The congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Trent Franks of Arizona, Thomas Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) sent a 16-page letter to the State Department demanding an investigation of Abedin’s alleged connections to extremists and their infiltration and influence over the U.S. government.

Abedin, who is 37 years old and of Pakistani descent, was born in the United States. Her husband, former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, is Jewish.

The letter states that Abedin’s late father, mother and brother are “connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations” and “her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making” is cause for “serious security concerns.”

Additionally, the representatives question how Abedin received her security clearance as “the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance.”

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman, compared the allegations with 1950s McCarthyism and an unfounded witch hunt. “It’s like a bizarre game of six degrees of separation. She mentions that her father, who has been dead for two decades, knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who was connected to the Muslim brotherhood in some unspecified way,” Ellison told CBSNews.

Clinton said, according to the Huffington Post, that it is the duty of politicians “to speak out and protect diversity in their countries.”

Clinton praised other Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who have defended Abedin. She said: ”We have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. And we have to continue to do so.”

Abedin’s sister, Heba Abedin, is promoting an online petition on her Twitter account @hebs23 and demanding an apology from Bachmann.

 Leadership Matters 

Clearly defined values, as Clinton stated, send the message to organizations they must have defined values that everyone understands.  The message at the State Department – that bigotry and the false allegations that accompany it are not allowed – comes from Clinton and is consistent. 

DiversityInc has numerous examples of why CEO commitment to diversity and inclusion matters dramatically in an organization. These include the ability to gain buy-in from everyone, including middle managers and white men, and, most importantly, instilling the value of diversity and inclusion to strategic business goals throughout the organization.

Rockwell Collins CEO, President and Chairman Clay Jones recently told DiversityInc:

“We work and have lived in pretty much a male, white dominated industry. So we had to bring in outside thoughts to educate us on how other people think to focus on the value of our differences as opposed to accentuating them for all the wrong reasons.  It was through that training that my own thinking and the thinking of our leadership team really changed.”

Clinton, by publicly outing the five congressional representatives who made false accusations about Abedin, held them up to scrutiny for their actions.

Having a clear policy on what’s legal as well as what’s appropriate is important. Working with HR is also vital to ensure the messages are communicated to employees and there are enforceable penalties for misstatements.

The post Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain Condemn Anti-Muslim Attack on Abedin appeared first on DiversityInc.

The Florida Family Association (FFA), whose website states its mission as to “educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” mounted a campaign to convince corporate advertisers to stop advertising on TLC’s reality show “All-American Muslim.” Lowe’s and kayak.com were the only advertisers—out of 65 that FFA targeted—that caved in, according to numerous news sources. 

On its website, FFA charges that “the show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.”

After pulling its advertising, Lowe’s remained silent for several days as public outrage regarding its decision increased. Lowe’s then publicly explained its decision in a Facebook post on Saturday, saying: “Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting [sic] rod for many of those views … We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.” 

Unfortunately for Lowe’s, the equivocating Facebook comment received more than 28,000 comments—most of them bigoted, anti-Muslim statements or statements supporting the show. 

Shortly after Lowe’s posted its original Facebook comment and allowed the hateful responses to remain on its Facebook page, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)  asked the company to address the furor and to have a meeting with CAIR leaders. Lowe’s did not respond.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national communications director, said in a statement: “If Lowe’s was concerned about spreading hate speech, you would think that they would filter and delete the worst [comments]. It’s hard to tell if leaving them up is intentional or not.” CAIR first sent Lowe’s CEO Robert Niblock a letter Monday, noting the “tremendous controversy” that has been caused by its decisions. 

Lowe’s finally took down the offensive comments Wednesday and promised to monitor its page more. Lowe’s posted this apology: “We wanted to get back to you about our last post and the comments that followed. For several days, our Facebook page has become a forum of debate surrounding a TLC program—and to let us know how you feel. Many of the comments are specifically about Lowe’s advertising decision … many more are about broader political and social issues. Some of the comments have been sharp and disrespectful in tone, but out of respect for the transparency of social media, we let the debate continue. However, we have seen a large volume of comments become more pointed and hateful. As a result, we have taken the step of removing all previous posts and will more tightly filter future comments on this topic. You will be able to respond to this post, but in the spirit of social media, please keep your comments on this Facebook page respectful. We appreciate your understanding. Again, we offer our sincere apology to anyone offended by our advertising business decision or posts on this page.”

As of Thursday morning, more than 4,000 new comments were posted, the majority of them offensive to Muslims. 

What Went Wrong?

Lowe’s claims a commitment to diversity and inclusion, stating: “We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we’re proud of that longstanding commitment.” This must be viewed in light of what we can find on its website.

There is no mention of diversity on the Lowe’s homepage, and a search for “diversity” yields no results. Clicking on the “About Lowe’s” link on the homepage returns no information on diversity, and “diversity” does not appear in the corporate-citizenship, corporate-overview or media areas of their website. A search for the word “diversity” in that area also returns no responses. In the careers area, there are three paragraphs describing a “commitment” to diversity in the broadest and least specific ways. No goals, including any on supplier diversity, are mentioned, and there is no quote about diversity from their CEO.

