Discrimination against citizens by the Dutch government is not an incident, but a “structural” problem. This is the conclusion of the State Commission against Discrimination and Racism in an advice to the cabinet issued on Monday. Action is needed quickly, says chairman Joyce Sylvester NRCto prevent discrimination from having a “disruptive effect on society.” This State Commission was established three years ago at the request of the House of Representatives.
The Schoof cabinet increases the risk of discrimination by the government, says Sylvester, by making “discriminatory statements” itself. She mentions Minister Mona Keijzer (Public Housing, BBB) and the State Secretaries Jurgen Nobel (Integration, VVD) and Chris Jansen (Infrastructure and Water Management, PVV) by name.
Keijzer said about asylum migrants from predominantly Muslim countries that “hatred of Jews is almost part of the culture there.” Jansen defended the statement of his party leader Geert Wilders that he wanted to “arrange” fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. And Nobel stated that “a very large part of Muslim young people” do not subscribe to Dutch “norms and values.”
Sylvester resents the fact that the government “denies that such comments are discriminatory.” By not taking back these kinds of statements, she says, “you show that it is very normal to say things like that.”
When people think of discrimination, many people think of ethnicity, says Sylvester. “But our position is that everyone in the Netherlands, directly or indirectly, faces discrimination and racism. Maybe you have a sister or daughter who earns less than her male colleague. Or an older father who still wants to work, but is discriminated against when applying for a job.”
You see “a broader pattern of discrimination” by the government. What do citizens notice about this?
“It was very clear in the Benefits Affair how people’s lives were being destroyed. You can also think of people who are often picked out of the queue by customs because of their appearance. And to students from the Caribbean Netherlands who got into trouble due to selections from DUO.” For years, this government service that arranges student grants mainly checked MBO students and students with a migration background during fraud investigations, it became apparent last year.
What is the cause of government discrimination?
“Discrimination is deeply rooted in Dutch society. That’s because people always have images of what other people are like. This also applies to civil servants. For example, if police officers gain experience with boys with a North African background a few times, they may not see this as incidental experiences, but it will shape their view of humanity. And that affects their actions. And in the policy they make.”
Do statements by cabinet members such as Keijzer, Nobel and Jansen have an effect on civil servants?
“These make it more difficult for civil servants, and for society as a whole, to tackle this subject seriously. You would like to encourage civil servants to be alert. That they can recognize, discuss and eliminate risks of discrimination. But statements like this can make them think that discrimination is not considered so bad, that it is part of life.
“Such statements also have an impact on people who experience discrimination. Government campaigns call for reporting discrimination. These kinds of statements can make people feel like there is no point in doing anything about it. Words matter. If the image arises that people may be treated unequally, that is disastrous.”
This is about the cabinet. Is that different from what MPs say or tweet, Geert Wilders for example?
“I don’t think that makes much difference for citizens. Especially if other MPs do not object to this. That’s known as it bystander effect. If I am discriminated against and no one says anything about it, then it is even worse. It needs to be corrected.”
The conclusions and advice of the State Commission are partly based on the experiences of three government organizations. Last year, the municipality of Arnhem, customs and DUO identified the greatest risks of discrimination in their organizations, using a method designed by the State Commission. “An extensive questionnaire that helps officials to discover these risks,” says Sylvester. “Then they must describe how they are going to tackle those problems.”
The exact risks Arnhem, customs and DUO have discovered will become clear in a month’s time. The State Commission will then present the results of this test. The intention is that many more government organizations will use this method. First those with a lot of contact with citizens, then possibly the organizations that make policy, such as ministries.
Previous cabinets have invested a lot of money and energy in improving contact between the government and citizens. This project, called ‘Work on Implementation’, will receive 600 million euros annually. “But the subject of discrimination does not appear in it,” says Sylvester.
What does that say?
“It is unconsciousness. That is why we are now telling the Minister of the Interior [Judith Uitermark, NSC]: make this a spearhead. Take action.”
In the advice published on Monday, the State Commission calls it a risk if civil servants are given a lot of freedom to make decisions about individual citizens. As a result, civil servants’ prejudices are given a lot of scope and discrimination quickly becomes a threat.
Government organizations themselves have often asked for more space for civil servants, in order to be able to provide tailor-made solutions to citizens.
“If people are managed more tightly in, for example, the police or customs, you give fewer opportunities for discrimination. You leave less room for civil servants’ individual views of humanity. But I understand there is a downside. If you’re going to fix it too much, you might as well put robots in there. It’s a precarious balance.”
You warn politicians not to just accuse organizations that have discriminated. Why?
“Of course it is good if politicians distance themselves from that. But if politicians judge so harshly that organizations start thinking: from now on we will cover up these kinds of things, then that is not good either.”
So politicians who want to show how bad they think discrimination can make it worse?
“That’s double. Discrimination is serious. Politicians have every right to distance themselves from that. But the tone and atmosphere can become such that organizations become less open. And your message must be right: just spread the word. Tell us everything that’s going on.
“If politicians only condemn it, nothing will change. That is why we also say that there must be a structural approach against discrimination and racism.”
By spending money on this approach, much higher costs can ultimately be avoided, the State Commission believes. Because recovery operations that need to correct errors are often much more expensive. For example, more than 10 billion euros have been set aside for the recovery operation of the Benefits Affair and 61 million euros have been set aside for the compensation of students discriminated against by DUO.
Sylvester: “That is why we say that government organizations must identify their risks in advance. It is better to be alert now than to have to pay billions in recovery operations later.”