EMILIE A European Approach to Multicultural Citizenship: legal, political and educational challenges

1
EMILIEA European Approach to Multicultural
Citizenshiplegal, political and educational
challenges

• Social Cohesion in Europe
• Think Act
• Madrid, 4-5 February 2008
• Dr. Ruby Gropas,
• Research Fellow, Hellenic Foundation for European
  Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)

2
A few words about theEMILIE project

• Funded by FP6, Priority 7
• Research topic CITIZENS-2004-7.2.1 Values and
  religions in Europe
• Project duration July 2006 - July 2009
• Coordinating institute ELIAMEP, Athens, Greece
• For more project information visit
  www.eliamep.gr

• Interdisciplinary project studying experiences of
  9 EU member states with very different
  experiences of migration integration
• Belgium Denmark France
• Germany Greece Latvia
• Poland Spain United Kingdom
• Aims to
• respond to current crisis of multiculturalism
  and the lack of common EU intellectual framework
  to discuss relevant challenges
• elaborate an empirically grounded European
  theoretical model for multiculturalism that is
  appropriate to the European experience

3
Multiculturalism and social cohesion

• European societies are characterised by broad
  ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious
  diversity immigration is a large source of this
  and this is the case across all EU27.
• Common EU challenge how to address challenges
  that arise from this diversity and devise
  policies that aim at minimising disparities,
  social exclusion and polarisation
• This involves rethinking policies, approaches and
  discourses currently in place, and devising new
  strategies. Even involves re-thinking perceptions
  of national identity
• At the same time, not always necessary to
  reinvent the wheel so by identifying best
  practices we can see what has been successful in
  come cases and how this can perhaps be useful for
  similar challenges faced by others.

4
Multiculturalism is already a reality in EU
today policy responses are lagging behind

• Day-to-day interaction with different groups is a
  reality
• 65 had at least one interaction with a person of
  different group in course of a week
• Higher levels of interaction with different
  groups increase appreciation of benefits / value
  of a multicultural society
• What kind of diversity is most commonly
  identified? 48 different ethnicity, 44
  different religion, 42 from other EU M.ST, 36
  from outside EU
• Direct relation between amount of intercultural
  contact and age, level of education and degree of
  urbanisation. Youngest in cities have most
  intercultural encounters
• -gt relevant for future of Europe/ next generation
  of EU citizens
• Attitudes towards cultural diversity among EU
  citizens
• 72 believe that people with different
  backgrounds (ethnic, religious or national)
  enrich the cultural life of their country
• among these 23 consider that cultural diversity
  highly enriches their countrys cultural life
  Lux/ Ire/ Fr have highest levels of agreement
• 83 agree with benefits of intercultural contacts
  while at the same time 2/3 strongly believe that
  own family/cultural traditions should be
  preserved
• Thus, in terms of intercultural openness and
  attachment to traditional values, 55 of
  Europeans have a preference for cultural
  diversity but want the young to keep their roots/
  traditions while 25 have a cosmopolitan approach
  where cultural openness is not linked to
  maintaining own traditions. 13 of EU citizens
  were not open to intercultural dialogue
• Source Flash Eurobarometer Dec 2007

5
EMILIE examines compares 9 different EU
experiences in 3 key policy areas

• 9 EU national experiences
• Belgium, France, UK (long experience/
  institutions re immigrant integration, have
  re-elaborated national identity to incorporate
  cult rel diversity thru different models
  approaches)
• Denmark, Germany (have taken long to develop
  integration processes in spite of long/ large
  immigrant populations particularistic/
  mono-cultural approaches based on egalitarian
  welfare state or mono-cultural identity)
• Greece, Spain (new immigration countries with
  item currently top of the agenda, large
  informal/illegal population integration
  policies long overdue)
• Poland (large both in and out migration, becoming
  new immigration country multiculturalism
  associated with ethnic/ historical minorities)
• Latvia (low migration rates but high of
  stateless persons considered migrants with claims
  that need to be accommodated, multiculturalism
  associated with ethnic/ historical minorities)

• Three case-studies in each
• Educational challenges posed by migration related
  diversity (including multicultural education
  faith schools)
• Legal challenges with special reference to
  discrimination protection in workplace
• Political challenges with special focus on voting
  rights civic participation

6
Special focus on education

• Importance of education for construction of
  national identity, social inclusion and building
  societys future citizens
• Different issues selected in each country
  depending on relevance for particular case,
• for ex. religious education school curricula
  multicultural education policies/ initiatives
  minority language education
• Focus on
• Values discourses understandings of identity
  therefore perceived value-conflicts in
  integrating immigrants what constitutes
  difference
• Question of religion particularly claims of
  Muslim migrants how/whether these are being
  accommodated
• Identify points of tension best practices
• see whether there are cross-cutting European
  dimensions around which value arguments policy
  responses are organised

7
Our approach

• Examined critically assessed approaches to
  multiculturalism policy instruments that have
  been developed in each M. ST.
• Through interviews with stakeholders we have
  tried to identify gaps, corrective measures,
  success cases
• Attempt to sensitivise policy-makers educators
  on main issues that need attention to manage
  cultural diversity

8
Different case studies eventually led us to
similar, common questions / challenges (1/3)

• Identity / values/ religion definition of self
  and other
• How do you incorporate immigration its history
  into the school curricula? In some cases there is
  a connection with colonialist history but there
  are other patterns and pathways that need to also
  be considered.
• Inter/multicultural education how can it be more
  than an ethnic / stereotypical representation
  of difference?
• Can the dialogue lead to mutual and not one-way
  exchange between maj min groups? Should
  language and culture of country of origin courses
  be available for non-immigrant students too in
  order to interculturalise all students?
• Is the European dimension relevant in
  multicultural education agendas?
• What role for religious education in mainstream
  schools? How do you address the reaction/ threat
  felt by dominant religion in the receiving
  society Catholic Church/ Greek Orthodox Church?