Lowe’s has not participated in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity survey in the past nine years.

When asked for comment, Lowe’s responded to DiversityInc similarly to what it stated on Facebook. Additionally, Lowe’s said: “Following this development, dozens of companies removed their advertising from the program beginning in late November. Lowe’s made the decision to discontinue our advertising on December 5.” DiversityInc cannot find evidence of “dozens of companies” canceling advertising.

In our opinion, by having no demonstrable understanding of diversity management practices and no stated clarity on its own values, Lowe’s was incapable of making good decisions. By bending to a hate group (the Florida Family Association), Lowe’s became their ally. It’s very difficult to escape repercussions of that kind of association, as Lowe’s learned when allied haters posted thousands of hate-filled comments on its Facebook page. In a misguided attempt to “respect the transparency of social media,” it abdicated its moral responsibility and offended millions of people—both Muslim and non-Muslim.

DiversityInc has two resources that lend clarity to this situation: DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti’s column “Decision Making, Clarity of Values & What Happens When It Goes Horribly Wrong” and a recent DiversityInc panel with two leading experts, “Muslims & Stereotypes: Do They Really Hate Us?“

What are others saying?

Many commentators, civil-rights groups and elected officials also are urging Lowe’s to take more action. Here is what they are saying:

Lowe’s Criticized After Fleeing Muslim Reality Show
The first Muslim elected to Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, condemns Lowe’s for caving to anti-Muslim groups in this Chicago Tribune story.

Conyers Says Lowe’s Has ‘Un-American Values’
Rep. John Conyers, who represents the Dearborn community where the series is filmed, expresses his disappointment in Lowe’s. 

Video: CAIR Director on Lowe’s ‘All-American Muslim’ Controversy
CAIR’s director tells Channel 9 News Now that Lowe’s decision to pull advertising makes way for Muslim hatred to grow among Americans. 

25 Dumbest Comments On Lowe’s Facebook Page About “All-American Muslim”
Buzzfeed.com provides examples of the absurd bigotry that plagued comments on Lowe’s original Facebook post.

Muslims, Supporters Mobilize Against Lowes For TLC Ad Pull
MuslimMatters.org reports on the creation of the #LowesHatesMuslims hashtag on Twitter and ongoing commentary against Lowe’s decision on Twitter.

Don’t Cave to Anti-Muslim Bullies
This is an online petition form to tell Lowe’s CEO to reinstate the ads on “All-American Muslim.”

Lowe’s in Facebook Hell as Racist Comments Pile Up
Adweek reports on the Facebook controversy, providing a handful of examples of the anti-Muslim comments. 

Americans Should Know to Boycott Bigotry
An online opinion column for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette discusses Americans’ “cultural amnesia” toward Muslims and their contributions to modern society.

Russell Simmons Buys ‘All-American Muslim’ Ad Time Abandoned by Lowe’s
Metrotimes’ blog post discusses how the hip-hop mogul bought up Lowe’s space and is calling for a boycott of the company.

Protest Lowe’s Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Gaithersburg, MD
A Facebook event is being held to rally Lowe’s protesters Sunday in one Maryland town.

Lowe’s Faces Backlash Over Pulling Ads From ‘All-American Muslim’
The Los Angeles Times reports that California Sen. Ted Lieu urged Lowe’s to reverse its “bigoted” and “un-American” decision and actress Mia Farrow urged a boycott of Lowe’s via Twitter.

The post Lowe’s Muslim Publicity Gaffe Serves as Case Study of What Not to Do appeared first on DiversityInc.

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti addressed these issues directly with an intense and important panel at DiversityInc’s event. His conversation with two experts on Islam, one Muslim and the other a former CIA agent, brought home the perceptions—and fallacies—of common American hyperbole on Islam.

Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, who is Muslim, is the Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic Studies at American University and was the high commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain. He is the author of “Journey Into America: The Challenge of Islam.”

Dr. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution is an expert on national security, military affairs and the Persian Gulf. He is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and ­the author of “A Path Out of the Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East.”

They affirm that the issue lies not in religion but in cultural misconceptions. Here is what they advised our audience.

For more religious diversity, read “Best Practices on Religiously Inclusive Workplaces,” “Starting Religious Employee-Resource Groups” and the “Laws on Religion, Dress and the Workplace” at DiversityIncBestPractices.com.

VISCONTI: Why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen?

DR. AHMED: This is a question that is an urgent and important one, and we really don’t have the answers. It was a combination of several factors.

The initial thrust for 9/11 was coming primarily from the Middle East. It’s coming from certain Arabs. It’s coming directly with links to the Palestinian-Israeli problem of the monarchies of the Middle East. They’re angered with the perception that the United States is supporting those monarchies.

Very shortly after 9/11 is where it gets complicated. The United States is in a state of war with Afghanistan, and that’s a new creator of conflict that has nothing to do with the Middle East or with 9/11. That complicates it.

We need to be very wary about trying to locate simplistic answers to this really complex and urgent question. We’ve spent a decade looking at it. Unless we really understand what caused it, we are not going to be in a better position to face this coming decade.

