From: Gabo3@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 14:39:00 -0400

New York Newsday - Thursday, January 19, 1995
WHAT TRUCE? IT'S MULTICULTURAL WAR II
by Gabriel Rotello
	New York - When it comes to injecting social issues into the public school
curricula, conservatives love to paint liberals as the aggressors. Why, they
complain, do bleeding hearts have to tear apart the system over marginal
social issues like the Rainbow Curriculum when teachers aren't teaching the
basics, Johnny can't read, and the school system is in general disarray? 
	But now it seems that some conservatives are perfectly willing to stir up
distracting controversies over social issues when it suits their purposes.
Case in point is School Board President Carol Gresser's resolution,
introduced at yesterday's Board of Education meeting, to rip up the fragile
compromise currently in place around multicultural education. Gresser's
resolution is cynically described as a "Strengthening of Policy" on
multicultural education. But it inexplicably limits the scope of that
education to "ethnic, racial and linguistic" differences, entirely omitting
religion, gender, age, sexual orientation and disability. In attempting to
wipe two thirds of the previously agreed definition of multiculturalism from
the slate, Gresser virtually guarantees that the Board and the city will be
plunged back into the thick of a battle that had seemed mercifully over.
	Although the obvious intent of Gresser's resolution is to roll back the
modest gains of multicultural education, she attempts to disguise her purpose
in at least two ways. First, she has introduced a simultaneous resolution
"restating and strengthening" the policy on what's called anti-discrimination
education. This is the policy that teaches students their legal
responsibilities not to discriminate against women and minorities, and
informs minority students of their rights not be discriminated against. Since
New York civil rights laws protect people on the basis not only of race and
ethnicity but also religion, gender, age, sexual orientation and disability,
Gresser's anti-discrimination policy retains these categories. By
reemphasizing a commitment to this policy, Gresser and her allies cast a
smoke screen over their true purpose, which is to drop those same categories
from the multicultural curriculum. 
	As a second smokescreen, Gresser gives a nod to George Orwell and calls her
gutting of the multicultural curriculum a "strengthening" of that curriculum.
But it's hard to see how her resolution strengthens anything. Indeed,
"strengthening" multicultural education by eliminating two thirds of the
groups it covers is like strengthening the seaworthiness of a ship by
throwing two thirds of the passengers overboard. It may be a popular idea
among conservatives, lots of whom have never accepted the idea that age and
gender and disability and, especially, sexual orientation should be included
in classroom discussions about diversity. And it may be popular among those,
particularly some black and Latino conservatives, who feel that the inclusion
of anything other than race and ethnicity dilutes proper recognition of our
society's mistreatment of people of color. 
	But however much one can argue about the inclusion of this or that group in
the multicultural curricula, the point is that such an argument already took
place in this city, and it was wrenching. New York's school system has only
recently emerged from that debate, which was resolved by a genuine (which is
to say unsatisfying and imperfect) compromise that booted Heather and her two
moms from the teaching guide but retained a basic commitment to educating
students about the true diversity of our city. Not a conservative's
restrictive view of that diversity. But the real article as it exists on the
streets of New York. 
	Since that compromise emerged, there has been no noticable public clamor
from parents to roll it back, no audible demands from minorities to expand
it. Yet now, almost out of the blue, we have Gresser's resolution, and the
war begins again. I guess there are some conservatives who don't really care
whether they tear apart the system over a social agenda or not. As long as
it's their social agenda.