The Folly of Multiculturalism
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -------- Patrick Henry
In recent years there has been a movement afoot in academia, known as multiculturalism. This movement claims to be an attempt to instill more racial sensitivity in America's college students and school children. It is said that minorities will be more prone to academic and economic success if they have a greater sense of ethnic pride and identity. Few rational people could object to such a noble ambition, yet nearly every time multiculturalism is tried, the attempt is steeped in controversy and the result is a resounding failure.
While the idea behind multiculturalism sounds beautiful and caring when first proposed, several flaws in the strategy soon become apparent. First of all, the logic of associating ethnic pride with individual success is dubious at best. Additionally, the tactics used to implement this strategy are unfortunately often very offensive to parents and frequently detrimental to the long-term well-being, academically, professionally, and even emotionally, of the student. Furthermore, this strategy places the students and the cirriculum in a racially competative atmosphere that is furtile breeding ground for racism. Because multicultural curricula often offend parents, employ misguided tactics, and rarely achieve its goals, I believe multicultural curricula should not be used in public schools.
A few years ago, a controversy arose in New York City over the School Chancellor's "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum. This uproar was a perfect example of parents being offended by the curriculum. This racially and ethnically diverse city would appear to be a perfect place to implement such a curriculum. However, a renegade school board in Queens, headed by Mary Cummings, defied the chancellor and even the mayor of the city because moral acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle was included in the curriculum.
Cases such as this one have led conservatives and traditionalists to charge that multiculturalism is more an attempt at political indoctrination and advocacy than an attempt at ethnic sensitivity. Mrs. Cummings said recently,
I was more shocked than angry at first, that anyone would have the temerity to try to force this on six year old kids... The non-homosexual parts of the Rainbow Curriculum were also shocking and amounted to a regimen of behavioral modification - brainwashing, in plain English. One sentence stood out - and I'll always remember it - 'The school is your family.' I thought to myself, the next revision will say, 'The state is your family.'
Another prominent female conservative, Beverly LaHaye, reported on her daily radio program recently that the "Rainbow Curriculum" made the following remark about masturbation: "Try it, it's fun."
The problem is not that the chancellor tried something that parents objected to, but rather it is the militant and arrogant attitude with which those objections are met. Pat Buchanan once wrote of the public schools, "Having captured America's public schools and converted them into the parish schools of secular humanism, the new religion that 'dare not speak its name' will not readily surrender these unrivaled pulpits for the propagation of the faith." While liberals would never publicly admit that Pat Buchanan is right, privately, they know he is. To prove his point, Mr. Buchanan quotes a 1983 award-winning essay of the American Humanist Association as saying, "The battle for America's future must be fought and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith."
The question of fairness has long been a strong drawing card for liberals and a difficult issue for conservatives to deal with. Everyone wants to believe that the world is a big, beautiful place, full of laughing children and eternal happiness and fairness. It's not. I have said many times that everyone gets treated unfairly now and then, and we must prepare children to deal with that unfairness. Instead of sending children out in pursuit of fairness, we should teach them to pursue excellence in themselves and in everything they do. Instead of teaching children to be envious and resentful of successful people, we should teach children to emulate the successful. I have no objection to teachers in black neighborhoods holding up successful blacks to build ethnic pride among the black children, however a lesson in how success is achieved should be connected.
Any successful person, whether it's Michael Jordan or Rush Limbaugh, can attest, success is a product of hard work, dedication, and perseverance. These are the ideas that we should be instilling in our youth. Not only are children today not taught to strive for excellence in everything they do, and ultimately to succeed in life, they are actively dissuaded from even trying. America is such a racist and intolerant nation, kids are told, that it would be a waste of time to even try to succeed in life, unless the government is guaranteeing your success through quotas or race norming. While never stated in so many words, this message is clearly presented throughout society, not just in the classroom. A recent study published by a group of black sociologists soon after the final episode of The Cosby Show, stated that portraying a black, upwardly mobile, nuclear family sent the wrong message to both blacks and whites. This evil message was that blacks can succeed if they just try. In addition to polluting the educational process, multicultural curricula often cause the standard academic subjects to be neglected.
The most important question that must be addressed in examining the methods used by a multicultural curriculum, is this: What exactly is going to be taught? In traditional academics, we teach mathematics, Western literature, Western civilization, and the English language. Which of these things will be altered or replaced in a multicultural curriculum? It would appear that all of these things must be changed. Some schools that have implemented multicultural curriculum are teaching children that Africans discovered the Americas before the Europeans did by sailing across the Atlantic on rafts, and that the ideas for the Constitution were stolen from the Iroquois Indians. Others teach that Africans have a different view of numbers that does not stress precision. Still others teach kids that street slang is every bit as good a form of communication as standard English. Even if these assertions are true, which is extremely unlikely, do they build greater sensitivity among the various ethnic communities? Or, do they create hard feelings and ill will among the various ethnic communities? Do they foster greater self esteem among the various ethnic
communities? Or do they just give kids an excuse for failing?
I think Dinesh D'Souza summed this sentiment up best when he said,
"What we are witnessing in our curriculum now is a kind of weird cultural Olympics in which every group comes to the reading list and asks: 'What did my guys do?' Now this is a very strange question. It assumes that knowledge and ideas, entire cultures that existed hundreds if not thousands of years ago, are the property of particular groups that happen to be walking about today. It is almost as though young white guys get up in the morning and have a big smile on their face when they look in the mirror because, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad. This notion of culture as constituting an ethnic patent is antithetical to what education is all about."
A few years ago, I took a World Civilization class at a small community college. My instructor was quite vocal about the follies of multiculturalism and political correctness. According to the instructor, the man who started the academic crusade against Christopher Columbus, Kirkpatrick Sale, author of the book The Conquest of Paradise, was not an historian at all, but rather an environmentalist. This rather diminishes the weight of Sale's accusations against Columbus. However, despite the instructor's personal opinion, the influence of multiculturalism could be clearly seen in the class.
Late in the semester, we studied the cultures of Africa. During this unit, we were told that there were many great civilizations in Africa, many as great for their time as the Roman Empire itself. What ever happened to these great civilizations, you might be wondering. They fell. They collapsed. They died. They disappeared. When the instructor told us this, I thought to myself, "How do civilizations just fall and disappear?" The fact of the matter is, they don't. Empires fall, but cultures and civilizations do not. Then why tell us this?
This, I believe, is the heart of multiculturalism; rewriting and revising history to make the story sound better;and lowering standards to allow for the appearance of greater success. "So what is the problem with that," a liberal might ask, "if it helps minorities feel better about themselves?" The problem is this. First and foremost, presenting fiction as fact is, quite frankly, lying, and nothing good has ever been built on lies. Rewriting history erases many of the true successes from human history and steals the rightful credit for these successes from those who have earned it. Secondly, the whole point of success is to rise above one's current level and acheive something better. No one has ever risen to that next level while pursuing a declining standard. A quick look at the problems that face America's inner cities proves that thought.
thecore.com
* * * |
