|
When Worldviews Collide: By Lynn Langer Meeks, Utah State University, Logan, Utah http://english.usu.edu/dept/faculty/Meeks.html
|
||
|
Lynn
Langer Meeks, Associate
Professor of English At USU since fall 1994. Meeks displays an interesting degree of honesty, introspection and personal transition in this article about his role as K-12 English Language Arts coordinator for the State of Idaho Department of Education. This article was initiated as a result of his frustration with conservative Christians and their adversarial position that thwarted many of his reforms. The author contrasted his multicultural global view with that of conservative Christians. He did this by defining what he meant by "conservative Christian, and then supported his position with a brief history of conservative Christianity. This was followed by a review of Christian tenants, which he believed conflicted with his global vision and role/responsibility as an educator. Then he made a shift to the real world for both himself and those who had frustrated him. Mr. Meeks asked the question, "Should we try to be tolerant of conservative Christian views, which are inherently intolerant of many commonly held educational beliefs and practice?" Here he unfairly or unconsciously confused the previous object of his arguments, namely that we be tolerant and sensitive to global multicultural values and practices. He is, though quite correct, that we must exercise tolerance and sensitivity, but fails to explain why. An individual or collective culture takes a position and supports certain values because of who they are, not because others are or are not tolerant and sensitive to them and their position. It is each genera- tions way of determining and proving to themselves if the values of their parents are sound and beneficial to them as well. In other words, they are culturally making meaning of their cultural inheritance. Meeks transgresses himself when he chooses to be insensitive to the values of those with whom he disagrees, yet are an essential component of the community in which he lives and works. Meeks seems to forget the difference between tolerance of people versus unwillingness to tolerate behaviors and actions that undermine one's values and defining beliefs. Seldom is it healthy to establish tolerance based upon a single negative or antisocial issue or characteristic when the person in question has so many positive characteristics and attributes from which to choose. To be much more blunt, for example, why should I base my tolerance on private homosexual relations when it contradicts and undermines my values and such an individual has a whole host of other attributes wherein I/we can find a basis of cooperation and understanding. All people choose their own reasons for associating and not associating with others. Are we to suspend this right, this responsibility? Does Meeks suggest that we be deprived of our senses, our intelligence, our heritage and our values just so a gay or lesbian person can force the public to acknowledge, tolerate and passively accept a private, intimate, deviant sexual act, as opposed to all the other characteristics and beliefs they embrace? In conclusion, how sensitive is Mr. Meeks when in his attempt to be all-inclusive, he attempts to undermine, destroy and totally neglect a core and central value of the community wherein he attempts to model understanding and sensitivity? Not me, not now and not here. For a formatted copy of this response, click here! |
