Roundtable on Security and Liberty: Perspectives of Young Leaders Post 9/11, Los Angeles, Calif.: Report for Government Officials and Policy Makers

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff met with 30 young leaders from the local American Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian, and Middle Eastern communities on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles, California. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) hosted the roundtable in collaboration with the USC Office of Religious Life.

Since 9/11, the federal government has increased its engagement efforts with community leaders, civil rights organizations, NGOs, and scholars from these communities to help them understand U.S. Government (USG) procedures and actions and to hear their concerns. The purpose of the roundtable was to allow senior USG officials to communicate with and hear the perspectives of young people. This roundtable was the fourth hosted by CRCL, and the third attended by former Secretary Chertoff.

CRCL selected the participants, ages 18-25, based on nominations it received from civic leaders, community-based organizations, and its network of community contacts. The majority of participants were Muslim and Sikh of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent. This report summarizes their conclusions and recommendations. This report does not state official Department of Homeland Security policy nor does it address legal definitions. Rather, it outlines recommendations made by the young leaders.

Communities and Government Policy

Government officials and invited panelists encouraged the participants to be honest and specific about the government policies, programs, and practices that impacted their communities and to suggest recommendations for improvement. The participants discussed their perceptions of both foreign and domestic policies. For example, they expressed frustration over lack of due process in Guantanamo Bay, unconditional American support for Israel, the Patriot Act, retribution for donating to Islamic charities, and government’s ill treatment of deported community members. They also discussed perceived racial profiling, TSA screening of headwear, full-body imaging at airports, inability to teach about religion in public schools, lack of transparency about policies, longer interviews for Muslims in religious dress during the immigration application process and at ports of entry, naturalization delays for people with Muslim names, visa delays for people from Muslim countries, and the limited effectiveness of the watchlist redress process. Many of these issues, they believed, stem from over-inclusive government policies or lack of cultural competency of government personnel.

Specifically, participants spoke about the government definition of terrorism. Both Sikh and Muslim participants felt that the definition was too vague and broad, allowing innocent people to be impacted. They believed that because government has deemed the International Sikh Youth Federation as a financial supporter of terrorism, for example, it has caused other credible Sikh youth organizations to experience difficulty in gaining approval.

Participants expressed that government chooses the wrong people to target and to trust.  They mentioned that the federal government had mistreated Sami al-Arian, Cat Stevens, and Tariq Ramadan, creating mistrust and making engagement in the wider community difficult. They believe that the government is shooting itself in the foot by denying visas to credible scholars who the country needs to refute terrorist ideology. Moreover, they expressed that some government officials have endorsed certain counter-terrorism experts that have no credibility within the Muslim community and do not speak accurately about Islam. Many of these issues, they believe, do more harm than good for national security and civil liberties.

Department officials noted the participants’ grievances and were able to provide constructive answers for some concerns. For instance, former Secretary Chertoff met with credible Muslim scholars and leaders to seek their input on outreach and their reflection on policy. Furthermore, TSA does not require passengers to undergo full-body imaging, USCIS has dramatically decreased naturalization wait times in the past six months, and TSA in 2009 will implement Secure Flight—a program that will decrease misidentifications during domestic travel and make redress more effective.

According to the participants, the way to create policy more intelligently and end mutual mistrust is through increased engagement. Good government, they explained, is government that listens to the concerns and recommendations of its constituents.  Likewise, effective citizens are active citizens.They also wished that when creating policies, government would be more considerate of the implications and more transparent about the implementation.

Participant Recommendations

• In policy creation, consider both the positive and negative implications of policies on diverse American communities.
• Funnel more resources to ensuring that racial profiling does not happen on the ground.
• Encourage issuance of visas to Islamic scholars who could help American efforts against terrorism.
• Decrease the wait times for visas for people from Muslim countries.

Civil Engagement and Public Service

The session began with participants discussing what civic engagement means to them.  More than just voting, they expressed that civic engagement means helping members of society to work together effectively, including engaging with and working for the government. One participant stressed community service with members of other faiths as a way of building bridges.

