Columnists

Beyond the Melting Pot

by RAVINDER SINGH & I.J. SINGH

 

Diversity - as it relates to immigration and the attendant social impact of a profusion of diverse cultures, ethnicity, language and race - seems to be the current buzzword and the focus of much attention today: in the press, in academia, in the workplace, and in the current presidential campaign.

Not surprisingly, each wave of newcomers has been accompanied with a national discourse reflecting the hopes and fears of the natives. As a country, the United States has always had a dichotomous response to immigrants: the promise of a better future, accompanied by suspicions reflecting deeply ingrained racial and ethnic divisions.  

The first flood of  immigrants - an estimated 18 million Europeans between 1890 and 1920  -  was celebrated by Israel Zangwill's Broadway play, The Melting Pot, which  declared  that "America is God's crucible", a melting pot where God was fashioning the "American".

The message - not to mention the title - of Zangwill's play has been an article of faith in the way America views itself, and holds sway even today: the promise that all immigrants can be transformed into "Americans". 

A century later, America is experiencing another influx, but unlike the previous wave of European émigrés, the current surge comes overwhelmingly from Asia and Latin America. The arrival of these immigrants is driving demographic shifts and inter-racial marriages so rapidly that the implications are sure to test the premise of the melting pot.

Time magazine captured this essence in a special issue featuring a young woman on the cover with the caption, "The New Face of America". The woman on the cover was not a real person, but a computer-generated "crossbreed" created by morphing and blending features of men and women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Assimilation a la the melting pot meant little more than conforming to a predominantly "Anglo" society.

Today, the new immigrant can avoid the melting pot altogether. On the contrary, immigrants aspire to preserve their cultural roots and ethnic identity. Where the melting pot was once transforming the immigrant, it is the immigrant that is now changing American society. Even the melting pot metaphor is out of favor and being replaced by terms like "salad bowl",  "mosaic," "organic orchestra", and multiculturalism or pluralism.

Clearly, the "American" is being continuously re-made and changed in ways that the founding fathers may not have imagined: the cybernetic crossbreed on Time's cover is a reality. How will the new face of America shape our society? What will we become? What will it mean to be an American?

Despite politically correct assertions, the recent "browning" of America is viewed by many native-born as a threat to traditional American values.

Fear of the stranger is not new to America. The last immigrant wave engendered a bitter backlash that produced exclusionist laws against the Chinese and other Asians. Many see this new trend as likely to tear the fabric of this society. Some are questioning whether or not we will become a "Balkanized" nation.

The noted historian and social critic Arthur Schlesinger Jr. criticized multiculturalism as a dogma that "belittles Unum and glorifies Pluribus", referring to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum - from the many, one.

The 2008 Presidential campaign has also witnessed public assertions of personal belief by the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. These should be welcomed: they tell us what values define them. 

But when they translate their belief into the statement that we are a Christian people and this is a Christian nation, that is not acceptable. 

Yes, the nation, in its current form  -  which is only a little more than a couple of centuries old -  was founded by Christians, and it largely derives its values from Christian tradition. But that does not make it a Christian nation.  It does not and should not diminish a non-Christian, or even a non-believer like an agnostic or an atheist. 

Such were the values of Thomas Jefferson, clearly enunciated by him and by other like-minded founding fathers of this nation. The inscription "In God We Trust" on our currency, and "One Nation under God" would not find approval in their eyes.

In fact, they did not approve; these words were added in the 1950s during the time of rampant McCarthyism.

A leaf from Sikh teachings would provide the much needed corrective in our approach to diversity. The Sikh Gurus taught and advocated religious and cultural tolerance as the foundation of a diverse society where all are equal (Halimi Raj).

In such a society, gender and color bars  -  that stigmatize so many  -  would have no place. The use of derogatory terms in our language - like the "N" word which was quite acceptable just decades ago, but is an absolute anathema now  -  would be unacceptable; the way we speak reflects our thinking and bias.

Guru Nanak spoke to Hindus and Muslims in their own idiom.

Recently, one of us attended an employer-sponsored workshop on diversity in the workplace. As part of the discussion, participants were asked to choose between the following statements:

"Religion is a diversity issue and should be addressed in the workplace"; and

"Religion is not a diversity issue and should not be an important consideration in the workplace".

