CPM-T2-Summary PDF

Culture Policy and Management Tessa de Rijck Cindy de Vos Summary Session 1 Hard security issues Threat to the nation-state: - Import of ethnic tensions - Ra...

Culture Policy and Management Tessa de Rijck Cindy de Vos Summary Session 1 Hard security issues Threat to the nation-state: - Import of ethnic tensions - Radicalization - Funding of terrorism Internet explanation: - Definition: Hard security refers to the traditional and tangible aspects of security that involve the use of military force or the threat of force to protect a nation's sovereignty and interests. - Focus Areas: o Military Defense: Involves the use of armed forces, weapons, and military strategies to defend against external threats. o Arms Control: Regulation and limitation of the development, production, testing, and deployment of weapons, especially nuclear weapons. o Border Security: Protection of national borders through physical barriers, surveillance, and military presence. o Alliance Systems: Collaborative defense agreements and military alliances for collective security (e.g., NATO). Soft security issues Risk of destabilizing economic prosperity and national welfare: - Challenges of social integration - Impacts on national identity - Competition in the labour market - Impacts on social services Internet explanation: - Definition: Soft security encompasses non-military and cooperative approaches to address security challenges. It focuses on preventing conflicts, promoting stability, and addressing the root causes of insecurity. - Focus Areas: o Diplomacy: Negotiation and dialogue to resolve disputes, build alliances, and promote international cooperation. o Economic Security: Ensuring economic stability, development, and cooperation to reduce the likelihood of conflict. o Human Security: Protection of individuals and communities from violence, human rights abuses, and non-traditional threats (e.g., health crises, environmental issues).  o Development Assistance: Providing aid and support to promote socio-economic development and address the root causes of instability. o International Organizations: Collaboration through institutions like the United Nations to foster cooperation, peacekeeping, and conflict resolution. “But labelling any issue a security risk has significant implications in terms of the laws, norms, policies, and procedures that become justified in response.” → Need for demographic research Security approaches to migration Extensions of the traditional security approach: Copenhagen school – more holistic, linking individual, state and international system. > wider range of threats, including economic, political, environmental and societal threats. (the non-military view towards security) -> not important for exam Human security – United Nations Development Programme 1994 -> Addressing root causes of (in)security -> Preventative, comprehensive and contextual -> Identifying and reducing threats to human security though protection and empowerment → Freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom to live in dignity Human security approach Acronym -> CHEFPEP Human Security and Migration So how does this relate to the issue of migration? United Nations Commission on Human Security (2003): - Protecting people in violent conflict - Supporting security of people on the move - Protecting and empowering people in post-conflict situations What about human security of migrants (and host populations) in the host country? Human and national security are inextricably linked: - Lack of human security may undermine national security (drive internal conflict) - Lack of national security undermines human security (govt doesn’t deliver basic services) Co-dependency human and national security: - Does human security for migrants help to underpin national security (in affected states)? → - an well-managed migration enhance national security by promoting economic growth, social diversification, and political democracy? Host country – migration and security links Other (more legitimate and easily defensible) links between (irregular) migration and security for host country: 1. Undermining exercise of state sovereignty (border control) 2. Human trafficking (organized crime) 3. Challenges to national resources, identity and models of integration 4. Competition with local population (jobs, housing, etc.) 5. Strain on local environment (e.g., IDP camps) 6. Magnet for population resentment (anti-migrant sentiment) Associated risk: decreased public confidence in the integrity of government policy! Migration can be a threat to national security, under particular circumstances → social demographic research can help form better and more effective national responses Origin country – migration and security links Mostly positive