FBI and Arab community leaders talked past each other on divergent priorities.

Evidence

The three-hour meeting was an example of the failed communication that marks our era. Seemingly unaware of the irony in their statements, the FBI told the community leaders, a group of successful physicians and businessmen who had already contributed much to multicultural America, that the Bureau wanted to “bring the Arab Muslim community to this melting-pot country” and “to instill a sense of love for our precious freedoms.” They demanded that the community leaders condemn terrorism in front of them, which they willingly did. Meanwhile, the community leaders wanted to talk about other issues, like the crisis in local charitable donations, fallen sharply since the government shut down several national charities, and how government surveillance was scaring people away from community activities. They wanted to know how to get off the no-fly list. To these the FBI had little to add. (“Our only answer is to get to the airport early,” they said about the no-fly list.) Everyone was polite and well-meaning throughout, but in their clash of priorities, the meeting might have been held in two different languages. I left depressed and frustrated. — Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being…, 57

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A compact case study in how two well-meaning parties fail to communicate when institutional priorities and lived grievances diverge completely — the FBI seeks performative loyalty, the community seeks practical redress.
• ADDENDUM: The FBI demanding on-the-spot public condemnations of terrorism parallels the performative-shame dynamics in the ‘On Sacrifice’ piece about rituals of allegiance.