The Double-Edged Sword of Multiculturalism; E. C. Beisner

Mr. Beisner, the guest editor of this issue ofThe Freeman, is a visiting lecturer on the application of Christian theology, worldview, and ethics to economics, government, and public policy at Covenant College, in Lookout Mountain, Geor gia. He is the author ofProsperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity, Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future, Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics: Dialogs About Christian Faith and Life, several other books, and over 150 articles and reviews. This article was adapted from an address he presented to the Covenant College faculty in December 1993. Let us begin with some defining. In this context, when we speak of culture, we mean the concepts, habits, skills, art, instruments, and institutions, of a given people in a given period. Very nearly we equate the word with civilization, though I think we have in mind things more particular, on a more humane scale, when we speak of culture.

It is no accident, as T. S. Eliot pointed out in 1946 in Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, that the words cuJture and cultivate share the same root, cultus, and that this Latin word derived from a verb, colere, that meant both to worship and to till the soil. "In the beginning," writes Russell Kirk, following Eliot's lead, "culture arises from the cult: that is, people are joined together in worship, and out of their religious asso ciation grows the organized human commu nity. Common cultivation of crops, common defense, common laws, cooperation in much else-these are the rudiments of a people's culture. If that culture succeeds," he adds, "it may grow into a civilization." 1 At the very core of culture is religion, with its concepts of God and of transcendent morals, concepts so powerful that they shape every other element of culture, for good or ill. 104 It is clear what we mean by prefixing multi-to culture to make multiculturalism.

The prefix reminds us that we have more than one culture in mind-indeed, many cultures. What is not immediately clear in our use of the word multiculturalism is what we mean by the suffix-ism. The suffixmay, according to the dictionary, denote a variety of things. It may denote (a) the act, practice, or result of something-e.g., terrorism is the act or practice of terror; clearly this is not what we have in mind by the word multi culturalism. The suffix may denote (b) the condition of something's or someone's ex istence-e.g., barbarism is the condition of barbarity or a barbarian. Although there might be some of this idea in the use of multiculturalism (which, by the way, is too recent a word to be included in the 1987 edition of Webster's Collegiate dictio nary)-some writers do use it simply to point to the fact that the American scene is multicultural, i.e., characterized by many cultures-this also is not the primary idea in mind in writings about multiculturalism.

The suffix may also denote (c) action, con duct, or qualities characteristic of some thing-e.g., patriotism is the conduct or quality of a patriot. This begins to come closer to what multiculturalists-and critics of multiculturalism-have in mind. Multi culturalism in part denotes conduct befit ting, or at least allegedly befitting, a multi cultural society. But the primary sense in which writers on multiculturalism seem to use the word is (d) a doctrine, theory, or principle of something-e.g., atomism, in political philosophy anyway, is a theory that denies social cohesion and community and sees people instead as unconnected atoms. To speak of multiculturalism, particularly in academic circles, is to speak of a doctrine or dogma-a set of beliefs-about our soci ety and how we ought to educate its people. If all we mean by multiculturalism is that we recognize and want to teach truths about the many cultures of humanity, certainly there can be no harm in that. Indeed, that is what a good liberal arts education has done for generations. It is what used to be done tolerably well in secondary school courses 105 on geography, history, civics, and cultural anthropology, back in the days when my parents went to school. And indeed I have a strong, intuitive sense that the urge toward a different kind of multiculturalism today is rooted partly in an educational vacuum left behind by the excision of most of the sub stance of such courses during the pedagog ical upheavals of the 1960sand 1970s,when such courses tended to be replaced by an ill-defined "social studies."

A Movement Spawned by Poor Education? My intuition, to enlarge on it a little, is this: That many Americans schooled chiefly in the 1960sand later learned little about the cultures of the world through our schooling. We also learned little about the American culture, since American geography, history, civics, and cultural anthropology were gen erally no better taught than foreign-a fact documented, for example, in E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy. What we did learn of American culture came chiefly by our ex perience of American contemporary pop ular culture: radio, television, and the consumer world of·the malls. Quite under standably, we didn't like much of this "American culture." So it was not surpris ing when, upon tasting other cultures, many of us uncritically embraced them as alter natives to what we knew of American cul ture. We knew too little of either American or foreign cultures to judge either maturely; we could neither appreciate the really noble aspects of any culture, nor despise the really ignoble aspects.

