Denmark’s immigrant population has increased only slightly since the wave of refugees and migrants came up into Europe in 2015. Yet in certain quarters, the number appears to be rising at an alarming rate. In an op-ed column in Jyllands-Posten entitled “Everyday jihad is a result of the increasing demographic replacement” (DK), Pia Kjærsgaard, the founder of the Danish People’s Party, wrote that Denmark’s survival as a homogeneous nation was being threatened. The reason for her concern was that she read that the non-Western population in the country was some 400,000 larger than the official figure from Statistics Denmark.
In Information, another Danish daily, Serge Savin looked into the figures (DK) and found the situation different than Kjærsgaard implied in more than one way. The figure that Kjærsgaard referred to derives from a book, Integration – her går det godt (Integration: It’s going well here), by Hjarn von Zernichow Borberg, external associate professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Economic Institute. Statistics Denmark had registered 800,000 immigrants and their descendants, and von Zernichow Borberg first listed 1.2 million and then revised it down to 1.1 million.
Fun with math
So the difference in the two figures is really 300,000 and not 400,000. The reason for the difference, von Zernichow Borberg explains, is that Statistics Denmark counts only children with two foreign parents and he added children with a single foreign parent. But those parents are not all from non-Western countries; they are foreigners from the entire world. He estimates that around 100,000 are from non-Western countries. Furthermore, von Zernichow Borberg continues, Kjærsgaard implies that the threat to Danish culture comes from increasing Muslim influence, and not all of these parents from non-Western countries are from predominately Muslim countries. They may be from China or Ukraine. The estimate of additional children with a parent from a Muslim country is 25,000. Here are current figures from Statistics Denmark.
The more accurate figure for the additional, at least partially Muslim population above the official figure is thus around one-sixteenth of the number that Kjærsgaard cites. As Savin notes, the demographic replacement theory has a long racist history. It got a strong boost from Renaud Camus’s Le grand remplacement in 2012 and figured in various right-wing extremist and white supremacist terrorist actions such as those in Utoya and Christchurch. In the US, it burst into prominence in the chant, “The Jews will not replace us,” in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017. Kjærsgaard did not wish to comment on the Information article, but another member of the Danish People’s Party, Martin Henriksen, found no reason to avoid the term “replacement” because it was “the best way to get the message out.”
Concept creep: The better it gets, the worse it seems
The surprising thing about such alarmism coming at this moment is that integration seems to be working in Denmark much better than it had before. And that is owing to some degree to the many restrictive measures that the preceding center-right administration implemented, partly at the urging of the Danish People’s Party. The country suspended participation in the UN quota refugee system and discouraged migrants. The new Social Democratic administration thus far has softened those restrictions only slightly. It is coming under some pressure from its supporting left-wing parties to do more, though, and perhaps that is what Kjærsgaard and her allies want to discourage. The further irony, noted by von Zernichow Borberg, is that the additional number of children should be viewed as a positive sign. Muslim immigrants have been criticized for maintaining a separate, “parallel society,” and intermarriage is clearly a step toward integration.
06 March 2020
28 February 2020
Diversity and inclusion at Danish universities
A politically conservative young person enrolls in a social science program at the University of Copenhagen and is dismayed to learn that her fellow students aren’t very friendly or receptive to her opinions. Does that show a woeful lack of understanding of society in 2020 that might disqualify her from pursuing a career in this field?
As I reported recently, Denmark may not yet be in full compliance with the social justice standards of the Anglosphere, but it is making strides to catch up. In that post, I looked back at highlights of political correctness in the country last year. Those were isolated incidents that were perhaps too easily conducive to jokes. But some people have to live with this code of conduct every day.
The University of Copenhagen’s student newspaper interviewed students and faculty members (DK) in the social science and political science departments and learned that, as in the US, both groups are overwhelming leftist. Conservative students felt they couldn’t express themselves candidly on subjects such as race, gender, inequality and immigration and sometimes found themselves shunned socially.
The sexual dimorphism heresy
One student said that of all the organizations he had experienced in schools and workplaces, this one was the most limiting of free debate. He felt he couldn’t discuss gender “because I believe there are two sexes and that’s almost an illegal opinion here.” A sociology student said that he couldn’t be sure whether right-wing students in his department felt marginalized because they’re weren’t any others left. The three others in their entering class had disappeared. There are certain basic assumptions that his fellow students agree on, he said, such as the multiplicity of sexes, and the only debates about them are between moderate and radical leftist positions.
In the student council election campaign in 2019, a conservative student displayed a poster that said “No to identity politics,” with a picture of a sombrero – a reference to a recent cultural appropriation scandal on campus. A photo of the poster was posted on Instagram with the description “white supremacist move” and a suggestion that the posters be torn down. The same thing happened to another candidate with the slogan “No thanks to grievance-readiness” (Nej tak til krænkelsesparathed). She said that other conservative students confided in her that they stayed in the closet or else got shamed for their opinions.
All opinions welcome – except yours
Two anthropology students behind a Facebook group called “Inclusive environment at U of Copenhagen” believe it is legitimate to exclude certain opinions. One said that some conservatives have views of humanity that are directly harmful and violate human rights: “We have accepted the idea that there should be room for all opinions and views and that it is okay not to like immigrants, to be transphobic or to hate women a little. But it is not an opinion that some people cannot have the same rights as others.” The other draws the line at racist, sexist and otherwise oppressive views: “The question is how you treat other people. Are you discriminatory in the words you use? Do you wound other people and make them sad?”
It is not apparent what rights they thought the conservatives wanted to deny to others or what words they perceived to be discriminatory. Some conservative students may have committed such infractions against general guidelines for ethical behavior, but the ones interviewed seemed very cautious and self-censoring. These progressive students share the same beliefs and tactics as their American counterparts. They want to limit free speech for those with opposing views, they use subjective emotional reactions as the criterion for determining whether something is to be prohibited, they think disturbing language is violence, and they rely on straw-man – er, straw-person – arguments.
Maoism light?
The professor who conducted one of the surveys, Assistant Professor Frederik Hjorth, found a surprising degree of political prejudice and “affective polarization” among the general population in Denmark. He also found that leftists were more likely to show intolerance than others, and so it was likely that social science and political science students tended to fit that description since leftists are overrepresented in those fields. He noted that this wasn’t a completely new phenomenon, however. There was a similar conformism to left-wing opinions and an intolerance of others in the 1970s, at that time according to a more classical socialist or communist ideology. In any case, he concluded, such an atmosphere of polarization and tribalism is bad for democracy; fear of stigmatization or social retaliation stifles the free exchange of ideas.
But Hjorth himself has not heard many pointed political opinions expressed in the classroom. On the contrary, he thinks his political science students are rather apolitical. The fact that a professor can research and describe the situation in an impartial way in itself indicates that the situation hasn’t reach the tendentious anti-science and anti–free speech atmosphere of many elite American liberal arts colleges. But that’s little comfort to the students who are being discouraged from entering these fields by subtler pressures. And their exclusion because of intolerance for intellectual diversity is a loss for the professions they were preparing for and the society they are supposed to serve.
As I reported recently, Denmark may not yet be in full compliance with the social justice standards of the Anglosphere, but it is making strides to catch up. In that post, I looked back at highlights of political correctness in the country last year. Those were isolated incidents that were perhaps too easily conducive to jokes. But some people have to live with this code of conduct every day.
