Affirmative Action, Racism and the Integration of Ethnic Immigrant Minorities

Presenter: Marco Martiniello, Professor at the University of Lieges in Belgium and Director of the Center of Ethnic Migration Studies in Belgium. Professor Martiniello is also an Associate of the National Fund for Scientific Research in Belgium and a member of a senior researchers team working with the Migration Policy Institute (MPI).

Introduction:

Over the last decade, various European countries have developed and implemented forms of affirmative action without necessarily explicitly recognizing the nature of their programmes.

Some thinkers and researchers have looked comparatively at the potential usefulness of US-style affirmative action policies in Europe. The question remains as to whether American perspectives on affirmative action are relevant in the European context and whether those perspectives are appropriate in light of current European immigration and integration issues.

Professor Martiniello provided nuanced and comparative arguments on US affirmative action with a European perspective. In order to determine the relevance of importing US affirmative action perspectives to Europe, he addressed the following points and questions:

• What is the relevance of comparing US and EU perspectives on affirmative action? Is it important to learn from US experience with affirmative action in the EU context? Can we learn from each other?
• How should we define and conceptualize affirmative action? Why maintain the term of 'affirmative action' and not adopt an alternative such as 'diversity' for instance?
• Which arguments are used in attempts to discourage the EU from choosing affirmative action? What are the counterarguments?
• In some countries, affirmative action is practiced, but not declared and labeled as being such.

US and European experiences with and perceptions of immigration, integration, race, minority groups and discrimination issues have been shaped according to different structural conditions.

• The United States is a country of immigration and has been built on the premises or large immigration flows. On the contrary, European states were already well established when they found themselves exposed to large-scale immigration;
• Europe has no history which is directly comparable to the legacy of slavery in America;
• The United States were a form of colony while many of the EU Member States were colonial powers;
• The place of religion is different;
• The role of the welfare state is different as is the level of protection enjoyed by European populations and immigrants;
• Regional integration processes are distinctly different between the US and Europe. European integration in the EU is primarily institutional, while the US is mostly oriented towards economic integration at a regional level (NAFTA);
• While US national unity is not seriously challenged, the EU is not a nation and is experiencing separatist and nationalist forces.

Similarities are also noticeable. Both areas are magnets for potential migrants. They also demonstrate similar contradictions when dealing with immigration and integration issues. On the one hand, they both show segregation, ghettoization and fragmentation in immigration management. On the other hand, they attempt to build bridges with minority groups. Finally, state actions to solve post-immigration issues are limited in both countries.

These similarities should encourage the development of dialogues between the US and Europe on affirmative action. Both could learn from each other's experiences.

Defining Affirmative Action:

Prof. Martiniello's definition of affirmative action is nuanced. It allows adaptability to particular circumstances. Affirmative action should present a broad set of social policies aimed at reversing historical trends that have placed minority groups in a disadvantageous position in work, education and political institutions. Affirmative action should also grant better access to groups affected by discrimination.

Established Arguments against the Implementation of Affirmative Action Policies in Europe and Prof. Martiniello's Counterarguments:

• Argument: The high number of illegal and long-term residents who do not enjoy citizenship rights makes it premature to implement affirmative action in Europe. Europe should resolve this issue before implementing affirmative action.
  Counterargument: From 1945 to 1973, Europe experienced extensive flows of immigrants who have settled and gained citizenship including colonial and pos-colonial immigrants. In addition, over the last 20 years, countries have started to liberalize their citizenship laws. The real problem is that even when immigrants naturalize they are not granted the same rights as other citizens and face discrimination. Affirmative action takes on added significance in this context.
• Argument: The US Supreme Court has had a very important role in shaping affirmative action. The EU Court of Justice would not be able to take on such as role.
  Counterargument: The European Court of Justice is a powerful and respected institution interpreting European law. In addition, the [not yet ratified] European Constitution has been shaped according to the principles of equality, justice and freedom. Its ratification will give new grounds on which affirmative action could be developed. In parallel, the EU has developed anti-discrimination legislation.
• Argument: Europe cannot implement affirmative action policies because public opinion is too negative towards immigrants and minority groups.
  Counterargument: Hostility towards immigrants and minority groups is present in Europe, but there is still space for change. There is a detrimental lack of communication on policy making in Europe that has to be addressed.

• To continue to implement the current policies knowing that they do not work;
• To abandon anti-discrimination policies;
• To look for alternatives applicable in the EU framework, and consequently, to learn from other countries' experiences with discrimination and affirmative action.

It is important for Europe to study other countries' affirmative action approaches, such as those in Australia, India and the US. But it would be counterproductive to import affirmative action policies, which are only applicable to particular circumstances. Europe has to build its own policy prescriptions relevant to its own social and political context.

Question: How important do you consider the legacy of slavery to be in the US with regard to affirmative action and what effect does it have on ethnic minorities?

Answer: The legacy of slavery is contested in the US. The US still has to address race issues. These issues come back all the time ­ which might indicate in fact the level of impact of this legacy on US policy making. In Europe, there is not such a legacy, but we can claim that as colonial powers, European countries developed slavery in their colonies. We can claim in the case of Belgium that it has had an impact on immigration policies, for example. But colonialism is still a taboo subject in Belgium. It might be that there is still a feeling of guilt.

Question: What do we mean by integration? What do we mean when we talk about equal treatment?

Answer: Integration should mean that immigrants enjoy the same rights and duties. We should not talk about assimilation, but shared opportunities in work and education to contribute to the future of a country whatever your skin color and religion.

The situation of Moroccans in the EU today is similar to the one of African-American. They still do not enjoy the same rights as other, longer-standing minorities. This is very hard to accept in a democracy. We have to be realistic when considering this, however, and recognize that the international situation and debates about Islam do not facilitate progress in this area.