Diversity Education - Assignment Example

?Diversity Education: Embracing Commonality and Differences This paper will briefly examine the controversial topic of diversity education. The stance taken will be one in favor of cultural relativity, integration, and social justice approach to diversity education. Arguments against this approach to diversity education will also be fairly but critically considered. A major reason for the controversy surrounding this topic is lack of clarity and agreement on definitive parameters, due to assorted political agenda on all sides. Parameters are roughly distributed around the following categories: desegregation, multiculturalism, and cultural relativism/social justice. Relevant questions, definitively pertinent to a desegregation agenda, include whether diversity education is possible in a desegregated school, with mono-cultural teachers; and whether racial desegregation is necessarily desegregation? Diversity education requires more than the presence of assorted skin color and assorted ethnic identity, Social class, religion, parenting styles, and family composition, for example, do not always follow color lines. Resources are less available to schools with marginalized populations, so diversity education will not have the same visibility and power. Furthermore, desegregation has never proven practical, in most cases (Rotherham, 2010), Multicultural emphasis in classrooms and in teacher training, has all-too-often been reduced to learning “Jingle Bells” in Spanish, having a fruit display for Kwanza, singing, “One little two little three little Indians”, and trying out an abacus. Cultures are exoticized, unevenly covered, and represented by irrelevant fragments of experience that provide little practical insight into cross-cultural understanding and relationships. A multicultural approach by mono-cultural teachers leads to the reinforcement of current power hierarchies (Cummins, 1997). In the end, everyone has fun but knows nothing substantial about ethnic group members. There is no advancement toward cooperation and mutual understanding (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship, 2004). Approaching diversity education through cultural relativism, the affirmation of universals among people of differing cultures and sub-cultures, and encouraging responsibility for social justice is an improvement because it encourages social cooperation across cultural and sub-cultural divides, and it presents the equivalent viability of all cultural orientations (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship, 2004). This is the definitive category that contextualizes a preferred approach to diversity education. It is a more holistic approach, in that teachers must first understand personal biases, resolve them, be willing to learn from student experience and feedback, and suspend any ethnocentricity they feel (Washington State University , 2012). They must also be consistent about releasing personal power privilege, so that an environment of shared power can be sustained, so that honesty and authenticity can prevail (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Research confirms this approach as being the most effective. It is best for healthy identity formation and cognition because it presents necessary relational discontinuities (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). It supports academic success (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). It shapes culturally competent people who are best positioned to join the global community’s workforce (Cocchiara, 2009), respond to cultural others, and make decisions that will prove effective and widely applicable (Washington State University , 2012). Research has found that diversity education strongly instills democratic sentiments, and pro-democracy skills, such as taking on other perspectives, being comfortable in conflict situations and thus able to resolve conflict in a mutually satisfying manner (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship, 2004). Students enjoy and value a more in-depth study of diversity (Piland, Hess, & Piland, 2000). There are always multiple sides to an issue, however, and this one is no exception. Justification for the stance claimed as most excellent, in this paper, rests on certain assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the best choice is one supported by research. Another assumption is that democratic principles and skills are desirable and rely upon inclusivity./ A third inherent assumption is that a global society functions best with cultural relativity. These assumptions are not necessarily shared by all cultures and subcultures in the world. Religious Fundamentalists, whether associated with Christianity, Islam, Theravada Buddhism, Orthodox Judaism, or the Amish, for example, are motivated by scriptural interpretation, religious tradition and values over scientific research findings (Macedo, 1995). Orthodoxy and obedience to religious scripture and teachings are preferred to cultural relativity (Macedo, 1995). To accept cultural relativity is to accept equivalent viability of values and traditions which violate scriptures and teachings. Democracy can be interpreted as being best done within a pre-approved religious framework. An examination of differences can be threatening and used to justify exclusion, while a search for commonalities may be seen as requiring sacrificial dilution of treasured differences, religious truths and values (Macedo, 1995). Based on these alternative perspectives, diversity education, from the approach advocated in this paper, is sometimes seen as trivializing and suppressing preferred differences (Macedo, 1995). This can support further marginalization. The charge has been made that this is a violation of human rights, the right to be different (Webb, 3009). However, research shows that diversity education emphasizing cultural relativity, integration, mutuality and social justice actually increases respect for difference, as well as commonality (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship, 2004). This is a counter influence against marginalization. It follows, then, that a diversity-educated person will pose a substantially reduced threat. It is a fact that society is now global. It is not possible to participate fully without diversity fluency. With widespread immigration, globalization, refugee distribution, the Internet, and global issues dominating the news, it is imperative that everyone at least knows how to fit in effectively and has the skills to be productive. With war and terrorism being ubiquitous and globally threatening, skills for fostering mutual cooperation are essential to survival. This need not impinge on religious and lifestyle choices, if mutual respect is the bottom line for everyone. References Cocchiara, M. P. (2009). The case for mandatory diversity education. Academic Management Learning and Education , 8(4): 597-609. Cummins, J. (1997). Cultural and linguistic diversity in education: A mainstream issue? Educational Review , 49(2):104-114. Gurin, P, Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review , 72(3): 330-367. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues , 60(1): 17-34. Macedo, S. (1995). Liberal civic education and religious fundamentalism: The case of God vs John Rawls? Ethics , 105(3): 468-496. Piland, W. W., Hess, S. H., & Piland, A. (2000). Student experiences with multicultural and diversity education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice , 24(7): 531-546. Rotherham, A. J. (2010, Oct 28). Does income-based school integration work? Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Time US: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027858,00.html Washington State University . (2012). Diversity Education. Retrieved March 3, 2013, from Washington State University Diversity Education: http://diversityeducation.wsu.edu/ Webb, S. A. (2009). Against difference and diversity in social work: The case of human rights. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(3): 407-316. Read More