Ideas about the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity have been changing worldwide over the past 40 years. The common way to describe these changes is through the concept of "multiculturalism." It has become a widely invoked narrative to explain the evolution of debates about diversity. However, there is a consensus that we are now in a post-multicultural era, although there is disagreement about what comes after multiculturalism.

The goal of the article is to explore and critique this main narrative of the rise and fall of multiculturalism and propose an alternative framework for thinking about the choices we face. They argue that the rise and fall of multiculturalism have been uneven processes, varying depending on the issue and the country involved. To identify a more sustainable model for accommodating diversity, it is crucial to understand these variations.

The main narrative generally states the following points:

1. From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, there was a trend across western democracies towards increased recognition and accommodation of diversity through multiculturalism policies and minority rights.
2. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a retreat from multiculturalism and a reassertion of ideas of nation-building, common values, and unity.
3. This retreat is driven by fears among the majority group that diversity accommodation threatens their way of life. It is also influenced by the belief among the center-left that multiculturalism has failed to address the underlying sources of social, economic, and political exclusion faced by minorities.
4. The center-left has shifted to a discourse emphasizing integration, social cohesion, common values, and shared citizenship.
5. This new approach, often referred to as "post-multiculturalism," seeks to develop a more inclusive national identity while avoiding the oppressive reassertion of nationalist ideologies.

This main narrative is misleading in some respects. It mischaracterizes the nature of multiculturalism experiments, exaggerates the extent of their abandonment, and misidentifies their genuine difficulties and limitations. The article aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to accommodating diversity.

Furthermore, the implications of this debate for international organizations like UNESCO will be discussed, highlighting the need to reassess and adjust their actions based on a more accurate understanding of multiculturalism and its evolution.

What is multiculturalism?

In much of the post-multiculturalism literature, multiculturalism is portrayed as a celebration of ethno-cultural diversity, focusing on customs, traditions, music, and cuisine of different groups.

This view, known as the 3S model (the 3 s's of samosas, steel drums, and saris), is criticized for neglecting issues of economic and political inequality, trivializing cultural differences, and reinforcing power inequalities within minority groups. Post-multiculturalists argue for a shift towards models of citizenship that prioritize political participation, economic opportunities, human rights, individual freedom, inclusive national identities, and cultural change.

However, this critique may not accurately represent the reality of multiculturalism as a set of public policies aimed at redefining the relationship between minorities and the state through anti-discrimination measures, recognition of rights, and empowerment of marginalized groups. Multiculturalism emerged in the late 1960s as part of

This text is about privilege and the unwillingness to acknowledge it. Men are often unwilling to acknowledge their overprivileged position, even though they may recognize that women are disadvantaged. Men may express support for improving the status of women, but they often resist the idea of reducing their own privileges. Denials and taboos surround the discussion of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages, protecting male privilege from being fully acknowledged, addressed, or eliminated.

McIntosh, the author of this article, is a white woman. She reflects on her own experience as a white person and how she was taught to see racism as a disadvantage for others but was not taught to recognize white privilege, which confers advantages upon her. She describes white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that she can rely on every day but was taught to remain oblivious to. This privilege includes various aspects such as representation in media, access to housing and education, protection from discrimination, and being seen as the norm in society.

She acknowledges that recognizing and describing white privilege brings about a sense of accountability. Similar to efforts in women's studies to unveil male privilege and encourage men to relinquish some of their power, acknowledging and addressing white privilege requires action. In this article, the need to reflect on one's own privilege and consider how to reduce or eliminate it is emphasized.

Many privileged individuals are unconscious regarding their oppressiveness. McIntosh herself has explored the ways in which she herself enjoys unearned privileges based on her skin color and how she has been conditioned to be oblivious to their existence. She points out the lack of education on recognizing oneself as an oppressor or as part of an unfair advantage in society.

There are lots of situations in which a white woman benefits from her race. These include being in racially homogeneous company, avoiding mistrust and discrimination, finding housing in desirable areas, being represented in media, having access to education and resources, and numerous other advantages that she can count on due to her skin color.

McIntosh notes that she had initially taken these conditions for granted and did not see them as negative for herself. However, some forms of privilege contribute to dominance and reinforce existing hierarchies. She suggests distinguishing between positive advantages that can be spread and negative advantages that perpetuate inequality. For instance, the feeling of belonging within the human circle should be a shared entitlement rather than a privilege for a few.