People ill schooled-or perhaps better, hardly schooled at all-in geography, his tory, civics, and cultural anthropology, but acquainted with the worst of their own culture, got tastes of other cultures through direct personal contact, or through books or other media, and those tastes awakened a hunger they hadn't known was there. I did a little anecdotal research to test this intuition while I was writing this essay. I asked my mother-who was visiting at the time-whether she thought the multicultur106 THE FREEMAN • MARCH 1994 alist urge might be so rooted. I asked her to reflect on her own schooling and to compare it with mine. She agreed. (Such agreement makes one glad to honor his parents!) She pointed out that when she and my father were growing up, such studies acquainted them with many cultures all around the world-an acquaintance that both served them well and grew when, in the 1950s,they were sent by the U.S. Department of State to work in the diplomatic corps in Calcutta, India.

Imagine the comfort I felt when I found my intuitions about this confirmed not only by my mother but also in some of my dear mentor's own writing! In one of his most recent books, America's British Culture, Dr. Kirk writes: Six decades ago, when this present writer was enrolled in a public grade school not far from great railway yards outside Detroit, nobody thought of de manding multiculturalism: we already possessed that in our school. In geogra phy class, we learned a great deal about the cultures of five continents; we were very interested. Many of us, a few years later, enrolled (during high school) in three years of history: ancient, modern, and American. At least half of us took two years of language, either Latin or French, with corresponding instruction about Ro man civilization or French culture; some pupils finished four years of foreign lan guage. Our intelligent courses in English and American literature helped to redeem us from what T. S. Eliot called "the provincialism of time." We were much aware of diversity in the world and in our own country.

Today the radical multiculturalists complain, or rather shout, that Mrican, Asian, and Latin American cultures have been shamefully neglected in North America's schools. In that they are cor rect enough. In many primary, interme diate, and high schools nowadays-aye, in colleges, too-the offering in the disci pline of history amounts only to a whirl wind "Survey of World History" (with Good Guys and Bad Guys occasionally pointed out by the teacher, amidst the violent dust storm), and perhaps a year of American history, often ideologically dis torted. As for geography, that virtually has gone by the board; at least one famous state university, a few years ago, swept away altogether its department of geog raphy .... Sixty years ago, most school pupils were taught a good deal about the people and the past of Bolivia, Morocco, China, India, Egypt, Guatemala, and other lands. They even learnt about Eskimo and Aleut cultures. Nowadays pupils are instructed in the disciplines of home economics, driver education, sex education, and the sterile abstractions of Social Stu[dies].

Formerly all pupils studied for several years the principal British and American poets, essayists, novelists, and drama tists-this with the purpose of developing their moral imagination. Nowadays they are assigned the prose of' 'relevance" and ,'current awareness" at most schools. 2 In short, our lack of understanding of Western culture leaves us susceptible to the twin errors of idolizing and demonizing it, and our lack of understanding of other cultures leaves us susceptible to the same errors regarding them. For our parents, it was no shock to discover things both laud able and condemnable about their own and other cultures. (Some who have heard me say this have responded that their parents could think of nothing in America to criticize because their education had not equipped them for critical thinking. I doubt that. I think it more likely that their parents could and did criticize-but lacking the utopian mindset of my generation, they understood that one may accept as tolerable a culture that falls short of perfection.) For the chil dren of the sixties, seventies, and eighties, most of whom never seriously studied ge ography or the history of Western or any other civilization, a ·narrow acquaintance with our own contemporary culture-dom inated by thirty or more hours per week of television viewing, by an intolerable substiTHE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF MULTICULTURALISM 107 tute for education in our schools, by the entertainment of mindlessness and protest, and by the high cult of the suburban shop ping mall, a chance encounter with an as tonishing element of a foreign culture can engender a sudden and uncritical enchant ment with things foreign.

Varieties of Multiculturalism in the Academy But let me come back, now, to the ques tion of what the word multiculturalism de notes in common usage. Leaving aside the unobjectionable desire to restore a well rounded education about the geography, history, civics, and qultures of many lands and peoples, I wani to distinguish three kinds of multiculturalism. Ethnic Inclusiveness and Self-Esteem The first is rather mild, at least in its initial demands. In an article titled "In Defense of Multiculturalism," Nathan Glazer points out that "as currently used, the word 'mul ticulturalism' is something of a misnomer. It suggests a general desire or need for stu dents to have something in the curriculum that relates to their own ethnic traits, ifthese exist, or to those of their parents or ances tors. I don't think this desire is particularly widespread among many ethnic groups," he continues. " 'We are all immigrants' is nice rhetoric, but in fact we are not all immi grants. Some of us came in the last decade, some of our parents came long before that, many millions of us have only the haziest idea of how many ancestors came from where. Since 1980the census has included a new question, 'What is your ancestry?' The great majority of respondents report two, three, or more ancestries. Tens of millions simply insist on being' American,' and noth ing else.' ,3 (As a percent of both current population and annual population growth, immigration was much higher throughout the 1840s through 1920s than it has been at any time during the last four decades. Pre sumably, if immigration trends have been the chief cause of the rise of multicultural ism, we should have expected to see mul ticulturalism rise seventy years ago, when immigration was at its highest rate, propor tionally, in American history.) Glazer points out that this desire for an ethnically inclusive curriculum seems nei ther to have arisen from the increased im migration of recent years nor to be shared by the Asian and Hispanic persons who com prise most immigrants.