How is the Pakistan relationship going to end? We really need to step back and begin to answer this question: Where does it all begin?

Bin Laden or Jinnah?

DR. POLLACK: There are lots of different ways to understand what happened on 9/11. I would urge you to see it as a product of two different things. The immediate cause was Osama bin Laden and the most violent extremists. They do not represent the larger Muslim community. They’ve gotten it into their heads that they need to bring about violent, sudden change in the Muslim world.

What they want is to take the Muslim world back to the seventh century, something painfully few in the Muslim world have any interest in whatsoever. They decided the United States was the force blocking them.

It’s just as important to understand that there is a wider set of issues, a backdrop to not just 9/11 but to the entire phenomenon of this extremist terrorism. The Middle East is full of a great many people who are deeply angry and frustrated with their circumstances. The Arab state system is broken, economically, politically, socially. It is absolutely failing to provide its people with what they need for a decent life. They don’t have jobs, incomes, respect.

They feel a sense of siege from globalization, which is very alien to them. They are ruled over by autocratic regimes that are utterly callous. It is this anger and frustration that in decades past has manifested itself at the extreme in support for terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

What bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri really wanted to do was overthrow their own governments. In that sense, they are very much like the young men and women who rallied in Tahrir Square. The Tahrir Square protestors represent much more than the common Arab—the common Muslim who doesn’t want to kill innocent civilians, who simply wants a better life and to change his or her own economic and political circumstances. They took an incredibly courageous and constructive course of action; bin Laden took a very unproductive, very destructive course of action. Ultimately, they do emanate from this common wellspring of anger and frustration that you see is endemic all across the region.

DR. AHMED: In 1999, I was at Cambridge University and I wrote a paper for “History Today.” I drew two models of Muslim society. One extreme is going to be this character Osama bin Laden who represents anger, violence, confrontation and hatred. On the other side of the spectrum is Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah is the founding father of the modern state of Pakistan. He is Washington, Franklin and Jefferson all rolled into one. Jinnah’s vision is a modern Muslim state. He wants women’s rights, minority rights, respect for the constitution and straightforward democracy. One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln.

The Muslim world is going through a spirit of anger and frustration. The average Muslim within Cairo or Karachi has no hope. He’s either going to follow Osama bin Laden and the revolutions and violence, or he’s going to follow Jinnah and take the path through democracy.

The Muslim world has really decided between these two poles. That is why we have to understand the notion of democracy. The practice of democracy is crucial as much for us here in the United States, who more or less invented these concepts. As for the Muslim world over there, there can be no third part.

‘Nearest Thing to Paradise’

VISCONTI: How much of that struggle do you think is playing out with Muslims here in America?

DR. POLLACK: As I traveled for my project “Journey Into America,” I went to 75 cities. I spent a whole year talking to every kind of American, every kind of Muslim.

Americans would ask me why Muslims hate us, or if a neighbor next door was a potential terrorist. They don’t understand that these very Muslims were here because they were escaping the chaos, the autocracy and the corruption of their own societies.

As far as the Muslims here, this is the nearest thing to paradise. Many Muslims told us privately that this is still the best place in the world to be Muslim.

I am not Muslim. What I see from many of my friends and my colleagues who are Muslims is tremendous pride in what’s going on in the Arab world right now. They feel that they stereotyped themselves because of what happened in their ancestral homelands.

What we’re seeing now is this explosion all across the Arab world. A lot of Muslims in America look at that as being a very positive development for themselves; they see this as what their homelands always could have been.

They love the fact that Americans now see that Muslims in fact do want democracy, and they do want freedom of expression, and they do want all of these wonderful values that we hold dear. Many Muslim Americans tried very hard to make Americans understand that “No, no, no, we’re not backwards. We’re not benighted. We live under oppressive political structures that force us to act in a certain way, but that’s not who we are.”

Where Are the Moderates?

VISCONTI: If you watch certain cable news networks, you’re going to see an extreme perspective of “They hate us. They’re going to attack us.” Americans could reflect and say, “Where are the moderates?” I mean, what you’re saying makes logical sense, but why am I not hearing this?

DR. AHMED: This to me over the last decade is one of the best questions. Where are the moderates and the role of the media? You’re really raising two questions in one.

As far as the moderates are concerned: Who’s leading the revolutions? Young men and women, wearing jeans, carrying cell phones, wanting democracy, wanting participation.

Benazir Bhutto, a personal friend of mine, was a world celebrity. She had been prime minister and the daughter of a prime minister. She decided that democracy and moderation were critical for her country, Pakistan, knowing that she’d be putting her life on the line. When we talk of democracy, we assume that we’re not going to be killed for it. Benazir knew that she could possibly be killed for it. She went back and lost her life.

There’s the urge for democracy in the Muslim world, and there’s the urge to kill it. That dynamic is happening. Let us not fool ourselves. It’s involves us. We’re going to be involved with it, and for the near future.

Now Benazir goes back and sweeps the open elections—that’s a secular party led by a female against the religious parties of Pakistan. What is it telling us? The momentum toward moderation is far stronger than any form of extremism. In our world civilization today, what you’ll see is that a few people can literally drag in civilizations. That’s the danger.