It is important to recognize and address unearned advantages and conferred dominance associated with race, sex, and other identity markers. Individuals should examine how these privileges affect daily life and should confront their own privileges, be it related to race, age, class, religion, or other factors. Dominant groups are often taught not to see their privilege, but it is important to unravel embedded forms of advantage.

The Netherlands has been recognized as one of the most progressive countries globally, a point of pride for both politicians and citizens. Initially, Dutch "progressive monoculturalism" was relatively tolerant, but this began to change during the 1990s. This chapter examines the defining aspects of this culturalist perspective on Dutch citizenship, comparing it with the definitions of citizenship in France and the UK. This analysis focuses on opinion articles addressing three themes from the years 2000 to 2009. For each country, the authors selected three national newspapers characterized as follows: (a) conservative with a tendency toward populism, (b) center-oriented and more intellectual, and (c) left-wing, neither intellectual nor populist. The focus is on three themes that have received significant attention in the Netherlands: ex-Muslims/apostasy, homosexuality, and domestic violence. The aim is to examine how debates on these topics have been framed in the countries, drawing comparisons and identifying similarities and differences between the three countries.

How did newspapers frame ex-Muslims?

In the Netherlands, the focus was on the right to "exit Islam" and gained significant momentum after public figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali reported threats and the formation of a committee for ex-Muslims. The debate revolved around apostasy within Islam and the role of political parties in supporting or criticizing ex-Muslims.

In France, the attention on ex-Muslims stemmed from philosopher Robert Redeker's criticism of Islam's closed nature and lack of humanism, which sparked a broader debate on apostasy. Additionally, the public discourse involved Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born Italian journalist who criticized Islamic extremism and defended Europe's Judeo-Christian roots after converting to Roman Catholicism.

In the UK, the focus on ex-Muslims emerged from three events: the knighthood bestowed on Salman Rushdie, the founding of the Council for Ex-Muslims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement about the adoption of Sharia law in the country. These events prompted discussions on freedom of religion and speech, albeit in different directions compared to the other two countries.

However, despite the attention given to ex-Muslims, the issue did not generate significant public debate in France and the UK. In France, the media paid more attention to stories of Christians converting to Islam rather than Muslims converting to Christianity. The UK press covered events related to ex-Muslims in the Netherlands but did not extensively discuss the topic within the country itself.

In the Netherlands, the debate on ex-Muslims was characterized by its intensity. The focus was not on Islam versus Christianity or conversion, but on the clash between religion and secularism. It was commonly accepted that individuals should be free to abandon their religion, and ex-Muslims were portrayed as brave heroes rather

Does wokeness threaten academic freedom?

The controversy surrounding University of Michigan professor Bright Sheng and his screening of the 1965 film version of Othello featuring Laurence Olivier in blackface raises important issues for instructors. The focus of the debate has been on whether Sheng's decision to show the film was justified. However, broader issues such as academic freedom, creating inclusive learning environments, and the potential interference faced by faculty members are at stake.

Teaching in today's classrooms has become increasingly challenging and volatile. Instructors are now judged not only on their teaching abilities but also on their perceived political or ideological perspectives. The use of potentially offensive content or language in the classroom can easily lead to controversy. Apologies may not be sufficient to resolve such issues, and faculty members should not assume unquestioned support from administrators or colleagues.

Despite these challenges, it is crucial not to self-censor and inhibit meaningful discussions. Instructors should be sensitive to students' sensibilities while addressing hot topics thoughtfully and transparently. Building rapport with students and engaging in open dialogue can help prevent conflicts. It is important to explain educational philosophies, terminology, and pedagogical approaches, encouraging students to question and criticize.

Difficult conversations and controversial issues should not be avoided, but rather confronted and addressed as intellectual battlegrounds for ideas. Providing proper warnings and contextualizing potentially controversial content is necessary. Discussions about the politics of knowledge and presenting multiple perspectives on past events can help students develop sophisticated judgments.

Teaching in today's classrooms requires an authoritative approach that combines high expectations with flexibility and responsiveness. It involves listening, engaging, explaining, discussing, and recognizing students' independence, while nurturing and supporting their growth as independent learners.

Overall, navigating the complexities of teaching in sensitive and politically charged environments requires thoughtfulness, transparency, and a commitment to fostering independent thinking and learning.

