EDU 672_finaldraft_5.1.06_conference_ed

Multiculturalism Education in America: Examining Challenges to National Identity,

Equality and Diversity

Jennifer Leslie Torgerson Coppin State University

October 25, 2006 Outline:

I. Introduction II. Key Terms and Their Connotation III. American Culture defined IV. The Multicultural educational war in late 20th century America V. Conclusion: Argument for the value of education as the vehicle by

which a republic produces well-informed and critically thinking citizens, and that such an education should promote national identity, or be nationally interested. All Americans should learn American history, and speak American English.

I. Introduction

In selecting the topic of “multicultural education in America,” I had no idea

how difficult it would be to frame the important issues, including the very

definition of multicultural education itself. This essay will contain three key

components. First I will attempt to define the key terms of the discussion. The

second part of the essay will focus on the meaning of American culture. The

third part of the essay will briefly examine two different points of view (liberal and

conservative) regarding the meaning and place of multiculturalism. In

conclusion, I hope to show that while America is a nation of immigrants, identity

politics has served to produce faction rather than tolerance for diversity.

Page Multiculturalism Education in America:

Examining Challenges to National Identity, Equality and Diversity.

Jennifer Torgerson October 25, 2006

2

Education is the vehicle by which a republic produces well-informed and critically

thinking citizens, and that such an education should promote national identity, or

be nationally interested. All Americans should learn American history, and speak

American English.

II. Key Terms and Their Connotation

In thinking about the theme of this essay, I realized that I had to first define

some key concepts, before I could proceed. The key terms are culture, history,

assimilation, acculturation, multiculturalism, and finally American culture. The

last, American culture is the focus of the essay, and hence, a more detailed

discussion of American culture will follow this section of the essay.

What is culture?

I want to first define culture itself, before discussing the meaning of

multiculturalism. Sapir, in The Psychology of Culture, discusses three definitions

of culture. Sapir discusses 3 definitions of culture, and gives examples of each

kind. There is first the so-called IDEAL FORM of the cultured person. The main

example is the traditional English use, “a man of culture,” which relied on

individual refinement, but could be pertaining to an individual or a group.

Belonging to the cultured group was based on heredity. Such individuals had

time for leisure, sport (hunting), and participated in religious, military or

governmental affairs. Sapir gives other examples of this concept of culture




3

(China, Greece, Orthodox Jewish society, Northwest Coastal Indians, and

Navajo). In contrast, America has not identified such a stereotypical ideal, and is

anxiety ridden. (Sapir, page 24)

The second concept discussed is the German concept of culture.

Kulture represents the geist of a group or society. Hence there is a spiritual or

mystical component that is commonly held in the group. The spirit incorporates

ideal values (and not trivial pursuits) that transcend the changing and relative.

Such values are calm, perfect, and stasis. Any values contrary to the ideal are

barbaric. Humans have spirit, where as animals do not. Of course, Sapir relates

this definition of culture to other examples, explaining that such a spiritual

element is hard to find in primitive cultures. But the French, Russians,

Americans, Hindus, and Chinese all have ideals that are expressive of their

spiritual aspect. Each culture being unique, yet similar in that they prefer

qualities and evaluations, and have an unconscious loyalty to common themes

(or master ideas). (Sapir, page 30)

The third sense is the anthropological idea of culture. Sapir using

Taylor’s example, focuses upon patterns of behavior, habits of mind, traditions,

and customs. Albeit there are two uses of social, and considering each, it is

clear that it is unclear how to define culture in an objective manner. (Sapir, page

38)




4

What is history?

Because the idea of American culture is one that evolved over time,

it is important next to define history. Some important philosophers believed that

life did not have any intrinsic meaning and that all meaning was to found in an

individual’s place in history. This is the thesis, or should I say synthesis of

Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. History is about a collective subject, or

collective human geist. But I shall use a historian to define history. Edward Carr

in his book What is History? defines history from the perspective of a historian

rather than a philosopher:

“History, in both senses of the word- meaning both the enquiry conducted by the historian and the facts of the past into which he enquires- is a

social process in which individuals are engaged as social beings, and the imaginary antithesis between society and the individual is no more than a red

herring drawn across our path to confuse our thinking. The reciprocal process of interaction between the historian and his facts, what I have called the dialogue

between past and present, is a dialogue not between abstract and isolated individuals, but between the society of today and the society of yesterday.” (Carr,

pages 68-69) Carr, following somewhat in Hegel’s footsteps, believes that history is a process

of thesis, antithesis and finally synthesis. History is not about abstract notions

about essential human qualities, or intrinsic human values. History is about a

synthesis of past with present. History is not a study of individuals, but of

society.




