Most Americans value and take pride in our melting pot of cultures, ethnicities, races and religions. American culture is formed from the assimilation of the diverse ideals and beliefs from these different groups. Our readings this week bring out the dilemmas of our pluralistic society. The articles tackle the issues of the distance an individual or group takes our freedoms in the religious, political or racial sectors and poses the question: Do we decide on a common standard of freedom to apply in the educational system and if so, how much of a standard are we able to enforce?
Amy Gutmann believes that our pluralist nation should find a common thread and focus that commonness on a democracy in education that demands respect of others’ beliefs and allows us to critically reflect on our own culture. She desires to find the one, morally best way of coping” ( 2) with our differences in order to value democracy. A. Wolfe agrees with Gutmann that we should have a “guided pluralism” and that those people that value virtue should give into those that value freedom. He also mentions another scholar names Rosenblum and her contrasting idea of a “hands-off” behavior to pluralism. She states that any private association (religious schools, churches, minority groups etc) should continue to function on its own. According to Rosenblum, these associations will still provide moral benefits. With these differing views of how to handle pluralism, I have to ask, “Which method will best handle our current diverse society? Should we try to maintain a common standard or should we enact a sort of laissez- faire ideology and agree to disagree without any regulatory involvement?
These issues of diversity and questions of how to handle it lead us to the discussions I found interesting ( and controversial) in Steele’s article. Like Guttman who believes that a “state of individuals” cannot form a cohesive path to mutual respect, Steele breaches the idea of “collective entitlement”. He sees that some strives for diversity from certain groups (such as women and African-Americans) have lead to a sense on entitlement which will ultimately result in a feeling of sovereignty, autonomy and eventually inequality and exclusion. I have difficulty tackling this issue. Like Steele, I agree with the notion of appreciating diversity but also question the benefits of an exclusionary, entitled view without any respect for the opinion of others. If equality is what all groups strive for, how far is too far to take our notion of freedom? If we end up segregating ourselves (like in the example of women’s studies department and ethnic dorms), should we try to re-integrate and how do we turn 180 degrees and re-integrate to form a collective yet diverse society?
I want to shift a little from these questions to the background of diversity in schools. Rury’s article focuses on the fact that a democracy in schools must “demand diversity and require deliberation and discussion to flourish”( 309). He argues that in our current culture, ensuring diversity in a high school is hard to maintain. His factors of youth culture and the increase of suburbia attribute to the change in views of democracy in schools. His notions on the effects of youth culture in schools and society remind me of a recent episode of “Mad Men” ( see link below). “Mad Men is a show about an advertising agency set in the 1960s which depicts the current issues, dilemmas, and behavior common during this decade. The advertisers realize the growing strength of the youth culture and want to “capture the attention of youth” in their coffee commercials. The youth brought in to help in this endeavor are quoted as saying, “We don’t want to be told how to live and act. We just want to be… We want to feel.” The strength and appreciation of this culture dominates society in the 60s. On the whole, isn’t it still this way today? Are schools adjusting to the youth culture in their curriculum and structure?
On Rury’s topic of the rise of suburbia and the resulting racial segregation, does our nation still purposefully segregate neighborhoods along the lines of ethnicity and race? Or, are the neighborhoods separated solely by class, like a caste system? Do our lending laws help in this regard? I hope and have a feeling that the questions asked in the weekly articles and the blog will lead to an animated discussion.
Related sites:
http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm Fair Lending
http://138.23.124.165/exhibitions/suburbia/# Great Suburbia pictures
http://www.cpyu.org/ Site for parents on youth culture
12 comments:
I too found Steele’s argument about formalized collective entitlements (or sovereignty) leading to inequality and an undemocratic society very challenging and enlightening. It compliments Elshtain’s “Democracy on Trial” very well, as they both seem to be getting at very similar points regarding collective and individual rights.