The University of Copenhagen’s student newspaper interviewed students and faculty members (DK) in the social science and political science departments and learned that, as in the US, both groups are overwhelming leftist. Conservative students felt they couldn’t express themselves candidly on subjects such as race, gender, inequality and immigration and sometimes found themselves shunned socially.
The sexual dimorphism heresy
One student said that of all the organizations he had experienced in schools and workplaces, this one was the most limiting of free debate. He felt he couldn’t discuss gender “because I believe there are two sexes and that’s almost an illegal opinion here.” A sociology student said that he couldn’t be sure whether right-wing students in his department felt marginalized because they’re weren’t any others left. The three others in their entering class had disappeared. There are certain basic assumptions that his fellow students agree on, he said, such as the multiplicity of sexes, and the only debates about them are between moderate and radical leftist positions.
In the student council election campaign in 2019, a conservative student displayed a poster that said “No to identity politics,” with a picture of a sombrero – a reference to a recent cultural appropriation scandal on campus. A photo of the poster was posted on Instagram with the description “white supremacist move” and a suggestion that the posters be torn down. The same thing happened to another candidate with the slogan “No thanks to grievance-readiness” (Nej tak til krænkelsesparathed). She said that other conservative students confided in her that they stayed in the closet or else got shamed for their opinions.
All opinions welcome – except yours
Two anthropology students behind a Facebook group called “Inclusive environment at U of Copenhagen” believe it is legitimate to exclude certain opinions. One said that some conservatives have views of humanity that are directly harmful and violate human rights: “We have accepted the idea that there should be room for all opinions and views and that it is okay not to like immigrants, to be transphobic or to hate women a little. But it is not an opinion that some people cannot have the same rights as others.” The other draws the line at racist, sexist and otherwise oppressive views: “The question is how you treat other people. Are you discriminatory in the words you use? Do you wound other people and make them sad?”
It is not apparent what rights they thought the conservatives wanted to deny to others or what words they perceived to be discriminatory. Some conservative students may have committed such infractions against general guidelines for ethical behavior, but the ones interviewed seemed very cautious and self-censoring. These progressive students share the same beliefs and tactics as their American counterparts. They want to limit free speech for those with opposing views, they use subjective emotional reactions as the criterion for determining whether something is to be prohibited, they think disturbing language is violence, and they rely on straw-man – er, straw-person – arguments.
Maoism light?
The professor who conducted one of the surveys, Assistant Professor Frederik Hjorth, found a surprising degree of political prejudice and “affective polarization” among the general population in Denmark. He also found that leftists were more likely to show intolerance than others, and so it was likely that social science and political science students tended to fit that description since leftists are overrepresented in those fields. He noted that this wasn’t a completely new phenomenon, however. There was a similar conformism to left-wing opinions and an intolerance of others in the 1970s, at that time according to a more classical socialist or communist ideology. In any case, he concluded, such an atmosphere of polarization and tribalism is bad for democracy; fear of stigmatization or social retaliation stifles the free exchange of ideas.
But Hjorth himself has not heard many pointed political opinions expressed in the classroom. On the contrary, he thinks his political science students are rather apolitical. The fact that a professor can research and describe the situation in an impartial way in itself indicates that the situation hasn’t reach the tendentious anti-science and anti–free speech atmosphere of many elite American liberal arts colleges. But that’s little comfort to the students who are being discouraged from entering these fields by subtler pressures. And their exclusion because of intolerance for intellectual diversity is a loss for the professions they were preparing for and the society they are supposed to serve.
21 February 2020
Is Wonderful Scandinavia a hoax?
I have spent some time lately commenting on left-wing tendencies in Denmark – identity politics and social justice activism. Some might find the coverage unbalanced. Well, a bomb – or at least a bomb threat – last week was a sort of wake-up alarm to let us know that the right-wing stalwarts are not biding their time waiting for the Muslims to pack up and head back to warmer climes. The bomb threat was aimed at an advertising agency that made a video for SAS’s website. The video asked what is actually Scandinavian, that is, what cultural brand symbols from the Nordic countries actually originated here.
“Danish” pastries? No, they’re from Austria. Rye bread? Turkey. Democracy? Greece. Open-faced sandwiches? The Netherlands. Bicycles with large carts for children? Germany. Even maternity leave? Switzerland. On and on, mercilessly. What is Scandinavian? Absolutely nothing. There’s no such thing as Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians have depended totally on inventions from the rest of the world. Everything is imitated, borrowed, imported, plagiarized.
Not even meatballs?
Why would SAS want to be so blunt and cruel, deflating the pride its customers take in their ethnic heritage? No, wait, they meant it as a compliment. Scandinavians, since the legendary seafaring and plundering Vikings, have brought back the best things from the outside world and put their own unique stamp on them. If you remember that the northern extremity was one of the last regions in Eurasia to be populated, then it doesn’t seem unlikely that some useful artifacts would have been devised earlier in the evolution of our species. The punchline is “We are travelers.” And collectors. That’s how we developed such a wonderful array of customs and concoctions. And the easiest way to continue this cosmopolitan scavenger hunt is to fly SAS.
Not everyone saw it that way, though. Negative comments poured onto the FB page. “With its disgusting advertisement, SAS demeans everything genuinely Norwegian, genuinely Swedish and genuinely Danish,” wrote Søren Espersen (DK) from the Danish People’s Party. “At the same time, SAS spits on every proper and fair Scandinavian.” Even the notorious far-right website 4chan got into the act (DK). Its users set up many threads, each with hundreds of comments, linked to the video, in what appears to be a coordinated attack. The video is part of a Jewish plot to undermine the white race, they wrote. According to journalist Kevin Shakir, the video’s references to all those other countries, shots of people with various skin colors, allusions to customs and cultures blending together across borders – it all looked to 4chan like an attack on white nationhood. They went so far as to dox employees of the advertising agency.
What’s wrong with learning from others?
We didn’t mean to offend anyone, said an SAS spokesperson. We wanted to say only that travel “lies deep in our Scandinavian DNA” and is enriching for us as both individuals and a society. Although the company maintained that it stood behind the campaign one hundred percent, it removed the video, which had already been seen by over half a million users. Later it posted a shorter version, omitting the “absolutely nothing” riposte. Not because it regretted the first, though, simply as part of its normal practice of making several versions of an advertisement. The original had of course been reposted on YouTube and shared all around the world it depicted.
The bomb threat came by email. Police evacuated the building (DK) in central Copenhagen and searched it. A hostel above the fitness center where the ad agency employees were relocated was also evacuated, sending some of its guests to stand on the sidewalk in their pajamas and freeze. No bomb was found.
“Away is nice, but home is best”
That’s a Danish saying. SAS’s critics would certainly endorse at least the second part. I’m still a little mystified about their real rationale or argument, though. Do they think the claims in the video are false and these phenomena really did originate in Scandinavia? Do they want to be able to pretend in peace that they did? Do they feel that Scandinavia improved these things so much that it deserves the title to them? Are they worried that contextualizing features of the region’s image will hurt tourism? Or are they just ethnic purists who fear that enthusiastic tourism will melt humanity into a single intermingling beige race?
I wonder whether there weren’t any woke trolls chiming in about all this cultural appropriation or at least the carbon emissions from this contemporary treasure hunt. From the video, it looks so easy to hop on a plane and feast on the world’s bazaar that you forget that the price of all our imports, souvenirs and cross-cultural experiences includes calamitous weather, mainly in the poorer lower latitudes from which SAS can safely return us.