5

I am willing to take Carr’s meaning that history is the study of society past

to understand society present, and that this is the essential dialogue of history

itself. I am not so willing to give up the quest for finding meaning in terms of

intrinsic qualities or values, even if essence follows existence as the

existentialists claim. Perhaps it was the rise of existentialism in the 20th century,

and the focus on making one’s self that began to erode the notion of cultural

identity. Being authentic and free, anything is possible, in that we create

ourselves, according to the existentialist Sartre. Perhaps the views of (atheistic)

existentialism are the origins, philosophically, of identity politics. Carr has

defined history as conveying the experiences of individuals within a group,

society, or culture. Now that I have defined culture and history, it is time to move

on to discuss the difference between assimilation and acculturation. “By viewing

ourselves in a mirror which reflects reality, we can see our past as undistorted

and no longer peer into our future as through a dark glass.” (Takaki, page 426)

What is assimilation and what is acculturation?

Since the thesis of this essay pertains to identity politics, I thought

that I would define the difference between the concepts of assimilation and

acculturation, since the existence of these terms represents a shift or difference

in attitudes. Assimilation requires taking on the behaviors, traditions and

customs of a group or country. Historians have called this the “melting pot” view

of cultural identity. Since the 1960’s, assimilation has been put aside in favor of




6

the term acculturation. Acculturation does not require the immigrant to give up

their native traditions and customs to take on another. Rather, immigrants share

their cultural ideas with their new society, while at the same time, taking on

aspects of their new society. How far can a culture change before it no longer

maintains any of its original identity? What is the American identity? These

questions will be addressed in the next section of the essay. Now I am going to

complete the discussion of important terms and their connotation by defining

multiculturalism.

What is multiculturalism?

“[M]ulticulturalism has become a buzzword, a crusade, and a

gigantic mystification.” (Higman, page 208) Multiculturalism is many different

things to many different people. In fact, the picture that one presents of

multiculturalism itself is related to their political or social perspectives. A case in

point is that of John Higman. Higman suggests that multiculturalism arose out of

the new egalitarian elite’s desire to recognize the importance of ethnic diversity in

education. (Higman, page 201) The new elite class (of middle and upper class

white Americans) segregated themselves in the suburbs, while those who were

economically disadvantaged were left in urban environments. (Higman, page

200) The elite class, called itself “progressive,” and infused American culture

with multiethnicity. (Higman, page 200) The Progressives followed the ideas of

philosophers such as John Dewey and W.E.B. Dubois.




7

“This social-democratic perspective virtually took possession of the

social sciences and of the literary intelligentsia between the two world wars.”

(Higman, page 200) The Progressives tended to be Democratic, labor affiliated,

church affiliated individuals. Progressives wanted to create a more authentic

educational system that contained a “historically contextualized understanding of

human rights and social processes.” (Higman page 200). They set about reviving

an American universalism which would incorporate ideas of American

universalism in the past with the new multiethnic approach.

The modern search for a national identity began before World War II, in

1939, according to David Palumbo-Liu, in his essay entitled “Multiculturalism

Now: Civilization, National Identity, and Difference Before and After September

11th.” “Culture would serve to explain and define the national character.”

(Palumbo-Liu, page 1) Understanding the national identity became defined as

national character, and stressed a common American ethos that would be

essential and enduring. (Palumbo-Liu, page 2) Modern America is defined by

finding a balance between this enduring American ethos and an ever changing

world. (Palumbo-Liu, page 2)

“[T]he multicultural movement has tried to carry forward the great

campaigns of the mid-twentieth century against racial and ethnic inequalities




8

without reviving the wider outcry of the earlier era against class inequalities.”

(Higman, page 201) Higman’s main point, other than pointing out that the

political left invented multiculturalism to support their own ends, is that this

movement has ignored the inequalities of class by “drawing a veil” over them, or

occasionally mentioning class issues as subcultures of ethnic or racial groups.

(Higman, page 202) I agree with Higman’s interpretation of multiculturalism, in

that it is a progressive social-democratic and social-Darwinian perspective.