If I go to a synagogue as I did a decade before 9/11, I’ll be attacked by other Muslims. There are a couple of emails, a couple of threatening calls. If I don’t back down, they’ll disappear. That battle is taking place. We are fighting it on every level, every day. If we don’t back out, I’m confident that sooner rather than later moderation and democracy will prevail.

The debate about Islam has now gotten very complicated and involved with American politics, the politics of the Republicans and the Democrats that Islam itself has almost used or distorted or exploited in a way that has nothing to do with Islam.

American Muslims are the classic moderates. They are the guys who should be your bridges and ambassadors to the Muslim world, except that they are being demonized as potential terrorists.

So how is this happening? Perhaps ignorance, misunderstanding, prejudice, policy. Attacking a certain position regarding Islam is also attacking a certain liberal understanding of America.

Now, I’m talking of the politics of America, which has little to do with the Muslim world. To the Muslim world, whether it’s a Republican or Democrat president, it’s the American president. He represents the nation, as he should. Here, politics is slightly different. The prism then is Islam and very often used in this way.

Media Misconceptions

DR. AHMED: Here we are, over half a century, with the same questions. Is it because we are not understanding, or we deliberately don’t want to understand? The so-called “experts” pump this into the media. The media picks it up and it becomes a very powerful story. The media has its own dynamics. They’re not good or bad, or hate you or love you; they just want a story.

Judea Pearl—the father of Danny Pearl, who was savagely killed in Karachi—he and I traveled around and we used to have tremendous interest in the Jewish-Muslim dialogue. We’d ask the media what we should do to get more attention and get more people to listen to us. They actually wanted us to throw chairs at each other or beat each other up.

There are so many good things happening in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in terms of the American interaction there. You won’t hear many of those stories.

The media has played a very strong role in the perceptions of Islam here, which are then picked up abroad and fed to all the extremists’ propaganda against America. When they want to show something against America, that is what they’re showing. They are able to say, “Here you are. These people are abusing your religion, abusing your god, abusing your prophet, abusing your culture. You want to be friends with this country? This country is in the war path against Islam.”

It doesn’t help us, the United States. It doesn’t help our allies, and it squeezes the moderates even further into a corner.

When we begin next time to interact and react to something very negative about other peoples and other cultures, we need to be sensitive to what impact they’ll have here. After all, there are 7 million Muslims who live here as Americans, as citizens. Of the African Americans who’ve been here as long as the people who landed with the Mayflower, 40 to 50 percent of them were actually Muslim. They are now reconverting. They say they are not converting to Islam; they are reverting to Islam and have a very deep sense of being Muslim.

What are we doing when we are actually attacking a civilization where we have our own Muslims here and then our own interests abroad? We have a relationship with the civilization of Islam, which has a billion and a half people and is growing. We have 57 countries and we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Muslim countries. Ask yourselves: Is it a wise policy where we are trying to make friends?

On the one hand, all our presidents constantly say, “We must win hearts and minds.” On the other hand, we’re abusing them, their prophet and their god. That’s not going to make them happy. They are a traditional people and still have respect for traditional culture, traditional elders and traditional faith.

DR. POLLACK: The media does many of the worst things. Imagine what it must be like as an Arab watching the news about the United States.

Just think about your local news … If it bleeds, it leads—stories about crime, sexual depravity, our own extremist politicians. What do you think that the Arab and Muslim world makes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and their more populous views that we as Americans recognize as representing a certain segment of society but not necessarily its entirety? That’s what we get as well.

There are some American stations that play in particular to the sensationalist, that play on the fears of Americans. So too is true in the Arab and Muslim world—different Arabs pick different stations, just as different Americans pick different stations.

Don’t rely on TV for the entirety of your news. There are enormous sources out there. You’ve got to explore them. It will give you a very different view of the world. We have to encourage those in the Muslim world to go beyond what Al Jazeera says as well.

What we find when we actually are able to peer deeply into these different societies is that there are huge numbers of moderates out there. After the United States invaded Iraq, the state department did polls and focus groups with Iraqis right after the fall of Saddam Hussein. What we found was Iraqis overwhelmingly wanted democracy. They wanted all of the same freedoms that we expected.

One of the questions that the State Department asked Iraqis right after the fall of Saddam was “What kind of government do you want? What is your model of what kind of a government you want?” The plurality by far said the United States. The country that got the lowest number on the list? Iran.

We saw the same thing in Egypt, before the fall of Hosni Mubarak. The country that registered as most democratic, with 99 percent of people saying they wanted a democracy, not an autocracy, was Egypt.

When you can actually get at these different issues, when you can actually hear what people have to say, what you find out is that there are lots and lots of models.

For 30 to 40 years, the Arab autocrats and extreme Islamists have had kind of a deal with the devil, where they have pulled society in two different directions. The one thing that they have been united on, the one thing that they have cooperated on, is to absolutely crush the moderate center. The moderate center has always been the greatest threat both to the dictators and to the extreme Islamists. They have both done everything they possibly could to exterminate moderate leaders, to decapitate liberal movements.