“Danish” pastries? No, they’re from Austria. Rye bread? Turkey. Democracy? Greece. Open-faced sandwiches? The Netherlands. Bicycles with large carts for children? Germany. Even maternity leave? Switzerland. On and on, mercilessly. What is Scandinavian? Absolutely nothing. There’s no such thing as Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians have depended totally on inventions from the rest of the world. Everything is imitated, borrowed, imported, plagiarized.
Not even meatballs?
Why would SAS want to be so blunt and cruel, deflating the pride its customers take in their ethnic heritage? No, wait, they meant it as a compliment. Scandinavians, since the legendary seafaring and plundering Vikings, have brought back the best things from the outside world and put their own unique stamp on them. If you remember that the northern extremity was one of the last regions in Eurasia to be populated, then it doesn’t seem unlikely that some useful artifacts would have been devised earlier in the evolution of our species. The punchline is “We are travelers.” And collectors. That’s how we developed such a wonderful array of customs and concoctions. And the easiest way to continue this cosmopolitan scavenger hunt is to fly SAS.
Not everyone saw it that way, though. Negative comments poured onto the FB page. “With its disgusting advertisement, SAS demeans everything genuinely Norwegian, genuinely Swedish and genuinely Danish,” wrote Søren Espersen (DK) from the Danish People’s Party. “At the same time, SAS spits on every proper and fair Scandinavian.” Even the notorious far-right website 4chan got into the act (DK). Its users set up many threads, each with hundreds of comments, linked to the video, in what appears to be a coordinated attack. The video is part of a Jewish plot to undermine the white race, they wrote. According to journalist Kevin Shakir, the video’s references to all those other countries, shots of people with various skin colors, allusions to customs and cultures blending together across borders – it all looked to 4chan like an attack on white nationhood. They went so far as to dox employees of the advertising agency.
What’s wrong with learning from others?
We didn’t mean to offend anyone, said an SAS spokesperson. We wanted to say only that travel “lies deep in our Scandinavian DNA” and is enriching for us as both individuals and a society. Although the company maintained that it stood behind the campaign one hundred percent, it removed the video, which had already been seen by over half a million users. Later it posted a shorter version, omitting the “absolutely nothing” riposte. Not because it regretted the first, though, simply as part of its normal practice of making several versions of an advertisement. The original had of course been reposted on YouTube and shared all around the world it depicted.
The bomb threat came by email. Police evacuated the building (DK) in central Copenhagen and searched it. A hostel above the fitness center where the ad agency employees were relocated was also evacuated, sending some of its guests to stand on the sidewalk in their pajamas and freeze. No bomb was found.
“Away is nice, but home is best”
That’s a Danish saying. SAS’s critics would certainly endorse at least the second part. I’m still a little mystified about their real rationale or argument, though. Do they think the claims in the video are false and these phenomena really did originate in Scandinavia? Do they want to be able to pretend in peace that they did? Do they feel that Scandinavia improved these things so much that it deserves the title to them? Are they worried that contextualizing features of the region’s image will hurt tourism? Or are they just ethnic purists who fear that enthusiastic tourism will melt humanity into a single intermingling beige race?
I wonder whether there weren’t any woke trolls chiming in about all this cultural appropriation or at least the carbon emissions from this contemporary treasure hunt. From the video, it looks so easy to hop on a plane and feast on the world’s bazaar that you forget that the price of all our imports, souvenirs and cross-cultural experiences includes calamitous weather, mainly in the poorer lower latitudes from which SAS can safely return us.
14 February 2020
Don’t vote socialist yet, Democrats
Denmark is back in the Democratic primary debates. When Amy Klobuchar listed various people that Trump blames instead of himself, she included “the king of Denmark.” Denmark hasn’t had a king for more than 60 years, and Trump didn’t blame the queen either. After Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called his proposal to buy Greenland “absurd,” he described her remark as being “nasty.” At his request, Queen Margrethe had invited him to visit Denmark, and after Frederiksen’s response, he canceled the visit. If he had come, he would certainly have found something to blame her for – perhaps for not banning the Trump Baby Balloon – but in this case, Klobuchar’s charge was inaccurate.
As model egalitarian societies, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries remain in the background of the Democratic campaign, though, as they were when democratic socialist Bernie Sanders praised them in the 2016 campaign. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presumably know more about Denmark’s welfare state than Klobuchar does about its royalty, and their proposals of radical reforms to reduce social and economic inequities have found an eager audience among a segment of Democratic voters. About half the Millennials polled favor socialism over capitalism. If other countries can provide universal health care, tuition-free university and subsidized daycare, why can’t the supposedly greatest country in the history of the world?
The risks of failure
I can generally recommend Western European social democracy, although it is not quite the socialism that many American Progressives suppose and it is not clear that its socialist tendencies are responsible for its relative prosperity and social harmony. I don’t think this is the moment to bet on a major fiscal restructuring in the US, however. The country is in a political and cultural crisis with a rogue administration dividing the population into factions that can’t understand and communicate with each other. The domestic polarization is worse than it has been in 50 years, and in foreign relations, the administration has destabilized the world by alienating democratic allies and encouraging authoritarian regimes. The stakes have rarely been higher, and the Democrats’ priority should be to end the misrule. A platform of drastic reforms would greatly increase the chances risk that Trump will be re-elected.
Trump’s base is apparently impervious to dishonesty, disinformation, corruption and consummate boorishness. And a sitting president with a fairly sound economy and no primary challenger in his own party has a huge advantage in the general election. If the Democratic Party is pulled toward the Progressive fringe, it will lose the centrists of both parties and the independents that it needs to win. Demands for open borders, health care for undocumented immigrants, late-term abortions and gender self-identification would alienate moderates. The country cannot afford the risks of another four years of Trumpism. It might be unrecognizable afterward, assuming that the Orange Oaf could be pried out of the office even then.
The risks of succeeding
Even if a Progressive Democratic candidate wins the general election, the implementation of structural reforms to mitigate wealth inequality, economic insecurity and Wall Street abuses is far from certain of becoming a reality. They would be very expensive and require enormous deficit spending, and the partial financing from a wealth tax, a higher capital gains tax, a financial transactions tax and more would most likely crash the stock market and cause a recession, probably another serious one. The market, which has been propped up by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates and spigot of repo loans to the largest banks is long overdue for a correction, which would be blamed on “democratic socialism” or fears of the same. It would be used to discredit reforms and make it even harder to implement them.
There is a better chance of improving social welfare by first aiming to recapture the White House and restore a traditional liberal democracy before trying to overhaul the healthcare sector and the financial markets. If that succeeds, then it won’t be many terms before AOC and her cohort will get their shot at fashioning post-capitalist, post-racial, post-gender republic.
As model egalitarian societies, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries remain in the background of the Democratic campaign, though, as they were when democratic socialist Bernie Sanders praised them in the 2016 campaign. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presumably know more about Denmark’s welfare state than Klobuchar does about its royalty, and their proposals of radical reforms to reduce social and economic inequities have found an eager audience among a segment of Democratic voters. About half the Millennials polled favor socialism over capitalism. If other countries can provide universal health care, tuition-free university and subsidized daycare, why can’t the supposedly greatest country in the history of the world?
