Essay/Term paper: Multicultural education in america

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Sociology Essays

Multicultural Education in America

America has long been called "The Melting Pot" due to the fact
that it is made up of a varied mix of races, cultures, and
ethnicities. As more and more immigrants come to America searching
for a better life, the population naturally becomes more diverse.
This has, in turn, spun a great debate over multiculturalism. Some of
the issues under fire are who is benefiting from the education, and
how to present the material in a way so as to offend the least amount
of people. There are many variations on these themes as will be
discussed later in this paper.

In the 1930's several educators called for programs of
cultural diversity that encouraged ethnic and minority students to
study their respective heritages. This is not a simple feat due to
the fact that there is much diversity within individual cultures. A
look at a 1990 census shows that the American population has changed
more noticeably in the last ten years than in any other time in the
twentieth century, with one out of every four Americans identifying
themselves as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or
American Indian (Gould 198). The number of foreign born residents
also reached an all time high of twenty million, easily passing the
1980 record of fourteen million. Most people, from educators to
philosophers, agree that an important first step in successfully
joining multiple cultures is to develop an understanding of each
others background. However, the similarities stop there. One problem
is in defining the term "multiculturalism". When it is looked at
simply as meaning the existence of a culturally integrated society,
many people have no problems. However, when you go beyond that and
try to suggest a different way of arriving at that culturally
integrated society, Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what
will work. Since education is at the root of the problem, it might be
appropriate to use an example in that context. Although the debate at
Stanford University ran much deeper than I can hope to touch in this
paper, the root of the problem was as follows: In 1980, Stanford
University came up with a program - later known as the "Stanford-style
multicultural curriculum" which aimed to familiarize students with
traditions, philosophy, literature, and history of the West. The
program consisted of 15 required books by writers such as Plato,
Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Marx, and Freud. By 1987, a group called
the Rainbow Coalition argued the fact that the books were all written
by DWEM's or Dead White European Males. They felt that this type of
teaching denied students the knowledge of contributions by people of
color, women, and other oppressed groups. In 1987, the faculty voted
39 to 4 to change the curriculum and do away with the fifteen book
requirement and the term "Western" for the study of at least one
non-European culture and proper attention to be given to the issues of
race and gender (Gould 199). This debate was very important because
its publicity provided the grounds for the argument that America is a
pluralistic society and to study only one people would not accurately
portray what really makes up this country.

Proponents of multicultural education argue that it offers
students a balanced appreciation and critique of other cultures as
well as our own (Stotsky 64). While it is common sense that one could
not have a true understanding of a subject by only possessing
knowledge of one side of it, this brings up the fact that there would
never be enough time in our current school year to equally cover the
contributions of each individual nationality. This leaves teachers
with two options. The first would be to lengthen the school year,
which is highly unlikely because of the political aspects of the
situation. The other choice is to modify the curriculum to only
include what the instructor (or school) feels are the most important
contributions, which again leaves them open to criticism from groups
that feel they are not being equally treated. A national standard is
out of the question because of the fact that different parts of the
country contain certain concentrations of nationalities. An example
of this is the high concentration of Cubans in Florida or Latinos in
the west. Nonetheless, teachers are at the top of the agenda when it
comes to multiculturalism. They can do the most for children during
the early years of learning, when kids are most impressionable. By
engaging students in activities that follow the lines of their
multicultural curriculum, they can open up young minds while making
learning fun. in one first grade classroom, an inventive teacher used
the minority students to her advantage by making them her helpers as
she taught the rest of the class some simple Spanish words and
customs. This newly acquired vocabulary formed a common bond among
the children in their early years, an appropriate time for learning
respect and understanding (Pyszkowski 154).
Another exciting idea is to put children in the setting of the
culture they are learning about. By surrounding children in the ideas
and customs of other cultures, they can better understand what it is
like to be removed from our society altogether, if only for a day.
Having kids dress up in foreign clothing, sample foods and sing songs
from abroad makes educating easier on the teacher by making it fun for
the students. A simple idea that helps teachers is to let students
speak for themselves. Ask students how they feel about each other and
why. This will help dispel stereotypes that might be created in the
home. By asking questions of each other, students can get firsthand
answers about the beliefs and customs of other cultures, along with
some insight as to why people feel the way they do, something that can
never be adequately accomplished through a textbook.

Students are not the only ones who can benefit from this type
of learning. Teachers certainly will pick up on educational aspects
from other countries. If, for instance, a teacher has a minority
student from a different country every year, he or she can develop a
well rounded teaching style that would in turn, benefit all students.
Teachers can also keep on top of things by regularly attending
workshops and getting parents involved so they can reinforce what is
being taught in the classroom at home.

