The medical tragedy and the school-board fight are very different things. The former doesn't have to do with pluralism; rather, simple communication across cultures. The latter is about pluralism. I assume universities are capable of researching and developing techniques to assist with both kinds of problems, but at scale? The medical case, I think yes; it would just require one more trained professional on the hospital staff, or perhaps additional training for the doctors.
I wouldn't think, though, that we could graduate enough mediators to keep up with the kind of fight described at the school board. Still, the universities have a major role in a potential solution: To find the pernicious ideas that they have been purveying for the past few decades, which have suffused society and encouraged people to a) believe some pretty weird things without evidence, b) believe that people who disagree are some combination of stupid, ignorant and evil and c) believe that the stakes are so high that compromise is impossible and all means are legitimate.
Plurism isn't the same as multiculturalism. Social cohesion requires some basis of commonality... some set of ideas and values that bind. Beyond that differences can be respectfully debated. But when there is an attempt at a cultural revolution that deconstruct the basis, there is no cohesion and there is no room for respectful conflict. Blame the left and Democrats. The universities are a mess because social, cultural and economic malcontents infiltrated leadership positions in education, media and other influence positions and infected the kids with hate of their base culture. Without that we are no longer that melting pot. Pluralism then cannot flourish.
The concept of pluralism has befuddled the history of mankind. It is the holy grail of peace seekers today. How can colleges and universities be the instigators now of pluralism when they are the ones behind much of our current strife? Not simply allowing riots for the genocide of Jews as in "from the river to the sea"., but in a long-standing history of the rejection of any thoughtful process of discussing fundamental issues. Islamic belief calls for the elimination of Jews. Talk to the Ayatollah about their stated mission to accomplish that goal. Talk to Charels Murray whose book the Bell Curve was dismissed from discussion because it raised questions of variances in racial cognitive abilities. Talk to Christians whose fundamental beliefs have been the bedrock of Western Civilization including the United States about how they are being systematically excluded in the same way that Lia's religion was excluded on an individual level. Pluralism has not worked and cannot work until there is an underlying moral authority on which there is wide universal acceptance. Perhaps the holy grail of pluralism might be found in the next millennia, but until then dozens of generations of humanity will have to continue fight or accept cultural separation as a central element in achieving a modicum of concord.
Seems like a lot of MBA-speak and happy talk, advocating for the creation of yet another grift like life-coaching and DEI.
The type of pluralism we seem to be attempting, where there are no unifying values, religion, language, ethnic traditions--anything at all really besides physical proximity--is unprecedented. At some point you have to have a rubric to choose between the gay man and the guy who throws gay men off rooftops. Because we can't all just get along.
Pluralism rather than identity. I say yes. Particularly the need to loosen the bond between self and group identity at the expense of the wellbeing of the entire community. Woke youngsters are effectively members of cults who sincerely believe they know better than the collective force of the community and civilization. It is hypnosis and hysteria. Deal with that.
The distinction between pluralism and identity is a very important contribution to our understanding of our divided country and how to heal it.
In the early twentieth century, during the final years of the great migrations of peoples from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe to the United States, the concept of cultural pluralism was put forward as a basis for a reconceptualization of the new national reality. But the proposal was cast aside in favor of a model of Americanization, in which the new immigrants were obligated to abandon their languages and cultures.
Beginning in the 1960s, the emergence of black power and the beginnings of a new wave of migrants from Latin America and other regions of the Global South made possible a revisiting of the concept of cultural pluralism. But the opportunity was missed, and the nation fell into identity politics. None of the ideological bands have lifted up cultural pluralism as a solution to the profound and destructive divisions of the nation.
The possible and necessary turn away from identity and toward pluralism, however, must be more than an educational project that fosters interpersonal bridge-building skills. It must also take the form of a national political project that formulates an alternative narrative for the nation, rooted in the founding principles of the Republic, and coming to terms with the migrations that have made the American people from the nineteenth century to the present. A political project put forth by political leaders across the nation, whose rise to prominence would be based on the concept of cultural pluralism for the healing of the nation.
To apply Eboo Patel's excellent proposal, some universities will need to accomplish two layers of groundwork:
1) Create or restore a lean, professional administrative staff that's oriented to implementing the policies and ideals of the institution and not to competing for the power to define them.
2) In order to accomplish (1): Complete the discreditation, now just begun, of the ideology that regards pluralism, constructive conversation, and comity itself as obstacles to a desired change, much as hardline Leninist parties have always regarded social-democratic ones as the first enemies to be dispatched on the way to revolution.
The pursuit of pluralism needs an environment of pluralist intent. Faculty and students, having a stake in intellectual inquiry, are more likely to favor that than administrators who are dedicated to a certain political outcome. It might help -- a little -- to remind them that if pluralism is not a radically leftist message, it's even less a radically rightist one. It's the message of progress writ small, with a steady hand.
