KEY 1.0 intends to promote innovation in science teaching and contribute to the inclusion of young migrants. As we argued in the article Science and inclusion, we believe that the pedagogical method based on discussion is more inclusive, since it motivates the class around a common goal.

We beleive that, besides fostering cohesion inside the class, we are also trying to help to fight, in the broader social context, limited stereotypes concerning migration. In this respect, we invite migrant students to become protagonists in this joint action of their class in two ways: on one hand, expanding outside the class, through internet, the ambit of the discussion between peers as a learning method; on the other hand, launching a campaign to bring innovation to science teaching. According to the values of this project, it’s important to point out that of KEY 1.0 will not present its official doctrine regarding the migration phenomena or any other topic, neither to the classes nor to the teachers. Also, nobody has to agree with on any topic as a necessary condition to participate. On the contrary, we wish for a cooperation between people with very different perspectives. Apart from the author’s personal point of view and the one of SOS Racismo about social processes, we are certain there are other opinions compatible with critical thinking. Moreover, presenting a concept, the fairest it may be, as a truth to be learnt without questioning, would be completely incongruent with the type of teaching we intend to encourage .

The core philosophy of KEY 1.0 cherishes the dialogue between people with opposite views, but also the courage to take clear and firm positions. KEY 1.0 is a project of SOS Racism, which advocates that the freedom of movement should be recognized as a fundamental human right.  The author of this article believes that, in a society oriented by critical thinking, this principle would be more popular than it is today, and this is the position he will stand for throughout this text.

Modern Western culture explicity claims two fundamental values: personal freedom, and the ethics of reciprocity, the golden rule, treating others like you want to be treated. Limiting the freedom of non-Western citizens to live in the West, is an obvious contradiction with our dearest shared values. We should take them more seriously. In addition to this, the majority of people that are denied access into our countries, don’t choose their destiny, as they should be entitled to, but are compelled to do so by dramatic circumstances. Even in the most serious cases of families escaping from wars, many people question their right to the refugee status. The decision of Europe to guard its borders, costs hundreds of lives every year.   We understand the opportunity to limit personal freedom in special cases, namely when we have serious reasons to think that the benefits of the restraint measure and the problems it might avoid, outweigh all its direct negative consequences. What risks are we reducing by restricting immigration? What advantages are we aiming to? Many Western people feel that something terrible would happen if borders were opened.  We would be immediately invaded, crime would increase, and so social problems and terrorism, our allegedly superior society would be corrupted. The assumption below many of this fears is that our needs are more important than the needs of non-Western people. This position is rarely taken in a clear and open way, since it contradicts many of the principles that we all explicitly defend. When we human beings hold two conflicting ideas, values,  or attitudes, we tend to solve this contradiction by rationalizing, i.e. by finding a justification which is not a valid argument, but it is appealing to us anyway because it eases the psychological burden of the dissonance. I believe that this is the origin of the following opinion: “we don’t have to open our borders, but help the migrants in their countries instead”. I always wondered how could this statement be so popular among otherwise judicious people.  Moreover, I find it even more surprising that the obvious following counter-argument is not at least as popular: regulating the migrations does not help in any way to mitigate the economical unbalance between rich and poor countries, but rather it has caused and continues to cause tragedies.

Jonathan Haidt, American social psychologist whose many views I agree with, defends that an excessively open attitude of a part of the population towards immigration,  leads to lenient policies, which in turn boost the fears of the rest of the population, thus increasing to xenophobia. I am willing to partially follow Jonathan Haidt’s reasoning. In spite of not being rationally justified, the fear of migrations exists and has to be taken into account. If today, all of a sudden, borders would be fully and unconditionally opened against the will of a large part of the population, the negative reaction of this measure would probably cancel all its benefits. However, an anti-racist movement would never have the power to implement an extremely unpopular action, even if it wanted. What anti-racist movements are trying to do, is to promote a narrative favorable towards the opening of borders. Legislation will only be altered when this goal is accomplished. History has shown how narratives can dramatically change in a few years, so the purpose of movements against racism is not unrealistic.

There is only a useful comparison of such kind: the one between our present culture, the only culture we can directly influence, and a possible future version of it. I am going to use the example of personal improvement as a metaphor to explain the statement made in the previous subparagraph. I can confidently say that Nelson Mandela was a better person than Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer of the 70s. I am sure that there are better individuals than me, and worse ones also. The concept of better person and worse person, are not always totally pointless. It is just not fruitful or interesting to ask oneselves if we are a better or a worse person than anyone else. Thinking that we are worse than someone isn’t good for our self-esteem and doesn’t help us to improve. Thinking that we are better isn’t good for the self-esteem of the other person and it has adverse consequences for our personality as well. The most intelligent attitude is to do our best to always improve ourselves. The only constructuive comparison is the one between the person we are now and the person we may be in the future. If in this process of improvement we include factors like sympathy, social consequences, social contributions, commitment and respect for other people, we are also promoting a better environment around us. The people who are part of this environment, will certainly get on with us, making our life easier, what will encourage more people to follow a similar path. Knowing how to defend ourselves from aggression and demanding respect should obviously be part of the social skills we aim to develop. There will always be individuals tempted to obtain benefit at the expense of other people’s needs, so we should make this temptation less appealing. Nevertheless, it’s essential to be patient and tolerant with the faults inherent to human nature. Similarly, it’s useless to ask oneselves if the West is better or worse than any other civilization. Nobody needs to hear that his or her culture is superior or inferior to another. The natural reaction of most people would be contempt in one case and envy and resentment in the other. What we do need, instead, is openness and curiosity towards other civilizations, and the awareness that, in the end, there is one single human civilazation. The wheel, the agriculture, the domestication of animals, the writing, the present numbering system, the scientific method … are all results of conquers from very distant cultures in time and space, being the most recent impossible without the previous ones. They are all part of a chain of cultural developments that unify the whole humanity. This inter-connection has reached unbelievable levels in modern times. We all belong to the same world, whthere we like it or not. It’s good for our Western culture to continue to pursue the undeniable progress concerning gender equality, civil rights, the recognition of the legittimacy of different lifestyles and sexual orientations, and so on. But looking down on some cultures for being supposedly behind us in this path, is detrimnental to the promotion of these values outside the West and to the harmony among peoples and cultures.

Many Western individuals don’t feel they belong to the West, actually they feel a stronger sense of belonging to the whole humanity. The author of this article is one of those. However, instead of a sterile controversy, I prefer to grant the right to feel Western. I just want to promote, at the same time, the idea that this pride should be inspired by our positive aspects and inspire to challenge the negative ones. I wouls like a West open to everybody.

A thorough analysis of arguments for the closing the borders, and a careful counter-argumentation based on documented evidence, goes beyond the purposes of the present article and the skills of its author. However,  I have done my best to practise my critical thinking. We believe that the role of science and philosophy teaching, is to favour this attitude. We do not aim to convince the young people involved in the project of any claim made herewiht or of any official doctrine of “SOS racismo”. We wish that KEY contributes to their ability to use autonomously their critical thinking, whatever the conclusion this path will take them to.

Giancarlo Pace Key 1.0. Team Coordinator