Resolved, multiculturalism is good for higher education. I just watched a terrific debate on this resolution at the amazing Intercollegiate Studies Institute website - http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
Dr. Patricia Bode of Tufts University argues for the affirmative. First, she summarizes the goals of multicultural education (ME).
1) ME tackles inequality and promotes access to education.
2) ME raises the achievement of all students and provides them with an equitable and high quality education.
3) ME it gives students an apprenticeship and an opportunity to become productive members of a democratic society.
Dr. Bode undergirds the assertions with the five dimensions, identified by James Banks, of institutional change necessary for there to be true ME. She does this so we can understand the "socio-political view" of ME.
1) A knowledge construction process by which faculty engage students to investigate frames of reference in order to uncover bias and determine what counts as knowledge.
2) Curriculum integration deals with the extent to which different cultures are used as examples.
3) Equity pedagogy draw from Paolo Friere to facilitate the achievement of all students.
4) Prejudice reduction focuses on racial attitudes and attitudes about bias against ethnic groups, races, sexual orientation, religion and languages and other identities.
5) An empowering school school structure. This includes admission strategies and recognizing that admissions start with grouping and labeling practices in K - 12 and differences in achievement between racial groups there. This is done to ensure all are achieving highly.
ME includes seven characteristics because we are not yet a democratic society with equal access.
1) It is anti-racist education. It comes from the Civil Rights movement and so expands to anti-bias education.
2) It is basic education. It is about all people being able to read and write well.
3) It is especially important for people in dominant groups to undergo this training. It is not just access, it is a pervasive frame of mind that must be inculcated.
4) It is education for social justice. It looks at power structures and how those influence student achievement. ME doesn't just affirm identity and language, it address and confronts issues of difference, power and privilege in school practices and in society by challenging racism and other biases. Affirming identity can help minorities become successful learners, but unless it engages power structures it is unlikely to have a lasting impact or lead to equity and social justice. Socioeconomic structures and "access to things" must be addressed and that must be seen as part of the educational process.
5) It needs to take into account our history of immigration (both voluntary and forced), as well as inequality and exclusion that have characterized our past and present and our educational record.
(I counted five, though Dr. Bode listed it as seven)
Giving us the full list she quickly says, "Identity is important but it is not everything. Race, ethnicity, social class, language use, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and other social and human differences, are a major aspect of the socio-political context. It begins with the assumption that Identity frames how one views the world, but does not necessarily determine it."
This is Dr. Bode's closing argument:
"ME is misnamed when said to only refer to studying other cultures or focusing solely on peoples' fixed identities. When ME grounds its practice in strong analysis in relationships among unequal groups in the US, and contextualizes schools and colleges and universities in the broader socio-cultural environment in the US, recognizes the implications of the social construction of race [ME] does not reify identity, does not essentialize culture as a fixed notion and recognizes also the embedded structure of white supremacy in US history and that different political positions that race, ethnicity and class hold in the current social framework regarding influences on academic achievement, when ME addresses social class through analysis of poverty and its causes, proposes strategies to eliminate it, critiques the growing wealth of the few at the expense and impoverishment of the many, and develops a comprehensive analysis of oppression, then ME is good for higher education. Then it is working toward participation in a democratic society for all students."
ANY THOUGHTS? HOW MANY WAYS CAN WE LIST IN WHICH ME IS WRONG?
44 comments:
Culturist John,
you wrote,
---------------------------------------------
2) Divisiveness is a charge. But minorities do not have a choice "in a society that has been built historically on white supremacy to confront that every day." This argument says that multiculturalism puts aside commonality and individual rights, but it isn't true.
---------------------------------------------
One problem with Dr. Patricia Bode's thinking is that long ago, white supremacy my have played a major part in American culture, but not today. Today although they are not gone, the Ku Klux Klan is a fringe group and hardly represents beliefs of most American whites. From what I have heard the majority of America white supremacists today are neo Nazis. Which is highly ironic, because Nazism was never seen as unacceptable by the American mainstream, expect perhaps for a brief period before World War two. One of the things that proves my point is the election of Barrack Obama, the first black man to become president. Now I don't support Obama, but America is still a majority white nation, so if white supremacy was still common here, how do you explain that?
you wrote,
---------------------------------------------
4) Prejudice reduction focuses on racial attitudes and attitudes about bias against ethnic groups, races, sexual orientation, religion and languages and other identities.
