The regents' round table - plans for more racial sensitivity in New York school curricula

National Review, Dec 8, 1989 by Lawrence Auster

Compared to this broad polemic, the actual problems the report identifies in current textbooks seem almost trivial. In fact, most of the omissions the report complains of (e.g., the Puerto ricna migration since World War II, the role of Chinese workers in building the transcontinental railroad, meaningful portraits of African Americans) seems to call for exactly the kind of expanded inclusiveness that its authors contemptuously dismiss as merely "additive." For the rest, the curricular review adds up to little more than a captious racial census of the pictures that appear in textbooks. Black Studies professor Leonard Jeffries writes: "Social Studies Program 3 does not include a multicultural illustration on the cover as is done in volumes one and two [emphasis added]; it depicts two European American youths in school activity." Jeffries criticizes another social-studies cover because, while it portrays white, Asian, and black families, the black family only includes a single parent. "A subtle message is thereby conveyed," writes Jeffries, "about differences in family structure in different cultures." One can't help thinking that if the cover had portrayed a black family with two parents, Jeffries would then have denounced it for imposing mainstream family models on inner-city blacks. One thing you can be sure of: the dominant culture is guilty no matter what it does.

This bias extends throughout the entire report. Among its suggestions for the social-studies curriculum, it recommends that the Age of Exploration be portrayed with a view to "negative" values and policies that produced aggressive individuals and nations that were ready to 'discover, invade, and conquer' foreign land because of greed, racism, and national egoism." Meanwhile, the history of African Americans must be presented "so that the heroic struggle for equity waged by African Americans can be an inspiration to all." Blacks during the American Revolution were fighting "stricly for freedom," while whites were only fighting to "protect their economic interest." So it goes.

The anti-white slant applies not just to what children shall be taught, but to the way children of different races shall be taught. In a discussion of the K-6 social-studies program--the current goals of which are to "decrease egocentric and stereotypical perceptions" and "increase the ability to empathize"--the Task Force remarks, with bureaucratic coyness: "Ironically, while these objectives apply broadly to all young people, African American, Asian American, Puerto Rican/Latino, and Native American children (because of ego starvation and negative socialization) have special needs that can be more meaningfully met by positive images and cultural experiences." Translation: We're going to tear down the egocentrism of whites (for their own good--to make them less "arrogant") while tendentiously increasing the self-esteem (read: ethnic chauvinism) of non-whites--A sort of affirmative action of the mind.

But not to worry. The report has added a reassuring caveat: "Aspects of cooperation and amicability among all cultures should be stressed over conflict and violence."