The morning mist still clung to the canals as I crossed the Ponte delle Guglie, making my way toward Cannaregio. Venice awakens differently than Rome—my adopted city—with a quieter reverence, as if the stones themselves remember centuries of whispered prayers and muffled conversations. I had come to the Ghetto Nuovo, that small island of memory where humanity first institutionalized separation, where in 1516 the Venetian Republic decreed that all Jews must live within designated boundaries, locked in at night, their movements controlled by day.

As a sociologist of religion who has spent years studying the intersections of faith, culture, and social structure, I recognized in these narrow streets something profound about human nature: our capacity to create both physical and metaphysical boundaries. The Venetian ghetto—from which we derive our modern word—was revolutionary in its systematic approach to segregation. Here was born the first formalized model of urban exclusion that would spread across Europe like a viral architectural concept, appearing in Rome, Prague, Frankfurt, and countless other cities where Jewish communities would be confined until the mid-19th century.

Yet what struck me most forcefully was not the historical weight of these stones, but their contemporary lightness. The gates are gone. The walls have crumbled or been absorbed into the city’s organic growth. Jewish residents are free to live anywhere in Venice—or anywhere in the world. The ghetto as a physical institution has been relegated to history books and tourist brochures.

But have we truly dismantled the ghetto? Or have we simply learned to build more sophisticated versions, invisible to the eye but no less real in their effects?

The architecture of mental separation

Walking through the narrow calli that connect the Ghetto Nuovo to the Ghetto Vecchio, I was confronted by a troubling realization: while we have torn down the physical walls that once confined Jewish communities, we have perhaps become more adept at constructing mental ghettos—invisible barriers that separate communities just as effectively as any medieval decree.

These new ghettos are not built of brick and mortar but of prejudice and assumption, of media narratives and social algorithms that create echo chambers more insidious than any walled enclave. In our contemporary cities—whether Rome, Paris, London, or New York—we witness the emergence of what I call “glass wall communities”: groups that can see each other, that exist in proximity yet rarely engage in meaningful dialogue.

Consider how we live today. Immigrants cluster in certain neighborhoods not by legal mandate but by economic necessity and social comfort. Religious minorities often self-segregate, creating informal ghettos of familiarity. Even our digital lives reflect this pattern—we follow, befriend, and engage with those who confirm our existing beliefs, creating virtual ghettos of the mind that can be more restrictive than any physical boundary.

The challenge is more complex than the original Venetian model because these modern ghettos wear the mask of choice. We tell ourselves that segregation is voluntary, that birds of a feather naturally flock together. But this narrative obscures the structural forces—economic inequality, educational disparities, cultural xenophobia—that make such “choices” inevitable for many.

Lessons from European ghettos

The history of Jewish ghettos across Europe offers sobering insights into how physical separation becomes internalized. In Rome’s ghetto, established in 1555, generations lived within papal-imposed boundaries that created not just physical isolation but psychological adaptation to marginalization. The Frankfurt Judengasse, the Prague Josefov—each represented a different experiment in controlled coexistence, where dominant societies sought to benefit from Jewish commercial skills while maintaining social and religious distance.

What fascinates me as a scholar is how these communities developed remarkable resilience and internal solidarity precisely because of their forced separation. Synagogues, schools, mutual aid societies, and cultural institutions flourished within confined spaces, creating rich micro-societies that preserved and innovated Jewish life even under oppressive conditions.

But this historical pattern raises uncomfortable questions about our contemporary moment. Are we creating conditions where different communities develop in parallel rather than in dialogue? When Muslims, Christians, Jews, and secular populations live in separate social spheres—attending different schools, consuming different media, socializing within homogeneous networks—do we risk reproducing the isolation that physical ghettos once imposed?

Venice as a model of possibility

Yet standing again in the campo of the former ghetto, observing the steady stream of visitors—Jewish and non-Jewish, local and international—I was reminded of Venice’s unique capacity for transformation. The city that invented the ghetto has also, perhaps, pointed toward its transcendence.