---------------------------------------------
Yes but how accurate is the material. Granted it may be very accurate when it comes to race and sexual orientation. But what about other things? For example, what does it teach about Islam? Does it talk about Mohammad's treatment of unbelievers, or his bloody conquests? Do they also leave out unpleasant, yet important things, when it comes to the say, the pre Colombian history of south America?
you wrote,
-----------------------------------------
ME includes seven characteristics because we are not yet a democratic society with equal access.
-----------------------------------------
In what way? What do you mean by "equal access" exactly? That's a very vague term. Is absolute equal access always possible? Plus are you saying that we are not yet a democratic society, or just not a democratic society with "equal access," whatever that means? I can tell you for a fact that we are a very democratic society. Although I don't think that the founders technically wanted as to be a democracy. They wanted us to be a republic, with a constitution designed to limited the size of the government, and protect individual rights.
you wrote,
-----------------------------------------
3) There is an argument about intellectual weakness. But Banks talks about rigor in knowledge construction process. It is not about watering down the great books curriculum or removing the classics. It is about who gets to construct knowledge and say what the classics are and who is included. It asks how cultural knowledge and individual knowledge and experience inform the knowledge of the higher learning community.
-----------------------------------------
Again, how accurate is the material. Also what have you sacrificed to put in something else? Was it a good trade?
Quoting bode, You wrote,
-----------------------------------------
"ME is misnamed when said to only refer to studying other cultures or focusing solely on peoples' fixed identities. When ME grounds its practice in strong analysis in relationships among unequal groups in the US, and contextualizes schools and colleges and universities in the broader socio-cultural environment in the US, recognizes the implications of the social construction of race [ME] does not reify identity, does not essentialize culture as a fixed notion and recognizes also the embedded structure of white supremacy in US history and that different political positions that race, ethnicity and class hold in the current social framework regarding influences on academic achievement, when ME addresses social class through analysis of poverty and its causes, proposes strategies to eliminate it, critiques the growing wealth of the few at the expense and impoverishment of the many, and develops a comprehensive analysis of oppression, then ME is good for higher education. Then it is working toward participation in a democratic society for all students."
-----------------------------------------
Again, does it give an accurate picture of other cultures or does it treat them as if they were the same as western culture? Or does it denigrate the west and talk about how wonderful other cultures are? Does it distinguish between culture and race?
Also "when ME addresses social class through analysis of poverty and its causes, proposes strategies to eliminate it, critiques the growing wealth of the few at the expense and impoverishment of the many, and develops a comprehensive analysis of oppression, then ME is good for higher education." This sounds like left wing ideology. More specifically, it sounds like they are advocating socialism of some kind. Should professors really be advocating an ideology, especially one that ignores economic science? Isn't the western ideal of the university supposed to be one of learning and intellectual freedom, not indoctrination?
Damien,
Thanks for playing along. I have another uncommon rebuttal to the charge that this nation has been built on "white supremacy." Until recently 90% of the people here were white. It was like China. Is China built on Chinese supremacy? Yes 10% did forced labor for some time. That does not account for the wealth of the 90%. Was GM built by slavery? The tech industry? The Puritans? The fight against England? The fight against NAZIs?
The argument may say, but the 90% statistic comes from racist exclusion laws. Still, excluded folks don't build a nation.
I like our "that logic doesn't work now that Barack is elected" idea.
On point two YOU ARE RIGHT, as she shows, multiculturalism must whitewash history and does not believe diversity is real; it is only a social perception. Underneath we're all Enlightenment beings of some sort.
Your third - WE HIT THREE!! - and equal access is not equal outcome. Inequality in outcome does not prove inequality of access.
On the canon I'd add, screw it, we prefer dead white European males because that is who built our civilization. Greece, Rome, etc. We have a core culture to teach. There were no gay Filipino founding fathers of different ability.
On your fifth - WE HIT FIVE CRITIQUES - and in her closing argument. She drops all pretense and just says this is Marxist indoctrination for class struggle. When we just call it Marxist indoctrination emphasizing the oppression of non-white groups, it loses its cultural focus; we see is is not ME.
Thanks Damien!!! We're generating a good list. Others??
One problem with Dr. Patricia Bode's thinking is that long ago, white supremacy my have played a major part in American culture, but not today.
---------------------
Culturist John's site belies that assertion.
I'm also surprised that Culturist didn't harp on Freire being a communist.