The New York State Social Studies Review and Development
Committee has come up with six guidelines that they think teachers
should emphasize in order to help break down ethnic barriers. These
steps are as follows:

First, from the very beginning, social studies should be
taught from a global perspective. We are all equal owners of the
earth, none of us are more entitled than others to share in its many
wealths or misfortunes. The uniqueness of each individual is what
adds variety to our everyday life.

Second, social studies will continue to serve nation building
purposes. By pointing out the things we share in common, it will be
easier to examine the individual things that make us different.

Third, the curriculum must strive to be informed by the most
up to date scholarship. The administrators must know that in the
past, we have learned from our mistakes, and we will continue to do so
in the future. By keeping an open mind, we will take in new knowledge
and different viewpoints as they are brought up.

Fourth, students need to see themselves as active makers and
changers of culture and society. If given the skills to judge people
and their thoughts fairly, and the knowledge that they can make a
difference, students will take better control of life in the future.

Fifth, the program should be committed to the honoring and
continuing examination of democratic values as an essential basis for
social organization and nation building. Although the democratic
system is far from perfect, it has proven in the past that it can be
effective if we continue to put effort into maintaining it while
leaving it open for change.

Sixth, social studies should be taught not solely as
information, but rather through the critical examination of ideas and
events rooted in time and place and responding to social interests.
The subject needs to be taught with excitement that sparks kids
interest and motivates them to want to take place in the shaping of
the future of our country (NYSSSRADC 145-47).

In order to give a well rounded multicultural discussion, as
James Banks explains, teachers need to let students know how knowledge
reflects the social, political, and economic context in which it was
created. Knowledge explained by powerful groups in society differs
greatly from that of its less powerful counterparts (Banks 11). For
example, it should be pointed out how early Americans are most often
called "pioneers" or "settlers" in social studies texts, while
foreigners are called "immigrants". They should realize that to Native
Americans, pioneers were actually the immigrants, but since the
"pioneers" later went on to write the textbooks, it is not usually
described that way. By simply looking at the term "western culture"
it is obvious that this is a viewpoint of people from a certain area.
If students are aware that to Alaskans, the west was actually the
south, they can realize the bearings of how the elite in society
determine what is learned. By not falling victim to these same
misconceptions, students can better make unprejudiced decisions about
those around them. Another important aspect students need to realize
is that knowledge alone isn't enough to shape a society. The members
themselves have to be willing to put forth the time and effort and
show an interest in shaping their society in order for it to benefit
all people.

While generally opposed to the idea, Francis Ryan points out
that "Multicultural education programs indeed may be helpful for all
students in developing perspective-taking skills and an appreciation
for how ethnic and minority traditions have evolved and changed as
each came into contact with other groups" (Ryan 137). It would
certainly give people a sense of ethnic pride to know how their
forefathers contributed to the building of the American society that
we live in today. It is also a great feeling to know that
we can change what we feel is wrong to build a better system for our
children. Minorities would benefit from learning the evolution of
their culture and realizing that the ups and downs along the way do
not necessarily mean that their particular lifestyle is in danger of
extinction.

Some opponents feel that the idea of multiculturalism will,
instead of uniting cultures, actually divide them. They feel that
Americans should try and think of themselves as a whole rather than
people from different places all living together. They go even
further to say that it actually goes against our democratic tradition,
the cornerstone of American society (Stotsky 64).

In Paul Gannon's article Balancing Multicultural and Civic
Education will Take More Than Social Stew, he brings up an interesting
point that "Education in the origins, evolution, advances and defeats
of democracy must, by its nature, be heavily Western and also demand
great attention to political history (Gannon 8). Since both modern
democracy and its alternatives are derived mostly from European past,
and since most of the participants were white males who are now dead,
the choices are certainly limited. If we try to avoid these truths or
sidestep them in any way, we cannot honestly say we are giving an
accurate description of our history.

Robert Hassinger agrees with Gannon and adds that we cannot
ignore the contributions of DWEM's for the simple fact that they are
just that. He thinks that we should study such things as the rise of
capitalism or ongoing nationalism in other countries, but should not
be swayed in our critical thinking by the fact that some people will
not feel equally treated or even disrespected (Hassinger 11). There
certainly must be reasons why many influential people in our history
have been DWEM's, and we should explore these reasons without using
race and sex alone as reasons for excluding them from our curriculum.
When conflicts arise with the way we do things, we should explore why
rather than compromise in order to protect a certain groups feelings.