But if it is not the new immigration that is driving the multicultural demands, what is? Multiculturalism in its present form derives basically from black educators. It is one of the longest settled elements in the American population that makes the sharpest case for multiculturalism. Asians, who make up half of current immigrants, are not much concerned. Nor are Spanish-speaking immigrants from Central and South America. Puerto Ri cans and Mexican-Americans do tend to support bilingual education and the main tenance of the Spanish language. But they are definitely junior partners in the fight for multiculturalism. I'm convinced that were it not for the pattern of poor achievement among blacks in the schools, the multicultural movement would lose much of its force. . . . Multiculturalism, and one of its vari ants, Afrocentrism, is presented to us by black educators and leaders as one of the means whereby this deficiency may be overcome.4 The claim of this milder form of multicul turalism is that by acquainting students with the cultures of their ethnic heritage, educa tors can help to build the students' self esteem. Better self-esteem, in turn, will enable the students to achieve more in schooling.5 But there are three major prob lems with the claim.

First, it fails to ask, let alone to answer, the question, "If these students' learning skills are so crippled by low self-esteem that they need their self-esteem raised to enable them to learn more, how are they supposed to learn about their ethnic heritage in order 108 THE FREEMAN • MARCH 1994 to raise their self-esteem?" It seems the disease must be cured before the medicine can be taken successfully-in which case, what good is the medicine? Second, as Lynn Cheney put it, "Educa tion is about the pursuit of truth, and one of the characteristics of multiculturalism gone wrong is that it turns education into some thing else-a procedure for making peo ple feel good, for example; a way of build ing self-esteem .... Turning education into therapy invites distortion and half-truth into the curriculum. Education is not primarily about self-esteem. It is about learning to seek evidence, to evaluate information, to weigh conflicting opinions. "6 Third, there simply is no evidence linking high self-esteem to high academic achieve ment, or low self-esteem to low academic achievement. In fact, as Diane Ravitch pointed out in an exchange of articles with multiculturalist Molefe Kete Asante, "In the most recent international assessment of mathematics, Korean children had the high est achievement and American children had the lowest achievement. When the students were asked whether they were good in mathematics, the Koreans had the lowest score, and the Americans had the highest score. In other words, the Americans had the highest self-esteem and the lowest achievement; the Koreans had the lowest self-esteem and the highest achievement. ,,7 What seems to correlate best with academic achievement is lots of hard academic work, and in at least some cases low self-esteem seems to promote rather than to suppress hard work.

The self-esteem argument for multicultur alism, however, can only succeed if it is assumed that what students will learn about their own ethnic heritage is laudable. Grant ing, for the sake of argument, that there is any connection between awareness of eth nic heritage and self-esteem, it must be admitted that discovering that one's ances tors were in charge of Jewish concentration camps in Hitler's Germany would not be likely to promote self-esteem. No, in order , for the self-esteem version of multicultural ism to work, students must learn that their ethnic heritage is good-overwhelmingly good. And this in turn leads to the tendency among many multiculturalists to highlight whatever good they can find in cultures, to overlook bad traits, and even to fabricate history if necessary to create a better im pression than real history seems to suggest. Such is the case, for instance, with much of what is called Mrocentric history, which claims that all the best in human history has come from Mrica, that Greek culture was largely derived from Egyptian, and that Egyptian culture was black-a highly dubi ous claim historically. 8 Thus does a com mitment to multiculturalism even of the mild variety prostitute the discipline of history to the cause of self-esteem and ideology.