Which statement do you think that the lone Keshadhari Sikh attending the conference picked?  The second one, arguing that religion should not be a diversity issue at work.

The Sikh's position surprised many of the participants (a diverse group); they had expected him to make religion a diversity issue at work. This was quite a revelation.

When questioned, the Sikh responded that he did not like the idea of carrying one's religion on one's sleeve.  He was then gently reminded that he was wearing his quite prominently. While the Sikh was completely oblivious of it, the others were obviously quite conscious of the turban on his head.

Certainly, many readers have faced this issue. At times, when caught off guard with such a challenge, a simple response has been: "Oh! The turban on my head?  I don't see it and I forget even what color it is, or that it has anything to do with what I do here".

Recognizable Sikhs, especially male Sikhs, have no doubt been in situations where people found something alarming or disturbing about a man going about life wearing a turban. Sometimes, a sensible discourse may have ensued; at other times, it was just a simple statement that did not allow more than a very brief exchange. During the discussion, it became apparent that people were reluctant to ask questions about the turban, for fear of offending or exposing their own ignorance.

Without question, an employer that shows diversity in its hiring and promotion policies is more in touch with the consciousness of this culture and the global realities than one that does not.  As one of the smaller minorities in the workday world, Sikhs are sensitive to the denial of rights that we all should enjoy without question.  We welcome the existence of agencies like the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. These rights are truly inalienable.

Then what on earth is a Sikh doing arguing that diversity should not be an issue?

In the final analysis, the best acceptance of diversity is to go through life such that one doesn't see that this person is different because she has a hijab on her, or this man is different because he wears a turban, a pony tail or crew cut.  In similar vein, one would not be conscious of the difference in color  - it is only skin pigment, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the person can do his or her job.

With this kind of reasoning then, some people come up with the perennial, "Religion is a private personal matter and should not intrude into public space".  This translates to the popular saying that no one should wear religion on one's sleeve.  Now this is something that one needs to think about.

Members of certain faiths have required special dispensation at work: this could take the form of a special area to offer prayers, to leaving early on special days, to not working around religious holidays. What would you think of this?  Is it religion intruding into public space? 

When an observant Jew, for example, claims that he has the right to attend a medical school and become a physician, but as a Cohen, he demands to be exempt from the requirement to dissect a human body, would you say that this means wearing one's religion on one's sleeve?

If an employer has to make special days, hours or facilities available to accommodate an employee's faith, then the religion is intruding into public space.  Now, that reasoning could be used to argue against the plethora of religious accommodations for holidays, and that issue remains to be explored, but perhaps another time. 

Yes, Sikhs wearing the articles of their faith, including the long, unshorn hair and a turban, are making a public declaration of a private intention, but we would argue that it is not mixing of religion and public life. 

Why? 

There are several arguments. 

Firstly, a Sikh, at that point, is not asking that the rules of society be changed to accommodate his needs. 

Secondly, there is no demonstration by the state or any other properly constituted authority that his code, in any manner or form, hampers society or harms another. 

And finally, clearly, the Sikh code does not shortchange the employer or the employee.  Can the Sikh employee perform just as well as any other employee?  If so, there is no reason to single him out, then to do so would clearly be discrimination.

If no such special accommodations are sought or needed, then the best way to respect diversity is to not see at all the differences that define people  -  whether of ethnicity, race, color, religion or gender.  The workplace must remain blind and neutral in such matters.

The best test of whether a society has incorporated diversity in its fiber is that when hiring people or dealing with them at any level, one is not even aware that they are different.  In other words, when we conduct ourselves such that we no longer divide the world into "them" and "us".   We would understand the meaning of diversity when we can see "us" in "them" and "them" in "us".

Understanding diversity and constant vigilance on this matter is just about the greatest civic virtue and challenge in a secular America.  How, then, to preserve our fundamental unity without discounting the differences that make us distinct?

We cannot think of a better formulation of the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" than the awesome poetry of Guru Gobind Singh:

 

As out of a single fire

Millions of sparks arise;

But fall back in the fire

To come together again;

As from a heap of dust

Grains are swept up

Into the air, and

Fall in a heap of dust;

As out of a single stream

Countless waves arise

And, return to the water;

So from God's form

Emerges all creation

Animate and inanimate

To return to the One again.

                                                [Akal Ustat, p. 87]

 

 

[February 13, 2008]

read other articles in Columnists