The Tyranny of the Multicultural Majority

This past Tuesday, an open meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences played host to both nobility and farce. In an inspiring display of courage, Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 stood before the full body of his colleagues and dared attack that sacred cow of the modern academy, known affectionately as multiculturalism, and known accurately as bunk.

In defense of the University rose President Neil L. Rudenstine, who, in a deft maneuver, vacillated between dodging responsibility and pleading ignorance. Meanwhile, the rest of the Faculty resorted to that timeless rhetorical technique, "gasping and hissing"--a method of retort that gained its popularity during meetings of the Smurf cartoon village.

Mansfield's brave stand this week is not the first time he has walked in the face of conventional wisdom, and it will undoubtedly not be the last. But before you start frothing at the mouth and pronouncing your condemnations of the man, perhaps you should stop to reflect on the legitimacy of his message.

"They were three women, three liberals and three mediocrities," Mansfield said. Three recent Commencement speakers--Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Philipine President Corazon Aquino and former Irish President Mary R. Robinson--were thus summed up in a single, beautiful sentence. One can hardly argue with the fact that they are all liberal women, and a strong case can made for the charge of mediocrity. All are deserving of our admiration and respect, but it would be difficult to argue that Brundtland has made an indelible mark on the world.

The politically correct like to avoid absolute judgments, but Margaret Thatcher, Mansfield's recommendation for a future speaker, has surely had a greater historical impact than the three cited selections combined. Of course, today's students, immune to right-wing propaganda, no longer think winning the Cold War was all that important. Nor was rescuing Britain's ailing socialist economy a sufficiently compassionate enterprise to earn Maggie their respect. Still, in the spirit of pluralism, maybe Harvard should invite that heartless statesperson to say her piece.

As for the Expository Writing program, which Mansfield dubbed "P.C. to the core," a quick examination of the offerings affirms his characterization. In a mandatory program designed to hone the writing abilities of each incoming class, one would think an emphasis might be placed on the great maestros of the English language--Dickens, James, Twain, Austen, Woolf and Wharton.

One would think that the program would teach the writer's craft, not cultural studies. But more than 50 percent of the Expos offerings do just that. We get courses about "American Identities in Everyday Life," "Bi-culturalism and American Identity" and, my favorite, "Popular Culture and Mass Media," a class which examines such watershed films as "The Color Purple" and "The Joy Luck Club." The syllabus boasts an interdisciplinary approach which draws on sociology, Afro-American studies and gender studies--all inarguably indispensable influences on the art of expository composition.

Many on this campus would no doubt laud both the University's taste in Commencement speakers and its writing program. They perceive the project of multiculturalism as a righteous crusade to break the grip of white patriarchy on our educational institutions. They deride their opponents as close-minded bigots, but in truth it is they who are close-minded.

We bigots do not object to liberal women speaking at Commencement. We object to a constant parade of liberal women, selected at the expense of the truly exceptional. We do not object to ethnic literature. We object to the outright politicization of a required instructional program, and the elevation of good writing to great writing simply because it is penned by minority authors.

Of course, my remarks will fall on mostly unreceptive ears, as the devotees of multiculturalism exhibit a religious devotion. They are prepared to sacrifice the integrity of anything and everything on the almighty altar of Diversity, blind not only to objection but even to the most reasonable calls to mere reflection and restraint. It is therefore not surprising that no one at Tuesday's Faculty meeting saw fit to offer a substantive reply to Mansfield's complaints. It is easier for those secure in their enlightenment to simply stand silently aghast at the ignorant in their midst, especially when it's just some old codger like Harvey Mansfield.

Still, I'm told there was a time when academia stood apart from popular currents and evaluated them from a critical perspective. It is a great loss to today's undergraduates that our teachers are no longer critics but, instead, are the most zealous flag-bearers of prevailing social trends.

Noah D. Oppenheim '00 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.