Two narratives link tolerance and responses to terrorism by Western democracies: one of overreaction, or intolerance, and one of underreaction, or tolerance. As examined by Harvard Law School Professor Martha Minow, unexpected things begin to happen when those narratives are lined up next to each other.
Minow, the Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard, presented the Center for Law, History and Culture’s fifth annual Law and Humanities Distinguished Lecture Jan. 18. She addressed the topic of “Tolerance in an Age of Terrorism” before a gathering of university and USC Law faculty and students in Town and Gown.
“There is nobody in the country that would be better at giving a Law and Humanities talk than Professor Minow,” Dean Edward McCaffery said as he introduced the lecturer. “This is a woman who, among other things, teaches civil procedure, but cares equally about issues of social justice, the way in which law can be a problem and a solution, and has thought very hard and long and well about the problems facing us.”
Through her research, Minow says she found one major narrative -- appearing in pop culture, law review articles and other commentaries -- that says the United States is overreacting to terror. She also heard another narrative that says Europe is underreacting.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Minow said, the U.S. has implemented domestic restrictions on freedom of assembly; targeted protestors and people with a minority or unpopular view; increased surveillance; diminished administrative and judicial oversight; and tightened registration requirements on immigrants, among other moves.
“This is not surprising. This is the story of our time,” Minow said. “And the story of our time is that the government is overreacting -- most explosive are the exposure of secret detention centers and the conditions of the Abu Ghraib prison.”
There are three themes of overreaction by the U.S., Minow said: the intolerance of dissenting opinion; the surveillance of specific populations without checks; and intimidating treatment of non-citizens and targeting of Muslims and Arabs.
Meanwhile, the narrative in Europe describes inaction, Minow noted. She recounted the story of a 19-year-old girl whose family immigrated to Sweden from Iraq. The girl stayed out all night, prompting her family to plan an “honor killing” to avenge their disgrace. Caught before they could follow through, the girl’s father and brother were sentenced to five months of incarceration for the plot .
“People cite this as an example of the kind of appeasement that’s been going on in Europe,” Minow said. “People cite this as evidence that (Europeans) are afraid of offending Muslims, who they assume are behind (terrorist) attacks.”
When the narratives of overreaction and underreaction are juxtaposed, aspects of one can be found in the other, added Minow. For example, Britain already is using facial-recognition technology on its public streets, and its politicians have discussed regulating religious schools. Neither of those options is “even on the table” for discussion in the U.S., Minow said.
“I want to suggest to you that each of these narratives could be told about the other,” Minow said. “I’m going to suggest that we should loosen up the assumption that there’s some kind of relationship between tolerance and overreaction – that we’ve really got two separate problems.”
During her visit to USC Law, Minow also spoke to a group of USC Law faculty about first-year curricular reform. She was part of a group that produced the first major overhaul of Harvard’s curriculum in over a century.
Previous Article
