Apartheid is not multiculturalism

Few in the U.S. may have been paying attention to the "sharia row" in Britain, but it's kind of an interesting story. A few days ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury - head of the worldwide Anglican church - said that Britain should allow some application of sharia law in Muslim communities. Controversy, of course, exploded.

This story is interesting, in my opinion, because it vividly illustrates some of the missteps Europe makes with regards to its immigrant communities. A typical European idea seems to be "let the immigrants live in their communities and we'll live in ours" - i.e., encouraging de facto segregation. Immigrant groups are encouraged not only to live separately, but to maintain their own languages, customs, and even legal systems.

It's easy to justify such a system by calling it "multiculturalism," but that's not really what it is. Multiculturalism is when different cultures can mix, interact, and learn from each other. What Britain (and, in their own way, France, the Netherlands, and Germany) are trying to create is voluntary apartheid. And with that kind of a system, it's going to be much harder to build a peaceful, integrated society than it is in America.

So we in America should take heed. Allowing immigrant groups to become states-within-a-state is a one-way ticket to social disharmony. That's why I strongly oppose the idea of institutionalized Spanish-language education; even though it seems tolerant and fair at first blush, I can't help but feel that separate is inherently unequal, and that Spanish-language education will turn certain groups of people into a permanent underclass.

In any case, de facto apartheid is not multiculturalism. This is a lesson that the Europeans are learning the hard way. Let's watch and learn from their mistakes.