One problem with Dr. Patricia Bode's thinking is that long ago, white supremacy my have played a major part in American culture, but not today.
---------------------
Culturist John's site belies that assertion.
I'm also surprised that Culturist didn't harp on Freire being a communist.
Ducky,
Comically, I thought of mentioning that Friere was a communist. You are a mind reader. But I did not want to make an exception to my not editorializing on her speech. Those are all close summations of her words.
SERIOUSLY, dude, are you calling me a white supremacist? WTF??? What the heck is wrong with you? I really hope that was not your intent. If so I am deeply shocked by your inability to get that not all talk of culture is about race and advocating western culture does not make you a white supremacist. WORSE YET I am very deeply offended and want an apology.
Culturist John,
I'm glad you appreciate my comment. But I must change part of it.
I'm going to change the sentence "Isn't the western ideal of the university supposed to be one of learning and intellectual freedom, not indoctrination?" and replace it with "Isn't the western ideal of the university supposed to be one of learning, intellectual freedom, and free inquiry, not indoctrination?" Because it has adds something to it, and makes it come much closer to what I actually meant to say. However, I didn't think of it, until after I published the comment.
Culturist John,
I Also just noticed another mistake I made.
I need to change, "From what I have heard the majority of America white supremacists today are neo Nazis. Which is highly ironic, because Nazism was never seen as unacceptable by the American mainstream, expect perhaps for a brief period before World War two." to "From what I have heard the majority of American white supremacists today are neo Nazis. Which is highly ironic, because Nazism was never seen as acceptable by the American mainstream, expect perhaps for a brief period before World War two.. I can't believe I didn't notice that mistake until just now.
Ducky's here,
What evidence do you have to assert that America is still a racist society? How is John being a racist by defending western culture?
Sorry culturist but you are a supremacist to your core. You don't advocate violence but you certainly don't seem to be above a little voluntary ethnic cleansing.
As far as I can tell your idea of culture comes down to America - Britain - Israel and the rest of the world.
Now don't get such an attitude. You essentially called my grandparents "barely western" and I didn't get excited. It's par for the course here.
No?
Ducky's here,
You don't think our culture is better than say Saudi Arabia, where you're not allowed freedom of religion, where you can be stoned for being a homosexual, were women are pretty much the property of their fathers and than their husbands, and you are taught to hate anyone who doesn't share the state religion? If valuing western culture over other cultures is supremacists, then just about every culture that ever existed has been supremacists. People allows regarded their values as better and that's normal. Its not inherently hateful either.
Is wanting to keep people out of America, Europe and the rest of western world, that oppose our way of life, and support murdering everyone who criticizes them, a form of ethnic cleansing? If it is, any sane society would be guilty of ethnic cleansing if it were put in the same circumstances the west is in now. How many societies would allow huge numbers of foreigners into their country, who openly expressed a desire to destroy that societies way of life and threatened to kill anyone living there, who tried to stop them? Is that really unreasonable? Or do you not care about preserving a society that respects, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and equality of the sexes? If you don't, think carefully about what the destruction of every society on earth that believes in those things would really mean.
This is not ethnic cleansing, nor is it genocide. neither me, nor Culturist John, and as far as I know, no one else on this site supports murdering people who simply disagree with our way of life.
I personally don't agree with everything Culturist John has said, but he makes some valid points and none of them remotely resemble anything a Nazi or some other genocidal maniac would say.
If you're going to fling accusations, try to make sure they have a basis in realty.
Ducky's here,
By the way, I don't want Islam to take over any more non western countries either. Things are bad enough as it is and I think Culturist John would agree with me hear.
Ducky's here,
Note: I just realized that you might misinterpretation what I wrote and think that I just called Western Civilization insane. I did not, but if enough people in the western world allowed themselves to see what is going on. They'd be terrified.
Damien (who I address first because I think him reasonable),
We agree on many things, but disagree on some. Spiritually I cannot prove that our culture beats Saudi Arabia's and would - if they reciprocate - totally leave them alone.
Not only in terms of truth, but in terms of practicality, it is better for us not reaffirm this West is the best, universal rights paradigm.
We are the best to us. Not everyone agrees. That is why we must protect ourselves. If people all held our truths as self-evident they'd assimilate the moment they arrived.
Ducky,
If my comment upset you, you should have posted it there. Perhaps you might have found you misunderstood me. I was reminding you of your western heritage and that it is now threatened by oligarchy. You should cherish your liberties.
