identity.

In early 2011, the unofficial beginning of 2012 US Presidential Campaign, Donald Trump who had indicated his interest in running for President of the USA on a Republican ticket, accused President Obama not meeting the natural born American requirement of the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) to qualify as a US presidential candidate. President Obama responded by posting his birth certificate (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama-text.html) in the internet as unfortunately, Mr. Trump was not the only one who questioned the President’s natural born citizenship.

The doubt about President Obama’s citizenship, even couple of years after in office, was not the first instance of his identity being questioned.  

There are continuous debates about his “color” and his religion as well.  In 2010, according to a survey conducted by Fox News, one of every five Americans thought that President Obama is a Muslim, in spite of the fact that Mr. Obama repeatedly confirms that he is of Christian faith (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/19/nearly-americans-thinks-obama-muslim-survey-shows/). After nearly four years in office, having repeated over and over that he is a Christian, many people still don’t believe that Mr. Obama is a Christian. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/figuring-faith/post/president-obamas-faith-challenge-at-the-democratic-convention/2012/09/06/ea688c80-f83c-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html).

The discussion is interestingly not only indirectly about whether someone of the Muslim faith is suitable to run for office in the United States, supposedly the country of religious tolerance, but also, about refusing to accept a man’s word for his religious identity; meaning, the public is defining a man as she sees fit and is ascribing him an arbitrary “undesirable” religion. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Romney’s religious identities were ever questioned. Although, there have been discussions about whether Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion was a “suitable” one for a President, no one ever questioned that Mr. Romney was a Mormon.

Last but not least, there are continuing debates over whether Mr. Obama was/is going to be a “black President” or the President Of The People. There are/were not many public debates about whether his running mates Senator McCain (in 2008), Mr. Romney (in 2012) or all the other “white men” in the past who ran the country were going to be a “white President” or the President of the People.

Even more ironic than the continuing public attack on President Obama’s identity is that, on the one hand, Mr. Obama seems to be “too black” to run the country but at the same time, the US public also wonders if President Obama is “black enough” (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html).

Stanley Crouch wrote in New York Daily News that “Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.” (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-11-02/news/18339455_1_black-world-alan-keyes-people-of-african-descent).

The actor Morgan Freeman recently said that President Obama was not the first black president of the USA (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/156212527/morgan-freeman-no-black-president-for-u-s-yet).  

It may be correct that Mr. Obama does not share a heritage with the African American community in the USA. However, for some taxi drivers or HR managers in Kansas City, he is a “black man.”

Among other, the debates underline that President Obama has many traits that are still considered questionable in the USA. His “foreign” name, his “dark skin”— traits that limit access to opportunities, that are a sources of everyday discrimination and injustice.

President Obama’s biggest accomplishment shall always be that he overcame the odds against him—his name, his “color,” his age, his perceived religion—and became the President of the USA. One will never be able to exactly measure his positive impact as a role model on African Americans and other minorities, but one should remember that he has changed the course of history. As—at least in regard to his presidency—he did overcome racism and other bigotry, along with him, so did the country.  

Because of President Obama, at least one 8-year-old boy has found his role model in the Oval Office. He can identify himself with this man: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/indelible-image-of-a-boys-pat-on-obamas-head-hangs-in-white-house.html?_r=0 (at the time when the picture was taken, the child was 5-years old). Maybe he too, will be President some day?

 

Barriers to Inclusion, Diversity and Integration in Germany:

Part 1: the Unforgiving German Language

Us Germans seem to be very proud that our language is such a difficult, unforgiving, and exclusive one; a fact we like to emphasize. The exclusivity of our language gives the “native speakers” a heads up, some sense of superiority toward someone who is not a native German speaker. We often take the liberty to correct non-native speakers while they are speaking; putting ourselves in an undeserved and inappropriate position of superiority, discouraging the other person from learning the language, and speaking freely. Taking the liberty to correct someone is patronizing and considered extremely rude in many cultures.

The correcting and cultural and linguistic exclusivity make it extremely difficult to learn the German language, let alone feel comfortable speaking it. It can be very alienating to have one's speech constantly corrected. It most likely will result in a decrease in interest in learning the language altogether.

It is easier, for example, to learn American English as most people in the USA, make an attempt to understand what the other person is saying instead of concentrating on the mistakes and taking the liberty to fix them. An expectation of speaking “perfect English” is rather rare. Who speaks a language perfectly in the first place?

Many of us do not speak or write very well in our own language. Our mistakes, however, are judged by different standards than the mistakes of non-native speakers. Language mistakes made by us are “just” language mistakes whereas, mistakes made by minorities are a confirmation of stereotypes, their inability to assimilate, to learn, and integrate into our society.  

Learning German is made even more difficult by our “requirement” of speaking German without an accent. In spite of the fact that most of us have “accents“ or speak a dialect ourselves, a foreign accent is not desirable; making the language even more exclusive. An accent in reality does not have anything to do with how well someone manages a language. Accents should be encouraged as they are a reflection of someone’s identity, not the inability to speak or write in a language. The desire for minorities to speak German accent-free reflects our desire for assimilation versus encouraging and celebrating diversity.

German is a difficult language, among other, due to a severe grammatical complexity, some lack of logic, and a lack of diverse vocabulary. Many words are driven from a word with the same root, making the language extremely confusing to non-native speakers. Here is an example: the word ziehen (to pull) is ascribed to various words: ausziehen (take off or move out), einziehen (i.e. move in), durchziehen (i.e. pull through), entziehen (i.e. deprive) and the list goes on. The articles (der, die, das) do not follow much logic either. A girl (das Mädchen) is, for example, "neutral" whereas a table is "male" (der Tisch). The capitalizations of “nouns” add to the difficulty of the language. There are of course many capitalizations (or not) that do not follow a simple logic but rather make up the exceptions to the rule. An effort to simplify the language back in the late 90ies has failed. Although, many changes were introduced, a simplification was not the result.
 
Instead of making it difficult to learn the language, we should appreciate and encourage learning and concentrate on listening and understanding what others are saying, instead of making them feel bad about their “mistakes."

It may help to remember that nobody speaks “perfect German” in the first place.