The Clash of Civilizations Continues with the Immigration Debate!

Having let Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations genie out of the bottle, it is interesting to observe some of the other clashes in which Western civilization is now embroiled. Consider the lead from this story filed by Associated Press Writer Bob Lentz:

A small sign that asked customers to order in English at a famous cheesesteak shop was never meant to be offensive, the shop's owner testified Friday at a hearing to decide whether the policy was discriminatory.

Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, defended his policy before the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint.

"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language," Vento told the commission. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."

Vento posted two small signs in October 2005 at his shop in a diverse South Philadelphia neighborhood, telling customers, "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE 'SPEAK ENGLISH.'"

He said Friday that he posted the sign because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform and the increasing number of people from the area who could not order in English.

But he said he also wanted to keep the line moving at his busy store.

What makes the story particularly interesting is the role of the debate over immigration policy in establishing Vento's motives. Looking at Huntington's "conflict graph," reproduced by Wikipedia, we see Latin America identified as a civilization distinct from Western; and we have to wonder if Vento had Latinos in mind when he deployed his signs.

The other item that attracted my attention was Vento's argument that the signs were posted in the interest of efficiency. Now, writing as someone who looks for someplace else to eat when he sees a long line, I can understand (if not agree with) this argument. On the other hand I suspect that Vento never had the inclination (let alone the time) to figure out whether (a) his revenues were suffering due to declining efficiency in handling the line of customers (long lines mean more customers meaning more sales) and (b) whether that inefficiency, if genuine, had to do with failure to understand customer orders. My guess is that this is all a matter of jumping to a conclusion in the worst possible direction by choosing an action that not only did not address the real problem but also entailed some really unpleasant consequences. Finally, while my own argument accepts the hypothesis that the best business is an efficiency business, I have questioned that hypothesis in the past and continue to do so. Thus, while T. S. Eliot cautioned us about doing "the right deed for the wrong reason" in his tragedy, Murder in the Cathedral, this may be a more comic instance of doing the wrong deed for the wrong reason!