The medical tragedy and the school-board fight are very different things. The former doesn't have to do with pluralism; rather, simple communication across cultures. The latter is about pluralism. I assume universities are capable of researching and developing techniques to assist with both kinds of problems, but at scale? The medical case, I think yes; it would just require one more trained professional on the hospital staff, or perhaps additional training for the doctors.
I wouldn't think, though, that we could graduate enough mediators to keep up with the kind of fight described at the school board. Still, the universities have a major role in a potential solution: To find the pernicious ideas that they have been purveying for the past few decades, which have suffused society and encouraged people to a) believe some pretty weird things without evidence, b) believe that people who disagree are some combination of stupid, ignorant and evil and c) believe that the stakes are so high that compromise is impossible and all means are legitimate.
They don't seem poised to do any of that.
Plurism isn't the same as multiculturalism. Social cohesion requires some basis of commonality... some set of ideas and values that bind. Beyond that differences can be respectfully debated. But when there is an attempt at a cultural revolution that deconstruct the basis, there is no cohesion and there is no room for respectful conflict. Blame the left and Democrats. The universities are a mess because social, cultural and economic malcontents infiltrated leadership positions in education, media and other influence positions and infected the kids with hate of their base culture. Without that we are no longer that melting pot. Pluralism then cannot flourish.
The concept of pluralism has befuddled the history of mankind. It is the holy grail of peace seekers today. How can colleges and universities be the instigators now of pluralism when they are the ones behind much of our current strife? Not simply allowing riots for the genocide of Jews as in "from the river to the sea"., but in a long-standing history of the rejection of any thoughtful process of discussing fundamental issues. Islamic belief calls for the elimination of Jews. Talk to the Ayatollah about their stated mission to accomplish that goal. Talk to Charels Murray whose book the Bell Curve was dismissed from discussion because it raised questions of variances in racial cognitive abilities. Talk to Christians whose fundamental beliefs have been the bedrock of Western Civilization including the United States about how they are being systematically excluded in the same way that Lia's religion was excluded on an individual level. Pluralism has not worked and cannot work until there is an underlying moral authority on which there is wide universal acceptance. Perhaps the holy grail of pluralism might be found in the next millennia, but until then dozens of generations of humanity will have to continue fight or accept cultural separation as a central element in achieving a modicum of concord.
The problem is, Diversity does not mean what they think it means.
Seems like a lot of MBA-speak and happy talk, advocating for the creation of yet another grift like life-coaching and DEI.
The type of pluralism we seem to be attempting, where there are no unifying values, religion, language, ethnic traditions--anything at all really besides physical proximity--is unprecedented. At some point you have to have a rubric to choose between the gay man and the guy who throws gay men off rooftops. Because we can't all just get along.
Pluralism rather than identity. I say yes. Particularly the need to loosen the bond between self and group identity at the expense of the wellbeing of the entire community. Woke youngsters are effectively members of cults who sincerely believe they know better than the collective force of the community and civilization. It is hypnosis and hysteria. Deal with that.
The distinction between pluralism and identity is a very important contribution to our understanding of our divided country and how to heal it.
In the early twentieth century, during the final years of the great migrations of peoples from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe to the United States, the concept of cultural pluralism was put forward as a basis for a reconceptualization of the new national reality. But the proposal was cast aside in favor of a model of Americanization, in which the new immigrants were obligated to abandon their languages and cultures.
Beginning in the 1960s, the emergence of black power and the beginnings of a new wave of migrants from Latin America and other regions of the Global South made possible a revisiting of the concept of cultural pluralism. But the opportunity was missed, and the nation fell into identity politics. None of the ideological bands have lifted up cultural pluralism as a solution to the profound and destructive divisions of the nation.
The possible and necessary turn away from identity and toward pluralism, however, must be more than an educational project that fosters interpersonal bridge-building skills. It must also take the form of a national political project that formulates an alternative narrative for the nation, rooted in the founding principles of the Republic, and coming to terms with the migrations that have made the American people from the nineteenth century to the present. A political project put forth by political leaders across the nation, whose rise to prominence would be based on the concept of cultural pluralism for the healing of the nation.
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
To apply Eboo Patel's excellent proposal, some universities will need to accomplish two layers of groundwork:
1) Create or restore a lean, professional administrative staff that's oriented to implementing the policies and ideals of the institution and not to competing for the power to define them.
2) In order to accomplish (1): Complete the discreditation, now just begun, of the ideology that regards pluralism, constructive conversation, and comity itself as obstacles to a desired change, much as hardline Leninist parties have always regarded social-democratic ones as the first enemies to be dispatched on the way to revolution.
The pursuit of pluralism needs an environment of pluralist intent. Faculty and students, having a stake in intellectual inquiry, are more likely to favor that than administrators who are dedicated to a certain political outcome. It might help -- a little -- to remind them that if pluralism is not a radically leftist message, it's even less a radically rightist one. It's the message of progress writ small, with a steady hand.