traditionalist response; but the greater concern was subsequent writers might have learned the lessons of their teachers all too well (that is, they presented the appearance of undertaking substantive work on multiculturalist activities but conducted very little). Dinesh D’Souza and
Richard Sykes wrote books, for example, that on the surface appeared to be surveys of various college curriculums and teaching practices. Yet close examination revealed those studies contained no methodological foundation or consistency. Instead, their arguments were like those of most critics of multiculturalism insofar as they were comprised mainly of anecdote and innuendo, which, as Gerald Graf noted, “[were] made to sound scandalous and disgraceful by nothing more than the scornful tone in which they [were] described."41 What critics failed to understand was the whole point of such writing was not to be scholarly but political. Keeping everyone laughing at the idiotic antics of a few college professors (which, as any college graduate can tell you, does not make for the
rule), these authors pushed forward a particular
political agenda concerning education, picking up market share for their cause in the process.
Analyzing the entire debate, what becomes apparent is there was little real debate at all.
This suggests, of course, ideas remain important: but more so as a means rather than as ends. One cannot help but wonder if history is repeating itself?
How Might Dignity Help Us Through the Morass?
It appears that, by better understanding dignity, it might be possible to find a way through the morass of theory, ideology, and politics.
How so?
Whether dignity is consider inherently possessed or given by a grant of God, the fundamental understanding of dignity is: it is the individual who possesses dignity. God does not possess dignity, s/he gives it. Groups can be designated by God, as is seen in a chosen people, and groups can recognize or promote the dignity of an individual; but the most an individual can do is show respect toward a group through acknowledgement or membership. If an individual is to recognize the dignity of a member of the group, he or she must do it through a person-to-person
interaction. And this understanding aligns with common sense: no one walks around and says organizations or institutions – the Democratic Party or the Catholic Church, for example – are “dignified.” The most a person can say is they recognize and/or respect the organization or institution’s legitimacy, built as that recognition would be on the number of its members, legal
standing, etc. In this sense, membership in an organization would be considered an attribute of the individual and his or her identity; individuals cannot be considered an attribute of the group’s identity.
Born of an environment distinguished by its scholarly ignorance (or, political sophistication in light of scholarly ignorance), contemporary academics have realized a long dormant but potentially dangerous aspect of their nature: the desire to be a preacher.
98