Higman suggests that multiculturalism has no unifying agenda other than

perhaps that of redefining identity, and it offers no center, or common ground.

(Higman, page 214) “If multiculturalism can shake off a fixation on diversity,

autonomy, and otherness, the vision that American universalism sustained and

enlarged through two centuries can be renewed.” (Higman, page 214) Zentella,

an advocate of anthropological linguistics, disagrees with Higman’s universal

approach. Zentella claims that teaching “correct” English will undermine positive

identity aspects of disparaged ethnic, racial, and class groups. (Zentella, page

110)

“Multiculturalism is not a technological phenomenon, it is and must be

viewed as a philosophical turn in the discussion that is America.” (Kula, page 64)

Kula believes that multiculturalism is not a tool for solving racial conflicts, but a

“continual process in building a new world.” (Kula, page 64) Kula wants to put

the focus upon a global meaning of pluralism and cultural identity. I shall take a




9

more traditionalist stance, and argue for an American culture. Before we can

sustain or defend American culture, first it must be defined.

American culture defined

An attempt at ONE American philosophy is not reasonable, nor

possible. In the beginning of the text The History of American Education, Webb

surveys many kinds of philosophy from Plato to Derrida; Webb surveys

philosophical trends such as Idealism, Realism, Non-Thomism Realism,

Pragmatism, Existentialism, Analytic Philosophy, Perennialism, Progressivism,

Essentialism, Social Reconstructionism, and Post-modernism. Few of these

trends can be said to be unique to American philosophy, yet all have been

influential upon American thinking. (Webb, page 20 and pages 32-33) Webb

suggests in the beginning of the text that history and philosophy both influence

the dialogue between past events and present actions. (Webb, page 3) Coming

from the background of Analytical Philosophy, with a touch of Essentialist, I am

attempting to make the terms of this essay clear.

I have defined many of the terms important to the final phase of the

essay except perhaps that of highest importance. It is clear from Webb’s text,

that “the history of American education is far more than a history of people or

institutions.” (Webb, page 376) Thus Webb is suggesting that Carr’s definition of

history is not adequate. Webb adds that the study of American education “is




10

primarily a history of competing views of who should be educated, and what they

should be taught, the purpose of schooling, and the role of the education system

in a democracy.” (Webb, page 376)

An attempt to survey the entire history of American education is not

possible in such a short essay; hence I am going to focus on the essence of

American culture. American culture may be said to have been begun to be

defined with the Constitution of 1787 itself. Contained in that Federalist

document, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, and the previous Declaration of

Independence of 1776 (which was written by Thomas Jefferson), many American

ideals were established. Jefferson, imitating Locke, said that all men were

created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, of

these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Jefferson, page 5) The Bill of

Rights (added in 1791) included such ideas as freedom of speech, freedom to

practice religion, freedom of the press, the right to privacy, and eventually, equal

protection under the laws. America is seen as the great experiment of

democracy according to individuals like de Tocqueville. Tocqueville said that it

was neither our patriotism nor our language that made America unique.

Tocqueville commented that it was the notions of liberty and equality, “the liberty

of the press, the right of association, the jury, and the responsibility of the agents

of government,” that make our country unique. (Tocqueville, page 409) I




11

disagree with Tocqueville on one small point, in that I believe that our language is

an important aspect to our culture.

American-English is a part of American culture. It is one of the few things

that can bring together a nation of immigrants that have come from the world

over, to live in America. Language is an important part of any culture. Although

language and culture are not static as Nieto contends, the importance of the

unifying effect of one language cannot be understated. (Nieto, page 109)

Although language may not be static, I still maintain that there are core American

ideas or values that can be said to be a part of American culture itself. The

Institute for American Values published an essay after September 11th entitled

“What We’re Fighting For: A Letter From America.” (Shipka & Minton, page 379)

In their essay, the claim is made that there are certain universal values that

pertain to all persons, without distinction. These values are, in summary: (1) All

human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; (2) Humans are

political animals and as such the legitimate role of government should be to

protect persons and their rights; (3) Human beings naturally seek, and desire to

know the truth and seek teleological explanations; (4) Every human has the

inviolable right to freedom of conscience and religious freedom; and finally

(5) Killing in the name of God, is contrary to faith in God, and is the greatest

betrayal of universality and religious faith. Perhaps there is a core set of

universal values for all persons, and that in America, it is possible to protect such




12

values. Charles Taylor disagrees and believes that such universality is nothing

more than “difference-blind” liberalism. (Taylor & Gutmann, page 62) Taylor

argues that it is inauthentic to speak in terms of equal value in terms of culture.

