Modernization, immigration and conservation: counselors gain perspective at high level conference.

"The program--themed A Clash of Cultures: Understanding Life in the Global Village--was a highly stimulating and mind-stretching session," said High Level Conference Chair Marc Louargand, CRE. "We heard from world-class thinkers, writers and Counselors. It was a stellar group, full of energy and ideas."

The following summaries give Counselors who were unable to attend a glimpse into the stirring presentations and conversations that took place July 43-46 in Park City, Utah, and describe the three major themes that emerged: modernization, immigration and conservation.

More information about the program, presentations and how to obtain audio CDs of the sessions are on the CRE Web site at www.cre.org/programs_and_events/high_level_conference.cfm. A downloadable PDF file summarizing the conference sessions is at www.cre.org/publications/the_counselor.cfm

Security, Work, Multicultural Populations and Values

Summary by Karen Davidson, CRE

Moderator: Terrence Wilmer, Ph.D., CRE, The Louis Berger Group Inc.

Panelists: Daniel Rose, CRE, Rose Associates Inc.

Margaret Nydell, Ph.D., professor of Arabic Languages at Georgetown University and author of Understanding Arabs

LISTEN TO THIS SESSION ON THE CRE WEB SITE: www.cre.org/programs_and_events/high_level_conference.cfm

THIS ABSORBING AND THOUGHT-PROVOKING SESSION pointed out the polarization of opinions and obstacles to finding solutions to the threats we face today. CRE Daniel Rose's discussion focused on the assimilation of Muslims in Western society and Margaret Nydell, Ph.D., discussed distinctions among the Arab culture, Islamic religion and radical Muslims.

Rose said divergent and sometimes opposing cultures is an issue that deserves attention. The problem will not go away if we ignore it and could become a growing threat. He cited former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture--not politics--that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture, and save it from itself."

Rose expanded that concept. "The United States today faces three separate confrontations of culture," he said. "The first confrontation, between radical Islamists and the rest of our 'open society,' is a culture clash. The second, between different ethnic or religious groups in our society, and the third, involving new immigrants, are not culture clashes so much as sources of social and economic friction that must be resolved as painlessly and as civilly as possible."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The United States today is facing two separate and distinct types of culture clash. The first is relatively minor and likely to be resolved over time. It involves those who basically accept Western culture. The second is clearly more urgent, and unlikely to be resolved. This threat involves those who seek separation rather than integration, and promote behaviors that Western society cannot tolerate, such as the martyrdom of children, domination, destruction, beheadings, suicide bombings and destruction of artifacts deemed unacceptable to their beliefs, but are revered by others. The criminalization of acts enjoyed by people around the world, such as the recent dictate in Somalia that watching the World Cup soccer games on television was a crime, further underscore cultural differences.

One of the most difficult factors to address is that the terrorists are not only from outside the borders of Western countries, but also from within. Native-born residents of the United Kingdom and Spain--not extremists from faraway totalitarian nations--carried out bombings in those countries. What causes this to happen?

In Western society, rights are tempered by the rights of others. The religious beliefs of radical Muslims are harder to assimilate because they do not accept others' rights to have their own beliefs. Different groups identified largely by strict adherence to religion, such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews, are accepted because their religious practice does not threaten others' rights to believe differently.

Radical Muslims believe everyone who doesn't follow Islamic practices must be destroyed, and that doing so brings martyrdom and rewards. This sect is much more difficult to deal with, Rose said.

Some consider Singapore's approach--that the nation comes before ethic groups--an ideal solution. But can Western society embrace this ideal when tradition places utmost import on the rights of the individual?

"In the United States today, a number of questions perplex us," Rose said, including:

* What do Americans have in common that distinguishes us from other peoples? At one time, the so-called American Creed would have been the answer; today that identity is less ubiquitous.

* Can a cohesive open society be based only on a political and social contract among individuals? Today, some feel legal rights should be ascribed to groups as well as individuals.

* Individuals and groups can have multiple identities: "ascriptive, territorial, economic, cultural, political, social and national," Rose said. To what extent, by law or practice, should we extend to all groups the recognition and approbation they want--and demand?

* In an age of stifling political correctness, to what extent can we discuss these issues openly, frankly and dispassionately without hurling charges of racism, ethnocentrism, sexism or classism?

Western societies are increasingly acknowledging group rights. Evidence of this trend in the U.S. includes recent demonstrations over immigration. To what extent, by law or practice, should governments extend rights and recognition to various groups? Group rights are by nature at odds with the Western tradition of individual rights. Complicating the matter is the fact that individuals and groups can have multiple identities. If every group demands equal treatment, how do we balance the demands of various groups? A nation's single most unifying factor is a common language, yet we cannot demand a common language without offending groups.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HINDERS DISCUSSION OF COMPLEX ISSUES

Considering these questions and the environment in which they exist, the number of taboo subjects has reached an alarming level. We cannot discuss differences among groups or differences among segments of groups. Yet without discussion, we cannot find solutions.

"One can acknowledge the existence of a group known as Hispanics," Rose said, "but it is unacceptable to point out the diverse attitudes and outcomes of pre-Castro Cubans in Miami, South Americans in the Midwest, Mexicans in the Southwest, and Puerto Ricans in New York. One can discuss American blacks, but it is taboo to examine the differing social and economic outcomes of Caribbean immigrants, of recent immigrants from Africa and of native-born American blacks."

Society is treating history and literature as therapy instead of fact. Compensatory history, morale-building and raising the esteem of groups has become paramount.

Terrorism does not reflect traditional Islamic culture, but the acts of extremists have caused many people to associate violence with Islam. Terrible acts in the name of religion, however, are not new. During the Albigensian Crusade in 13th century France, knights asked Arnaud-Amaury how they could tell the good Catholics from the heretics. His reply: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Since then, the Irish Republican Army, Chechen soldiers and Basque separatists have all used violence to further their agendas.

Historically, such fervor has burned out over time. But modern technology fans the flames of radicalism. The Internet distributes propaganda worldwide in an instant, and allows it to continue circulating perpetually, inflaming potential followers around the world.

Groups that are prepared to live harmoniously in Western society will assimilate while retaining their identity. Each group will find its niche based on the way and degree to which they conform to societal norms. Previous immigrant groups did not assimilate immediately, but took several generations. This pattern likely will repeat.

MUSLIMS DON'T EMBRACE ISLAMIC RADICALISM

Nydell said Muslims are not crazy or evil, and Rose's comments do not apply to most Muslims in the United States. Fanatics represent less than 1 percent of Muslims and though that proportion is growing, most Muslims find the actions of fanatics horrifying. The vast majority of Muslims don't hate the United States, but they do understand the grievances that some Muslims express toward Western societies.

Nobody knows how many Muslims live in the U.S. Estimates range from 3 to 7 million; Nydell estimates 5 million. Of U.S. Muslims, only about 15 percent are Arabs, with the balance divided nearly equally among Southeast Asian, African-American, and individuals from other countries including Africa. Approximately 20 percent of the world's population is Muslim.

Islamic and Arab are not the same because religion and ethnicity are not a part of being Arab. Rather, Arabians are all people who speak Arab as a native language. About 70 percent of Arabs are Christian, Nydell said.

Muslim populations tend to be concentrated in areas such as New York, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Washington, D.C. A tendency to cluster by nationality also exists. The majority of Muslims in Texas, for example, are from Southeast Asia; Iranians are the largest Muslim group in California. About two-thirds of Muslims in the U.S. are first-generation immigrants who came to the country after immigration laws were changed in 1965.