impacts: economic, social, political change Negative impacts: - Re-emergence of conflict (diaspora funding of conflict or certain policy) - Brain-drain (professional expertise) - Brain-drain (moderators and peace builders) - Re-integration of returning migrants (supporting insurgent groups etc.) Migrant perspective Risks to migrants are gendered, aged, and classed (and racialized?) - Feminization of migration (family reunification and feminization of labour) - Irregular migration - Lack of rights and protection > exploitation in 3D (dirty, dangerous, difficult/demeaning) jobs - First victims of financial and other crises Conclusions → Better demographic evidence and research needed to make justifiable claims about migration and security → Why the strong association? → Which groups of migrants? → Under what circumstances → Human Security allows us to look at migration comprehensively and exposes the links between human security and national security Glossary Irregular migration: undocumented migration, “illegal” migration Human Security: human-centric approach to security conceptualized by the UN > protection and empowerment > lack of human security undermines national security > lack of national security (legitimate and functioning govt) undermines human security Internally Displaced Persons (IDP): person fleeing (from conflict, etc.) within borders of one’s own country Refugee: person fleeing (from conflict, etc.) beyond the border of one’s own country Session 2 Terms and definitions: Bias: Intergroup bias refers to a systematic tendency to evaluate one’s own membership group (the in-group) or its members more favourably than a non-membership group (the out-group) or its members. Bias can encompass attitude (prejudice), cognition (stereotyping) and behaviour (discrimination). Prejudice: rigid and irrational generalization about an entire category of people. “You cannot rely on her to be on time because she is from Kenari” Stereotyping: combined prejudices that form an exaggerated image attributed to all members of that group. “Kenari people are always late” Discrimination: differential behaviour and treatment of out-groups. “I’m not hiring a Kenari person because they are not able to finalize their tasks” Intergroup bias Intergroup bias: systematic tendency to evaluate one’s own membership group (in-group) or its members more favourably than non-membership group or its members (out-group). Intergroup attitudes can be measured at three levels (Dovidio at al., 1997): - Public > explicit bias (social desirability is salient) -> you won't say anything that is controversial because of the public you are in - Personal > explicit bias (responses are private but controlled) -> You can say some contrioversial things but only because you are in that same friend group - Unconscious > implicit bias Implicit bias (spontaneous) Implicit measures of bias are evaluations and beliefs that are automatically activated by the mere presence of the attitude object Explicit bias – inconsistent responses: balance between desire to evaluate own group positively and wish to maintain self-image of fair-mindedness. Implicit bias – unintentional bias (‘true extent of people’s bias given the pressures to conform to socially desirable or politically correct norms’) In group favoritism Self-categorization as an in-group member: Assimilation of the self to the in-group category prototype -> Enhanced similarity to the other in-group members -> Trust, positive regard, cooperation and empathy are extended to fellow in-group (but not out- group) members (fundamental survival strategy) In-group favoritism Difference between discrimination and bias that arise out of: - in-group favoritism and absence of positive sentiments towards out-group (e.g., patriotism) - out-group derogation and presence of strong, negative attitudes towards out-groups (e.g., nationalism) While both nationalism and patriotism involve a love for one's country, nationalism tends to have a more exclusive and intense character, often associated with a belief in the superiority of one's nation, while patriotism is a broader and more inclusive sentiment that emphasizes love and loyalty without necessarily implying superiority or aggression towards other nations. Out group derogation From in-group favoritism to out-group derogation: from mild to strong emotions. Mild emotions usually lead to avoidance. Stronger emotions may lead to fear (out-group perceived as threat) and hostile actions against the out-group (beyond in-group benefit). Intergroup bias may eventually lead to injustice, perpetuation of inequality and oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Modern theories of intergroup bias Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) – 1. Categorization (into an in-group) 2. Identification 3. Comparison “Successful intergroup bias enhances self-esteem.” “Threatened self-esteem motivates intergroup bias”? N.B.: social identities are dynamic, multiple, sociological and salient. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer 1991) Compromise between two opposing needs: 1. Satisfaction with group identification 2. Need for intergroup differentiation More optimally distinct membership leads to greater satisfaction and higher self-esteem. Subjective Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Hogg & Abrams 1993) – identification with in-groups with clear normative prescriptions for behaviour to help reduce uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (Solomon et al. 1991) – group identification based on cultural worldviews helps reduce anxiety caused by awareness of death. Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto 1999) – Social Dominance Orientation determines preference for intergroup hierarchies and ideologies in society that either promote or attenuate intergroup hierarchies. And then what? Proximal and distal motivations: Proximal: looking into behaviour (e.g. SDO) – too prescriptive and uninformative Distal: Broader and often external (e..g terror management theory) – too abstract to relate to specific behaviours. Need balance between the two! Also need to test the effects of intergroup bias on motives (to want to belong to the ingroup): - Terror Management Theory: does identification with in-group and out-group bias subsequently reduce the anxiety about death? - Uncertainty Reduction Theory: does identification with the in-group and out-group bias subsequently reduce subjective uncertainty? Key moderators of intergoup bias Culture (more bias in collective than individualist societies) Education (negatively associated with bias) Intrapersonal manipulations of affect (bad mood/ good mood) Theory-specific moderators: self-esteem, gender, social dominance orientation Strong identification with in-group may increase bias towards outgroups Group size: numerical minority expresses more bias than numerical majority. Status: -> Members of high-status groups tend to show more bias when status is at stake. -> More bias when status gap is closing. -> Members of low-status groups show more bias when status differences considered unstable and illegitimate. -> Between real groups: high- and equal power groups show more bias than low-power groups → discrimination by numerical minorities with high power especially strong! Power: Members of high power and equal power groups show more bias than lower power groups, especially numerical minority high-power groups (> discrimination) Threats: Realistic (scarce resources) and symbolic (traditions) - of the in-group’s social identity, goals and values, position in hierarchy, existence Personality and individual difference: Political preferences, strong religious beliefs, value orientations Reducing bias- individual processes Direct approaches: - Emphasizing more positive ideologies - Increasing salience of positive values (e.g. tolerance) - Value confrontation - Making individuals rationalize their bias Reducing bias – individual processes Indirect approaches:  - Empathy - Learn to classify on multiple dimensions Reducing Bias- intergroup Processes Reducing the salience of category distinctions - Decategorization Interpersonal focus - Recategorization (subordinate > superordinate identity): Common In-group Identity (CII) -> Both threaten to deprive individuals of social identities in smaller groups -> Temporally unstable solutions to problem of intergroup discrimination Reducing bias – intergroup processes Maintaining salience of category distinctions (values differences) - Limitation: reinforces perceived differences, increasing anxiety and mutual mistrust (> need for combined interpersonal and intergroup approach) Increasing social categorization complexities: - Dual identity superordinate group binds, subordinate group distinguishes - Crossed categorization new and overlapping categories Reducing bias – Integration of Approaches All approaches are complimentary and reciprocal > depending on the conditions Whatever the approach, outcomes should be realistic: increase perceived outgroup variability, out- group knowledge and perspective taking, decrease intergroup anxiety. Effective interventions need to build trust, address collective guilt and build intergroup forgiveness. Conclusions Social categorization contributes to most extreme forms of intergroup bias - delegitimizing victims - moral exclusion But genocide and other crimes against humanity cannot just be explained by intergroup bias: much more complex and contextual What national and other policies are most effective in reducing bias and