Racial and Ethnic Limits to Thought? The second way in which multicultural ism is used implies that race and ethnicity have an unavoidable effect on how people think and on the values they embrace, or even are capable of embracing. We cannot expect black students to learn well in cur riculum shaped chiefly by Western culture because that culture doesn't fit the black mind. This form of multiculturalism Diane Ravitch, in her article "E Pluribus Plures," calls "cultural particularism."9 The racial and ethnic determinism asserted in cultural particularism works in two directions: it imprisons people in their ancestral heri tages, and it bars them from full participa tion in the culture in which they find them selves, particularly if it is American. As several critics pointed out, this is simply racism by another name and equally repul sive morally. From a Christian perspective, it runs contrary to the Biblical teaching that all people share equally in the image of God.

An Attack on Western Civilization The third way in which the word multi culturalism is used is, I think, most objec tionable. In a very insightful article on multicultural education in the arts, UniverTHE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF MULTICULTURALISM 109 sity of Illinois professor of cultural and educational policy Ralph A. Smith, who sympathizes with many of the multicultur alists' concerns, writes, In a global context, "multiculturalism" in arts education suggests the study of the arts of all civilizations, Western and non Western. In the national context of the United States, the term usually implies that greater attention should be paid to the cultural expressions of ethnic and minor ity groups. But if this were all that mul ticulturalism denoted today, there would be no major issue, for, increasingly, vol umes on the history of art are histories of world art and school textbooks are being rewritten to reflect the contributions to American life of groups previously given little or no consideration.

What makes multiculturalism a matter for serious concern is its transformation into an extreme ideology whose purpose is to undermine the significance of West ern civilization by claiming that Western traditions, because of their pervasive rac ism, sexism, and elitism, are the cause of most of our modern problems. An in creasing number of writers, for example, now believe that considerations of ethnic origin, class, and gender are more impor tant in making policy decisions for arts education than the historical influence or artistic excellence of works of art. to Smith cites Roger Kimball's observations about the underlying agenda of multicultur alism: Implicit in the politicizing mandate of multiculturalism is an attack on the idea of a common culture, the idea that, despite our many differences, we hold in common an intellectual, artistic, and moral legacy, descending largely from the Greeks and the Bible, supplemented and modified over the centuries by innumerable contri butions from diverse hands and peoples.

It is this legacy that has given us our science, our political institutions, and the monuments of artistic and cultural achievement that define us as a civilization. Indeed it is this legacy, in so far as we live up to it, that preserves us from chaos and barbarism. And it is precisely this legacy that the multiculturalist wishes to dispense with. Either he claims that the Western tradition is merely one heritage among many-and therefore that it de serves no special allegiance inside the classroom or out of it-or he denies the achievements of the West altogether. 11 It appears, from reading both multiculturalists and their critics, that multiculturalists mean not only to disparage Western culture but to foster a moral relativism that makes meaningful evaluation and critique of cul ture nearly impossible-except when the target is Western culture. Consider the goal of the New York State Regents in a policy recently adopted for promoting multicultur alism: "Each student willdevelop the ability to understand, respect, and accept people of different races; sex; cultural heritage; na tional origin; religion; and political, eco nomic, and social background, and their values, beliefs, and attitudes." American Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker puts the commonsense objection to such a goal clearly: This goal, expressed in a lot of positive words, sounds very broadminded, very reasonable. And up to a point, it ex presses what we'd hope for from a mul ticultural and global education. An edu cated person is not narrow-minded or provincial. So, of course we don't want students to be prejudiced-to prejudge the correctness or desirability of some idea or action before they know anything about it. We want them to be open to new ideas and ways of doing things.

But do we really want them to "respect and accept" the "values, beliefs, and attitudes" of other people, no matter what they are? Do we want them to respect and accept the beliefs that led Chinese leaders to massacre dissenting students in Tianan men Square? And what about the values and beliefs that allowed the Ayatolla Khomeini to pronounce a death sentence 110 THE FREEMAN • MARCH 1994 on Salman Rushdie and the current lead ers in Iran to confirm this sentence? Is it okay to condemn an author to death because he wrote something that offends your religious beliefs? Is exposing unwanted children to the elements and certain death, a custom still widely practiced in some countries in Asia and Africa, to be respected and accepted because it is part of somebody else's culture? Is female circumcision? Must we respect the custom of forcing young chil dren in the Philippines or Thailand to work in conditions of virtual slavery? And must we look respectfully on Hitler's beliefs and actions?