The risks of failure
I can generally recommend Western European social democracy, although it is not quite the socialism that many American Progressives suppose and it is not clear that its socialist tendencies are responsible for its relative prosperity and social harmony. I don’t think this is the moment to bet on a major fiscal restructuring in the US, however. The country is in a political and cultural crisis with a rogue administration dividing the population into factions that can’t understand and communicate with each other. The domestic polarization is worse than it has been in 50 years, and in foreign relations, the administration has destabilized the world by alienating democratic allies and encouraging authoritarian regimes. The stakes have rarely been higher, and the Democrats’ priority should be to end the misrule. A platform of drastic reforms would greatly increase the chances risk that Trump will be re-elected.
Trump’s base is apparently impervious to dishonesty, disinformation, corruption and consummate boorishness. And a sitting president with a fairly sound economy and no primary challenger in his own party has a huge advantage in the general election. If the Democratic Party is pulled toward the Progressive fringe, it will lose the centrists of both parties and the independents that it needs to win. Demands for open borders, health care for undocumented immigrants, late-term abortions and gender self-identification would alienate moderates. The country cannot afford the risks of another four years of Trumpism. It might be unrecognizable afterward, assuming that the Orange Oaf could be pried out of the office even then.
The risks of succeeding
Even if a Progressive Democratic candidate wins the general election, the implementation of structural reforms to mitigate wealth inequality, economic insecurity and Wall Street abuses is far from certain of becoming a reality. They would be very expensive and require enormous deficit spending, and the partial financing from a wealth tax, a higher capital gains tax, a financial transactions tax and more would most likely crash the stock market and cause a recession, probably another serious one. The market, which has been propped up by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates and spigot of repo loans to the largest banks is long overdue for a correction, which would be blamed on “democratic socialism” or fears of the same. It would be used to discredit reforms and make it even harder to implement them.
There is a better chance of improving social welfare by first aiming to recapture the White House and restore a traditional liberal democracy before trying to overhaul the healthcare sector and the financial markets. If that succeeds, then it won’t be many terms before AOC and her cohort will get their shot at fashioning post-capitalist, post-racial, post-gender republic.
07 February 2020
PC in DK, 2019
Perhaps I was too quick to say that Denmark is trailing the Anglo-American world in social justice activism and scandals. Peter Rasmussen has posted a useful list of the “most absurd PC moments in Denmark in 2019” (DK) on Quora. He links to his individual commentaries on five incidents - good examples of how the country is striving to catch up to the achievements in outrage and grievance in more advanced precincts.
Hating hate
The first concerns Facebook comments by Black Lives Matter spokesperson Bwalya Sørensen about Pernille Vermund, the leader of the New Right party (and subject of a recent post). Vermund had expressed her happiness that a 14-year-old Thai girl who had been forced to leave Denmark because of strict family reunification rules was allowed to return. Sørensen wrote to Vermund: “You disgusting Nazi shit… How dare you use a little girl to spread your racist, hateful, verbal diarrhea… You stinking pile of garbage …” (my translation, may differ from the original English). Sørensen seemed to imply that Vermund favored deporting all Muslims (“her evil wish to shamelessly follow in her Fuhrers [sic] footsteps and cleanse Denmark of a whole religious group, 30s style”) and was therefore being hypocritical. As far as I know, the girl, known by her nickname, Mint, is not a Muslim.
Job theft
The second instance involves criticism in an op-ed piece of a thin actress for playing a fat character in the film Harpiks (Resin). This was considered discriminatory and fat-phobic because fat characters should be played only by fat actors – the same type of objection that led Scarlett Johansson to drop out of a transgender role. The writer is shown wearing a shoulder bag with the slogan “Fatties against fascism.”
Depicting another ethnic group
In a similar vein, a documentary film, Dreams from the Outback, was excluded from film festivals (DK) because the director was white and whites should not be allowed to make films about Australian aborigines and other minority cultures. The director noted that aborigines don’t often have the resources to make a film themselves, and they might well benefit from an increase in awareness in the outside world.
Everyday abuse is worse on holidays
Fourth, Micah Oh, who teaches structural racism and cultural appropriation at the University of Copenhagen, warned against girls’ dressing up for Halloween as the Arab Princess Jasmine from Disney’s Aladdin because it could be perceived as “everyday racism" and offend people. Parents should tell them that they should be Sleeping Beauty instead. But with “Little girls first of all need to pretend to be princesses,” wasn’t Oh being somewhat discriminatory herself by stereotyping girls like that, besides ignoring the same pitfalls for all the little boys who might also wish to play princess?
Fighting racism with its own weapons
Finally, the Nørrebro Pride parade is an alternative to and protest against the annual Copenhagen Pride parade because of the latter’s commercialization, its acceptance of sponsorship from capitalist conglomerates and financial firms, and the participation of “racist politicians.” In the Nørrebro Pride parade, the LGBT+ people of color - “double minorities” - marched at the head of the procession, while white LGBT+ persons came afterward and cleaned up after the party. The parade thus not only offered an alternative for those who didn’t wish to be associated with mainstream racism; by reintroducing racial segregation, it also provided an opportunity for the descendants of racist oppressors to experience racism themselves.
While these events represent noteworthy strides in identitarian political action, they fall short of the dramatic harassment, physical attacks, vandalism and riots that greeted, say, Milo at Berkeley or Charles Murray at Middlebury. No one was fired or even hounded off social media for following a custom or holding an opinion that was unremarkable ten years ago. Some targets may have suffered slight reputational damage, and others might have been slightly guilted – those racist princess costumes! These results may be disappointing to subjugated and aggrieved groups whose existence is being denied or erased, but the local warriors are mashaling their forces and learning the necessary epithets, tropes and tactics, and perhaps this is only the warm-up stage in the long struggle for intersectional justice and equity in Denmark.
Tak, Peter.
Hating hate
The first concerns Facebook comments by Black Lives Matter spokesperson Bwalya Sørensen about Pernille Vermund, the leader of the New Right party (and subject of a recent post). Vermund had expressed her happiness that a 14-year-old Thai girl who had been forced to leave Denmark because of strict family reunification rules was allowed to return. Sørensen wrote to Vermund: “You disgusting Nazi shit… How dare you use a little girl to spread your racist, hateful, verbal diarrhea… You stinking pile of garbage …” (my translation, may differ from the original English). Sørensen seemed to imply that Vermund favored deporting all Muslims (“her evil wish to shamelessly follow in her Fuhrers [sic] footsteps and cleanse Denmark of a whole religious group, 30s style”) and was therefore being hypocritical. As far as I know, the girl, known by her nickname, Mint, is not a Muslim.
Job theft
The second instance involves criticism in an op-ed piece of a thin actress for playing a fat character in the film Harpiks (Resin). This was considered discriminatory and fat-phobic because fat characters should be played only by fat actors – the same type of objection that led Scarlett Johansson to drop out of a transgender role. The writer is shown wearing a shoulder bag with the slogan “Fatties against fascism.”
Depicting another ethnic group
In a similar vein, a documentary film, Dreams from the Outback, was excluded from film festivals (DK) because the director was white and whites should not be allowed to make films about Australian aborigines and other minority cultures. The director noted that aborigines don’t often have the resources to make a film themselves, and they might well benefit from an increase in awareness in the outside world.