Today, the Ghetto Nuovo and Ghetto Vecchio host five active synagogues representing different Jewish traditions—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, Levantine, and German. The Museo Ebraico tells the story not just of Jewish Venice but of the complex relationships between communities across centuries. Kosher restaurants and bakeries serve both observant Jews and curious visitors. The workshops of contemporary Jewish artists open their doors to dialogue about identity, memory, and creativity.

This transformation speaks to something essential about Venice itself—a city that has always been, by geographical and commercial necessity, a place of encounter. Built on trade routes between East and West, between Christian Europe and the Islamic world, Venice learned early that diversity could be economically profitable even when socially challenging.

Toward dialogue and understanding

As an activist for interfaith dialogue, I see in Venice’s former ghetto a powerful metaphor for our contemporary challenge. The physical walls are gone, but the work of building bridges across the mental barriers that divide us has only just begun. The experience of integration—or experience of community building in a diverse society—requires more than the absence of legal segregation; it demands the presence of intentional encounter.

What would our cities look like if we designed them for dialogue rather than division? If our schools, our neighborhoods, our public spaces were conceived as laboratories for cross-cultural understanding rather than comfort zones for homogeneous groups?

The Venice ghetto suggests that such transformation is possible. A place born from exclusion can become a space of inclusion. Walls built to separate can be transformed into bridges that connect. But this requires conscious effort—the kind of patient, persistent work that turns strangers into neighbors, neighbors into friends, and friends into collaborators in building more just and inclusive communities.

Conclusion: The ongoing journey

As I prepared to leave the ghetto that morning, crossing back over the bridge toward the broader city, I carried with me a sense of both hope and urgency. Venice, this impossible city built on water and sustained by centuries of calculated risk-taking, reminds us that human communities are not fixed entities but ongoing projects, constantly under construction.

The ghetto walls may have fallen, but the work they represented—the work of learning to live together across differences—continues in every generation. Whether in Rome, where I make my home among the seven hills and countless communities, or in Venice, where water and stone create spaces for both separation and connection, we face the same fundamental choice: Will we build walls or bridges? Will we create ghettos of the mind or communities of the heart?

The answer lies not in grand gestures but in daily acts of encounter—in the decision to cross the bridge, to enter an unfamiliar neighborhood, to listen to a story different from our own. In these small acts of courage, we honor both the memory of those who were confined by walls and the possibility of those who will be freed by our choices.

Venice teaches us that even the most entrenched systems of separation can be transformed. The question is whether we have the wisdom and will to continue that transformation in our own time and place.

“Pluralism” is a concept more pronounced in modern times than at any other time in history. Yet, it did exist in the past—maybe not as a word but as a reality of social existence, especially in the early days of Islam. Believers back then welcomed different perspectives, ideas, and feelings, and approached others with understanding.

We need to note that it is not possible to reach absolute consensus in any society. It did not happen even among the companions of the Prophet, that elite group of people in the sight of God. Many of these companions thought differently about different matters; each of them had their own way of doing things. Take a look at the lives of Umar and Abu Dharr, or Abu Bakr and Bilal—they were so different from each other, although all of them were nourished from the same sweet source of water.

In the generations that followed, Muslim thought systems and lifestyles were established to a great extent on the foundations of the Scripture, the Prophetic tradition (sunnah), the consensus of scholars (ijma), and the principle of analogy (qiyas), in addition to secondary dynamics like custom, social benefit, and juristic discretion (istihsan). However, although believers designed their lives on these fundamental sources of knowledge, they still developed different solutions to the problems they encountered.

The pioneer scholars of Islam—like Imam Malik, Imam Shafii, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal—often offered drastically different rulings, even though they were teachers and students to each other. Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf were students of Abu Hanifa, but many of their rulings contrasted with those of their teacher. This is mainly a human condition, for every individual is different in the way they approach, understand, and interpret events. These leading jurists centered their lives around the scripture and the Prophetic practice; given the huge differences between them, one can only imagine how big the gap could be among lay people.