Of course, you never listen anyhow. I often wonder if you read the blog article before posting. Still, you are a fun crumudgeon on all sites. But now you have crossed the line.
Culturism is for western civilization. Ethnic cleansing would violate all of our basic tenets. There for it would violate culturism. But, again, you never listen - you just instigate.
I would not or never hang out with people I consider white supremacists in favor of ethnic cleansing. It disgusts me that you would. If you are the sort that indulges such ideas, please do not frequent this blog. In fact, if you're just going to show up and call people vile and spurious names with nearly zero reference to the blog title, please do not. I certainly would not go to your blog and say you're a member of the KKK. It would be baseless disgusting slander. It is gross and I won't let it stand on this blog.
CONGRATULATIONS!!! You gave us another reason multiculturalism sucks. Deep down it holds that western civilization is an evil racist entity and that all who support it are white supremacists culpable in genocide. As such it creates the commonly seen disgruntled alienation minorities trained in it experience.
That is number SIX in our list!!!
Culturist John,
you said,
-------------------------------------------
We are the best to us. Not everyone agrees. That is why we must protect ourselves. If people all held our truths as self-evident they'd assimilate the moment they arrived.
-------------------------------------------
off course they do not, I never said they did.
Damien,
But you did seemed to indicate Saudi Arabia is a bad place. Whether it is or is not is not our business. They have a culture they take pride in and protect. That is their right and duty. We have one we should take pride in and protect. That is our duty too.
Many people on our side have a hard time with my not calling muslim nations savage. They are whatever they are and they like it. Culturism does not posit a universal truth scheme. We have our cultural reality and they have theirs.
But, from OUR POINT OF VIEW, SPEAKING OF MULTICULTURALISM,
#7 It leaves us weak as it undermines our border and sense of pride. In a world where everyone else is pumping up their team for the big competition, for us to tell our players they don't have a side or something to fight for is suicidal.
# 8
It has epistemological holes. It uses the word oppression very loosely. It teaches that if society so much as looks at you funny, you are oppressed by their gaze. By that definition all is oppression and "social constructs."
This causes permanent disgruntledness. The problem is that after the vaunted revolution for liberation, gazes are not the only worries they will have.
So much is wrong here I don't know where to begin. If I have time I'll later go through her points, but the main mistake she makes is the classic irony of multiculturism in that if everyone adopted this so-called "multicultural" education system it would immediately annihilate 99% of the cultures on Earth who don't think this way.
Empedocles,
Which is one of the reasons why so many cultures haven't adopted it.
Empedocles,
Right, most cultures would and have always rejected multiculturalism.
The guy who debates Dr. Bode asks her repeatedly if celebrating diversity included Christians who did not believe in gay marriage. She had no answer. Actually cultures are rarely tolerant of diversity and ME does not seem to be an exception. They only tolerate and celebrate their own truths.
WE HAVE NUMBER EIGHT!! Thanks!!!
If her brand of cultural diversity only includes cultures that allow gay marriage, it will exclude by far most cultures on earth. A strange notion of diversity indeed, a diversity of absolute conformity.
Empedocles,
You made a very good point
Culturist John,
I still don't entirely agree with your philosophy. But I am going to try to refrain from arguing with you for the time being.
However, I think we may have just stumbled upon a ninth problem with multiculturalism. The more I think about it, multiculturalism seems to be logically inconsistent. It seems to contradict itself.
Think about it. If you want to be a completely tolerant, multicultural nation, how do you accept and condone cultures on your own soil that don't approve of homosexuality, and at the same time demand that those that don't approve of homosexuality not be allowed to practice their culture on your soil? If you are going to support gay rights and gay marriage, you are not on the same side as people who think that sodomy should be illegal. But wouldn't a truly culturally neutral society have to support both at the same time, and isn't that impossible, just from the stand point of the law of non contradiction?
you might want to replace gay rights with any other issue that you care about and try the same exercise.
Damien,
Feel free to ague, but I am totally in agreement with what you said. You see, not all cultures are even in agreement with democracy and not beheading people. We actually do have a culture. We should make our immigration laws reflect that fact. We must also push assimilation. No, marrying 15 year olds and having cock fights is not okay.
So you inaugurated (sorry for the word choice) number NINE!!!!!
