Panel Response
To: OlenaKushnir; HajerAitgrain; Roberto Celestin; Ben Dimond
From: Ysmeli Rosa
Date: April 22, 2015
Re: Response to Presentation on Islamaphobia
The passion and dedication to the issue were evident in this presentation, and it was refreshing how simple the policies were. Overall, great job developing ideas. Opening the presentation with the definition of Islamaphobia was a smart move and in a classroom filled with millennials, the media portion was very relatable and fun.
As a whole, the argument againstIslamaphobia would have benefited from more structure and conviction. Though the team did provide examples of Islamaphobic acts, more substantial evidence (e.g. violent acts against Muslims, incidents where Muslim civil liberties were violated) would have strengthen their stance. A clarification of why exactly Islamaphobia is a greater problem than another type of prejudice would have tremendously strengthened the argument. This distinction isimportant. Why does Islamaphobia matter and why should it be addressed? How much of this issue is individual prejudice and ignorance and how much is it a concern that requires immediate response?
Responding these questions is essential because the presentation seemed personal and mademore of an emotional plea than an evidence-based one. One of the team members stated that the group was “not here to convince [the panel] that Islamaphobia is a problem.” Convincing the panel that Islamaphobia is a serious issue would have clarified many of the questions that arose during the presentation and would have facilitated the decision-making process.
The suggested polices were very thoughtful and highlighted how much the group cared about eradicating Islamaphobia. The education policy was by far the most proactive measure and one that, if well applied, could really make a difference. A more succinct approach would have made this an exemplary policy. While the team mentioned excellent potential partners, it did not include how these partners would contribute to the mission, financial or otherwise. Had the team included an argument as to how and why university-level students –most of whom are equipped with their own ideas and preferences – would benefit from workshops on Islamaphobia (as opposed to, say, a more receptive and innocent first grader), the argument would have been stronger and more convincing.
The inter-faith outreach is an excellent idea that would promote civility and compassion. However, relating this policy back to Islamaphobia is crucial. The panel needed to be redirected to the topic of Islamaphobia and mixing in other religions was distracting. Again, what sets apart Islamaphobia from prejudice against other religions or creeds? If the intent was just to demonstrate the importance of inter-faith relations, then that should have been the central point of the presentation.
The media policy was the most entertaining but its need was not clearly stated. It seems the public has naturally and voluntarily addressed this issue. How, then, would a policy help, if it would help at all? Who will this policy address? This needs to be clarified.
Finally, it all comes down to the numbers. Clearly stating the desired outcome and including a specific asking amount would make deliberation much easier. Since the finances of these policies where not provided, a decision cannot be made.
This team chose a very ambitious topic and one worthy of discussion but it needs to make a stronger argument for its seriousness. As it is, it seems like Islamaphobia is more of a personal issue than a public one. Broadening the research to show the dreadful effects of Islamaphobia and narrowing the policies with more details would rectify this and make this issue a contender for public policy.