Taylor argues for a middle ground between the “homogenization and demand for

recognition of equal worth, on the one hand, and the self-immurement within

ethnocentric standards, on the other.” (Taylor & Gutmann, page 72) Taylor still

speaks in terms of group or collective identities, and fails to recognize the need

for authentic individuality and understanding self identity, according to Appiah.

(Taylor & Gutmann, page 150) The following part of the essay will examine

challenges to the ever changing face of American society by examining the

multicultural war itself.

IV. The Multicultural educational war in late 20th century America

This section of the paper will attempt to portray the dilemma or debate of

multiculturalism. I have picked two sides, and found two individual authors to be

the voice of each side of the debate, merely.

“Thus on one hand, we have the interest of multinational corporate and state interests urging for “diversity” and reconfiguring multiculturalism to be consonant with the neoliberal agenda. […] On the other hand, we have the

insurgent, issues of recognition, distribution, and rights. And it is here that we find the development of a national identity, national character, national values,

and national interests to countermand those contestatory movements.” (Palumbo-Liu, page 4)




13

Jack Eller writes an interesting article that attempts to lay out the

distinction between multiculturalism and anti-multiculturalism. Eller is an

anthropologist and has a different perspective, generally, than that of Higman.

Eller favors anti-anti-multiculturalism (or a new form of multiculturalism), while

Higman favors universalism and is anti-multiculturalistic. Eller’s article “Anti-Anti-

Multiculturalism” consists of five parts. (1) The Worries of Multiculturalism,

(2) The Worries of Anti-Multiculturalism, (3) The Science of Culture and the

“Culturization” of Social Discourse, (4) Why not Anti-Multiculturalism? and (5) the

conclusion of the article. He begins the article by mirroring Geetz in saying that a

scholar is best employed in dispelling fear. (Eller, page 249) Eller explains that

multiculturalism is a substitute for cultural relativism, since he believes the same

problems are presented by both. He will argue that anthropologists should reject

the rejection of multiculturalism (hence anti-anti-multiculturalism).

Eller explains the worries of multiculturalism in his first section of the

article. Multiculturalists worry that important cultural domains are being excluded

from knowledge and scholarship. They advocate a rejection of the European-

centric dominated majority. (Eller, page 249) Otherwise, minorities will be pushed

to the periphery or placed in the category of the “other” so that the majority can

maintain its dominance in the market place of ideas. Mythology or folk traditions

cannot be allowed to challenge the dominate view of a universal system of

knowledge, value, culture, and polity. (Eller, page 249) If multiculturalism is to




14

prevail, then the relativistic challenges to knowledge, value, culture and polity

may convince many that such ideas are subjectively determinable. (Eller, page

250) The solution to this presented by multiculturalists is to present cultures as

“centrisms.” (Eller, page 250) Another compromise might be to be all inclusive

and tolerant of many cultural perspectives, and renegotiate the meaning of the

many that make up the union, “reconstructed to reflect the nation’s ethnic and

cultural diversity.” (Eller, page 250) So there isn’t a best culture, just a myriad of

cultural diversity in a coalition of the many.

The second part of the essay discusses the worries of anti-

multculturalism. The concept of “America” may be diminished if multiculturalism

is to prevail. (Eller, page 250) The focus upon differences will diminish the value

of shared knowledge. American civilization may come to an end. Anti-

multiculturalists argue for a common universal respect for human dignity and

individual freedoms. In another phrase: classical liberalism. (Eller, page 250)

Multiculturalism may turn into a competition of ideas, cultures, and the

domination of one culture by another, ultimately. (Eller, page 250) Others worry

that multicultural education is substandard, and that traditional knowledge, and

values, will be lost. Anti-multiculturalists defend the inclusion of only the great

thinkers into the cannon, and dismiss the inclusion of multicultural ideas, or

delegate them to the bottom of the list. (Eller, page 250) Another fear of

multiculturalism, according to Eller, is that a cultural essentialism may lead to




