Siga Mbaraga and Jasmin Badiane wrote an open letter to the board of the Refugee Law Clinic Berlin e.V. regarding a planned field trip to Eisenhüttenstadt.
Berlin, November 23, 2014
Dear Board of Directors of the Refugee Law Clinic Berlin e.V., Ladies and Gentlemen,
We see potential for resistance in the establishment of Refugee Law Clinics (hereafter RLC) throughout Germany. It is preceded by the consideration and understanding of the problem, which has become historical worldwide, of individual mobility depending on the country of birth of a person. With an understanding of these structures that have become and their global forces that continue to operate into the present, comes an understanding of the structural inequalities and injustices suffered by “the others” – the so-called Global South, Black people and People of Color. In this respect, legal expertise in the field of German and European asylum law would be an effective and powerful tool.
The Refugee Law Clinic Berlin e.V., founded in January of this year at the Humboldt University of Berlin, pursues the goal:
[…] to provide students with knowledge of asylum and residence law and, at the same time, to offer free and competent legal advice for refugees and migrants in Berlin.1
The great interest that was already evident before the start of the lecture in the winter semester 2014/15 has continued with more than 100 participants every week since then.
As part of the training cycle described above, a ‘visit’ to the Eisenhüttenstadt initial reception facility is planned. Since the announcement of this project in the lecture, protests were voiced by the participants, who demanded a critical examination of those responsible. From the beginning, this criticism was neither understood as such nor taken seriously.
To reconstruct a summary of what happened: Since 28.10.2014 we asked for an appointment. We were stalled and waved off with paternalistic emails. At no point were our objections publicly addressed in lecture.
On 11.11.2014, after we had to realize again at the beginning of the lecture that the lecturers did not want to talk to us, at the end of the presentation I asked the lecturing guest lecturer from the Free University of Berlin the following question, which was aimed at publicly addressing the excursion to Eisenhüttenstadt: ‘How is it to be reconciled to look at traumatized people in a precarious life situation in the course of an excursion?’ Thereupon a poisonous atmosphere arose in the lecture hall: Both white Students as well as lecturers felt visibly bothered by the question. As the latter refused to answer my question and voices in the lecture hall demanded to continue with the lecture, i.e. to ignore me, I replied loud and clear: ‘This behavior is not surprising in a room full of “white ignorance and arrogance”‘. This was echoed by unthinking white students with indignation. A white man with matted hair sitting two seats next to me told me’ my behavior was ‘racist”. Last Tuesday, 18.11.2014, at the beginning of the lecture, the events were commented that the lecturer (fully aware that she has been turning us away for several weeks) opened the lecture with the words: ‘She would not tolerate “insults and discrimination” against the Board in her lecture hall’. She would have assumed that it was a matter of course not worth mentioning and regretted to note that it was not. If something like this happened again, the individuals would not be allowed to attend the course.’
The same evening we received an appointment by e-mail from the RLC. This was set for Friday, 21.11.2014, without consultation with those interested in the talks. Due to the short notice, we were not able to keep the set date and requested that a new date be arranged. This request was rejected on the grounds that the Board would already meet this Monday (24.11.2014) to discuss, among other things, the excursion to Eisenhüttenstadt.
For us Black students, it was apparent from the beginning that an event such as RLC offers at HU cannot proceed without incident without reflection on our own white privilege or hegemonic power structures.
The overwhelming crowd, with more than 90% white students, made us wonder from the start.
As mentioned at the beginning, on the one hand we see the potential and the necessity of such an institution as RLC, on the other hand we are puzzled by the motives of the majority of white participants. What are their motives? What are the intentions behind their actions? And what is the consequence when once again majority white young people see themselves as rescuers and helpers?
Such an attitude is supported by the Western education system, which excludes educational content that does not directly serve a professional or career-related exploitation and thus promotes white universalism. Looking beyond the white edge of the plate is impractical and therefore only appears as an obstacle.