out-group derogation? Intergroup bias – the systematic tendency to evaluate own’s own membership group (the in-group) or its members more favorably than a nonmembership group (the outgroup) or its members. In-group favoritism – favoring one’s own group over other groups (out-groups) Out-group derogation – the other group (out-group) is regarded negatively and as potentially threatening to one’s own group (in-group). Intergroup Ideologies - Formal and informal rules, policies and traditions to deal with cultural diversity and issues of citizenship - Three basic responses (approaches) to diversity: -> Assimilation  -> Colourblindness -> Multiculturalism - Countries do not adhere to pure form of one or the other - Segregationist laws and policies disallowed in most countries Assimilation Assimilation implies unidirectional process pressuring minority groups to recategorize and conform to majority -> a positive is that it can increase social integration and reduce intergroup tension -> a negative is that it can also result in loss of identity and feelings of alienation and marginalization. Colourblindness Colourblindness implies that racial or ethnic membership should not matter, all people are the same. -> a positive is that because it is all treated the same, this can promote equality and unity among the people -> a negative is that it can cause trouble with adressing discrimination for example Multiculturalism “A multicultural approach involves acknowledging group differences, appreciating diversity, and respecting minority group identities” (Verkuyten, 2006). -> a postive is that it promotes social diversity and, when managed well, it can promote social harmony -> a negative is that it can cause cultural clashes and segragation - Pluralism - Dual-identity model Citizenship “A form of membership in a political and geographic community” (Bloemraad et al., 2008). -> Citizenship entails a set of rights and duties linking citizens to the state Measuring support for intergroup ideologies (early findings) - Support for multiculturalism highest among minority group members. - Support for multiculturalism correlates negatively with support for assimilation among majority group members. - Endorsement of assimilation related to increasing levels of intergroup bias. - Colourblindness and multiculturalism both share commitment to equality. - Social dominance theory → ideologies as legitimizing myths (Sidanius & Pratto 1999). - Legitimizing myth: set of beliefs to provide justification of distribution of social values within the social system.  - Multiculturalism & colourblindness > hierarchy attenuating - Assimilation > hierarchy enhancing - SDO: powerful predictor of prejudice and outgroup derogation. Missing Link: cultural norms of integration - Experiments carried out in vacuum, disregarding social and political context - Social influence: our own personal ideas, beliefs, attitudes and values are shaped by what others around us believe in or value. - Intersubjective approach: “rather than acting on their personal beliefs and values, people sometimes act on the beliefs and values they perceive to be widespread in their culture” (Chiu et al., 2010, p.482). - Mental → cultural representations when repeatedly communicated and widespread - New model takes into account how national policies and cultural norms of integration affect intergroup ideologies and behaviours - Perceived level of support or perceived norm to understand linkages between intergroup ideology – national policy - Policies in country will generate cultural norms of integration Identifying the conditions under which the majority adopts open and accepting attitudes towards minority groups Glossary Intergroup ideology: the ways of approaching and dealing with intergroup relations in culturally diverse societies. Assimilation: recategorization process where diversity is reduced or eliminated by creating a superordinate identity to form a culturally homogeneous society. Multiculturalism: approach that acknowledges differences and appreciates diversity. Colourblindness: decategorization process where racial or ethnic membership should not matter as all people are the same. Social Dominance Orientation: general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal or hierarchical. Intersubjective approach: rather than acting on their personal beliefs and values, people sometimes act on the beliefs and values they perceive to be widespread in their culture (Chui et al., 2010) Pluralistic Ignorance: incorrect perception of others’ beliefs. Session 4 Diversity Initiative: Implementation of one or more practices aimed at improving the workplace experiences and outcomes of groups that face disadvantage in society So what do you think? Affirmative action: any policy or