There has been this terrible deal between these two to destroy that center, but that center exists and it is very powerful. You’re finally seeing its expression in places like Tahrir Square.

A Definition of Jihad

VISCONTI: When you hear the word “Crusade” or “Jihad,” how would you ask people in the audience to relate to that? How should people think about them?

DR. AHMED: A Jihad literally is the word for “struggle.” Every one of us—whether you’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu—is constantly struggling to make ourselves a better human being. It’s a struggle to elevate yourself spiritually. To make us be a better neighbor, husband, father, wife, whatever; that is the definition of Jihad.

In the popular interpretation, particularly in the media, it’s been picked up as a kind of catch phrase for war, violence, specifically with Muslims. The paradox is that Muslims have not picked it up. Jihad has been corrupted, and we need to be sensitive to where it’s coming from.

The Crusades are something entirely different. The Crusades are to be seen in a historical context. It’s in the context of when European Christian armies came in to the Middle East. We want to make it very clear that while their target was to take back the Holy Lands from the Muslims, Jewish communities and other Christians who were not of their persuasion were also targets.

I’m not sure whether it’s the East and the West or simply marauding armies, but the concept of Crusade has a very negative connotation for the Middle East. When you say Crusade, it really means hordes of people with religious fervor prepared to be very violent. We see how much it is part of our vocabulary when President George W. Bush unwittingly used the term after 9/11.

DR. POLLACK: We need to recognize that certain words have outsized meanings. “Jihad” and “Crusade” have actually become problematic on both sides. I would like to see both societies retire both words.

Crusades start out as religious holy wars. That is the original definition of the word, but it evolves over time. Dwight Eisenhower famously describes the second World War as the Crusade in Europe. Jihad just means struggle. It doesn’t mean holy war. Unfortunately, to westerners, it has come to mean that.

Both sides need to recognize that words that started out as something very different have evolved into something that is very problematic for the other side.

Addressing Fear

VISCONTI: Should Americans be afraid of Muslims? How would you help our audience mitigate that if it comes up in their workplace?

DR. AHMED: We have to understand that those 19 who did that terrible deed had nothing to do with American Muslims. The Muslim world is not a monolith. It’s divided into nations and sects and histories that are totally different. Moroccan history is completely different from Indonesian history, and their interpretation of Islam is completely different.

When we have fear, we’re really reflecting something in ourselves. We are reflecting our own insecurities, and that communicates itself to the whole world.

Think of the trauma of 9/11 and the impact. Therefore, you have the need to overcome that. Fear, in the end, is just something that you, in the end, poison your own system with.

I may be idealistic, but America—and I’m talking about America in the clearest, most positive sense going back to the vision and example of the founding fathers, Washington and Jefferson and Franklin, those extraordinary figures—to me really represents something very different. Something that is almost transcendental—people who are on this different level, almost, of human society.

Were they fearful? I don’t get a hint of fear. They’re in the middle of the birth of the nation. When Washington’s soldiers capture British soldiers who’ve tortured Americans and they brought these British soldiers to Washington and said, “We are going to do the same thing that they did to us,” Washington said, “Absolutely not. We cannot behave like the enemy because we must maintain a higher moral standing, a moral posture.” That is American.

If we are going to behave like neurotic people, and if someone sits and you don’t like his face or his color or the way they are behaving with the rosary, what are we saying about ourselves? Are we the super power that has a role to play on the world stage? Or are we all going to retreat into our fears and to our prejudices and express them, causing hurt to our own people?

If you recall the “Wizard of Oz,” one of the characters didn’t have a heart and the other one didn’t have courage. Are we going to be like those characters? Or are we going to be like Dorothy, much more confident with her little Toto, facing the wicked witch?

Should Americans Fear Sharia?

VISCONTI: Should Americans be afraid of sharia law? How does it fit in with American jurisprudence and governance?

DR. AHMED: Many Americans believe that the sharia is about to be imposed. I ask you, even if all the American Muslims, 2 percent of the population, said “We want the sharia,” can they impose their will on 98 percent in a democracy? It is such an absurd idea and debate and only reflects our fears and our prejudices.

These Muslims are coming from countries that are 90 to 95 percent Muslim. They don’t have the sharia. They can impose sharia through the constitution. Why should they escape their countries, escape the chaos of Islamic laws, to come here and impose it on Americans? This really is to me something so breathtakingly stupid because I just don’t know how to answer it.

Sharia means Islamic jurisprudence. That’s all it means. Like Jewish law, like Christian law, it is a form of interpretation of how we govern our lives, and that is it. I don’t think we should be that frightened of it. We really need to talk about it, work it out and hopefully work it out of our system. What Muslim wants to give that up and bring the religious figures from Iran and Saudi Arabia to rule over us? It doesn’t make sense, and yet there was a concern.

DR. POLLACK: We tend to have in mind a notion that the sharia is a very clear, well-established set of principles, which is also unbelievably harsh and tolerates no interpretation. That is not the case. There were certainly things in the Quran, which are applied literally in Saudi Arabia, about what constitutes an offense and what the punishment for that offense is.