Believers have seen differences as a sign of Divine mercy, encouraging them to welcome differences with respect. Thus, they have been able to maintain integrity of their communities.

Developing a culture of coexistence

Striving to live with others in peace and harmony, despite major differences in lifestyles and beliefs, is as rewarding as worship. We usually have a negative reaction to what appears to be different. Subduing such negative feelings requires serious effort and willpower. The Prophetic tradition prescribes believers to live as a community, and not in isolation.

Establishing integrity and living in harmony as a pluralistic society is possible when members of the community learn to accept everyone as they are and approach differences with understanding. Approaching others with such a pluralist point of view is surely a manifestation of Divine mercy. The opposite of this is tyranny, or a form of despotism that rules with pressure and oppression and imposes a singular lifestyle on people. Such a rule threatens basic rights and freedoms; it surely crushes human potential and isolates people from the rest of the world.

Believers have to interact with different cultures and nations, lest they imprison themselves in a small space and remain outdated. On the one hand, they need to introduce their own system of values to others; on the other hand, they need to learn and benefit from others.

Conflict, however, exists even among communities that share the same beliefs and cultural background. Given that this is a fact, conflict is more likely among communities that have fewer commonalities. To be able to establish a society with integrity, it is important to realize that we need to first adopt this culture of peaceful coexistence in our own lives and then seek opportunities to practice it. Principles like meeting with others on the common denominator of being human, coming together around things that we all agree on, looking for other possibilities that can build bridges across groups, and accepting people in their own positions are necessary for building a pluralistic society.

Some believers are concerned that pluralism may lead to compromise and erosion in certain religious values. This is why they are not sure how to engage with it, and some even go as far as to adopt antagonistic feelings about the “other.” These believers need to understand that they will not achieve anything by declaring war against members of other cultures and faith traditions. Believers should be in communication with others by holding them as precious as God holds humankind.

Seeing differences as richness

Accepting differences as a reality and establishing a pluralistic society based on this premise does not mean that we should not show our opposition against certain actions and thoughts. Living with others who have different worldviews does not mean that we should agree and approve of all of their thoughts. This goes both ways—they can oppose our thoughts, too. What matters is that these disagreements and oppositions should not lead to destructive clashes. To be able to maintain societal integrity and harmony, it may sometimes be necessary to leave behind certain points of disagreement and bring to the front points that we agree upon.

Every human deserves respect, simply for being human. Differences are a reality of being human. Accepting these premises, we need to act with realism and reason and do what needs to be done in a globalized world. This should not require anyone to forsake one’s own values. Believers should be able to practice their faith without any hesitation, yet do so without imposing their values on anyone else. It is important to learn to live together while accepting our differences as an enriching component of our society.

In fact, encountering people from other traditions has often been an instrument of reinforcement. More than we assume, people usually show respect when it is time for you to pray and ask their permission to move to a quiet place. Mutual relations grow stronger when believers are confident and transparent in the way they practice their faith. Any provocative act, roughness, and radicalism should be avoided.

Some believers oppose pluralism, for they presuppose it is accepting all kinds of extreme perversity and immorality. As a matter of fact, some people consider it their democratic right to live as they like without observing any moral standard. What believers adopt and approve as right are evident. Yet, unless our rights or the rights of others and the public are violated, our disapproval of something does not necessitate us to declare war upon those who live without any moral standard. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, lived with Meccan pagans, Medinan hypocrites, and Jewish tribes for a very long time, and he showed us how to live with differences in one community.

Does this mean we should not do anything against what we believe is wrong?

What we are pointing out here is not that we should be silent and do nothing. Believers need to be exemplary individuals, before anything else, and then voice their concerns according to the circumstances. Encouraging people to do right thing and warning them against the wrong is a major duty of believers, given that they do it by keeping people’s feelings in mind and without causing negative reaction. Unnecessarily crude or rough behavior in going against what we believe as wrong may prevent other good work that may restore our society in the future.