15

mysticism or provincialism. “Provincialism comes in the form of ethnic studies

courses and programs,” where individuals only learn about their own kind, and

this fails to prepare students for the realities of a multicultural world. (Eller, page

251) Anti-multiculturalists see America under threat. Individuals are identifying

themselves as hyphenated-Americans. (Eller, page 251)

Nieto reminds us that sometimes the conflict is too great, and the choice

may be to become an American on traditional terms. Either/or dichotomies are

unacceptable, in terms of individual identity. (Nieto, pages 108 - 109) Of course

the only reason minority groups wish to raise the value of their identity is to

secure power and money. This will lead to the ultimate battle over American

identity that will end in the acceptance of ethical relativism and ultimately nihilism.

(Eller, page 251) The evidence, of acceptance of ethical relativism in academia,

is in the anthropolitical and anthropological linguistic method of teaching

languages advocated by Zentella. Zentella claims that teaching “correct” English

will undermine positive identities of disparaged ethnic, racial and class groups.

(Zentella, page 110)

The third section of the essay discusses the culturization of social

discourse. Multiculturalism, like anthropology, is concerned about difference and

the acceptance of otherness. (Eller, page 251) Multiculturalism and anthropology

are not really interested in the same things. Multiculturalism is not globally




16

interested. (Eller, page 251) Multiculturalism does not aim to be a discipline, but it

is a social movement. Culture in multiculturalism is not holistic, as in the

anthropological sense of culture. (Eller, page 251) Culture is real. Culture is

determined. Culture is reified. Cultural identity is the key to authenticity. Then in

the protection of the worth and value of that authenticity leads to identity politics,

and identity war. (Eller, page 252) “Groups invent themselves and reinvent

themselves ad infinitum.” (Eller, page 252) There will be neither cross-cultural

truth, nor the ability to falsity the claims of a given group. (Eller, page 252) ‘How

did culture escape the academy and become so popular?’ Eller asks.

All elements of American society have become culture conscious, from

the far left to the far right. Liberalism is a Euro-based ideology, and it speaks

nothing to culture, but is biased itself. (Eller, page 252) “In fact, paradoxically,

the ‘culture’ in multiculturalism is as much about self as about ‘the other’ or

culture as we conceive it, about being ‘who you are’ and celebrating what makes

you different from the crowd.” (Eller, page 252) Social problems are now being

framed in this quasi-anthropological language of culture. (Eller, page 253)

Surprisingly, Eller reflects the same sentiments presented in Higman in regard to

“otherness.” “To adopt the fashionable language of multiculturalism, we are still

‘others’ to others. But otherness is only relatively so, and diminishes as the

bounds of ‘our’ own identities expand, overlap, and combine.” (Higman, page

214)




17

The fourth section of Eller’s text he explains why he is not in favor of anti-

multiculturalism. America is a place where cultures meet. Most take

multiculturalism as “the standard of the human condition.” (Eller, page 253) Is the

American polity really at the risk of being over run by multiculturalistic ideals?

Will the basic structure of schools, the curriculum, culture and politics survive?

Western culture has made important contributions to knowledge, but it is not

Knowledge itself. (Eller, page 254) Does multiculturalism contest the American

culture? Unfortunately, pluralism is unstable. (Eller, page 255) Eller contends

that cultural pluralism and cultural relativism are not equivalent to neither ethical,

nor epistemological nihilism. (Eller, page 255)

In conclusion, Eller contends that multiculturalism and anti-multiculturalism

are much alike. They both believe in culture as a source of self-esteem and

identity. (Eller, page 255) Anthropology should be wary of multiculturalism, but

should reject anti-multiculturalism. For anthropology, the “culture war” should be

seen as a war between culture as a means to an end, and the critical study of

culture itself. Eller argues against using multiculturalism as it is generally

conceived, as the political and social vehicle of the progressive left. Eller argues

that understanding one’s own identity is important. Understanding that nature of

culture as culture should be the focus of anthropology, thus Eller is ending with

the third definition of culture as defined by Sapir in the beginning of this essay.




18

The focus of this essay was more in interested in the first and second of

Sapir’s meanings of culture. Culture is truly the geist of a society. The focus on

identity politics will lead to division, not tolerance of diversity. Cultural relativistic

ideas will undermine traditional American values of liberty and freedom.

Acceptance of cultural relativism will lead to the acceptance of ethical relativism.