The author of this original blogpost asked, “If equality is what all groups strive for, how far is too far to take our nation of freedom?” Steele would argue that equality is what all groups originally vie for, yet once received many groups proceed to seek collective entitlements that actually promote inequality since they benefit certain groups and harm others. He would also argue that the fight for equality goes too far when it leads to the collective entitlement and “the new sovereignty.” The goal he sees is a fully integrated society that guarantees rights based on the constitution alone.
I found Steele’s argumentation cogent and convincing. Is there anyone who found his is argument unconvincing? If so, what in his viewpoint did you find flawed?
The difficult question that his reading raises in my mind is to what extent and in what way are passed grievances to be repaid? Is integration and constitutional equality enough, or are collective entitlements that foster inequality the appropriate action? In essence: Does a lack of equality in the past (due to collective entitlements) justify a new lack of equality in the present (due to collective entitlements)?
I found the piece by Steele very compelling regarding the shift within the organization once one concession was made by the dominate group. I had mixed emotions considering the civil rights movement and how important that was but, on the flip side how it lead to entitlements. How would any group receive fair treatment without first recognizing that it is unfair.
Mathew, I found Steele's argument interesting as well, but i was not convinced. While he said that groups were striving for equality, and then once achieved wanted even more for their own group, i would argue that most groups don't merely want equality, but rather whatever the most beneficial circumstances they can obtain. I look at it as one can look at a business. A manufacturing company does not merely want to match the profits of other companies making the same product, but surpass them. I'm not trying to say that groups want to dominate one another, although unfortunately that has been a trend throughout this worlds history, but i am trying to say that groups want the best situation they can get regardless of what other groups have.
"Like Steele, I agree with the notion of appreciating diversity but also question the benefits of an exclusionary, entitled view without any respect for the opinion of others." - Amy
For me, Steele's article was the most interesting this week. I think it articulated a lot of things I've been thinking for a long time, but have been reluctant to say.
I thought Reinhold's article connected to Steele's in an interesting way. Perhaps the textbooks were in some way racist, as critics argued, but it seemed to me that people were just trying to find something to complain about. Gary Nash, one of the textbooks' authors, pointed out that they had written 80 pages on African history in one of the books, but the critics refused to see the positive aspects of the new books. For me, this ties back into Steele's argument - it is as if some groups enjoy being the victim, as if they are so worried about being discriminated against that they see discrimination where it is not meant. For instance, I heard of a man taking offense when someone said that they were writing with "colored pens." Now I wonder, if this man had faced true discrimination in his life, the kind that the civil rights movement fought to overturn, would he take offense so easily and when it so obviously was not meant?
Gary Nash was not a racist. As Reinhold points out, he had a history of writing as evidence of his belief in racial equality. Nash himself asked, "If I'm the bad guy . . . who are your allies?" An example of this that Steele gave was that, during the women's lib movement, women refused to let men join in their protests. It seems to me (and I think this was Steele's point) that for women to decide that all men are evil, just because men have received more advantages in the past, is just as discriminatory as the inequal treatment that the women are protesting in the first place.
One of Amy's questions asked how we should "re-integrate and how do we turn 180 degrees and re-integrate to form a collective yet diverse society?" I think this a pivotal question and extremely important today as schools work to try and create "multicultural curriculum."
Steele talked about civil rights and said, "The compromise that satisfied both political parties was to shift the focus from democracy, integration, and developmental uplift to collective entitlements. This satisfied the institutions because entitlements were cheaper in every way than real change" (1992). She goes on to talk about how it was better for institutions to set up these separate departments of womens-studies and black-studies rather than deal with the intense arguments that would occur within the existing departments. If you believe Steele's argument, this would mean that the creation of these departments was more of a band-aid to the real issue. "Entitlements were cheaper than real change." I think this is a heavy statement that could unfortunately be applied to many more aspects of our current education system. I can't help but think about school vouchers and bussing...rather than improve schools do we just band-aid the issue and send students to better schools, all the while letting the other schools perish?
