Most of the arguments for "multiculturalism" in education are so flimsy, inconsistent, and downright silly that it is hard to imagine them being taken seriously if they were not backed up by shrill rhetoric, character assassination, and the implied or open threat of organised disruption on American campuses.
Let us examine the multicultur-alists' questions one by one. Why do we study western civilisation, to the neglect of other civilisations? Why is that question asked in English, rather than in some non-western language? Because English is what we speak. Why do we concern ourselves with the earth, which is an infinitesimal part of the known universe? Because that is where we live. If we want to understand the world in which we carry on our daily lives, we need to understand the underlying rationale and the historical evolution of the way of life we have been born into.
None of this has anything to do with whether English is a better language than some other languages. English is in fact less consistent and less melodic than French, for example. But we speak English for the same practical reasons that people in China speak Chinese. Languages exist to serve practical purposes and they serve those purposes better the more people in the same society speak the same language.
Why don't we study other civilisations equally? The most obvious answer is the 24-hour day and the limited number of days we spend in college. It is stretching things very thin to try to cover western civilisation in two terms. Throw in a couple of other civilisations and you are kidding yourself that you are educating anybody. Those whose real agenda is propaganda are, of course, untroubled by such considerations.
Any suggestion that any aspect of western civilisation has been admirable, or better in any way than the corresponding aspect of any other civilisation, will be denounced as insufficiently "non-judgemental." However, the one thing that no civilisation has ever been is non-judgemental. Much of the advancement of the human race has occurred because people made the judgement that some things were not simply different from others, but better. Often this judgement was followed by abandoning one cultural feature and using the other instead.
We use Arabic numerals today, instead of Roman numerals, although our civilisation is derived from Rome, and the Arabs themselves got those numerals from India. Arabic numerals (or Indian numerals) have displaced other numbering systems around the world because they are better-not just different. Paper, printing and books are today essential aspects of western civilisation, but all three came out of China-and they have displaced parchment, scrolls and other forms of preserving writing all around the world. Books are not just different, they are better; not just in my opinion or the opinion of western civilisation, but in the practice of people around the world who have had an opportunity to make the comparison. Firearms have likewise displaced bows and arrows wherever the two have come into competition.
Many of those who talk "non-judgemental" rhetoric out of one side of their mouths are quick to condemn the evils of "our society" out of the other side. Worse, they condemn American society or western civilisation for sins which are the curse of the human race across the planet. Indeed, they condemn the west for sins which are worse in many non-western societies.
The classic case is slavery. The widespread revulsion which this hideous institution inspires today was largely confined to western civilisation a century ago, and a century before that it was largely confined to a proportion of British society. Few people seem interested in the epic story of how this curse, which covered the globe and endured for thousands of years, was finally got rid of. It was got rid of by the west-not only in western societies but in other societies conquered, controlled, or pressured by the west.
The resistance put up by Africans, Asians and Arabs was monumental in defence of slavery, and lasted for more than a century. Only overwhelming military power enabled the west to prevail on this issue, and only the moral outrage of some western people kept their governments' feet to the fire to maintain the pressure against slavery around the world. Of course, this is not the kind of story which appeals to the multiculturalists. If it had been the other way around-if Asian or African imperialists had stamped out slavery in Europe-it would still be celebrated, in story and song, on campuses across America.
Why are the traditional classics of western civilisation written by dead white males? Take this a step at a time. They are written by dead people for two reasons. First, there are more dead people than living people. Second, a classic is not something which is hot at the moment but something which survives the test of time. There may be texts written today which will survive to become classics, but we won't be here when that happens.
Why are they white? Do we ask why the classics of China were written by people who were Chinese? If we found that the great classics of China were written by Swedes, wouldn't we wonder what the hell was going on?
Should there be any mystery as to why they were written by males? Is anyone so ignorant of history that they do not know that females had more than enough work to keep them busy for most of the history of the human race? Maybe men should have shared some of that work. But history is what happened, not what we wish had happened. If most of the people who were educated were male-as they have been throughout history-then most of the people who leave the kind of written material left by educated people will be men. You don't get great mathematical discoveries from people who were never taught algebra.
Much the same reasoning applies to other groups considered to be, first, oppressed and second, "under-represented" among those whose historic achievements and contributions are recognised. But how can a people's achievements be unaffected by their oppression? One of the many reasons for being against oppression is that it keeps people from achieving all they could achieve if they were treated more decently. To proclaim oppression and still expect to find the oppressed equally represented among those with historic achievements and contributions is a contradiction in terms.
The past is many things, but one thing it is, is irrevocable. A past to your liking is not an entitlement.
Don't we need multiculturalism to help people to understand each other and get along with each other? Because this is an empirical question, you would expect people to seek an empirical answer, yet most of those who talk in this way seem content to treat the matter as axiomatic. But is there any evidence that colleges which have gone whole-hog into multiculturalism have better relations among the various groups on campus? Or is it precisely on such campuses that separatism and hostility are worse than on campuses which have not gone in for the multicultural craze?
Do you want to see multiculturalism in action? Look at Yugoslavia, at Northern Ireland, or wherever group "identity" has been hyped. There is no point in the multiculturalists saying that this is not what they have in mind. You might as well open the floodgates and then say that you don't mean for people to drown. Once you have opened the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go.
How are we to be part of the global economy, or engage in all sorts of other international activities, without being multicultural? Ask the Japanese. They are one of the most insular peoples on earth today. Yet they dominate international markets, international finance, international scientific and technological advances, and send armies of tourists around the world. This is not a defence of the Japanese. It is simply a plain statement of fact which contradicts one of the many lofty and arbitrary dogmas of multiculturalism. n