Multiculturalism means forging the anthropological record. That means we have to persuade ourselves that diversity isn't really real. Live before the West was not short, brutish and nasty. Some people do not still think women should be locked in the home with violence. Some people do not think gays should be hung.
#10 - Multiculturalism makes us give up the concept of progress. If all cultures have always been as noble as ours - or even more so - how can we believe in our traditional futuristic thinking? It means western progress is removes us from the golden age and is actually a sad thing.
Culturist John,
You wrote,
--------------------------------------------------
So you inaugurated (sorry for the word choice) number NINE!!!!!
Multiculturalism means forging the anthropological record. That means we have to persuade ourselves that diversity isn't really real. Live before the West was not short, brutish and nasty. Some people do not still think women should be locked in the home with violence. Some people do not think gays should be hung.
--------------------------------------------------
I agree but that's not what I was trying to say.
1) I was just trying to point out that Multiculturalist are hypocrites for making values judgments. They claim they don't but they do, and in doing so, they are being illogical.
2) Multiculturalism violates the rules of logic, because a society can't always support a right to X and at the same time oppose a right to X. You can't have "A is B" and "A is not B" at the same time and have both statements be true.
Culturist John,
I was just trying to say that multiculturalism violates the rules of logic. But I still agree with what you said, even through its not the point I was trying to make.
So Damien,
I think I get you now. That is a great point. Multiculturalism strips away your ability to make value judgements because as soon as you do, you are a hypocrite for not choosing both. Very true.
Can we say # 11 then is that multiculturalism strips away all your ability to make value judgements?
Thanks. I do want to make a final list when we are done. I think it is important that we count these out. Perhaps I'll make it a quick post before the next real one. Thanks for number 11!!
Damien said "because Nazism was never seen as unacceptable by the American mainstream," WHAT?
John, Ducky doesn't read the whole posts. Just the first sentence, or it seems like that usually.
Z,
you wrote,
----------------------------------------------
Damien said "because Nazism was never seen as unacceptable by the American mainstream," WHAT?
----------------------------------------------
Sorry about that. That was a mistake. What I meant to say was,
Today although they are not gone, the Ku Klux Klan is a fringe group and hardly represents beliefs of most American whites. From what I have heard the majority of America white supremacists today are neo Nazis. Which is highly ironic, because Nazism was never seen as acceptable by the American mainstream, expect perhaps for a brief period before World War two.
Replace the word, "unacceptable" with "acceptable" and reread what I wrote. Than you will understand what I meant.
Culturist John,
Maybe when you make your list you could give your own examples for each problem. That would better illustrate the problems of Multiculturalism as you see it and make your arguments more convincing.
Damien..thanks, Much better!
Great discussion.
Z,
Your welcome
What most liberal multiculturalists mean by "multiculturalism" is really monoculturalism. For example, Japan is an extremely sexist society. I doubt any self-described multiculturalists would want sexist cultures included in their list of acceptible cultures. The same goes for female genital mutilation practiced in Africa, or forcing women to wear the burka or headscarf in the middle east. And forget about historical cultures. Most of the cultural practices of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, middle ages Europe, ante-bellum southern US, and just about any other historical society would be found abhorrent. Plus, most multiculturalists I know never cease to rail at the "souless homogenized suburbs" or rural redneck hicks. Just face it, to liberals, so-called multiculturalism is really a early 21st century, western, urban, upper-middle class monoculturalism.
Empedocles,
A very good list. Your point about it being, among other things, western is very interesting. It confirms that westerners often mistake their values for universal values. It is especially ironic coming from people who profess an understanding of diversity.
If they continue to not recognize the uniqueness of the western values they cherish, the comfortable middle class suburban life they sneer at will get much more interesting. At that point they might belatedly realize that they love western culture.
Culturist:
Do you have an email address I can send to?
Jan McDaniel
Jan,
It is socialbooks@gmail.com
I look forward to your email!
John
ME, the core theme is BIAS. Uncovering bias under every rock and crevice. Why is bias bad? Why is non-discrimination good? Are we talking about a morality issue here where bias is immoral? Is ME the new religion of the self-righteous?
Lex,
And, I think there is no escaping some bias. The neutral place folks try to find is impossible. So the question is who will spin? And for what purpose? And, "If I am not for me then who will be?"
Thanks! John
w2c71v0g85 j1r29x3a35 v7x09z1d90 t5f67c4s04 p4i05r9t50 a8k56r7a17
Post a Comment