9
Different case studies eventually led us to
similar, common questions / challenges (2/3)

• Related practical issues
• What regulation/ state funding is necessary for
  faith schools? To what extent can this be
  (perceived) in conflict with citizenship
  education or secular/ republican principles?
• How can religious practical needs be accommodated
  in schools gender separation? training of
  religious teachers domestic or from abroad?
  Celebration of religious holidays? Availability
  of halal/ kosher food, etc?
• Need to adequately address educational needs of
  new arrivals, immigrant children who have been in
  country for a few years, 2nd/ 3rd generations and
  short term/ uncertain cases (i.e children of
  asylum seekers)

10
Different case studies eventually led us to
similar, common questions / challenges (3/3)

• Wider exclusion/ inclusion challenges
• How do you balance between need to promote social
  cohesion and common, civic values through
  education and criticism of pursuing
  assimilationist approach? ex. DK/ FR
• What is the impact of highly institutionalised /
  monitored non-discrimination directives?
• Are there initiatives that can avoid flight
  from and ghettoisation of schools with immigrant
  populations?
• How can the challenge of poor performance/ low
  achievement by immigrant students be addressed?
• How can educators/ teachers/ school directors be
  prepared/ assisted in their work?
• How do you involve and integrate parents of
  immigrant children?
• How do you de-couple perception that
  underachievement/ learning challenges is not
  migrant or Islam specific?

11
Policy relevant findings across our case studies
(1/3)

• Language, culture history
• Learning language of receiving country is
  priority for inclusion/ participation reception
  support classes for children parents at
  schools
• Important to recognise and accommodate linguistic
  diversity within immigrant population in teaching
  language of receiving country
• Learning of language/ history of origin
  considered necessary for social/ cultural capital
  of student
• Approach multicultural education in holistic way,
  as cross-cutting dimension transcending school
  curricula, disciplines, material, activities
• Critical reflection on subjects like history/
  geography
• Diversification of religious education / or
  making it optional

12
Policy relevant findings across our case studies
(2/3)

• Classes
• Smaller sized classes with two teachers and/ or a
  cultural mediator (for students parents)
• Suggestions for quota policy of 10 but this is
  discriminatory
• Whole-day schools to offer qualified supervision
  in afternoons
• Potential side-effects increase class cohesion
  make schools attractive for majority population
  and minimise ghettoisation of schools

13
Policy relevant findings across our case studies
(3/3)

• Focus on educators and teachers
• Provide on-going training
• Tap into human potential ( those who want to work
  in schools with high percentage immigrants, or
  those with immigrant background), and provide
  recognition/incentives for them
• Institutional support required, cannot leave
  things to initiative and conscience of
  concerned educators and school principals
• Consider monitoring / evaluation of
  implementation of official multicultural approach
• Gap sometimes between implementation practice
• Equally gap between actual realities and how much
  information trickles up to policy-makers

14
And a few last considerations

• Existence of historical minorities affects
  approach to multiculturalist policies
  (assimilation) and perception of threat
• Where first immigration wave consists of
  repatriates and co-ethnic migrants or immigrants
  who are culturally close this creates an
  assimilationist direction in multicultural
  education hard to shed from attitudes
• How do we consider immigrant students? As
  temporary residents? As future citizens of
  receiving country? As citizens of an
  interconnected more global world? How does this
  impact our approach to education and how we
  invest in meeting and addressing the challenges
  that result?

15
EMILIE Team

• Coordinator Hellenic Foundation for European and
  Foreign Policy, ELIAMEP, Athens, Greece Dr.
  Anna Triandafyllidou, Dr. Ruby Gropas
• Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and
  Citizenship, University of Bristol, UK Professor
  Tariq Modood, Mr. Nasar Meer
• National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED),
  Paris, France Dr. Patrick Simon, Dr. Valerie
  Sala-Pala
• Faculty of Cultural Studies, European University
  Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder, Germany Professor
  Werner Schiffauer, Dr. Frauke Miera
• Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies (CEDEM),
  University of Liege, Belgium Dr. Marco
  Martiniello, Dr. Hassan Bousetta
• Department of Social and Political Sciences,
  Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
  Professor Ricard Zapata Barrero, Ms. Nynke De
  Witte
• Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic
  Studies, Riga, Latvia Dr. Ilze Brands Kehris
• Department of Political Studies, University of
  Aarhus, Denmark Dr. Per Mouritzen
• Centre for International Relations, Warsaw,
  Poland Professor Krystyna Iglicka, Ms. Katarzyna
  Gmaj
• THANK YOU!