Everyday abuse is worse on holidays
Fourth, Micah Oh, who teaches structural racism and cultural appropriation at the University of Copenhagen, warned against girls’ dressing up for Halloween as the Arab Princess Jasmine from Disney’s Aladdin because it could be perceived as “everyday racism" and offend people. Parents should tell them that they should be Sleeping Beauty instead. But with “Little girls first of all need to pretend to be princesses,” wasn’t Oh being somewhat discriminatory herself by stereotyping girls like that, besides ignoring the same pitfalls for all the little boys who might also wish to play princess?
Fighting racism with its own weapons
Finally, the Nørrebro Pride parade is an alternative to and protest against the annual Copenhagen Pride parade because of the latter’s commercialization, its acceptance of sponsorship from capitalist conglomerates and financial firms, and the participation of “racist politicians.” In the Nørrebro Pride parade, the LGBT+ people of color - “double minorities” - marched at the head of the procession, while white LGBT+ persons came afterward and cleaned up after the party. The parade thus not only offered an alternative for those who didn’t wish to be associated with mainstream racism; by reintroducing racial segregation, it also provided an opportunity for the descendants of racist oppressors to experience racism themselves.
While these events represent noteworthy strides in identitarian political action, they fall short of the dramatic harassment, physical attacks, vandalism and riots that greeted, say, Milo at Berkeley or Charles Murray at Middlebury. No one was fired or even hounded off social media for following a custom or holding an opinion that was unremarkable ten years ago. Some targets may have suffered slight reputational damage, and others might have been slightly guilted – those racist princess costumes! These results may be disappointing to subjugated and aggrieved groups whose existence is being denied or erased, but the local warriors are mashaling their forces and learning the necessary epithets, tropes and tactics, and perhaps this is only the warm-up stage in the long struggle for intersectional justice and equity in Denmark.
Tak, Peter.
31 January 2020
Not another Danish political cartoon, not China
Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that published the infamous Mohammed cartoons that caused violent demonstrations and boycotts in the Arab world in 2005, has done it again. It has picked on another bloc of more than 1.3 billion people to offend. On Monday it published a drawing of the Chinese flag with the five stars replaced by images of the Wuhan coronavirus. The Chinese ambassador to Denmark called it insulting and demanded an admission of misjudgment and an apology. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Denmark concurred.
JP’s editor, Jacob Nybroe, responded that the drawing was not intended to be offensive, that the paper has a right to freedom of expression, and that China’s response reflected a “different type of cultural understanding.” He maintained that there was nothing to apologize for. The illustrator himself, Niels Bo Bojesen, made no comment. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was also asked whether she would apologize and responded in the same vein (DK): “[W]e have a very, very strong tradition in Denmark not only for freedom of expression but also for satirical drawings in Denmark, and we will also have it in the future.” Other party leaders concurred.
Satire in the eye of the target
In Denmark political cartoons are referred to as “satirical drawings,” but it is not clear that this one is satire. Readers may differ in their perception of satire. The paper says the drawing is simply a representation of a major world event at the moment. The flag image is used as a way of identifying the origin of the coronavirus, but it does not explicitly mock or demean China. It has no text except the word “Coronavirus” and no other elements besides the flag image that suggest a particular interpretation. The paper had previously used other national flags to identify issues. It seems to have deniability.
Does Frederiksen think it’s satire, or was she just using the usual name of the genre? If it is satire, then it is satirizing something in particular, presumably the Chinese nation or government. What would the implied criticism be – that China should have done something to prevent the outbreak? That the Chinese might have risked something like this happening because they eat wild animals, as in the SARS outbreak?
It wasn’t critical, but if it was, it had a right to be
In any case, this has become a confused game of imputation and double-guessing. It’s not just any country that the drawing refers to; it’s one with the most powerful censorship apparatus in the world and the only one that can bully the most powerful corporations in the world such as Google and Apple into complying with its censorship policies.
Whether or not China is being hypersensitive, once it takes offense and demands action, it elevates the drawing to an international incident. If the drawing itself is a test of China’s international diplomacy, its response poses a test for the Danish players and then the Danish players’ response in turn poses another test for China. Frederiksen’s statement was less “offensive” toward a superpower than her seemingly spontaneous comment that Donald Trump’s interest in buying Greenland was “absurd.”
Finessing deniability
Did JP knowingly or deliberately provoke China, even with its deniability? Was the paper being callous and unsympathetic toward the Chinese people suffering from the outbreak and the Chinese authorities scrambling to contain it? Should it have refrained from publishing the drawing because of the Chinese government’s sensitivity to possible criticism and the possible repurcussions on Denmark’s exports to the country?
Perhaps the “satire” was aimed indirectly at China’s censorship policies. That is, even though the drawing itself didn’t contain any particular criticism, it was a stealth attack that provoked a reaction by China that could be criticized for trying to curtail freedom of the press in another country. In this reading, the illustration thus gained a measure of ridicule or absurdity that true satire requires – even the wordplay found in much classic satire – insofar as China itself has publicized the “insult” far beyond JP’s weekly domestic circulation of 120,00 – the population of a mere village in China – and caused it to go viral, like the bug depicted.
JP’s editor, Jacob Nybroe, responded that the drawing was not intended to be offensive, that the paper has a right to freedom of expression, and that China’s response reflected a “different type of cultural understanding.” He maintained that there was nothing to apologize for. The illustrator himself, Niels Bo Bojesen, made no comment. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was also asked whether she would apologize and responded in the same vein (DK): “[W]e have a very, very strong tradition in Denmark not only for freedom of expression but also for satirical drawings in Denmark, and we will also have it in the future.” Other party leaders concurred.
Satire in the eye of the target
In Denmark political cartoons are referred to as “satirical drawings,” but it is not clear that this one is satire. Readers may differ in their perception of satire. The paper says the drawing is simply a representation of a major world event at the moment. The flag image is used as a way of identifying the origin of the coronavirus, but it does not explicitly mock or demean China. It has no text except the word “Coronavirus” and no other elements besides the flag image that suggest a particular interpretation. The paper had previously used other national flags to identify issues. It seems to have deniability.
Does Frederiksen think it’s satire, or was she just using the usual name of the genre? If it is satire, then it is satirizing something in particular, presumably the Chinese nation or government. What would the implied criticism be – that China should have done something to prevent the outbreak? That the Chinese might have risked something like this happening because they eat wild animals, as in the SARS outbreak?
It wasn’t critical, but if it was, it had a right to be
In any case, this has become a confused game of imputation and double-guessing. It’s not just any country that the drawing refers to; it’s one with the most powerful censorship apparatus in the world and the only one that can bully the most powerful corporations in the world such as Google and Apple into complying with its censorship policies.
Whether or not China is being hypersensitive, once it takes offense and demands action, it elevates the drawing to an international incident. If the drawing itself is a test of China’s international diplomacy, its response poses a test for the Danish players and then the Danish players’ response in turn poses another test for China. Frederiksen’s statement was less “offensive” toward a superpower than her seemingly spontaneous comment that Donald Trump’s interest in buying Greenland was “absurd.”
Finessing deniability
Did JP knowingly or deliberately provoke China, even with its deniability? Was the paper being callous and unsympathetic toward the Chinese people suffering from the outbreak and the Chinese authorities scrambling to contain it? Should it have refrained from publishing the drawing because of the Chinese government’s sensitivity to possible criticism and the possible repurcussions on Denmark’s exports to the country?