program that is intended to promote equal opportunity in the workplace or in education for members of historically disadvantaged groups. Situation: You work in a medium sized (60 employees) company. At today’s staff meeting management announces that they are implementing an affirmative action plan to increase staff diversity. Intended consequences of diversity Initiatives Positive progress toward one or more of the three diversity goals:  1. Increased representation of targets 2. Reduced gaps in career success between targets and non-targets 3. Increased inclusion of targets (perception they are well integrated and valued) NB. Focus on diversity initiatives motivated by good intentions, not as window dressing! Types of Diversity Initiatives Resource practices: -> Increased support and opportunities for targets -> Identity-conscious, opportunity-based, and preferential treatment practices Non-discrimination practices: -> Decreased bias and discrimination against targets -> Merit-based: Identity-blind and equal employment opportunity practices Accountability practices -> Increased responsibility for and monitoring of diversity goals -> Responsibility and monitoring of diversity outcomes Unintended consequences of diversity initiatives Unintended consequences: unforeseen outcomes of efforts to create change in complex social systems (Merton, 1936) Unintended consequences of diversity initiatives 1. Backfire: Negative diversity goal progress -> Backfire Increase in negative evaluation of targets: 1. Decreased representation and inclusion of targets 2. Increased career gaps Examples of diversity practices that might lead to backfire: Diversity training Affirmative Action (AA) Statements Diversity networking groups Diversity performance evaluations 2. Negative spillover: Undesirable effects on outcomes other than diversity goal progress -> Increase in negative attitudes toward and perceptions of implementing organization: 1. Perceived unfairness Examples of diversity practices that might lead to negative spillover: Diversity and AA statements Preferential treatment 3. Positive spillover: Desirable effects on outcomes other than diversity goal progress -> Increase in positive evaluations of targets by non-targets: 1. Increased non-target engagement 2. Increased ethical behaviour (unrelated to diversity) Examples of diversity practices that might lead to positive spillover: strong and convincing policies and buy-in. 4. False progress: Improved diversity metrics without true change -> Improved diversity metrics achieved through shortcuts, not the intended mechnism: 1. Does not reflect true improvements in targets’ experiences and outcomes. Examples of practices that might lead to false progress: Renaming/reclassifying managerial jobs. Unintended consequences of diversity initiatives A diversity initiative sends “… signals regarding what the organization is like, and that the signalling effects of diversity initiatives are often disconnected from the leaders’ intentions in terms of either the content of the signals themselves or individuals’ psychological and behavioral reactions to those signals”. -> root causes for unintended consequences. Signals relate to the specific practices included in initiatives and how these are implemented and interpreted Unintended consequences: signal 1 Targets needs help “Targets cannot achieve success on their own” -> “If they could, diversity initiatives would not be needed” -> Increase in discrimination against targets Decrease in target’s performance (stereotype threat) -> Backfire (reduced representation, increased career gaps, exclusion) Unintended consequences: signal 2 Targets are likely to succeed Majority group members feel threatened: “Targets succeed because of background, not capacity” -> “Organizational practices are unfair” -> Decrease of non-target commitment to organization-> Negative spillover Increase in discrimination against targets-> Backfire Unintended consequences: signal 3 Morality is valued “Diversity initiative counteracts social injustice” -> Ethical climate increases ethical behaviour -> Increased non-target engagement: Positive spillover Emergence of subtle discrimination (moral credentialing): Backfire Unintended consequences: signal 4 Diversity goal progress is valued Motivation for diversity initiatives extrinsic in nature -> Reduced intrinsic motivation -> Appearance of improved performance > shortcuts -> False progress Further findings Interrelatedness of unintended consequences: Unintended consequences work in complex ways: Different unintended consequences are interrelated (stem from the same signal) Therefore, to counter this, multiple signals need to be addressed. Type of diversity practice as moderator of signal strength: Resource practices: Signals 1 and 2, especially when these are many and highly prescriptive. Nondiscrimination practices: Signal 3, but more positive spillover when practices not highly prescriptive. Accountability practices: Signal 4, less risk of ‘false progress’ when practices are more extensive. Conclusions - Successful diversity initiatives lead to more general organizational performance improvement (because of positive spillover or because of increased diversity?). - Strategies for improving diversity initiative effectiveness should be holistic.  - Full understanding of diversity initiative effectiveness requires measuring diversity goal progress AND other mechanisms and outcomes (e.g., ethical climate perceptions, engagement, extrinsic diversity motivation). - Important to assess diversity goal progress in ways that are immune to false progress effects. - Diversity is not always beneficial to organizations. - Messaging, how the initiative is communicated and promoted, is crucial! (Diversity is good, but hard) Article Glossary - Diversity initiative: implementation of one or more practices aimed at improving the workplace experiences and outcomes of groups that face disadvantage in society. - Diversity initiative: Specific activities, programs, policies, and other formal efforts designed to promote organizational culture change related to diversity (Arredondo, 1996, Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 2000). - Moral credentialing: The act of affirming one’s egalitarian or pro-social values and virtues, might subsequently facilitate prejudiced or self-serving behavior (Brown et al, 2011). Session 6 Met’s Gangs Matrix – background - ‘Gang association’ as measure for assessing potential harm to public safety - 2011 ‘London Riots’ - 2012 Launch of Trident Gang Crime Command: ‘more targeted enforcement against gangs’ > Met’s Gangs Violence Matrix Met’s Gangs Matrix – usage - ‘To track and assess the risk of violence posed by London’s ‘known gang members’ - To inform police decisions about where the ‘stop and search’ (intelligence led stop-and- search) - Gang nominals assigned a ‘risk score’ or ‘harm score’ (red, amber or green) and ‘victim score’ - Used in prosecution of ‘gang nominals’ and for data-sharing with and across (non-policing) agencies Met’s Gangs Matrix – getting on the matrix - Definition of ‘gang’ ill-defined: concept is fluid and often ‘for show’  - Lack of clear process and criteria on labelling - Black youth more likely to be described as gang members Met’s Gangs Matrix – main problems (1) - Conflation of elements of urban youth culture with serious crime - Individuals on matrix subject to ‘over-policing’ (dragging them deeper into the criminal justice system) - Wide access to data by non-police agencies but not clearly defined and stipulated - Social media monitoring and (unauthorised) ‘covert surveillance’ - Skewed risk scoring - Data privacy issues - Once on the matrix… it is unclear when and how to get of Met’s Gangs Matrix – main problems (2) ‘The Matrix is not fit for purpose, never has been, never will. It feeds an industry based on violence reduction…distorted to fit a narrative: All knife crime is committed by young Black men in gangs.’ Martin Griffiths, trauma surgeon at Royal London Hospital ‘Gangs are, for the most part, a complete red herring… fixation with the term is unhelpful at every level. A huge amount of time, effort and energy has been wasted on trying to define what a gang is when it wasn’t necessarily relevant to what we’re seeing on the streets’ Senior Officer, Metropolitan Police (private conversation) Gang crime is a small percentagae of all violence Met’s Gangs Matrix - challenges Is the matrix effective in fighting youth violence? (chapter 6) - Occurrence very hard to predict - Further erodes trust in the police, esp. amongst BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic) populations - More serious violent crime addressed by other databases (e.g. Organised Crime Group Mapping) - Many officers using the matrix operationally say it has made little difference ‘We struggle with effective policing for lots of reasons. Police have a very difficult job to do in a community they have lost contact with. Community policing is failing in the areas where they need to be strongest.’ Martin Griffiths, trauma surgeon Royal London Hospital Big Data and Policing Implications (according to 2019 Report commissioned by UK Government): 1. Allocation of resources. Police forces will need to consider how algorithmic bias may affect their decisions to police certain areas more heavily. 2. Legal claims. Discrimination claims could be brought by individuals scored “negatively” in comparison to others of different ages or genders. 