Participants agreed that civic engagement and public service were solutions to addressing cultural misunderstanding in government, media, and wider society. Cultural competency training is crucial to create more informed government policy. American institutions, including the government, the workplace, and schools, should actively incorporate cultural competency training. Currently, they see the onus placed on the community to initiate trainings. In their view, all aspects of American society should share the responsibility of creating an informed citizenry.

The participants also acknowledged their role in educating themselves on government policies and to form better relationships with government officials. Discussion leaders encouraged participants to make their voices heard by working for the government, writing to their congressmen and senators, and engaging the government to express grievances and to help create effective solutions.

Some expressed hesitation to engage, as they felt that government had disengaged from credible grass-roots organizations. Others expressed feeling less American after 9/11.  Some of their families had told them not to participate in this roundtable, as government could not be trusted. Many agreed that the root cause of distrust is a lack of information and transparency. For instance, one participant asked why the basis for labeling an organization as a terrorist organization is hidden. Other said that 9/11 pushed Muslim Americans to be more engaged in wider society. One woman wore her hijab (Muslim woman’s headscarf) after 9/11 to identify herself as a positive example of what Muslims truly represent.

Almost all of the young leaders expressed a desire to work for the federal government.  Perceived barriers included lengthy security clearances and disapproval of friends and family. The participants stated that these would not deter them and moreover, community leaders at the roundtable encouraged them to work for government as a way to serve their country and represent their communities.

In his closing discussion, former Secretary Chertoff reiterated that he would continue to encourage state and local governments to incorporate cultural competency training.  Federal government could consider making this a requirement as part of receiving training grants.He also explained that in times of crisis, leaders should call on Americans to do a form of public service. The former secretary emphasized that the best way to build cultural competency is to have people from these communities and others working for the federal government, and not just in civil rights areas.

Participant Recommendations

• Continue to engage young leaders, but include a wider spectrum of religious and ethnic backgrounds.
• Strengthen cultural competency training of federal and local law enforcement.
• Make cultural competency training a requirement to receive a federal government training grant.
• Mandate the Department of Education to incorporate cultural and religious teachings into states’ K-12 curriculums.
• Build cultural competency by recruiting people from diverse communities to work in public service.
• Decrease the current security clearance wait time for people from these communities seeking a job in public service.
• Just like government has created public service announcements (PSAs) to encourage preparedness for disasters, government should create PSAs to build cultural competency and prevent hate crimes.
• Government should increase its levels of engagement with the public via social networking.

Violent Radicalization and Extremism

The discussion leaders for this topic emphasized that America does face a threat from violent extremists. The participants replied by saying that domestic radicalization is possible, but not probable, and is clouded by other issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The majority of violence they have seen since 9/11 is not from extremism, but rather from backlash. If domestic radicalization did occur, some said that it would be a direct result of American foreign policy in Arab and Muslim countries. Others said it may result from Islamophobia. Others said it would be the direct result of foreign influence.

Participants expressed that some groups that may already feel disenfranchised in the United States could be vulnerable to radicalization, particularly in the context of prisons.  In their view, the government should address the issue with increased and effective engagement.

Other participants expressed concern that “violent radicalization and extremism,” was even a topic of discussion. Some participants were insulted that they were asked to speak about it, while the government officials expressed that it was an opportunity to share perceptions on a topic that affects all Americans and that has caused many civil rights concerns for these communities. Participants discussed the negative implications of labeling terrorism as unpatriotic. Another expressed outrage over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and admitted to not feeling sympathetic about American deaths in Iraq.

They did reiterate that radicalization in the United States was not very probable. In their view, Muslims in America are well-integrated, and the U.S. government should help counter Islamophobia. Government and society should also allow Muslim Americans a voice in their government and a chance to define themselves by what they are instead of what they are not. Equally important, Muslim Americans need to seek paths to make their voices heard, as many critics of Islam are currently defining Muslims.