Perhaps the “satire” was aimed indirectly at China’s censorship policies. That is, even though the drawing itself didn’t contain any particular criticism, it was a stealth attack that provoked a reaction by China that could be criticized for trying to curtail freedom of the press in another country. In this reading, the illustration thus gained a measure of ridicule or absurdity that true satire requires – even the wordplay found in much classic satire – insofar as China itself has publicized the “insult” far beyond JP’s weekly domestic circulation of 120,00 – the population of a mere village in China – and caused it to go viral, like the bug depicted.
24 January 2020
Why there is less social justice warfare in Denmark
Why doesn’t Denmark have as much controversy about social justice issues as do the US and the UK?
First, racial and ethnic tensions are not as acute because Denmark does not have the same history of slavery and colonialism. Slave trade was conducted in the Danish West Indies until 1848, but there is no segment of the Danish population that has descended from slaves and endured centuries of discrimination. There is an ethnic underclass, but only around 13 percent of the population has a foreign background. The largest group are the descendants of “guest workers” who came mainly from Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to remember a case of the police killing a person of color person under suspicious circumstances.
Second, conditions for women are more favorable because of the extensive welfare state and a tradition of greater egalitarianism.
Third, the country has historically been one of the most tolerant towards LGBT+ groups. It was the first to recognize same-sex partnerships, and it legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
Fewer enemies
Fourth, the right-wing radicalism that provokes activism on the Left is less extensive and prominent. White supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are very small and are looked down upon by the general population. The extremist Stram Kurs (Hard Line) Party, which advocated deporting all Muslims, received 1.8 percent of the votes in the 2019 election and didn’t qualify for seats in Parliament.
Fifth, universities, where most social justice agitation and scandals have taken place in the US, have an infrastructure in Denmark that makes them less susceptible to activism. They are not residential colleges. There are some dormitories, but very few are located on campus. Many students commute from home or live in apartments. They do not congregate as often as American students in clubs and interest organizations and perhaps for that reason do not develop a tribal mentality. They are also more professionally oriented. They do not simply “go to college” to get a B.A. They choose their major fields when they apply and begin to specialize after one year. It is likely that more of them are more interested in pursuing their careers than in political activism. Additionally, they aren’t burdened by the prospect of a sizeable undischargeable debt upon graduation.
Sixth, Twitter, which offers the quickest and easiest way to engage in ideological warfare, is less widespread in Denmark than in the US. Facebook is the most popular social media forum here. It does sometimes attract heated debate but has less rapid-fire escalation of denunciation and insult-trading and, in the extreme, mob frenzy.
Marxism was here first
Seventh, the European socialist tradition already offered a theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing social injustice. It was more firmly established and intellectually coherent than, say, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and intersectionalism, which need to explain themselves.
Eighth (a corollary of the preceding), there were already well-established political parties on the far Left with a voice in Parliament and influence on center-left administrations. The Red-Green Party’s platform is more extreme than the American progressive movement’s. Activists have a channel to promote their causes and need not always be an protest element that is not taken seriously.
Ninth (something that could have been mentioned first), some of the main objectives of the social justice movement have already been accomplished here, most obviously universal health care, tuition-free university, and policies to prevent environmental damage and climate change. There is not as much crony capitalism and lobbyist influence to protest against.
Tenth, children here are less “coddled” than Americans, as famously documented by Lukianoff and Haidt. They are less sheltered and are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves and therefore less likely to develop an entitlement and grievance mentality.
Biology 101
Finally (and more speculative), both academics and, where relevant, politicians appear to be stronger adherents and defenders of free speech and a scientific viewpoint than their American counterparts. Denmark is proud of its democratic tradition, which is linked to its egalitarianism. It has high voter turnouts and numerous local organizations and cooperative housing associations founded and run by citizen groups that span socioeconomic strata. There is less tendency to attempt to silence and suppress opposing political positions and probably less need for students to insulate themselves from exposure to ideas that might make them uncomfortable.
I don’t know how deeply social constructionism has influenced the social sciences here, but I doubt that the natural sciences are seriously threatened by ideological campaigns to deny the distinction between sex and gender, for example. If university faculty are under less pressure because of the factors listed above, then there is less need for them to cede an evidence-based approach.
First, racial and ethnic tensions are not as acute because Denmark does not have the same history of slavery and colonialism. Slave trade was conducted in the Danish West Indies until 1848, but there is no segment of the Danish population that has descended from slaves and endured centuries of discrimination. There is an ethnic underclass, but only around 13 percent of the population has a foreign background. The largest group are the descendants of “guest workers” who came mainly from Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to remember a case of the police killing a person of color person under suspicious circumstances.
Second, conditions for women are more favorable because of the extensive welfare state and a tradition of greater egalitarianism.
Third, the country has historically been one of the most tolerant towards LGBT+ groups. It was the first to recognize same-sex partnerships, and it legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
Fewer enemies
Fourth, the right-wing radicalism that provokes activism on the Left is less extensive and prominent. White supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are very small and are looked down upon by the general population. The extremist Stram Kurs (Hard Line) Party, which advocated deporting all Muslims, received 1.8 percent of the votes in the 2019 election and didn’t qualify for seats in Parliament.
Fifth, universities, where most social justice agitation and scandals have taken place in the US, have an infrastructure in Denmark that makes them less susceptible to activism. They are not residential colleges. There are some dormitories, but very few are located on campus. Many students commute from home or live in apartments. They do not congregate as often as American students in clubs and interest organizations and perhaps for that reason do not develop a tribal mentality. They are also more professionally oriented. They do not simply “go to college” to get a B.A. They choose their major fields when they apply and begin to specialize after one year. It is likely that more of them are more interested in pursuing their careers than in political activism. Additionally, they aren’t burdened by the prospect of a sizeable undischargeable debt upon graduation.
Sixth, Twitter, which offers the quickest and easiest way to engage in ideological warfare, is less widespread in Denmark than in the US. Facebook is the most popular social media forum here. It does sometimes attract heated debate but has less rapid-fire escalation of denunciation and insult-trading and, in the extreme, mob frenzy.
Marxism was here first
Seventh, the European socialist tradition already offered a theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing social injustice. It was more firmly established and intellectually coherent than, say, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and intersectionalism, which need to explain themselves.
Eighth (a corollary of the preceding), there were already well-established political parties on the far Left with a voice in Parliament and influence on center-left administrations. The Red-Green Party’s platform is more extreme than the American progressive movement’s. Activists have a channel to promote their causes and need not always be an protest element that is not taken seriously.
Ninth (something that could have been mentioned first), some of the main objectives of the social justice movement have already been accomplished here, most obviously universal health care, tuition-free university, and policies to prevent environmental damage and climate change. There is not as much crony capitalism and lobbyist influence to protest against.
Tenth, children here are less “coddled” than Americans, as famously documented by Lukianoff and Haidt. They are less sheltered and are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves and therefore less likely to develop an entitlement and grievance mentality.
Biology 101
Finally (and more speculative), both academics and, where relevant, politicians appear to be stronger adherents and defenders of free speech and a scientific viewpoint than their American counterparts. Denmark is proud of its democratic tradition, which is linked to its egalitarianism. It has high voter turnouts and numerous local organizations and cooperative housing associations founded and run by citizen groups that span socioeconomic strata. There is less tendency to attempt to silence and suppress opposing political positions and probably less need for students to insulate themselves from exposure to ideas that might make them uncomfortable.
I don’t know how deeply social constructionism has influenced the social sciences here, but I doubt that the natural sciences are seriously threatened by ideological campaigns to deny the distinction between sex and gender, for example. If university faculty are under less pressure because of the factors listed above, then there is less need for them to cede an evidence-based approach.