3. Over-reliance on automation. There is a risk that police officers become over-reliant on the use of analytical tools, undermining their discretion and causing them to disregard other relevant factors. “Predictive judgments are meaningful when applied to groups of offenders. However, at an individual level, predictions are considered by many to be imprecise’. Put simply, high accuracy rates at the group level can often conceal very low accuracy rates for specific individuals or groups of individuals within that larger group. All individual predictions are associated with a confidence interval (a margin of error), which is often not taken into account when reporting the overall ‘predictive accuracy’ of the tool.” Use of Big Data in Public Administration - example Dutch ‘toeslagen-affaire’ (childcare benefits affair) - Dutch court: Syri (Systeem Risico Indicatie) in violation of Article 8 of the EU Convention on HR (right to privacy) - In 2020 tax department acknowledges racial/ethnic profiling Big Data in Policing – predictive policing Predictive policing: tech-based tool based on large data sets to help predict and prevent potential future crime. - Place- based - Person-based Big Data in Policing – Predictive Policing (2) Predictive Policing drivers: - Belief in objectivity of ‘machines’ - Efficient and cost cutting - Modernist (tech race) - Positivist approach to crime solving Big Data and Policing – predictive policing (3) Main problems identified: - “Blackbox” problem hampers transparency and accountability - Predicts policing, not crime - Self-reinforcing feedback loop - ‘Dirty data’ (inaccurate and/or biased) - Population becomes suspicious for simply being included in the datasets - Data used to develop tools outdated and lacking accuracy - Others: related to privacy and oversight Big Data and Policing – example Top 400 (extension of Top 600) - Predictive identification - ‘Care and control’ approach - “High potentials” - Not yet committed serious crime - Criminalization of ‘teenage behaviour’ (nuisance) - Based on ProKid+ predictive policing tool → Should a new approach be tested on vulnerable minor and young adults? → Does the Top 400 help make the city safer, or does it criminalize nuisance behaviour and draw kids deeper into crime? Questions raised by Cathy O’Neill: → Are we, as a society, willing to sacrifice a bit of efficiency in the interest of fairness? → Would society be willing to sacrifice the concept of probable cause if everyone had to endure the harassment and indignities of stop and frisk? Big data – AI definitions → Artificial Intelligence (or Complex Information Processing) Natural Language Processing Automated Decision System Machine Learning > Deep Learning Uses of AI: - Medicine - Traffic - Policing and Crime Prevention - Entertainment Etc. Big Data and Bias – Definitions Bias as technical term in statistics: deviance from standard Bias in sociological terms: presumptions or attitudes that lead to discrimination and harm (for certain groups or people) - Biased data: data used in machine learning are themselves biased - Bias by omission: bias due to omission of representative data that systems were trained on - Bias by proxy (or surrogate objectives): lacking a clear measure, we settle for a surrogate measure Big Data and Bias – Solutions and Ways Forward - Blackbox vs XAI (Explainable AI) → Explainability at the core of the evolving relationship between humans and intelligent machines’ - Proprietary nature of data and programming > OpenSource, Access and Transparency - Fairness - Racial literacy → how does bias influence tech? →Which racial structures affect design process? → How does racial composition of teams share how we think about use of tech? - Ethical and Human Rights Guidelines/ Frameworks / Laws (EU AI Act 2022) Session 8 Introduction – Myanmar history and politics (1) - Myanmar or Burma? - Home to 135 groups of ethnic minorities, 8 main national races - Burmans (Bamar) make up around 68% of total population of 55 million - Democratic reform 2011- 2021 → Agreement with ASSK → Suspension of construction Myitsone Dam → Political prisoners freed (2012) → Victory by-elections NLD (2012) → General Election 2015 (NLD victory > Aung San Suu Kyi State Councilor) - Nationwide CeasefireAgreement (2015) Introduction – Myanmar history and politics (2) - Military coup d'état 1 February 2021 - Ongoing protest and resistance against military / Thousands of political prisoners / Hundreds of civilians killed / International condemnation Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis – concept - Citizenship crisis threatens to undermine wider reform process. - Citizenship: set of rights and duties that collectively generate a civic persona or identity - Components of citizenship (Marshall, 1950): → Civil – “the rights necessary for individual