It is undeniable that there is an antipathy against Muslims in the Western world. Similarly, some Muslims have feelings of animosity against the West. Both of these harm a culture of peaceful coexistence. Muslims, however, have to face themselves before they accuse others. Because it is the failure of Muslims in the first place that they have not done enough so others could discover true Islam.

What are the basic traits that a teacher should have to be able to help students attain necessary language skills and cultural knowledge in an L2? As language educators, we receive this question all the time. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not an easy one because research involving curriculum analyses, both in the United States and in Europe, has revealed a significant amount of variation in the number of domains and competencies covered in L2 teacher education programs (Richards, 2008). While some programs have predominantly focused on language and L2 acquisition research and theory, others have taken a more linguistics and methods-orientated direction. In general, though, most experts in the field would agree on a number of fundamental competencies.

Competent L2 teachers know who their learners are (1), what language is (2), how it is learned (3), and how it should be taught (4). Furthermore, they have a solid background about the foundations of L2 curriculum (5), the selection and development of instructional materials (6), and the design of a learning environment (7) that is sensitive to socio-cultural differences (8). They also know how to use the L2 as a tool for L2 learners to gain access to academic content knowledge (9). While they are also able to situate the whole language learning and teaching experience within broader learning theories (10), and competently assess and evaluate L2 development and proficiency (11), they are well aware of their professional roles and responsibilities as advocates for successful L2 education in its entirety at all levels, including institutional, national, and international. Indeed, these competencies have been categorized under the five domains of (I) Language Learning, (II) Learners, (III) Instruction, (IV) Assessment and Evaluation, and (V) Professionalism and Advocacy. Before any further ado, let’s take a look at what each competency entails.

Domain I: Language learning

This domain includes background knowledge and skills in (1) linguistics, (2) general learning theories, and (3) first and second language acquisition theories. First, L2 teachers need to be highly proficient in the language that they teach. Competent L2 teachers understand the nature of language and basic concepts of language systems such as phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics. They are also familiar with socio-linguistic, psycho-linguistic, and neuro-linguistic factors in L2 learning. Furthermore, they know the functions and register of the L2, including the conventions of written and spoken language, and the pedagogical implications of differences between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984). In addition, they understand the interrelatedness of receptive (listening, reading), productive (speaking, writing), and complementary (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) language skills.

Second, competent L2 teachers are familiar with the basic theories and concepts about first (L1) and L2 acquisition, including the language universals (Chomsky, 1965), and the role L1 plays in L2 development. While they understand differences between the processes of L1 and L2 acquisition, they have a solid background in second language acquisition (SLA) theories. For example, they know how to use different ways to maximize the comprehensible input (Krashen, 1987) opportunities for their students through authentic tasks and activities. More importantly, they know that the greatest bulk of an L2 is acquired through self-exposure and social interactions, not learned in strictly structured and inauthentic classroom settings. Finally, competent L2 teachers are able to situate SLA theories within the broader learning theories. For instance, they understand behaviorist (memorization) versus cognitivist (information processing) versus socio-constructivist (socio-cultural factors) views (Pavlenko – Lantolf, 2000) about L2 learning and development.

Domain II: Learners

Current SLA research has revealed that socio-psychological factors affect success in learning an L2. This domain covers teacher knowledge about (1) differences among language learners and (2) their levels of socio-cultural awareness. Individual differences, such as motivation, attitudes, anxiety, identity, learning styles, pedagogical beliefs, socialization patterns, and learning and communicative strategies affect success in learning an L2. For example, many scholars have found that high motivation has a positive effect on L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2005) while learners with high levels of anxiety do not seem be successful language learners (Horwitz, 2008). In fact, researchers have found that learners who strongly identify with the L2 community attain a more native-like accent than those who strongly identify with their native-speaking communities Dörnyei – Ushioda, 2009). Competent L2 teachers know about the role these factors might play in L2 attainment and plan the learning experience for their students accordingly.