17 January 2020
Children with gender dysphoria in Denmark
In the Anglosphere you see things like this everyday: An IT contractor sues Nike for failing to protect them (the contractor) from misgendering harassment by coworkers who didn’t refer to them by the desired pronouns. Dozens of psychologists resign from a British clinic because they think it overdiagnoses gender dysphoria in children and they’re afraid of being labeled transphobic if they don’t conform. With the arrival of 2020, there seem to be some signs of fatigue with aggressive transgender activism. Some people who might have been sympathetic to the issues are tiring of the dogmatism fueling the more questionable demands and judgments: their insistence on the right of biological males who self-identify as women to compete against cis-women in all sports, their branding as bigots heterosexuals who are not interested in dating transpeople, and their automatic approval of transitioning for pre-adolescents.
Below the statistical radar
Transgender issues also arise in Denmark. There has been a steady increase in requests for hormone treatment and surgery in the past few years. But the trend appears to be at a simpler, more exploratory stage, and issues concerning transgender rights, inclusion and pronouns are still rather novel. Schools are only beginning to adapt restroom and locker-room facilities (DK) to dysphoric children. Earlier this year professors were still surprised when students criticized the use of the categories “male” and “female.” One case involved a statistics course (DK) in the biology faculty, in which students were to analyze differences between the sexes in phenomena such as left-handedness and height. Some objected that the assignments were offensive to people who don’t identify with either category. They weren’t questioning the validity of the studies, only the conventional limitation to two sexes that made some people feel overlooked and left out.
The professor couldn’t change he statistics, but he offered to use colors instead of the sexes, however that might work. After the evaluation meeting, he felt that his freedom of expression was being constrained and it made his teaching difficult. It seems rather quaint in comparison with what happens to American professors who run afoul of transgender activists. The same article tallies up the number of formal complaints about sexual harassment and offensive behavior at the University of Copenhagen: there were only five from 2016 to 2018.
Taking the plunge
Last month the Denmarks Radio television network broadcast a documentary about the youngest child in the country, at age 11, to begin hormone treatment: “I don’t want to be a girl, Mom” (DK). It gave a sympathetic, sometimes moving account of the child’s situation and the difficulty of the decision. Altogether it offered a balanced treatment of the factors at play: the children’s discomfort in their innate sex; parents’ and doctors’ uncertainty about the best course and the timing; sex researchers’ and politicians’ caution about irreversible long-term effects of the treatment; and the possibility of regret and a desire for de-transitioning. There was widespread agreement about the need for better knowledge about the consequences of such treatment.
And the process for determining whether to offer the treatment reflects those concerns. It consists of a referral to a sexology clinic, several interviews and tests, including psychiatric assessments and intelligence tests, consultations with school personnel, and a comprehensive evaluation by a group of psychologists and doctors. Contrast this with the position taken by American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidelines for children who seek treatment for gender dysphoria recommend an immediate “affirmative” response, that is, a commencement of the treatment process.
Whose interests are being served?
In a recent podcast with Quillette Magazine, Dr. James Cantor discusses his critique of these guidelines in a peer-reviewed article in which he cites several instances where the Academy misrepresented research. Among them was a dismissal of the previously accepted approach of “watchful waiting,” which was supported by replicated findings that after puberty two-thirds of children with gender dysphoria come to accept and prefer their natal sex. Most of them found that they were simply gay and not born in the wrong body.
Like much of the transgender debate that goes beyond questions of fundamental civil rights, discrimination and equal protection, the Academy’s attitude is baffling in its apparent disregard for both science and common sense. Does it reflect a tendency toward overtreatment in American healthcare, a general trend toward ideological extremes and rigidity in American public debate, both? It's encouraging that Danish healthcare professionals and researchers maintain a more deliberative, agnostic approach to this fraught issue and the transition bandwagon.
Below the statistical radar
Transgender issues also arise in Denmark. There has been a steady increase in requests for hormone treatment and surgery in the past few years. But the trend appears to be at a simpler, more exploratory stage, and issues concerning transgender rights, inclusion and pronouns are still rather novel. Schools are only beginning to adapt restroom and locker-room facilities (DK) to dysphoric children. Earlier this year professors were still surprised when students criticized the use of the categories “male” and “female.” One case involved a statistics course (DK) in the biology faculty, in which students were to analyze differences between the sexes in phenomena such as left-handedness and height. Some objected that the assignments were offensive to people who don’t identify with either category. They weren’t questioning the validity of the studies, only the conventional limitation to two sexes that made some people feel overlooked and left out.
The professor couldn’t change he statistics, but he offered to use colors instead of the sexes, however that might work. After the evaluation meeting, he felt that his freedom of expression was being constrained and it made his teaching difficult. It seems rather quaint in comparison with what happens to American professors who run afoul of transgender activists. The same article tallies up the number of formal complaints about sexual harassment and offensive behavior at the University of Copenhagen: there were only five from 2016 to 2018.
Taking the plunge
Last month the Denmarks Radio television network broadcast a documentary about the youngest child in the country, at age 11, to begin hormone treatment: “I don’t want to be a girl, Mom” (DK). It gave a sympathetic, sometimes moving account of the child’s situation and the difficulty of the decision. Altogether it offered a balanced treatment of the factors at play: the children’s discomfort in their innate sex; parents’ and doctors’ uncertainty about the best course and the timing; sex researchers’ and politicians’ caution about irreversible long-term effects of the treatment; and the possibility of regret and a desire for de-transitioning. There was widespread agreement about the need for better knowledge about the consequences of such treatment.
And the process for determining whether to offer the treatment reflects those concerns. It consists of a referral to a sexology clinic, several interviews and tests, including psychiatric assessments and intelligence tests, consultations with school personnel, and a comprehensive evaluation by a group of psychologists and doctors. Contrast this with the position taken by American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidelines for children who seek treatment for gender dysphoria recommend an immediate “affirmative” response, that is, a commencement of the treatment process.
Whose interests are being served?
In a recent podcast with Quillette Magazine, Dr. James Cantor discusses his critique of these guidelines in a peer-reviewed article in which he cites several instances where the Academy misrepresented research. Among them was a dismissal of the previously accepted approach of “watchful waiting,” which was supported by replicated findings that after puberty two-thirds of children with gender dysphoria come to accept and prefer their natal sex. Most of them found that they were simply gay and not born in the wrong body.
Like much of the transgender debate that goes beyond questions of fundamental civil rights, discrimination and equal protection, the Academy’s attitude is baffling in its apparent disregard for both science and common sense. Does it reflect a tendency toward overtreatment in American healthcare, a general trend toward ideological extremes and rigidity in American public debate, both? It's encouraging that Danish healthcare professionals and researchers maintain a more deliberative, agnostic approach to this fraught issue and the transition bandwagon.
10 January 2020
Immigrant children are getting more education than Danes
The results of a new study (DK) from Think Tank DEA surprised researchers. They show that, after the data are adjusted for the families’ financial background, more children of non-Western immigrants are completing a course of higher education than so-called “ethnic Danes.”
The study compares the number of young people who have taken a bachelor’s degree within 10 years of graduating from elementary school, that is, ninth grade, in the period 2002-08. The subjects are broken down into quintiles on the basis of their parents’ income. The results are consistent across the income spectrum: 8 to 10 percent more of the children of non-Western immigrants – both those born in Denmark and born elsewhere – attain a degree than Danes. The percentage ranges from about 30 percent for the lowest quintile to 60 percent for the highest.