freedom” → Political – “the right to participate in the exercise of political power” → Social – “the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare to the right to  share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society”. → Cultural component – “comprises the right to assert and cultivate one’s cultural heritage” (Kymlicka 1995, 2001; Parekh 2006; Modood 2013) ↔ Obligation of allegiance to a state (two-way street) Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis – dimensions Citizenship crisis – 4 dimensions: 1. Broad curtailment of citizenship (limited rights) 2. Rohingya Muslims denied citizenship (also affecting other Muslims) 3. Other ethnic minorities facing restrictions of citizenship 4. Bamar majority appropriates citizenship Minority groups: → Perceptions and self-identification > ascribed and asserted identities → 1824 threshold for claiming indigeneity Citizenship and Ethnicity – the case of the Rohingya (1) - Rohingya denied citizenship in 1982 (CitizenshipAct) > most are stateless o Massive and organized violence against Rohingya in 2012, 2017 and 2018. - Violence in 2017 led UN-backed fact-finding mission to conclude violence constituted genocide - Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 → A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and → A physical element: which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or imental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group Citizenship and Ethnicity – the case of the Rohingya (2) Intergroup Ideologies Citizenship Myanmar - Ethnic conflict continuous (against Shan, Chin, Kayah/Karen, etc.) but most widespread and systematic against Rohingya - Conflict involved military, local civilians, Buddhist groups (e.g. 969 movement) Citizenship and Ethnicity – the case of the Rohingya (3) - Almost one million Rohingya currently live as refugees and Internally Displaced People - 2019 The Gambia sues Myanmar for genocide at the International Court of Justice - 2022 ICJ decides it has jurisdiction to examine Gambia’s genocide claims Citizenship and Ethnicity – the case of the Rohingya (4) 2021 - Rohingya sue Facebook (Meta) over alleged role in inciting violence and hate speech in California court. “…accusing it of being "willing to trade the lives of the Rohingya people for better market penetration in a small country in Southeast Asia. Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis – additional challenges - Equal rights for all ethnic minorities recognized by law but not exercised equally - Special position of Bamar majority (Buddhist, Burmese language, automatic allegiance to state) - Bamarness functional equivalent of whiteness in Western societies (US) – “privileged identity generating normative and institutional benefits for the majority group” (Walton 2013) Citizenship Crisis Solution: Multiculturalist Policies (1) Multiculturalism: “the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity” Kymlicka (2012) - Can multiculturalist policies from Western countries help Myanmar to move from ethnic hierarchy to horizontal form of democratic citizenship? - Obvious differences, but does that matter? This is about policies of…. → Political acknowledgment → Social recognition → Cultural sensitivity 3 types of minorities: - Immigrant groups (e.g., Turkish German) - Historic national minorities (e.g., the Welsh and Scottish in the UK) o Indigenous peoples (e.g., Inuit in Canada) Citizenship Crisis – Solutions: Multiculturalist Policies (2) Citizenship Crisis – Solutions: Multiculturalist Policies (3) Citizenship Crisis – Solutions: Addressing Burman Privilege Walton ‘Wages of “Burman-ness”: Ethnicity and Burman Privilege in Contemporary Myanmar’ (2012): - Unequal experience of violence of ethnic groups - Focus on historical construction of racial identities and their institutionalization in contemporary power structures - “Burman dominance and privilege can be overcome only through active struggle and repudiation by Burmans“ Is the current situation of military repression and nation-wide resistance changing majority and minority ethnic group dynamics? Conclusions and Ways Forward - Citizenship crisis: broad curtailment of rights / Rohingya and other ethnic groups denied or restricted citizenship / Bamar majority appropriates citizenship - Can multiculturalist policies (MPI) help Myanmar to move from ethnic hierarchy to horizontal form of democratic citizenship? - Rohingya granted equal rights as immigrant group? - Political participation, including (inclusive and democratic) civil society - Fighting racist views of Rohingya, Muslims and other ethnic groups > zero tolerance - Rolling back military privilege - Investment in social security → Constructive and transformative moves towards common civic identity