The far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) was established in the Netherlands in 2006 and has gained significant parliamentary seats in subsequent elections. Led by Geert Wilders, the PVV promotes discriminatory policies against Islam, including a complete stop to immigration from Islamic countries, a ban on new mosques, and the deportation of criminal Muslims. Despite legal controversies, Wilders has garnered public support and has become a prominent figure in Dutch politics. This article examines how Wilders justifies out-group discrimination, focusing on his portrayal of "us" versus "them" and the distinction between Islam as a belief system and Muslims as a group. The analysis draws from Wilders' contributions to parliamentary debates and national newspapers.

How is discrimination justified?

The research on prejudice and discrimination often focuses on individual differences and group-level perceptions, but it tends to overlook the justification of discrimination. While there is some research on legitimizing inter-group ideologies and threat perceptions, it does not explore the intricate process of justifying discrimination. Political leaders play a critical role in defining group distinctions and justifying discriminatory measures. Reicher, Haslam, and Rath proposed a model that outlines the steps leading to collective hate, which I will use to analyze how Geert Wilders justifies discrimination. These steps include defining the in-group, making category distinctions, perceiving a threat, emphasizing in-group virtue, and portraying discrimination as a necessary defense. The analysis considers how Wilders constructs "us" and "them" to support his discriminatory proposals. It's important to note that societal entities can be defined in various ways, beyond personal characteristics or group psychology, and these definitions can help justify discrimination without relying on stereotypes. By examining Wilders' use of Islam as a belief system to argue for discrimination against Muslims as a group, we can understand how he attempts to evade accusations of prejudice.

The analysis examines official parliamentary debates and newspaper articles by Wilders to understand the strategies he uses to defend his proposals and justify discrimination. The material includes verbatim transcripts of four parliamentary debates and Wilders' contributions to national newspapers. The debates cover various topics such as developments within Islamic communities, the movie "Fitna" produced by Wilders, the resignation of a minister, and the government's approach to immigration and the economic crisis. The parliamentary debates provide insight into how politicians defend their viewpoints and the strategies they employ. The analysis draws on rhetorical and critical discursive psychology to explore the social and political consequences of Wilders' discourse. It focuses on the deployment and use of categories in his speech and examines the broad patterns and themes within his talk about social categories. The analysis follows three stages: marking Wilders' contributions, organizing extracts based on category distinctions, and examining how Islam is positioned outside the moral order to justify discrimination.

What are the steps

How to be an antiracist?

In his book "How to Be an Antiracist," Ibram X. Kendi provides his own definitions of racism and antiracism. He argues that a racist is someone who supports racist policies or expresses racist ideas through their actions or inaction. On the other hand, an antiracist is someone who supports antiracist policies or expresses antiracist ideas through their actions or words.

Kendi emphasizes the importance of defining these terms to establish a clear understanding of the principles and goals we strive for. He defines racism as the combination of racist policies and racist ideas that perpetuate and normalize racial inequities. Racist policies refer to measures that create or sustain racial disparities, while antiracist policies are those that promote racial equity among different racial groups.

Kendi also highlights the concept of racial inequity, which occurs when racial groups are not on equal footing. Racial equity, on the other hand, is achieved when all racial groups have relatively equal opportunities and resources.

The author argues against the use of terms like "institutional racism" or "structural racism," favoring the term "racist policy" as a more tangible and direct way to address the problem. He believes that focusing on "racial discrimination" alone overlooks the central agents of racism: the policies and policymakers that perpetuate racial inequities.

Furthermore, Kendi distinguishes between racist and antiracist ideas. Racist ideas suggest the superiority or inferiority of one racial group compared to others, thereby attributing racial inequities to inherent characteristics. In contrast, antiracist ideas promote the belief that racial groups are equal in their differences and that racist policies are responsible for perpetuating racial disparities.

According to Kendi, understanding the differences between racist and antiracist policies, as well as racist and antiracist ideas, enables us to navigate and comprehend the racialized world. He points out that racism extends beyond individual actions and permeates various aspects of society, including climate change policies, healthcare disparities, and voting rights.

In summary, Kendi's definition of being antiracist involves actively supporting and promoting antiracist policies and ideas while recognizing the impact of racist policies and ideas on perpetuating racial inequities. He emphasizes the need for self-awareness, self-criticism, and self-examination to strive towards being antiracist.