In other aspects, it is unbelievably vague. In terms of how women should dress, the Quran simply states that women should dress modestly. It doesn’t say what percentage of the body needs to be covered, and different Muslim societies have interpreted that injunction very differently.

The sharia is actually much more flexible than most think, and what we often do is substitute the very extreme, inflexible interpretations of certain countries that do not necessarily reflect the larger concept of sharia for this notion.

To go back to Ambassador Ahmed, his example of the “Wizard of Oz,” with lions and tigers and sharia: They’re coming to get us? It’s not that definitive. It is not that rigid. It is an idea and it is a set of ideas that get interpreted by different societies.

When you speak to Muslims, you find that many of them do believe that sharia ought to be part of their legal system. Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that our foreign policy ought to be informed by our common Judeo-Christian values. Yet when we hear Muslims saying that they would like their foreign policy to be informed by their Muslim values, we panic. We are terrified.

It is stunning to me that a nation as religious as the United States sees the same thing in the Muslim world as being unbelievably threatening as a sign of backwardness and oppression.

DR. AHMED: The sharia is not a rigid, ossified block of laws. They’re laws that we can relate to. For example, women under Islamic law must inherit exactly like the men. In tribal societies today, men don’t follow that. The man who’s going to inherit the political power of his father will just keep the land and properties, not giving anything to his sisters.

Here we have a conflict where women say, “We want Islamic law because under Islamic law, I’m entitled to this.” Under Islamic law now, this is the sharia. Under Islamic law, a man must confirm marriage with the wife. The wife must say, “I’m prepared to marry this guy.” Then the marriage is valid in front of witnesses. Today in rural areas, tribal areas, the man will have three, four wives, and he’ll just go and marry a young girl who is not going to be asked because she’s being intimidated.

A woman in Islam in the seventh century had the right to divorce, the right to be in public life, to be a scholar, to be a poet. Now a lot of women in the Muslim world are conscious that their societies don’t give them these privileges and rights. For them, using this part of the sharia becomes a very strong position to start bargaining from.

We must remember that the body of Islamic jurisprudence is huge, and to treat it as one clear-cut block is a mistake.

The Role of Women

VISCONTI: What about the role of women in Islam and in corporate America? How would our audience, if they’re confronted with situations or questions, respond?

DR. AHMED: The role of women in Islam is a fascinating one because it reflects the interplay between the genders, the sexes, culture and history. This is where everything intersects.

Islam began in the seventh century in a tribal society. That is what Muslims constantly go back to. The prophet’s wife Khadija is 15 years older than him. She’s a widow, a very successful business woman. She proposes to him. This challenges all your stereotypes about Muslim wives and husbands. Early Islam establishes the rights I mentioned—rights to inherit property defined by Islamic law, to lead armies. Aisha led armies. The scholarship of Islam, the sayings of the Prophet, all the books of Islam come from Aisha. These women are right out there. Some of the greatest Sufi names are Muslim women, like Rabia.

My thesis studying Muslim history was that wherever Muslim society is a flourishing civilization, Muslim women are out there and contributing with their men, and they have all their rights.

Where Muslim societies are threatened, for example, under colonization in the last two or three centuries in Africa and Asia, Muslim men (and you can put yourselves in their position) are threatened; their wives are locked up. Muslim women find it very uncomfortable to go to the bazaar to do shopping. A soldier may pick them up or insult them, rape them, whatever. The balances in society are then affected.

I gave you the example of Jinnah. When Jinnah creates Pakistan as the governor general, he’s invited to Baluchistan, which is the most tribal of societies in Pakistan. It’s on the border with Afghanistan.

The Baluch are thrilled to see him come. But they are told that he is bringing his sister and his sister walks shoulder-to-shoulder with him. She gave up her career to work with him as a modern woman in the 1930s. He said, “I will not come unless she’s welcomed exactly as I’m welcomed. She will be there representing Pakistan. You either accept us or I’m not coming.”

Jinnah showed the modern Muslim woman for the 1940s in a leadership role. This is what people like Benazir Bhutto are out there fighting for, giving their lives for.

My daughter’s generation is very aware of this and of the fight for their own position in society, and they’re not giving up. It really is very exciting for me as a male to see that lead coming from Muslim women—modern, educated and out there, not prepared to see themselves as in any way second-class citizens.

We have to give women a lot of confidence, a lot of support, and express our gratitude. Post-9/11 is a world dominated mostly by men. The post-9/11 world is Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld over here. In our part of the world, there’s Mubarak in Egypt, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Men dominate the agenda, and unfortunately, we see with that a drive toward confrontation

Mothers, by definition, are the founders of families. They create human life and therefore they care about human life. I really think women have to play a much stronger role—forget the Muslim world—over here in the United States.

It’s Not Really About Religion

DR. POLLACK: One of the biggest mistakes that we make is we tend to look across the world and see differences that we ascribe to religion. Typically, it isn’t religion at all. Islam, like all the world’s religions, is infinitely malleable. Different people can interpret religion in completely different ways. What the scholars who work on religion are increasingly finding is that culture is far more powerful.