The multiculturalists, says Shanker, are also teaching their students not to make moral judgments. If any custom or law of people in any culture is as defensible as any other, what kind of judgment is pos sible? So, without intending to, they en courage students in prejudice of a differ ent sort: Instead of mindlessly assuming that others' ways of doing things have to be wrong, students will mindlessly as sume these ways of doing things have to be right-or at least as good as anyone else's. And by approving practices that would not be tolerated here or in any other democracy, they are saying that some people should be held to lower standards than others-a kind of moral superiority hardly consistent with multicultural and global education. 12 In sum, multiculturalism tends to magnify whatever seems commendable in all non Western cultures-especially Mrican cul ture-and to minimize whatever might seem condemnable. At the same time, it magnifies whatever seems condemnable in Western culture-especially American culture-and minimizes whatever might seem commendable. · Responding to Multiculturalism If multiculturalism is unhealthy, as I be lieve it is, what may we offer in its place? I believe that students well acquainted with the noblest elements of Western culture especially of Anglo-American culture-and mindful also of its failings, willfeel no threat either from criticisms of Western culture or from praise of the good elements of non Western cultures. In particular, students should be aware of such noble principles of Western culture, not found either so perva sively or in so highly developed forms else where, as the Rule of Law, moral and intellectual and religious liberty, and repre sentative republican (spelled with a lower case r) government. True, they should also be aware that the West has frequently fallen far short of those great principles, and that it often does so today. But they should recognize that where exceptions to these principles in the West are precisely that exceptions-they have been and continue to be the rule in almost all other cultures.

Christians, particularly, should keep in mind that, up until the last century or two, Christianity's influence has always been far more pervasive in Western civilization (and I should remark here that I include in Western civilization the ancient Byzantine civilization, much of which has since be come part of Islamic civilization) than else where around the world. Western civiliza tion has been more shaped by Christianity with all its spots and blemishes, along with all its truth, goodness, and beauty-than by any other single influence. For Christians to jump on the multiculturalist bandwagon is for us to become implicitly critical of the influence of Christianity in culture. It is, by implication, for us to deny the legitimacy of the attempt to influence culture toward the true, the good, and the beautiful as these are revealed to us in the Bible. Let me conclude, then, by suggesting, ever so briefly and, I am afraid, insuffi ciently, certain elements of Anglo-Ameri can culture that are truly commendable and that students should be taught about. lowe much to Russell Kirk's America's British Culture for what follows: First, our language and literature. The English language, "terse and powerful,"

has given birth to some sublime literature: THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF MULTICULTURALISM 111 the works of Milton and Shakespeare, of Spenser and Sidney and Marlowe and Ben Jonson, of Ralegh and Fuller and Samuel Johnson exemplify what we might call high culture, but equally valuable are such things as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and the bold simplicity of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, not to mention the great hymnody of the Puritan and Wesleyan traditions. And the Authorized or "King James" Version of the Bible has yet to be equalled for literary brilliance as a translation of holy Scripture. Second, the supremacy of law. "Eng land's rather elaborate juridical structure is founded upon what is called 'the Common Law, ' " writes Kirk. "(The word common here signifies that this body of laws is recognized and enforced throughout all the land, rather than being merely local law or custom; also it signifies that 'the law is no respecter of persons ,' all orders and classes, including kings, being subject to its rules 'equality before the law. ') England's com mon law is the footing for American law as well, and for all major English-speaking countries-with the interesting exception of Scotland, where the legal system for the most part is civil law, Roman in its roots. ,,13 The principles of trial by jury, due process, and the rule of law, which, as Arthur Hogue puts it, "implies that all agencies of govern ment must act upon established principles; even the highest bodies and officials are not permitted to act upon arbitrary will or ca price. The supremacy of law means that all the acts of government agencies are subject to examination in the courts, which are compelled in their turn to follow established procedures, 'due process,' and to reach decisions guided not by whim but by gen erally accepted principles and sound rea son" 14-these principles are at the heart of Americanjurisprudence. True, they are not always lived up to; but they do not even exist in most Asian, Mrican, and Latin American countries-and where they do exist, they are largely the legacy of colo nialism. We owe much to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Right of 1689, the Declara tion of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.