These relativistic ideas can be a threat to nationalism and polity as we know it.

Eller fails to recognize that subjective relativisms can lead to the acceptance that

all values are not objective, or that values are not knowable. Eller believes that

the true purpose of anthropology is to study meta-culture, which is what he calls

anti-anti-multiculturalism. I would be wary of multiculturalism, anti-

multiculturalism, and anti-anti-multiculturalism.

American studies can be said to be a branch of cultural anthropology.

(Palumbo-Liu, page 2) Palumbo-Liu explains that the conflict arose in the 1970’s

when multicultural ideas began to challenge Euramerican cultural themes.

(Palumbo-Liu, page 3) The rise of cultural internationalism directly confronted our

national identity. Palumbo-Liu claims that the focus upon national character was

an attempt to solve the potential domestic crisis that minority demands might

bring about. Yet this focus caused a conflict between viewing nation-states

unilaterally or as being globally integrated. (Palumbo-Liu, page 3)




19

“Crucially, in the present incarnation of civilizational thinking, the dichotomy between national identity and international civilizational thinking has

collapsed, and the two positions intermingling and recombining into a potent ideological position, now mobilized by the events of September 11th.” (Palumbo-

Liu, page 7)

Now some doubt that the American ethos can be adopted by new immigrants.

(Palumbo-Liu, page 7) We now find ourselves in an attempt to keep the

homeland secure from terrorists. Palumbo-Liu claims that the right-wing has

once again produced a separation between us and an international other.

Palumbo-Liu, page 8) Civilizational thinking is divisive, and thus Palumbo-Liu

argues for a humanistic approach, rather than a narrow national-based

perspective. (Palumbo-Liu, page 9)

The focus on this crisis has been a distraction, in my opinion.

Nationalism should not be a radical idea, and it should not be hi-jacked for social,

political, or economic agendas. Having a common ethos or geist is what makes

a nation-state endure through time. American values have been an inspiration to

the global community, and it is neither politically left, nor politically right to

promote the enduring ideals that are America itself. I disagree with Palumbo-Liu’s

claims that the search for modern national identity today is merely a reaction by

the political right to the present threats of terrorism. It does appear, as a matter

of fact, that the global community is caught between a clash of those that wish to

promote civilizational thinking, and those that wish to destroy civilization as we

know it. The idea of the nation-state itself may be a divisive one, but eroding the




20

concept with a form of so-called humanism is not going to ensure that anyone’s

liberties are protected in the end. Is the American polity really at the risk of being

over run by multiculturalistic and anti-civilizational ideals? Will the traditional

structure of American schools, the American curriculum, American culture, and

American politics survive?

V. Argument for the value of education as the vehicle by which a republic produces well-informed and critically thinking citizens, and that such an education should promote national identity, or be nationally interested. All Americans should learn American history, and speak American English.

In the late 20th century, there has been a multicultural war in American

education. I tried to discuss a brief summary of the history of the debate,

followed by a discussion of each point of view, for and against multiculturalism.

My own position is in fact against multiculturalism or what is sometimes called

anti-multiculturalism. I would prefer to drop these loaded labels all together. I

believe in tolerance for diversity, yet at the same time American educational

theory must convey the importance of promoting a national, universal American

identity in public education. Since America is truly a blend of many cultures, a

unifying identity is essential. Some say that there is no one American identity. I

disagree. There isn’t anything politically incorrect about promoting a national-

identity. We, as Americas, should be proud to be such.

Language is part of a culture, and as such, American culture must include the

promotion of Standard American-English. Americans must speak American




21

English. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, written by Bishop Tokes,

speaks to the educational rights of individuals in terms of language. Education

should foster self-expression, but not at the expense of developing language

within the language community. (Section II, Article 23, sections 1 and 2) Of

course every individual has the right to learn any language. (Section II, Article 23,

section 4) Schools need properly trained teachers, good facilities, books and all

the resources necessary and desired so that schools may serve their function: to

ensure their community language is present in as many forms of media possible.

(Section II, Article 25, section 1) All individuals in the community should be

taught their community language to the fullest extent possible. Individuals are

entitled to a full command of their community language. (Section II, Article 26,

section 1) Communities are entitled to have access to the means to learn the

language of their culture. (Section II, Article 27, section 1) Bishop Tokes

balances the right to learn the language of the community with the right to learn

any other language as well, at the same time. (Section II, Article 29, section 1)

Most importantly, the goal of university learning is to study the language and

culture of ALL communities. (Section II, Article 30, section 1) “All language

communities are entitled to the official use of their language within their territory.”