Participants expressed that a lack of discourse on radicalization between Muslim Americans and other ethnic and religious groups has caused tensions. For instance, Jewish and Muslim student groups at the University of California, Irvine did not engage in constructive discourse over their different perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Lack of discourse caused tensions to grow between the student groups. 

According to the participants, government can help society to better understand Muslims by stopping the use of religious terminology to describe terrorism. They viewed the Department terminology paper as tangible progress that resulted from engagement.  They expressed, however, that the effect has not been seen in the media.

Former Secretary Chertoff explained the challenges with finding appropriate terminology to describe terrorism. When Al Qaeda used religious terminology to recruit terrorists and to explain their violence, government could not ignore it. So what terms accurately described this type of terrorism, meant something to the public, but did not vilify all Muslims? Terms like takfirism and khawarij were accurate words, but didn’t mean anything to Americans. He had decided to use “violent Islamist extremism,” but welcomed new recommendations.

One participant agreed that ignoring the religious nexus was impossible; others stated that terrorism should be defined purely as anti-American or as a violent criminal act. Islam, in their mind, is better used to fight terrorism than to define it. A Muslim community leader expressed that Muslim Americans have the responsibility of defining themselves as American and as anti-violence. Participants agreed that they should partner with other minority communities to be activists in solidarity. Terrorism includes eco-terrorism and violence from white supremacists and therefore, affects and involves more than just Muslims.

Participant Recommendations

• Counter Islamophobia inside government by increasing training and preventing racial profiling.
• Focus on violence rather than ideology. Fundamentalism does not mean violence.
• Define terrorism more narrowly and by actions rather than by religion. Terrorism should be defined as anti-American or as a violent or criminal act.
• Senior government leaders should hold themselves accountable for the terminology they use to describe terrorism. Media and wider society look to government leaders as examples.

Media and Hollywood

Living in the Los Angeles area, participants discussed how the media and Hollywood industries should take more responsibility for the terminology they use, the angle of their broadcast, the content they project, and the backgrounds of journalists and actors they hire.

For instance, actors from their communities are often requested for terrorism roles in Hollywood, which perpetuates the idea that members of these communities are terrorists.  They expressed a desire for roles that more accurately portray their communities. A Sikh community leader specifically mentioned his concern that the movie Towelhead will encourage the use of this slur. Participants wanted more international journalists in the American media industry. The New Yorker cover, while meant to be satirical, perpetuated the idea that Obama was a terrorist.

Participants did mention movies and television that they thought accurately portrayed their communities and their issues, including Syriana, The Visitor, Inside Man, Aliens in America, Paradise Now, and Slingshot Hip-Hop. Other movies and television, like 24, Obsession, Don’t Mess with the Zohan, The Seige, Executive Decision, and Rendition were not as accurate. Government officials highlighted that some of these movies and televisions programs also don’t accurately reflect government’s roles.

Everyone agreed that the First Amendment allows for free press and media, and that content should not be controlled. Instead, Muslim American organizations should create a resource center, similar to Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Hollywood Bureau, that producers can utilize when they need accurate information about the communities.

Participant Recommendations

• Government should look to communities rather than media for accurate portrayals of the communities.
• Society, including government, should hold media accountable for accuracy.

Conclusion

After concluding four roundtables, CRCL has seen some common themes, such as the need for government officials to use appropriate terminology, the perception that racial profiling occurs at airports, and the need for increased cultural competency training at all levels of government. This group, however, was particularly passionate in emphasizing the need for a shift in U.S. foreign policy, constituents holding government accountable, and the federal government making recommendations to state and local governments. This group wanted to make the recommendations, but also take the next step of ensuring action. The participants in this roundtable presented greater mistrust of government than other roundtables. Yet, by the end of the discussion, these young leaders also expressed the greatest desire to work for the government out of all of the roundtables.

If you would like more information about the Department roundtable with young leaders, please contact Jenny Presswalla at jenny.presswalla@dhs.gov or 202-684-5194.