Francis Ryan warns that trying to push the subject of
multiculturalism too far would actually be a hindrance if it
interferes with a students participation in other groups, or worse
yet, holds the child back from expressing his or her own
individuality. He gives a first-hand example of one of his
African-American students who was afraid to publicly admit his dislike
for rap music because he felt ethnically obligated as part of his
black heritage (Ryan 137). While a teacher can be a great help in
providing information about other cultures, by the same note, that
information can be just as harmful if it is incomplete. In order for
students to be in control of their own identity, they must have some
idea of how others look at these same qualities. Children must be
taught to resolve inner-conflicts about their identity, so that
these features that make us unique will be brought out in the open
where they can be enjoyed by all instead of being hidden in fear of
facing rejection from their peers. Teachers need to spend an equal
amount of time developing each students individuality so they don't
end up feeling obligated to their racial group more than they feel
necessary to express the diversity that makes America unique.

As Harlan Cleveland points out, many countries still feel that
the predominant race must be the one in power. For instance, try to
imagine a Turkish leader in Germany, or anyone but a Japanese in
control of Japan (Cleveland 26). Only in America is there such a
diverse array of people in power from county officials all the way up
to the make up of people in our Supreme Court. However, although we
have made many advances culturally that other countries haven't, we
still have yet to see an African-American, Latino, or for that matter,
a woman as head of our country. With increasing awareness of other
cultures though, these once unheard of suggestions are making their
way even closer to reality.

Another way to look at the issue is that most non-Western
cultures have few achievements equal to Western culture either in the
past or present (Duignan 492). The modern achievements that put
America ahead of other countries are unique to America because they
were developed here. Many third-world countries still practice things
that we have evolved from many years ago, such as slavery, wife
beatings, and planned marriages. We are also given many freedoms that
are unheard of in other countries. Homosexuality is punished severely
in other lands, while we have grown to realize that it is part of the
genetic makeup of many people and they cannot control it.

Most immigrants come to America for a better way of life,
willing to leave behind the uncivilized values of their mother
countries. Instead of trying to move the country that they came from
into America, immigrants need to be willing to accept the fact that
America is shared by all who live here, and it is impossible to give
every citizen an equal amount of attention. If we are not willing to
forget some parts of our heritage in favor of a set of well rounded
values, then a fully integrated America will never be possible.

There certainly is no easy answer to the problem of
multicultural education. Proponents will continue to argue the
benefits that unfortunately seem to be too far out of reach for our
imperfect society. The hard truth is that it is impossible for our
public school system to fairly cater to the hundreds of nationalities
that already exist, let alone the hundreds more that are projected to
arrive during the next century. In order for us to live together
in the same society, we must sometimes be willing to overlook parts of
our distant past in exchange for a new hope in the future. Our only
chance is to continue to debate the topic in order to hope for a
"middle of the road" compromise. One particularly interesting
solution is that we could study the basics of how America came about
in the most non-biased way possible, not concentrating on the race and
sex of our forefathers as much as what they made happen, at least
during the elementary and high school years. This would leave the
study of individual nationalities, which are not themselves
major contributing factors, for people to do at home or further down
the line in their education, where they can focus on tradition and
beliefs to any extent they want without fear of anyone feeling
segregated.

In conclusion, in order for us to function as a whole, we need
to start thinking of America in terms of a whole. With just a basic
understanding of other cultures, and most importantly, the tools and
background to think critically and make our own decisions not based on
color, sex, religion, or national origin, but on information that we
were able to accurately attain through the critical thinking skills we
were taught in school, we would be better equipped to work at
achieving harmony in a varied racial country.

---
Works Cited

Banks, James A. "Multicultural Literacy and Curriculum Reform." The
Education Digest 13 Dec. 1991: 10-13.

Cleveland, Harlan. "The Limits To Cultural Diversity." The Futurist
March -April 1995 : 23-6.

Duignan, Peter. "The Dangers of Multiculturalism." Vital Speeches of
the Day 22 Mar. 1995 : 492-493.

Gagnon, Paul. "Balancing Multicultural and Civic Education Will Take
More Than "Social Stew"." The Education Digest Dec. 1991 : 7-9.

Gould, Ketayun H. "The Misconstruing of Multiculturalism : The
Stanford Debate and Social Work" Social Work Mar. 1995 : 198-204.

Hassinger, Robert. "True Multiculturalism." Commonweal 10 April 1992 :
10-11.

New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee
Multicultural Education Benefits All Students." Education in
America - Opposing Viewpoints. CA : Greenhaven, 1992. 144-150.

Pyszkowski, Irene S. "Multiculturalism - Education For The Nineties;
An Overview." Education Vol. 114 No. 1 : 151-157.

Ryan, Francis J. "The Perils of Multiculturalism : Schooling for the
Group."Educational Horizons 7 Spring 1993 : 134-8.

Stotsky, Sandra. "Acedemic vs. Ideological Education in the
Classroom." The Education Digest Mar. 1992 : 64-6.