(Section II, Article 15, section 2)

Socioeconomic differences in neighborhood schools are continuing to

produce separate and unequal education in America. This condition leads to the




22

lack of experience of diversity itself, and thus, many may not respect or

understand differences. I propose teaching all American students respect for

diversity, by showing them that it is reasonable, and in fact their duty, to

recognize every individual’s equality, although I do not consider my approach to

be merely a form of traditional liberalism. It is important, in the dawn of the 21st

century, that all students in America’s public schools are given the tools they

need to compete in a global community, as well as be well-informed and critically

thinking American citizens. It is in the interest of every citizen, as well as the duty

of society to provide none less in education. This can only be accomplished by

producing exemplar teachers that promote not only tolerance for diversity, but at

the same time instill a sense of American identity.

Neighborhood-schools seem to be the ideal place for students, but if

neighborhoods are divided, then so are the schools. It is our duty to provide

students with the best education possible regardless of their socioeconomic,

racial, or ethnic background. Curriculums must teach respect for differences,

while at the same time instill a sense of national identity. Disrespect of

differences can lead to intolerance and faction. The focus upon differences

merely can lead to faction and undermine the national identity. It is our right as

Americans, as well as our duty, to be well-informed, critically thinking citizens.

As Americans, we aim to be citizens of a free society; a society that promotes




23

everyone’s life, liberty, and “happiness.” Such sentiments are the basis of our

American identity.

Working Bibliography: John Bodar. “Ethnicity and Nationalism before Multiculturalism”. American Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (1996), pp. 716-723. Steven M. Cahn. Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1997). Edward Hallett Carr. What is History? (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1961). Lawrence A. Cremin, editor. The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men. (New York: NY, Teacher’s College Press, 1957). Jack David Eller. “Anti-Anti-Multiculturalism”. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 2 (June. 1997), pp. 249-256. Nancy Fraser. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. (New York, New York: Routledge, 1997). Andrew Hacker. Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. (New York, NY: Ballatine Books, 1992). John Higman. American Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, Special Issue on Multiculturalism. (Jun, 1993), pp. 195-291. Thomas Jefferson. “The Declaration of Independence” (Scarsdale, NY: The Sayre Ross Company, 16th printing). Anthonia C. Kalu. “Multiculturalism as Text: The Battle over the Canon”. A Journal of Option, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter 1991), pp. 61-64. David Palumbo-Liu. “Multiculturalism Now: Civilization, National Identity, and Difference Before and After September 11th”. Boundary 2; Duke University Press Vol. 29, No. 2 (2002), pp. 109-127. http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp.Indlibrary.org/boundary/vo29/29.2palumbo-liu.html Sonia Nieto. Language, Culture and Teaching: Social Perspectives for a New Century. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002).




24

Carlos J. Ovando. “Language, Diversity, and Education.” Banks and Banks, editors, Multiculturalism Education: Issues and Perspectives, 4th edition. (Seattle, WA: Wiley, 2001). Edwin Sapir. The Psychology of Culture, edited by Judith Irvine, 2nd Edition. (New York, NY: Mouton De Gruyter, 2002). Thomas A. Shipka and Arthur J. Minton. Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery. 5th Edition. (Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2004). Theodore Sizer and Nancy Faust Sizer. The Students are Watching: Schools and the Moral Contract. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1999). Ronald Takaki. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company, 1993). Charles Taylor and Amy Gutmann. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America, Volume 1. (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1945). Bishop Lazsio Tokes. Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996) http://www.lingistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm L. Dean Webb. The History of American Education: A Great American Experiment. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice, 2006). Iris Marion Young. Justice and the Politics of Difference. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990). ___________. Inclusion and Democracy. (Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000). Ana Celia Zentella. “Multiple Codes, Multiple Identities: Puerto Rican Children in New York City.” Susan M. Hoyle and Carolyn Temple Adger, editors, Kids Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Revised version: May 8, 2006

Date post:	17-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jennifer-torgerson
View:	70 times
Download:	0 times

EDU 672_finaldraft_5.1.06_conference_ed

Documents