One of the greatest social anthropologists of the 20th century was Clifford Geertz. One of his most important works was a book called “Islam Observed.” He looked at Islam in Morocco and compared that to Islam in Indonesia, and then compared them both to Islam in Saudi Arabia. What he found was that Islam in Morocco looked almost nothing like Islam in Indonesia.

How people act is typically determined by their culture much more than some kind of rigid notion of what the religion prescribes. The same is true with the treatment of women all across the Muslim world. It varies from place to place.

When we polled women in the Muslim world, one of the things that’s very striking is that they have the same set of grievances as the men. Their highest concern? Jobs, unemployment, income. It is still a traditional society where the husband is the first expected to work. Then it gets to “Do I have a job? What kind of lives will we lead?”

What they will say is, “You Americans cannot be projecting your own values and your own concerns on us. We have our own hierarchy of needs. Listen to what we are saying. Stop telling us what our needs should be.”

That’s not to say that the emancipation of women is unimportant. It’s just a way of saying that we do need to listen to what they are saying themselves, rather than coming in with our own agendas.

The last point that I would make bears repeating: Muslim women are just people. They are women like other women. What I see so often is the culture much more than the religion itself.

I can point to one woman, a phenomenal employee of mine, Pakistani-American Muslim, who came to me and said, “I really hate to bring this to you. I just want you to be aware that this is going on, and could you help me?” And I said, “Oh, my god! How long has this been going on?” She had been dealing with this unbelievably problematic work situation for nine months.

I have another Muslim woman who I’ll compare her to, also a Pakistani-American Muslim. My god, is she in my face! Someone staples something the wrong way and she comes banging her fist on my desk.

Is the difference between these two women where their ancestors grew up or is it just that these are two very different people with two very different approaches to the world?

It reinforces that central point that we all always have to remember, which is not to stereotype, that people are very different. Societies may behave broadly in this way or that way but the individuals need to be treated as individuals.

The post Muslims & Stereotypes: Do They Really Hate Us? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
Interesting situation in Europe (reference: this article about a Swiss Muslim group demanding that the cross be removed from the Swiss flag). It would be the same as Turkey allowing hundreds of thousands of Christians to immigrate and the Christians demanding the removal of the crescent moon from the Turkish flag. I wonder where you see this going in America?

Answer:
My first thought when I saw this particular article was “Oh, come on.” Anyone who knows Swiss people and Switzerland would know that this is an article about a fringe of a fringe group. The Swiss have the most cohesive culture of any country I’ve been to. No immigrant could miss that—but I think the larger question is a good one.

This reader also asked me how I felt about multiculturalism, so I will answer both questions in this column.

Sure enough, the article cited by the reader was written by a person who is obsessed with Muslims and is busy whipping up fear. In addition, if you go through Nina Rosenwald (Hudson New York’s editor in chief)’s connections, you’ll see she also has an ax to grind when it comes to Muslims. I often use muckety.com to research people; it turned up connections that make this point clear.

However, just because this article is designed to provoke Islamophobia (in a publication devoted to Islamophobia) does not mean that the reader’s overall point is wrong. I think multiculturalism, as practiced by countries in northern Europe and Great Britain, is a failure. Group performance, whether it be in a country or a corporation, requires clear values. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence do a good job for our nation (such a good job that our Constitution is the longest-lived constitution in existence). The best statement of corporate values that I’ve seen is Johnson & Johnson’s credo.

I think it’s imperative that values be succinctly stated, rarely changed and frequently and loudly communicated to everyone (not just newcomers) that it is expected that we all adhere to the stated values. That means you can’t be a good American and expect theocratic dominion, whether you are Muslim or evangelical Christian. The danger, of course, is that the value message can be hyper-extended and turned into Jingoism—or perverted and turned into McCarthyism. In a corporate setting, it can turn into self-justified amoral behavior and result in horrible repercussions for society at large, such as the subprime crisis and Greek crisis (Goldman Sachs “helped” the Greek government hide its debt with swaps)—or huge companies, like GE, which can manipulate tax law to pay no taxes. Overt bad behavior aside, I’ve observed that values-based problems are usually due to imprecise expression of values—or poorly crafted values in general. History shows us that the benefits of concise, clear communications of well-crafted values not only outweighs the potential dangers but creates immense strength.

In my opinion, multiculturalism is economically and politically detrimental. A society does not benefit by fostering enclaves of people who refuse to knit into the society as defined by its stated values. I know that some people will disagree with this, but I also feel that it is the nation’s right to purposefully work toward limiting the operations of those who do not wish to live by the stated values, and that citizenship must overtly include living by our standards as defined by the foundation documents.

In an organization, this means that you cannot have overtly religious management meetings or associations (like the Air Force does) and expect top performance from your “outsiders.” This destruction of performance is a breech of fiduciary responsibility in any organization. In a publicly held company, it is also a breech of fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, which should strictly eliminate detrimental-to-brand-value behavior such as making donations to anti-gay organizations.