Steele's article was published in 1992, and since then it seems as if not much has changed, at least regarding higher ed separate study departments. Did anyone in the class major in womens-studies, black-studies or any other separate department that has an insider view on this? Steele would argue that we need to fight to do away with these departments and re-integrate. But, what is your opinion? Right now, as graduate students, we are in the perfect position to "fight" for this reintegration...but how...and is that the answer?
I would like to further comment on the point Lindsay brought up: “it is as if some groups enjoy being the victim, as if they are so worried about being discriminated against that they see discrimination where it is not meant”. There does seem to be a tendency among humans to try to remain the victim. There is something alluring about being a martyr, something about being able to withstand trials and tribulations to become a stronger person.
While the sense of martyrdom isn’t something I would condone, there are certainly times when it is necessary. The grievance groups mentioned by Steele certainly have taken the martyrdom to an extreme, but I would like to play Devil’s advocate and say that this might be the only way that the groups would be able to get something done in this day and age. The grievance groups must still help citizens who are feeling discrimination in their daily lives. How is the excess of the groups any different than the actions of corporate America? Maybe the grievance groups are just playing by the rules of society as it currently exists, and that is the only way that anything will be accomplished.
I am intrigued by Julie’s comment about if we are just “band-aiding” the issues in school improvement by allowing for school vouchers. I would have to say yes, to an extent. By allowing students to be pulled out of failing schools that is not fixing the problem but just taking the child out of the picture. But not all students in a school receive school vouchers, so why aren’t we fixing these schools? I agree we are trying by creating charter schools. In charter schools the initiative is being taken to improve those few schools. But many schools are just being threatened schools to meet AYP and nothing is done about actually correcting the issues of the schools. So I must ask is threatening schools really the answer? How can we not just band-aid the school issues, and really deal with them? What would it take to combat the issues?
In a way, I guess I would have to agree with Ashleigh and Julie that school vouchers do, in a sense, just "band-aid" the real issues at the schools. By removing the child, no constructive changes can be made. Ashleigh questions, "Is threatening schools really the answer? How can we not just band-aid the school issues, and really deal with them?"
It really is a shame that holding schools accountable for quality education has started to threaten their existence at all. I believe schools policy makers need to start looking at what types of schools are successful instead of only looking at those that are failing. Where are students going when they use their vouchers? Like the principles from around Nashville asked when traveling to China, (from the school board meeting), What are other countries doing to make sure educational institutions are of the highest caliber, and how can these be implemented everywhere?
At the center of every school lies its curriculum: not just what is taught but basically everything that happens within the school. (How students interact, extracurricular, teacher and student interaction, what time the day begins, how the school is set up, etc.)
While it takes much time and effort, I really do believe each school needs to have an educated, quality group of individuals who analyze the school's leadership, community, scheduling, and subject matter. Schools do exist where all of these things coordinate to create a wonderful school environment. There is no reason their practices cannot be mirrored at schools that are failing or not meeting the AYP. What is currently done with schools not meeting AYP? Is there a way for school officials to work with people from schools that are meeting AYP to see what they could be doing differently?
The issue of school vouchers is a tough one and I find myself agreeing with most everyone above. Charter schools are a great idea and can work in many ways, but they aren't fixing the current issue, which is the fact that the other school is failing.
Rather then investing funds into new schools, these funds could be better used (or the vouchers for that matter) to improve upon the failing schools. Everyone in the system always seems to be looking in some direction to find blame, but I think it needs to be geared more towards simply fixing the issues at hand. Let everyone work together and the school will improve, especially if the students and staff want the school to improve.
Steele's argument is very intriguing to me. It definitely challenges what I have been groomed to believe through the majority of my college education.
Is there a way to re-integrate while maintaining a group's culture, ideals, and beliefs without being lost in the shuffle? Do these separate departments hinder change?
As Julie pointed out, this article was published in 1992. If anything, I think education has become even more separate and concentrated in subject areas. We are definitely not on the path to re-integration, so is there an alternative or compromise that would balance either extreme? I am not sure what that would look like, but curious...
Post a Comment