MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION? it's humbug and here's why

Teachers are urged to practice "multicultural education." They're piously told that their classroom should be a rainbow where kids from multiple cultures each add a complimentary color. Advocates of this fashionable approach, such as Professor Sonia Nieto, author of the popular Affirming Diversity, claim that "cultural, ... differences can and should be honored, respected, and used as a basis for learning and teaching." 

That is utter humbug because this prescription is based on two obviously false assumptions. First, that all cultures are compatible one with the other. They aren't.  Second, that all cultures incorporate the tolerance this rainbow requires. They don't.

 For instance, members of cultures little influenced by the enlightenment are likely to view the very concept of multiculturalism as totally unacceptable. Indeed, as a damnable heresy. Consider the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. (The retrograde dogmatic religious sect dominating Saudi Arabia and promoting their intolerance via vast amounts of oil money on religious education throughout the Muslim world.) Wahhabi true believers divide the world between the good guys who subscribe to their version of Islam, and Godless heretics or non-believers. And how do the Wahhabi deal with those who differ? They silence them. And if they must be flogged, jailed, even liquidated, to achieve that silence, so be it. Such intolerance makes it impossible to include their brand of Islam in the process of multicultural education. 

Is the Wahhabi brand really that intolerant? In 2004 a Saudi royal study group found that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.'  Embarrassed by such a finding, high ranking Saudi officials promised to eliminate the cited intolerant dogmatism from their curriculum. Years later, however, when the Washington Post analyzed "reformed" Saudi religion texts they found the self-same, intolerant preachments.  

Let's imagine Professor Nieto teaching in Saudi Arabia and following her own multicultural prescription. Envision her openly affirming the value of all religious view points. What do you think her fate would be? And before deciding, consider that in 2005, a Saudi teacher who cautiously suggested that Jews and the New Testament could be viewed positively, was not only fired, but sentenced to 750 lashes and sent to prison. (He was eventually pardoned, but only following intense international protests.) If Professor Nieto actually "affirmed diversity" in a Saudi classroom  she would doubtless suffer for it. And since this cultural backwater is extraordinarily misogynistic and Professor Nieto is a woman, a severe outcome would be especially likely.  

Is Saudi Arabia unique? Is it an island of intolerance in a tolerant world? Of course not. Religious and related cultural intolerance is so common in our world that tolerance is often a novelty. And this is especially true when believers subscribe to any religion that asserts that it, and only it, commands THE truth. 

And keep in mind that cultures often define themselves, in part, by their rejection of, hatred for, and possibly aggression toward, at least some other cultures. Palestinians rarely love the Jews. Armenians have serious reservations about the Turks. The Irish routinely have a less than cordial attitudes toward the English. And let's not expect Native Americans to be grateful to the "white man" for ethnically cleansing them from most of the continent. Cultures often clash as they compete for limited resources. As Simon and Garfunkel sang years ago: "The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch. And I don't like anybody very much!"

Here is another example of the foolishness of multicultural education, at least as Nieto describes it. Should a teacher actually set out to affirm diversity when confronting another culture's practice of, say, hating and persecuting homosexuals? (Some cultures even put them to death!) Such murderous intolerance doesn't blend well in any cultural rainbow. What about pre-marital sex. That's pretty common. But an Iranian couple accused of enjoying each other were sentenced to be buried up to their necks in sand, and stoned to death. Should any American teacher affirm that kind of diversity? 

There are cultures, or at least subcultures, that condone selling one's own daughter into prostitution, throwing battery acid in the face of girls who merely want to go to school, killing one's sister for "dishonoring" the family, hiring amateurs to carve out the clitoris of little girls with razor blades, forbidding female inclusion in a last will and testament, assigning women second rate legal standing, ad naseum. Should such differences be accepted, respected, and used as a basis for learning and teaching? Of course not. Yet teachers are advised to mindlessly affirm diversity.

America is something of a cultural salad.  And that is an American strength. But that doesn't alter the fact that adding some ingredients will render this salad indigestible. Specifically the primitive intolerance, coercion and religious support for cruelty and violence that characterizes some cultures. ISIS is an example. That's a culture we tolerate at our peril. Yet advocates of multiculturalism either pretend such cultures don't exist, or foolishly throw their arms around them. 

At bottom, Nieto style multiculturalism is just more of the simple-minded happy talk that plagues educational discourse. Enough of this shallow, ill-considered nonsense! Teaching the nation's children is far too serious to treat such wooly-headed drivel as anything other than nonsense. It's way past time to get serious, not merely solemn, when considering educational policy!

 

HOW MULTICULTURAL SHOULD AMERICA BE? looking at schools

ABOUT TO BE KILLED FOR "CRIMES AGAINST GOD"

Immigrant children are flowing into our schools from all over the globe. And they bring with them a bewildering, often conflicting, variety of cultural beliefs and practices. Teachers have to deal with this new, multi-cultural America that is struggling to life in their classrooms. And that generates multiple problems and unique opportunities. 

So what help do front-line teachers receive in the face of this challenge? Usually little more than warm, fuzzy slogans issued by administrators who are safe in the rear. These rear echelon commandos generate simple-minded humbug in which conflicted polyglot schools become multicultural rainbows where “You can be you and I can be me.” Would that it were that simple. 

Why can't our public schools be happy multicultural rainbows? For one thing, because the cultural values brought into the schoolhouse often are at odds with one another. For another, these values are often incompatible with core American ones. Take, for crucial instance, the very tolerance that makes multiculturalism possible. Such tolerance can be totally at odds with many of the student's cultures of origin. 

