Response: Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

Ahoy mates. I've finally received some feedback on something I have written, and as promised, I will defend (or amend) my arguments in light of this response. So here goes:

Story One:
The first source of criticism over my post was as follows:

"You describe multiculturalism as being tolerant, including and granting equality to distinct cultural groups, and then state that it is"obviously wrong." Are you implying that tolerance, inclusion, and equality are wrong?"

There's a lot to chew on in those statements, so I guess I will just clarify my argument in hopes that it will answer the question. What I meant to say explicitly about Multiculturalism is that it is, above all, relativist; Multiculturalism does not believe in truth - in a right and a wrong. But it does have its dogmas, the most prominent of which is tolerance.

Now I know it's difficult to go on the record anywhere and state that I am against tolerance, because that makes me out to be a bigot (and I would like to think that I am not one), but I will say that I am against tolerance in the way that Multiculturalists have perverted the word. Webster's Dictionary defines tolerance as having "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Multiculturalist tolerance goes beyond sympathy and demands acceptance. Multiculturalist thinkers would say that I would be intolerant if I was not fond of a community or culture that based itself upon prostitution, for example. They would require me to believe "Well, if prostitution works for them, then that's fine by me." But I would be demonstrating true, Websterarian tolerance by simply thinking that we should not immediately destroy the society. I am sympathetic towards the people, but I do not agree with their beliefs, just as the Christian is called to hate the sin but not the man.

Multiculturalists are quick to call Christians intolerant because they do not accept other views. But wouldn't Christianity fail as a distinct religion if its members did not all hold to the same virtues? To call Christians intolerant (by their definition of the word) is to call Christians Christian! Or to call Buddhists Buddhist! To be a person with a soul, do you not have to make decisions of right and wrong? For to me, if you are a person who believes in nothing at all, you are worse off than the man who believes in the wrong thing because you at least have made some "moral" decisions in your life.

And this is what the Multiculturalists have done by making the world a cultural smorgasbord: created people with no convictions at all. Sure, they will have opinions on education and politics and economic policy, but they are mere talking heads with no foundation greater than themselves.

As such, in response you another argument you made, we can consider the ideas of other cultures and study them as long as it is not done relativistically. There are things that are right and wrong (such as a society that bases itself on prostitution or exploitation of the poor, etc). It is also important, again, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply denounce those societies because of their sins. I would argue, though, that since we live in America we ought to primarily study American history rather than concern ourselves with history of places we will most likely never have to deal with. Parenthetically, I realize that this opens me up to the counter-argument that "the world is becoming more globalized and soon American history will become the world's history, etc.". I'll save globalization for another day (or days) as it, too, is something I am completely opposed to. If you want to read a book that probably has a lot more wisdom on globalization than I do, read Joseph Pierce's Small is Still Beautiful. Also for a much more detailed argument of Multiculturalism, please read The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as he has a jolly good argument in that book.

The critic also wrote that "The history of America is in fact found in Africa and Latin America and the East, since American citizens come from all over the world." This statement almost refutes itself. The great men of American history did not come from Africa, Latin America or the East, they were from the West (namely, Europe). To my knowledge, none of the Founding Fathers were from these regions and no President has been from those regions. Even so, today's culture is not shaped on culture from those areas.

Admittedly, I do not have a strong response to the critique that Multiculturalism and Scientism are "fruits of Western thinking." I first wanted to say that these ideas are a result of the globalizing trend that is prevalent throughout the world, but by good bud Wendell Berry himself once said, "Global thinking is not possible," so I have to abandon that argument. What I do know is that Multiculturalism and Scientism have ultimately stemmed from Romantacism and the Enlightenment, both time periods which doubted the existence of God and so sought to fill the void with science and reasoning or with human emotion and intuition, both of which, then followed unilaterally, cannot produce a healthy philosophy (or at the very least, for my sake, one that fits with a Christian worldview). But, again, I still cannot escape the fact that these are largely fruits of the West, except by making a familiar argument. The West is what has made America great. I shouldn't have to defend that, but I'll just throw out simpliest example, that of religious freedom. But the West has also produced bad ideas, namely, Multiculturalism, Scientism, Post-Modernism, etc. I cannot, then, fully endorse the West. But I can endorse that which agrees with my convictions, and that I do.

Stories Two and Three:

The critic writes:

As a counter-argument, I guess the ACLU doesn't like the bibles and the courses in the schools because it violates the separation of church and state. And even though the students can choose not to participate, because the state can't play favorites, it would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses.

Church and state is a funny issue. Here is all the Constitution says concerning religion and the government:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I'm sure books have been written about this very statement, but I'll try to keep it to less than a book. The law is simply that the government will not make a law establishing a religion as the official religion of the state. I realize that Court decisions have redefined this by ensuring religious topics are no longer taught in public (federal) schools and trying to extract "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Regardless, one of my professors at school gave me a copy of the Students' Bill of Rights. The Students' Bill of Rights outlines the religious rights guaranteed under constitutional and federal law that students and teachers have while in public schools. The list may surprise you:

1. The Right to meet with other religious students.
   The Equal Access Act allows students the freedom to meet on campus for the purpose of discussing religious issues.
2. The Right to identify your religious beliefs through signs and symbols.
   Students are free to express their beliefs through signs and symbols. (Including Christian t-shirts, etc.)
3. The Right to talk about your religious beliefs on campus.
   Freedom of speech is a fundamental right mandated in the Constitution and does not exclude the school yard.
4. The Right to distribute religious literature on campus.
   Distributing literature on campus may not be restricted simply because it is religious.
5. The Right to pray on campus.
   Students may pray alone or with others so long as it does not disrupt school activities or is not forced on others.
6. The Right to carry or study your Bible on campus.
   The Supreme Court has said that only state directed Bible reading is unconstitutional.
7. The Right to do research papers, speeches, and creative projects with religious themes.
   The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools.
8. The Right to be exempt.
   Students may be exempt from activities and class content that contradict their religious beliefs.
9. The Right to celebrate or study religious holidays on campus.
   Music, art, literature, and drama that have religious themes are permitted as part of the curriculum for school activities if presented in an objective manner as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of the particular holiday.
10. The Right to meet with school officials.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids Congress to make any law that would restrict the right of the people to petition the Government (school officials).

Some places have attempted to legislate laws that would permit teachers and students to further express their religious convictions under the banner that their statements are not the official views of the school district. Here's one example of a town in Fort Bend, Texas.

In short, the church and state debate isn't much of a debate. As long as the governing body (in this case, the school board) does not explicitly affiliate itself with a particular religion, any of the above things are permissible in schools. Both school districts, though they have histories with law suits, still stand today because they have obeyed the law. With the specific example of poor Jane Doe being forced to accept a Bible on school grounds, it is completely legal for this to happen (the only thing that could have been illegal is if she was forced to take it, but that would be awfully difficult to prove).

So when the critic writes: "[the state] would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses," he is absolutely correct. But it will never happen because decisions of curriculum (especially curriculum of electives) is created and approved by local school boards and it would be hard to find a community school board that would allow for "crazy religions" to be taught in their schools. As such, Catholic public schools still stand and school districts with Christian-sympathies (though not officially affiliated) continue to teach our students the truths they desperately need to hear.

Thank you for the comment and allowing me to firm up my arguments.