Our Constitution defines a cumulative behavior. If we define our values as founded on believing people are created equally and that our rights are given by the creator to the individual, then I don’t understand how you capture someone and fly them to another country to torture them and think it’s somehow OK. I also think there’s a broad swath of Americans who are profoundly ignorant of what the Constitution is. Recent immigrants have to learn what is written in the Constitution; they are likely escaping places that don’t believe people are created equally and endowed by their creator with human rights and therefore cherish what America truly is. In other words, if you come from a place where you have no rights, you’re likely to truly cherish the place that respects your rights—and that is certainly the path that the overwhelming majority of American immigrants have taken for hundreds of years.

The post Why Multiculturalism Fails and What It Means to Corporate America appeared first on DiversityInc.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

Question:
Curious: Had Juan said something to the effect that he’s aware that some people cross the street when they see a group of Black people walking along, I don’t think he would have been fired. In this case, he’s speaking of a stereotype that sadly resonates in 2010.

On the other hand, was Williams simply being honest? Does it make him a bigot instantly for his feelings on being on a plane with Muslims?

Answer:
For those of you who don’t know, Juan Williams was fired from NPR for comments he made on Bill O’Reilly’s show on FOX News. O’Reilly had been under fire for making comments about 9/11 on ABC’s “The View” and Williams tried to help his coworker (Williams is also paid by FOX) by saying, “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil-rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

He was subsequently fired from NPR, and NPR CEO Vivian Schiller gave her reason—this quote is from an article on NPR’s website: “As a reporter, as a host, as a news analyst, you do not comment on stories.”

Schiller said such restraint was a vital part of NPR’s code of ethics, which states that news staffers cannot say things in other public forums that they could not say on NPR’s airwaves as well. “Certainly you have opinions—all human beings have their personal opinions,” Schiller said. “But it is the ideal of journalism that we strive for objectivity so we can best present the positions of people around all parts of the debate to our public so the public can make their own decisions about these issues.”

I think Vivian Schiller has a real problem: In the eyes of the public, the press has moved on from this concept of “objectivity” in the mainstream press. No human being can be objective, and in the overwhelming majority of content created, “journalism” has only had the veneer of objectivism, not the substance of it. In addition, the line between “news” and “entertainment” is gone in the minds of almost all consumers. Indeed, the majority of NPR’s content isn’t objective. What’s objective about Michel Martin’s show? Or Diane Rehm? I think both women are very fair, but they’re not objective—and I wouldn’t listen to almost every one of their shows if they were (love those podcasts). Further, what’s completely objective about The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal? Not much, but I read both. I even subscribe to the website of the bloated provocateur-propagandist, Rush Limbaugh.

The process of diversity management is to stop “objectifying” people and start viewing them as individuals. I don’t think Juan Williams should have been fired. Perhaps he is a bigot (don’t know him well enough to decide), but what he said is certainly bigoted and ignorant. I think he certainly needs to get to know some of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslim people.

But here’s the thing: NPR knew Williams was a rising star at FOX News—and you go to FOX for what? Enlightened dialogue? Reasonable discourse? Intelligent conversation? Please. Feeding fearful people more stuff to scare them and whipping up xenophobia is their trade. Williams’ comments about Muslims fit right in.

If NPR’s CEO said “Juan Williams has persistent problems, he’s alienating our core audience, he doesn’t reflect our values and we just don’t have a place for him anymore,” she would have been on more solid ground.

Given her comments, I don’t think he should have been fired. Is he a bigot? Time will tell.

The post ATWG Answers: Is Juan Williams a Bigot? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Severe

Corporate executive sacked for misuse of company credit cards, not age.  An insurance-company vice president, who was older than 50, gave company-expensed credit cards to his wife and mistress, both of whom used them to make personal purchases. The company discovered this, demanded $15,000 repayment for unauthorized personal use and then fired the executive. The vice president’s replacement was 28 years old. In McLain v. Liberty National Ins. (11th Cir., 2010), the fired vice president sued for age discrimination. But the court dismissed the case, finding that his credit-card misuse was a valid reason for the discharge. 

Read more about corporate accountability, leadership and values among the nation’s most progressive companies. Go to www.DiversityIncBestPractices.com.

Refusal to participate in discrimination investigation nixes case. An employee filed several internal organizational complaints of age discrimination. Subsequently, he was believed to have violated a security rule, spending excessive unexplained time in the computer room. He also repeatedly refused to attend meetings or answer questions in the investigation of the matter, and then he was fired. In Wood v. Summit County Fiscal Office (6th Cir., 2010), the plaintiff sued for age discrimination and retaliation. The court found that his refusal to participate in the investigation was insubordination and a valid reason for discharge. Whether or not the security charges were motivated by retaliation for his earlier age-discrimination complaints, he had a duty to follow the employer’s investigation policy. Bottom line: A plaintiff can challenge unfair discipline or discharge but must usually follow the process through to the end in order to preserve the right to sue.

Bob Gregg, partner in Boardman Law Firm, shares his roundup of diversity-related legal issues. He can be reached at rgregg@boardmanlawfirm.com.

The post Supervisor Slammed for ‘Terrorist’ Slur to Muslim Employee appeared first on DiversityInc.