AS I DISCUSSED a few weeks ago, the last few decades have seen multiculturalism morph into a bitterly political ideology of the radical left, which defines Western civilization as a uniquely malignant, oppressive and exploitive force in the world. At the same time, this ideology has gained increasing popularity in circles of intellectuals at Western universities. It should come as no surprise, then, that political multiculturalism is in the process of encroaching on the classroom in higher education, with the aim of directing teaching toward the achievement of radical political goals. At the University and throughout the country, multicultural education has a powerful appeal to those who rightly recognize the past and present injustices of modern society, and who desperately want to rectify these injustices. But despite these temptations, we must not allow liberal arts education to be subversively transformed into a means toward a political end. Education should be treated as a noble end in itself, not as a tool of social engineering for bright-eyed ideologues.
Paul Gorski, a graduate of the University Curry School of Education and a multicultural education guru, lays out the issue in simple terms: "The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect social change" ("The Challenge of Defining a Single 'Multicultural Education,'" www.mhhe.com). In service of this goal, the National Association of Multicultural Education (NAME) writes, "Multicultural education requires comprehensive school reform, as multicultural education must pervade all aspects of the school community and organization" (www.nameorg.org/resolutions/definition.html). Gorski sees the process as "part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo -- foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations and exploitation." Far from the traditional role of the classroom as a neutral tool of developing the intellect, this view casts professors in a role as key facilitators of a political and social revolution.To reiterate, Gorski makes the political role of the classroom crystal clear: "Ultimately, the goal of multicultural education is to contribute progressively and proactively to the transformation of society and to the application and maintenance of social justice and equity." He apparently sees no problem in allowing "social justice" to be determined by professors, without letting students decide the matter for themselves.
Gorski goes on chillingly to describe the roadmap for meeting his revolutionary aim: "The pathway toward this goal," he says, "incorporates three strands of transformation: the transformation of self, the transformation of schools and schooling, and the transformation of society." NAME agrees, stressing that "school curriculum must directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ablism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance and xenophobia." Apparently, it is to be taken for granted that these social problems exist and that students must act to eliminate them. The traditional curriculum must be put aside, and students must conform to the social and political programs of their educators.
On reading the literature of multicultural education, one finds a disturbing picture of politics crassly intruding into a realm that once was devoted to the free development of the mind. Those who advocate the radical reforms of multicultural education are not satisfied with a level playing field of political debate. Instead, they see the status quo as hopelessly corrupt and oppressive, and they are willing to use any means to achieve their political end, which they are so convinced is just. Thus, they see it as nothing short of a moral imperative for them to seize control of the country's educational apparatus and use it to upturn the mainstream political establishment. Gorski again spells this out in admirably clear language, writing, "It is particularly [the] competitive, capitalistic framing of the dominant mentality of the United States (and increasingly, with the "help" of the United States, the world) that multicultural education aims to challenge, shake, expose and critique." Instead of earnestly debating the merits of capitalism without an agenda, the goal is to "expose" its injustices and "shake" its foundations.
At many universities, multicultural education is already required for all students. Here at the University, this option has been discussed. But despite the urge that some may have to use education as a political tool in the service of what they believe is social justice, we should not allow this to happen at Jefferson's University. Classroom education should be kept ideologically neutral, and the development of students' rational faculties should take precedence over the achievement of "social change." On this one fundamental issue, the future of higher education hangs in the balance.
(Anthony Dick's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
