Multiculturalism: Another Means of Social Control in the Classroom

In the United States, 'multicultural' is a concept that carries both positive and negative connotations. Some use it to 'separate' individuals and others to 'reconcile' differences. Similarly, educational institutions either embrace and build upon the multicultural reality of our students or deny its relevance and try to hammer down the opportunities it presents into a pile of inconvenient splinters. We must be vigilant to ensure that the classroom setting does not "set group against group … [or] … hinder the educational excellence and fairness [that multiculturalism] was conceived to enhance." (Hirsch, 1992). Enright (2003) asserts that "Education does not 'polish off' a society ... but rather is the fundamental pillar of the structure that helps to makes society civilised in the first place." The public education system will continue to influence future generations of Americans, so multiculturalism is a paradigm worth reviewing.

As a Special Education Teacher Assistant at an elementary school in Middle Tennessee, I can appreciate how perceptions on 'multiculturalism' trickle down from the state education departments, through district school boards, onto school administration desks and finally to the teacher, who has a direct impact on the opinions that a student will form, both consciously and subconsciously. Social control at its best. According to Spring (1984), the education boards who determine the values and priorities that are set in motion across school communities, are usually composed and controlled by 'local elite business groups' who mainly pursue their own economic interests.

Schools have always been a breeding project, and the powerful have always decided who gets what, when and how. The earlier immigrants, white-race communities of European-culture descent, first granted education only to those males who had claims on 'real estate property inheritances'. (Economic resources translate into power and rights. Duh!) Later, after much struggle and sacrifice others acquired the right to learn in a formal educational setting: poor white men, then white females, and finally minorities. Would the powerful and rich hand over the privilege of education out of the goodness of their hearts? Definitely not! According to Ross (1922), free public education is “an economical system of police.” So, educating 'the poor fellow' had a purpose: “The molding of his will by social suggestion, the shaping of his ideas by education, the enlightment of his judgement, the setting up of shining goals and black scarecrows in the field of life to influence his choices." Ross (1922). A mechanism of social control paid precisely by those that are controlled by it!

Back in the classroom, the interest that the teacher invests in the subject, the instruction methodology, and the depth of the content itself, all feed into the general acceptance or rejection of 'multiculturalism', or any other topic for that matter. At the school where I work, I have seen descendants of the 'earlier immigrants' proudly celebrate their European background (and they should!) while children from minority cultures seem, in general, to be embarrassed by their heritage. WHY? It has to do with their perception of where their value as individuals lies. They have based their self-esteem on outside factors - factors that they do not control. Subjected to stereotypes and discrimination, as children they are victims. Society tells them that their faith, their values, their strengths, their intelligence, their feelings are not enough to grant them membership into the American society.

The good news is that it never meant to be personal. It is not something new nor is it only happening in our country. ''This is not just about the immigrants. It's about human and civil rights, it's about all marginalized, under-privileged people in the United States.'' (Kyriakou, 2006).

Moreover, this has nothing to do with national identity, either. We all have an individual story and then a common story. Both are important. The thirst for power is what fuels the use of a school system to feed perceptions, to predetermine skills and knowledge that guarantee the success of an economic model, to perpetuate one race over others. To what lengths will people go to retain what they feel belongs to them? History has taught us that they will do even very terrible things.

In 1849, the American Academic Herman Melville said about this nation: "Settled by the people of all nations, all nations may claim her for their own." Furthermore, "it is a universal historical fact that every ethnic culture existing today is an assimilated product of earlier cultural imperialisms." (Hirsch, 1992). Why the more recent anti-immigrant sentiment? The WHIM and DESIRE of the powerful leaders of policy formulation and the trite insecurities common to their followers - insecurities that turn into selfishness, disguised as the more intellectual sentiment of 'prejudice', which in turn is supposed to justify the displays of pure meanness and lack of decency.

This is my bias - tainted by the eye of the beholder syndrome. In our society, there is a bias too - it lies in the heart and will of the powerful policymaker who seeks to control society by nullifying the common man's spirit and intellect.

References

Enright, Olwyn. (2003). The Role of Education in a Civilised Society. Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from http://www.finegael.ie/PubUploads/ACFCBF.htm

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1992). Toward a Centrist Curriculum: Two Kinds of Multiculturalism in Elementary School. Core Knowledge Foundation. Retrieved on June 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED362284&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED362284

Kyriakou, Niko. (2006, March 29). Organizers see 'New Civil Rights Movement' in Immigration Protest. Retrieved on June 23, 2010, from the CommonDreams.org Web site: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0329-03.htm

Ross, Edward A. (1922). Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order. New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved on June 23, 2010, from the Google Books Web site: http://books.google.com/books?id=HhndAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=social+control&source=bl&ots=C5VKhRbA8e&sig=VgxVMTv4mThARnu8zGHjxk11od4&hl=en&ei=jWIiTPWANcP-8AahuIiBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=education&f=false