Third, the heritage of representative gov ernment. The "Mother of Parliaments" that sits at Westminster, and the Congress of the United States, and the several state legisla tures, have served these countries well, giving them a stability unmatched by other countries around the world, protecting the people, not perfectly but tolerably well, from the tyrannies of Right and Left, of monarchy and democracy alike. Fourth, and most important, mores and minds, or the habits of the heart. These are chiefly of Christian origin, although much colored by British and American history. As Tocqueville put it, "It is their mores, then, that make the Americans of the United States, alone among Americans, capable of maintaining the rule of democracy; and it is mores again that makes the various Anglo American democracies more or less orderly and prosperous. . . ." 15 "In every culture of the past," writes Kirk, "everywhere in the world, the prin cipal source of a culture's mores-its tradi tional customs, its way of regarding the human condition, its principles of morali ty-has been religious belief. This has been true even when many people within that culture have ceased to feel any devotion to the old religious creed; even so, habit and custom fix them in a routine of existence, so that men may open doors for ladies even though they have forsworn the traditions of civility; boys may refrain from pilfering because 'Dad taught me not to' even though they never attended Sunday school; and women may be most charitable even though they have forgotten the Golden Rule and the injunctions of Saint Paul. Thus a vestigial and peripheral morality may survive the withering of the cult from which a culture arose originally. . . . A congeries of sects [settled the American colonies]. Were they in conformity to the mores of old England?

Yes, for all professed their Christian faith, all read King James's Bible (with the excep tion of the Catholics, who had the Douay Bible); all preached the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. All spoke and read English, all lived under English law, all abided by many old English prescriptions 112 THE FREEMAN • MARCH 1994 and usages. Theirs was Christianity in Brit ish forms. ,,16 America and Britain and their cultural dependencies share a common religious heritage, a common history in large part, a common pattern of law and politics, and a common body of great literature. Yet American citizens and British subjects cannot be wholly confident that their order will endure forever. It is possible to exhaust moral and social capital; a society relying altogether upon its patrimony soon may find itself bankrupt. With civi lization, as with the human body, conser vation and renewal are possible only if healthful change and reinvigoration occur from age to age. 17 Such "healthful change and reinvigora tion" must occur in our own age, if we are to avert the complete decay of our culture.

And it may occur, through a renewal of Christian faith, restored appreciation of our "legacy of ordered liberty, " the renaissance of humane letters, and the revivifying of active citizenship in this republic, energized by what some writers have called the old Roman virtues, or Romanitas: labor,pietas, and fatum-diligent labor in humble, rev erent submission to right and proper author ity in the pursuit of destiny. Christians, too, can embrace such virtues by laboring in humble service to the Kingdom of God. If we would respond well to multicultur alism, we must respond with the recognition of what is good in American culture. We must also recognize that multiculturalism is a two-edged sword, enemy of both liber alism and conservatism-of liberalism because, failing to recognize the capacity of the human mind to transcend racial and ethnic roots in the pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful, it wages war against intellectual freedom; of conservatism be cause, failing to distinguish the true, the good, and the beautiful in Western culture from what is false, evil, and ugly, it hastily casts all alike aside, thus undermining the foundations of both liberty and order. D 1. Russell Kirk, America's British Culture (New Bruns wick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), p. 1.

2. Ibid., pp. 87-8. 3. Nathan Glazer, "In Defense of Multiculturalism," The New Republic 205:10 (September 2, 1991), pp. 18-21. 4. Ibid. 5. Ralph A. Smith, "The Question of Multiculturalism," Arts Education Policy Review 94:4 (March/April 1993), pp. 2-19. 6. Lynn V. Cheney, "Taking Steps to Build Support for Change," Change 25:1 (January/February 1993), pp. 8-11. 7. Molefe Kete Asante and Diane Ravitch, "Multicultur alism: An Exchange," American Scholar 60:2 (Spring 1991), pp.267-76. 8. The claim is defended most strongly in Cornell profes sor Martin Bernal's Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, volume 1, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985(New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989). Withering critiques of Bernal's scholarship and thesis are to be found in Gleaves Whitney, "Is the American Academy Racist?" University Bookman 30:2 (1990), pp. 4-15 (a review of the book) and Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal Educa tion: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Random House Vintage Books, 1992),chapter 4, "In Search of Black Pharaohs."

9. Diane Ravitch, "E Pluribus Plures," American Scholar 59:3 (Summer 1990), pp. 337-54. 10. Smith, "The Question of Multiculturalism." 11. Ibid., citing Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals (New York: Harper and Row, 1991), p. 194. 12. Albert Shanker, "The Pitfalls of Multicultural Educa tion," Education Digest 57:4 (December 1991), pp. 5-6. 13. Kirk, America's British Culture, p. 29. 14. Ibid., p. 31, citing Arthur R. Hogue, Origins of the Common Law (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1985),pp. 188-90. 15. Ibid., p. 70, citing Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, edited by J. P. Mayer and translated by George Lawrence (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1969), 287, pp. 305-8. 16. Ibid., pp. 70-71. 17. Ibid., p. 83.