Without the adjustment, this still isn’t the case. The gross average for all Danes is 33 percent and for immigrant youth is a couple of points lower. The difference in the two results reflects the fact that there are relatively few children of immigrants in the highest quintile segment. Another qualification is that Danish youth may take longer to finish college because more of them take a supplementary year before starting gymnasium (high school) and take a gap year before college.
Breaking the trend and the pattern
Nevertheless, the results are seen as a significant success for recent efforts to get more children of immigrants to pursue higher education. The accepted “story” in Danish society about ethnic minorities and education, especially in recent years during the rise of nationalist sentiment and the Danish People’s Party, has been that the lack of education and interest in education among immigrant children were a prime factor in preventing meaningful integration.
For a few years now, however, immigrant girls have constituted an exception to this image. A study from the Economic Council of the Labour Movement (DK) published in September showed that, of children of parents without an education, more girls with an immigrant background completed a degree than Danish girls as well as boys, or became “pattern-breakers” who exemplify social mobility. Even in gross terms, without considering parental background, immigrant girls recently surpassed Danish boys in educational attainment.
Girlbosses on the march or boys playing hooky
I would draw two conclusions from the study, one fairly obvious: The problem is with boys, particularly low-income boys of all ethnicities. It is well known that girls have been overtaking boys in the educational system for years in the US as well as Denmark. With the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing, academic training is necessary to thrive in the knowledge economy, and girls have seen women advancing into professional careers for at least a generation.
Critics have said that the educational system is geared towards girls, who are able to sit still, concentrate and communicate verbally at an earlier age than boys, and that boys become discouraged and fall behind. Another explanation in the Danish context is that immigrant girls are encouraged to pursue education as the path toward integration in Danish society and are receptive to the message, while boys are “left on their own” and are more likely to end up in vocational training if they pursue a career. In any case, the fact that, taking into account their economic background, immigrant boys show the same margin of superiority in education to Danish boys is a striking development.
The stick and the carrot
The other conclusion will be less palatable to many. That is, that the hard line on immigration and integration taken by the preceding (center-right) Liberal administration in both policy and rhetoric has been effective in changing attitudes toward integration among immigrants. Inger Støjberg, the Minister for Immigration and Integration from 2015 to 2019, was mocked and vilified for her 100-plus measures to restrict immigration and reduce social benefits for immigrants. She was accused of being cruel, of increasing child poverty, and of flouting international conventions. She is still the subject of an investigation (DK) for allegedly separating refugee couples in which the girl was a minor automatically, disregarding their right to a hearing on their residential accommodations.
Despite the legitimate criticisms, it is likely that the reduced number of immigrants has made it easier for the educational system and social services to help steer those already living here into productive career paths and has mitigated the sense of a separate social underclass in immigrant neighborhoods that is exacerbated by a steady flow of new arrivals. And that the insistent rhetoric about the necessity of rejecting Sharia law and accepting the norms of Western society, such as equal protection and equal opportunity, has helped to persuade immigrant families that formal education is the best means of promoting their children’s success and happiness. These effects are probably the reason that the new Social Democratic administration, in its approach to integration, has only moderated its predecessors’ harshest measures and maintained the emphasis on liberal democratic values.
The study compares the number of young people who have taken a bachelor’s degree within 10 years of graduating from elementary school, that is, ninth grade, in the period 2002-08. The subjects are broken down into quintiles on the basis of their parents’ income. The results are consistent across the income spectrum: 8 to 10 percent more of the children of non-Western immigrants – both those born in Denmark and born elsewhere – attain a degree than Danes. The percentage ranges from about 30 percent for the lowest quintile to 60 percent for the highest.
Without the adjustment, this still isn’t the case. The gross average for all Danes is 33 percent and for immigrant youth is a couple of points lower. The difference in the two results reflects the fact that there are relatively few children of immigrants in the highest quintile segment. Another qualification is that Danish youth may take longer to finish college because more of them take a supplementary year before starting gymnasium (high school) and take a gap year before college.
Breaking the trend and the pattern
Nevertheless, the results are seen as a significant success for recent efforts to get more children of immigrants to pursue higher education. The accepted “story” in Danish society about ethnic minorities and education, especially in recent years during the rise of nationalist sentiment and the Danish People’s Party, has been that the lack of education and interest in education among immigrant children were a prime factor in preventing meaningful integration.
For a few years now, however, immigrant girls have constituted an exception to this image. A study from the Economic Council of the Labour Movement (DK) published in September showed that, of children of parents without an education, more girls with an immigrant background completed a degree than Danish girls as well as boys, or became “pattern-breakers” who exemplify social mobility. Even in gross terms, without considering parental background, immigrant girls recently surpassed Danish boys in educational attainment.
Girlbosses on the march or boys playing hooky
I would draw two conclusions from the study, one fairly obvious: The problem is with boys, particularly low-income boys of all ethnicities. It is well known that girls have been overtaking boys in the educational system for years in the US as well as Denmark. With the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing, academic training is necessary to thrive in the knowledge economy, and girls have seen women advancing into professional careers for at least a generation.
Critics have said that the educational system is geared towards girls, who are able to sit still, concentrate and communicate verbally at an earlier age than boys, and that boys become discouraged and fall behind. Another explanation in the Danish context is that immigrant girls are encouraged to pursue education as the path toward integration in Danish society and are receptive to the message, while boys are “left on their own” and are more likely to end up in vocational training if they pursue a career. In any case, the fact that, taking into account their economic background, immigrant boys show the same margin of superiority in education to Danish boys is a striking development.
The stick and the carrot
The other conclusion will be less palatable to many. That is, that the hard line on immigration and integration taken by the preceding (center-right) Liberal administration in both policy and rhetoric has been effective in changing attitudes toward integration among immigrants. Inger Støjberg, the Minister for Immigration and Integration from 2015 to 2019, was mocked and vilified for her 100-plus measures to restrict immigration and reduce social benefits for immigrants. She was accused of being cruel, of increasing child poverty, and of flouting international conventions. She is still the subject of an investigation (DK) for allegedly separating refugee couples in which the girl was a minor automatically, disregarding their right to a hearing on their residential accommodations.
Despite the legitimate criticisms, it is likely that the reduced number of immigrants has made it easier for the educational system and social services to help steer those already living here into productive career paths and has mitigated the sense of a separate social underclass in immigrant neighborhoods that is exacerbated by a steady flow of new arrivals. And that the insistent rhetoric about the necessity of rejecting Sharia law and accepting the norms of Western society, such as equal protection and equal opportunity, has helped to persuade immigrant families that formal education is the best means of promoting their children’s success and happiness. These effects are probably the reason that the new Social Democratic administration, in its approach to integration, has only moderated its predecessors’ harshest measures and maintained the emphasis on liberal democratic values.
03 January 2020
The prime minister’s New Year’s speech
Every New Year’s Eve, the queen gives a brief speech on the state of Denmark, and the next evening, the prime minister does the same. The latter is not intended to be a definitive status report on the nation or a detailed program for the future, but it does usually offer an outline of the most important items on the political agenda. The tradition often produces well-intentioned sentiments and objectives that people can agree on, even if it lacks concrete measures for realizing them.
This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year.
Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.
Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.
The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes.
Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue.
Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer.
This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year.
Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.
Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.
The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes.
Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue.
Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)