Consider Iran, for instance. Their theocracy lives and breaths intolerance. It publicly hangs citizens for "crimes against God." (That essentially means discomforting the clerical establishment.) They also mercilessly persecute the entire LBTG community. Then there's the Afghan Taliban who just banned females from any schooling beyond the 6th grade. Does any of this dovetail with schools that are multicultural rainbows? Does any of this fit the fabric of American democracy?

Remember too, some cultures define themselves in terms of animosity or distain for others. The antagonism between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Afghanistan's Hazzara and Pashtun, or Catholics and Protestants in Ulster comes to mind. Or how about Hindus who regard some of their fellow Indians as so repulsive as to be literally untouchable.  How does any of this fit in a cultural rainbow?  

Apparently, the most enthusiastic advocates of multicultural education have rarely thought about such things. In fact, they don't seem to think very much at all. For them, multiculturalism is a topic for emoting, not thinking. 

 No doubt aspects of an immigrant's native culture can, often do, make a valuable contribution to American culture. Our way of life has been enriched in that way many times over. But the fact remains that some foreign cultural practices are totally at odds with a tolerance and a,democratic way of life. If, for example, we value free and unfettered expression, or if we think that women’s rights should equal those of men, the native cultures of many immigrants stand in stern opposition. 

Remember too, lots of immigrant children do not want to be defined by their parent’s native culture. They long to escape those confines and join mainstream America. Should educators help that happen? Or should they join forces with their parents to keep these kids in the old-world fold?   

 The core reality of all of this is that multicultural education is much more problematic than its evangelists would have us believe. Any careful consideration of multi-culturalism inevitably turns from simple-minded tolerance to thoughtful reflection. That, not the current pablum about multicultural rainbows, must guide educational practice and school policy. Otherwise frontline teachers are left twisting slowly in the wind.

 To further examine this and similar educational issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

MULTICULTURALISM: probing the limits

Much obeisance is paid to the need for "multiculturalism" in the school curriculum. How else, ask earnest disciples, can educators promote a sense of empowerment and worth in all Americans? How else can they truly engage the many communities they serve? How else can they run schools that are strong and accountable community institutions? 

All that is true enough. But this comprehension and valuing will not change the fact that groups, be they clans, tribes or nations, compete for limited resources. And to the extent that these resources are limited, they do so at one another's expense. For instance, geographic territory is limited; and the demand for it exceeds the supply. It's a zero sum game. Consider the nearly three quarters of a century struggle between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs over land. Think the Palestinians are going multicultural and recognize Jewish holidays anytime soon? Or how about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Far from honoring Ukraine's culture, Putin alleges it doesn't even exist. Are the Ukrainians going to go for that kind of multiculturalism?

This competition for limited resources is one thing that strictly defines multiculturalism's limits. Why? Because it is difficult to even tolerate, much less honor, another group when that group's gain has been your group's loss. Competition for resources, be they jobs, desirable territory, natural resources, and so forth, has existed for all of recorded history. And, be assured, that this competition will continue, "... for as long as grass should grow and water flow." 

Now, in polyglot nations like the U. S., Canada or Australia, token recognition of the other guy's culture is de rigueur. For example, despite the vitriolic distrust and outright rejection that greeted Irish immigrants when they first arrived in the U. S., lots and lots of folks now wear green on St. Patrick's Day, perhaps eat a couple of those horrid confections, Irish Potatoes, or watch the parade. But that's only because the Irish have been so absorbed and intermarried that their presence is no longer the threat it once was seen to be. They now are a part of us.  And social science reveals that it is expressions of difference that result in negative appraisals.

Here is another strict limit on multiculturalism. Often one culture's values are diametrically opposed to those of another. Thus, they are utterly incompatible. And that leads us to the biggest problem of them all. The very tolerance required for a group to be multicultural is not only absent, but utterly rejected in many other cultures. Consider Saudi Arabia, for instance. They are so sure they are right about all sorts of things, religion for example, that they make no accommodations for difference whatsoever. Yet this fundamental incompatibility of multicultural tolerance for an intolerant culture is seldom, if ever, recognized by right thinking multicultural advocates. 

Sure, if another group's culture has been thoroughly adulterated by elements of the polyglot host culture, modest tolerance toward that other group's culture is likely. But even a long-resident group will still catch a world of crap if they remain sufficiently different. For instance, recent unprovoked assaults on Asian appearing citizens demonstrate that these Americans are sometimes punched in the face, beaten up, sometimes even killed, just for looking different. And if a group who wants to enter is really different, say, Middle Eastern Muslims, one quickly sees how minimally "multi-cultural" the rest of us are prepared to be. Remember Trump's attempted muslim ban? What kind of multiculturalism did that amount to? Then there is his border wall welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free."

Can one group's culture be enriched by welcoming another group and adopting, or at least respecting, aspects of their culture? Sure, it happens all the time. Nevertheless, due to the dynamics just described, this adoption will often be limited to the dominant group gingerly granting mere token recognition. For instance, deciding that their vittles are tasty.

So, to be realistic, advocates of multiculturalism, in education or out, must limit their ambitions and recognize the limitations. Too frequently that's not happening because of virtue signaling and imbalanced zealotry. Yet this is far too important an issue to address so thoughtlessly. The very growth, enrichment, coherence and stability of our society are at stake. 

For a more detailed treatment of this subject see: http://newfoundations.net/?page_id=303