Spring, Joel. (1984). The Structure of Power in an Urban School System: A Study of Cincinnati School Politics. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(4), 401-424. Retrieved on June 22, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202264

StateUniversity.com (n.d.). Social Organization of Schools - American Public Schools in Context, The Purposes of Schooling, Defining Organizations and Bureaucracies. Posted on June 23, 2020, to http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2430/Social-Organization-Schools.html

Religion is not Tolerated in Public Schools

The debate about religion in schools seems trite in the year 2010. Indeed, there is a strong legal basis to the argument of separating religion and state. Moreover, the origins of the great nation we live in are definitely founded on the individual's right to exercise - or not - the religion of their choice. Maybe the key to our problem is the underlying paradigm - whether our society is more like a 'melting pot' or a 'salad bowl'. Assimilation versus multiculturalism. The melting pot presumptuously implies "different elements 'melting together' into a harmonious whole with a common culture". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot)
The salad bowl imposes "the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism)

America was born and baptized in a "religious bloodbath". The very first pilgrims fought each other in the name of religion. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/hidden-history-excerpt.html?c=y&page=1)
Although the nationality of the first pilgrims and the exact date of their arrival may be questioned, there is no doubt that they came "to escape religious persecution and government oppression" in Europe. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)
In 1789, our founding fathers guaranteed an individual's freedom for religious choice through the First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights)
However, even then, many colonies and states ignored this precept and adopted a specific religion as "the religion of that region".

Today, people still try to question the scope of religious freedom. Like politics, religion reflects the best and the worst of human nature. Beliefs that should foster enlightening spiritual journeys are sometimes mainly validated through conspicuous, rigid practices. Religious differentiation has, throughout time, given men an excuse for intolerance. Religion is polemical in all scenarios, even in our schools - or should we say, especially in our schools.

In our public schools, children from a rich diversity of backgrounds come together to learn in a systemized and safe environment. (It is funny to think that these two terms - 'systemized' and 'safe' - could coexist, given that many educators - including Gatto - would label them as opposites!) The assimilation paradigm adopted by our school system commands them to be treated as if they were all alike, to downplay characteristics that are different. Religion is one such non-conforming characteristic.

Schools today are the scenario for power struggles over what constitutes freedom of religion. For example, an Illinois state law "requiring public school students to observe a moment of silence meant for prayer or personal reflection at the start of each school day" was challenged by an atheist parent and ruled against on the grounds of unconstitutionality. (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/on-education/2009/01/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up)
District Judge Robert Gettleman postulated that the state law was "an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state" thereby granting the removal of the state law. Supporters of this law claimed that the student could exercise "personal choice whether to pray or reflect more generally". In spite of the First Amendment's command for "freedom of religion", the judge denied this right to those who wanted to pray during this quiet moment. (What a positive effect this would have on a student's day - to prepare for the new day by assigning a brief minute or two to reflect or pray!)

The reason behind this ruling - besides the probable whim and personal beliefs of the judges: the US Supreme Court "not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm)
Public schooling is provided by the State - hence, the undesired intermingling of state and religion.

In Texas, biologists and social conservatives demanded that the State Board of Education revise the curriculum to eliminate the terminology and focus that prompted student evaluation of "the 'strengths and weaknesses' of all scientific theories". (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/on-education/2009/01/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up)
They claimed that this recourse was used by teachers "to slip creationism into the classroom."

A final example of religion being misconstrued in the school environment: when it is perceived to enter into a conflict with patriotism. Showing national pride by displaying respect to the national symbols should be embraced by all those who appreciate their nation. Indeed, all religions establish that the supreme being that they honor should matter most to the individual. In the case of religions that are oriented towards positive principles, no conflict is created between State and God. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID%2B@lit(mcc/016)))

Our founding fathers believed that "the interests of society are best served if individuals are free to form their own opinions and beliefs." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)
However, freedom of religion for all appears to have been interpreted as freedom of religion for 'none' - only the atheists benefit from the constraints that are placed on those who do hold religious beliefs and practices. It is indisputable that validating all the different costums is hard - however, it is also so very enriching and more importantly - it is our national reality! Multiculturalism calls for differences to be acknowledged, shared and celebrated.

In the end, how do we solve this problem which literally pushed our ancestors across the ocean, which tainted the inception of our new nation, and which still plagues our daily relationships in most social interactions. I would like to sum it up in one word: tolerance. (I must admit I have recently taken a liking to this word. I am treating it like a panacea. I understand, tolerance may have its limits!)

I picture 'tolerance' as a gentle hand stretching out in a helpful gesture. Intolerance, in my mind, adopts the shape of a weapon-bearing hand, ready to inflict plenty of pain. Tolerance is a virtue that has a concrete impact on the quality of a person's life, as well as that of those with whom he or she comes into contact with. Different groups may act together to display their tolerance or intolerance of other groups or ideas. Tolerance, or the lack thereof, will become a habit ingrained in a person's character, and can also be adopted at a higher level of conscience as a principle leading that person's life.