We have to put up with this, because in this adversarial world there is sometimes no other way: Refugees have difficult access to legal advice and law students do not gain practical experience during their studies. Using the American model of law clinics, we can conclude that both parties benefit.
But what if the white lecturers and initiators of the RLCs are not aware of their responsibility? What if they don’t want to know and hear what critical Black voices can teach them; and in a lecture hall with majority white participants, Black women are labeled as disruptive, thereby legitimizing the statements (reverse racism/ angry black woman/ silencing) of white participants?
If lecturers are confronted with the direct or indirect accusation of their non-accidental ignorance or their accidental neglect is pointed out, this is not understood as a considerable quantity for disputes, which is put into the center and reflected.2
These events are not individual occurrences, but systematic white strategies and defense mechanisms to avoid having to deal with the demands. Because white people still want to determine: When they have to say how, to whom, what. It is not understood that in some cases it is appropriate to listen and gratefully accept what is communicated to them for their own reflection:
Assuming that white people notice their ignorance but still do not want to lose their positions, they have to exclude the respective “others” from their community so that their ignorance is not exposed.3
There is nothing that would justify an excursion to Eisenhüttenstadt in this context. They are merely continuities of colonial (adventure) journeys and fantasies in a new guise and with a new justification that are defended with the argument of making suffering more experiential in order to promote supposed empathy and solidarity.
‘Development policy’ pursues the concept of standing by countries that have been constructed as ‘underdeveloped’ in ‘solidarity’ only if domestic industry also benefits. From this point of view, ‘development aid’ only makes sense as export promotion for the economy. Here we also speak of the ‘commercialization’ of the concept of solidarity.
We wonder if this Western capitalist self-image (commercialization of solidarity) has not already reached all sectors of white society.
For example, when in Hamburg, in the wake of the Lampedusa disaster, young, western, white, fedora-wearing ‘leftists’ meet on weekends to participate in a ‘Lampedusa workshop’ on a ship! on the high seas.
Or, if an excursion to Eisenhüttenstadt is offered, with the prospect ‘if we are lucky’4 of also looking at the prison cells. We call it compassion tourism. Privileged white students are asked to spend a day feeling out what ‘it’s like’ to then engage in activism – of course making sure they ‘feel good’.
To this end, we had long ago offered in our email correspondence to invite refugees who are politically engaged and would like to speak at the lecture. Or watch one of the many documentaries that exist on the subject.
We demand the immediate stop of the journey to Eisenhüttenstadt and a confrontation and transparency of the events in the lecture. We are ready to sit down with those responsible and discuss how this should be done.
We are not interested in torpedoing the RLC project. We simply want to draw attention to the fact that the white perspective has to fulfill its responsibility in such matters and cannot simply ignore the fact that there is criticism.
We will not be intimidated and we will continue to raise our voice until it is heard. That Refugees rely on RLCs should not be a legitimization for any white person to not address their white privilege. Quite the opposite: this preprograms the abuse of power. A confrontation with one’s own privileges and power structures is indispensable in order to develop a minimum of empathy for one’s counterpart. For this work was not intended to exclusively confirm white self-image in its ‘well-intentioned racism’.
We realize that the establishment of the Clinic and the accompanying planning of the training represent an immense amount of work. However, our concern is of the highest priority and those in charge should take it to heart.
The paternalistic attitude of the RLC suggested that we should be grateful for their work and it is obvious that they did not expect criticism. More than that, in thinking we are doing something good, our criticism is taken as an unjust attack.
But it is exactly the other way around. RLC should be grateful that we bring this to their attention and accept the criticism to grow from it. For “le blanc est enfermé dans sa blancheur “5 (frz. “the white person is locked into his whiteness“) and needs the feedback from the outside in order not to fall into colonial patterns of thinking.
Sincerely yours,
Siga Mbaraga
Jasmine Badiane