Thursday, November 30, 2006

On Multiculturalism

Every generation produces its own revolutionaries, some revolt against the moral order, by which I mean the order of the soul, and others the constitutional order, by which I mean the principles of justice and jurisprudence. These individuals perceive this inherited order as flawed and incongruent with progress—when indeed it is the fons et origo of every good we enjoy, and a springboard for the cultivation of our society.

As a student, I see many of my classmates rejecting tradition, and while they are motivated by different things, a major source of this rejection are multicultural groups on university campuses, which promote an amorphous post-modern virtue, diversity. Rather than promoting irenicism, multicultural organizations tend to splinter university campuses by encouraging a militant provincialism: At almost any university one can find scores of clubs and events geared towards one ethnic group or another. (Just this week I was e-mailed about a networking event for women and minorities, and wonder what those who do not fit into either category must think when reading similar e-mails.) And while not all such groups reject the inherited order, they do create factions on campus, which, at best, segregate part of the student body and promote a myopic sense of mankind.

Multiculturalists believe that they are the disenfranchised members of society, and that the moral and constitutional order is weighed against them. Therefore, instead of reaping the benefits of the American culture that they have inherited, they fatuously search for ways to “even the playing field.” In lieu of legitimate academic programs encouraging minorities to excel, university multicultural groups promote special networking events and internships solely for students of color. The words of Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France come to mind, “You think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature.” Indeed, multiculturalists are at war with nature when they denigrate themselves by simultaneously refusing to participate in the moral and constitutional order, and complaining that they are the victims of that order.

This is not a new phenomenon, years ago Russell Kirk noted, “multiculturalism is animated by envy and hatred,” and labeled it as not only “intellectually puny”, but “anti-cultural.” It is intellectually puny because it would replace time-tested educational standards with more diverse curriculums and modern pedagogical methods. I do not claim that universities should never adjust their curriculums, but unfortunately the modernization and diversification of university curricula produces mediocre results. It is anti-cultural because multiculturalists zealously adhere to their ideology and are prepared to polemicize their opponents, even when they are minorities themselves. A salient example is the story of Mia Martinez, a College of the Holy Cross undergraduate that criticized a pre-freshman program for minority students in her campus newspaper as encouraging self-segregation by the participating students. Her opinion being that after participating in the program the students would naturally stick together since they already knew each other. Her honest observation resulted in a scolding from the college administration and even the threat of a lawsuit.

Multiculturalists are not likely to renounce their phantasmagoria anytime soon. Multiculturalism has persisted in the academy, and will continue to persist as long as there are individuals who are willing to pander to certain minorities’ sense of entitlement. We who believe in an inherited moral order – one that holds that all men are created equal – must also be persistent, and prepared to remind those who would undo tradition that, again to quote Burke, “we owe an implicit reverence to all the institutions of our ancestors."

4 comments:

  1. This was an excellent analysis. Multiculturalism is one of the scourges threatening the stability and integrity of American public life. The mantra of multiculturalism is displayed on countless rainbow colored bumper stickers across the nation calling us to “celebrate diversity”. Multiculturalism stems, I believe, from a Rousseaunian obsession with equality, which views any distinction or difference between groups of people as an evil to be corrected, by coercion if necessary. It’s an odd mix that would appear to contain some contradictions; on the one hand there is the radical egalitarianism of Rousseau, on the other is the infatuation with “celebrating our differences”. The irony, of course, is that by forcing their parochial and superficial understanding of equality on society from the top down, usually via judicial fiat, inequality and discrimination inevitably result. Digging deeper into the motives of the advocates for such schemes, one can discern a more sinister objective. The goal of the multiculturalists is to dismantle traditional, that is to say Western, values and concepts of right and wrong that are based on the natural law and to undermine the West’s anthropology of the person that is rooted in Christian humanism. Forcing the government to mandate their version of “equality” over perceived injustices in society is the first step in accomplishing that goal. Certainly, the multiculturalist bombasts are intelligent enough to recognize the glaring inconsistency in the policies they choose to advocate. It is not too difficult to see that, by forcing an institution such as a university to use race as a measure for their admission process, the institution by necessity, must discriminate against other students based on the same criteria by which the “students of color” were elevated. Nor are such policies helpful to the recipients of the special treatment. Rather than instilling habits of self-reliance, responsibility and discipline, the leaders of multiculturalism transmit to their followers a poisoning entitlement mentality that blunts the individual’s drive to work and succeed on the basis of merit. Personal shortcomings and misfortune are quickly blamed on the typical bogeymen of the multiculturalist movement: dead white men, Europeans, Republicans, Christians, the Catholic Church and Western Civilization.

    If anyone wants to see the unfortunate extent to which the entitlement mentality has absorbed into the American psyche, simply look at New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Was the government clumsy in its response? Yes! But that’s the point. A segment of society had become so accustomed to looking toward the government for assistance that when a real crisis struck, paralysis set in on both sides, the government and the public; and chaos resulted. Over the years, a fluid reciprocity has developed between certain individuals in society who want others to carry the water for them and the politicians who promise all sorts of handout incentives and initiatives if elected. These politicians stoke the flames of discontent among the so-called disenfranchised in society. But have the trillions of dollars spent on trying to level the playing field in the realm of social justice actually helped minorities, blacks in particular? I think a frank reflection of the current situation will answer that question.

    Those who have the gaucherie to question the justness of the multiculturalist agenda are immediately pigeonholed and, in another marvelous display of the Left’s “tolerance”, are torn to pieces by a litany of repugnant epithets: racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, etc. It’s one thing if a white male opposes multiculturalist schemes but it is quite another if minorities dare question the soundness of these policies; and more often now, precisely this is occurring. Seen as traitors to the cause, the full fury of the Left’s vilification tactics is unleashed against them. It is not uncommon for conservative blacks to be derided as Uncle Toms of the Bush Administration.

    At the more personal level regarding those who support the initiatives of the radical multiculturalist agenda, I think there can be found deep-seated insecurities along with other “issues”, as regards to their own identity. Special recognition by the government, or whatever institution, on account of their race or other “special quality” gives them some reassurance with regard to their place in society. People who are secure and who have their priorities straight simply don’t feel the urge to receive special treatment or recognition from others, and certainly not from the government. Seeing through the phony altruism of conniving politicians, they are offended at the suggestion that they should be treated differently because of their race.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would be nice to take a closer look at the definition of culture, as I think it is closely related to the multicultural question. The Crouch piece I noted back a few weeks ago in reference to your piece on O'Bama alludes to what I think is an interesting part of the culture debate.

    Here is the link for anyone who is interested:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are right. Culture is an important concept that merits a more precise definition and robust discussion. I remember George Weigel once casually define culture as that which a people or nation cherishes. He said this in the context of discussing the Polish resistance during the Nazi occupation. The Poles defended and preserved their culture (literature, art, language and most importantly, religion) as a part of the non-violent resistance movement.

    ReplyDelete