Other learner-related factors concern the socio-cultural differences. L2 learners come from different families and geographical regions with different socio-economic and educational backgrounds, demonstrating a significant amount of cultural diversity. Culturally responsive L2 teachers understand the role of diversity – namely cultural products, perspectives, and practices – in L2 attainment. They know not only how to construct culturally-sensitive learning experiences to facilitate the most effective learning, but also what strategies to apply to create among students an awareness of and respect for cultural diversity. Indeed, culturally competent teachers effectively apply skills for communicating and collaborating effectively with the parents/guardians, the community members, and local resources to enhance their students’ learning. For example, such teachers not only genuinely value cultural diversity and incorporate it into the curriculum, but also organize extra-curricular activities in appreciation of diversity as an added value for advancement.

Domain III: Instruction

Under this domain, we have instructional competencies including (1) foundations of curriculum, (2) methods of language teaching, (3) learning environment, (4) instructional materials, and (5) language and content area integration. First, competent L2 teachers know the history and policy foundations of L2 education and use this knowledge to plan and implement effective L2 programs (Richards, 2001). They are able to select the most effective types of programs that are appropriate for the needs of a particular learner profile in a particular setting. For example, while most scholars agree that bilingual and immersion programs are the most effective, the most common English as a second language (ESL) programs in the U.S. are the pull-out ones, also known as the least effective programs that are primarily based on the development of BICS skills while neglecting the teaching of CALP via content-based curricula.

Second, competent L2 teachers are also able to choose and implement the most appropriate and current methods of language teaching. Such teachers know that we have come a long way since the grammar translation and audio-lingual method (Richards – Rodgers, 2001), however, we no longer adhere to one particular method because we live in the beyond-methods’ era (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Nonetheless, this does not imply a senseless, eclectic approach; rather it entails being flexible within a consistent theoretical and pedagogical framework often referred to as “principled eclecticism” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Third, as the current ecological L2 learning theories would suggest (Brown, 2006), just as only a balanced amount of sun, water and care, in a nurturing environment, can lead to the healthy growth of a flower, instructional methods can lead to success in L2 learning only if the learning environment is meticulously designed.

Last but not least, an important part of what constitutes a nurturing environment is the availability of effective instructional resources. Competent L2 teachers are not only well-informed about the strengths and weakness of commercial and authentic materials but also possess the necessary skills to select, adapt, or develop their own materials based on the specific needs and goals of their students. Indeed, competent L2 teachers use the instructional materials that integrate the language and content area goals, supporting L2 learners’ BICS, CALP, and academic achievement (Cummins, 1984). For example, most English-medium universities overseas have English preparatory programs to prepare students to be able to receive, say, engineering or economics content in English; however, instead of conducting a needs analysis and basing their EFL instruction on the content of these majors, most of these programs select generic commercial materials that often times include linguistic input predominantly about shopping, holidays, food, and friendship.

Domain IV: Assessment and evaluation

This domain covers knowledge and skills about the assessment and evaluation of L2 learners’ language development. It includes background in L2 testing skills related to the placement, diagnostic, achievement, and proficiency of L2 learners. Competent L2 teachers know the commonly used national and international standard assessment tools, such as TOEFL. Such teachers also know the basic concepts and practices related to test design, development, and interpretation. In addition to understanding the validity and reliability of testing methods and tools, they understand potential relationships among the national standards, instruction, and L2 testing. More importantly, in their classrooms, they effectively apply knowledge of formal/informal, direct/indirect, and dynamic and authentic assessment. Most importantly, however, competent teachers are familiar with the construct of the “backwash effect” – the effect testing might have on student learning (Hughes, 2003). Successful learning will not take place if teaching and testing goals and/or methods are incongruent. For example, if writing skills are tested by multiple choice tests, students will invest their time and effort in developing their skills to respond to such questions, not in working on actual writing skills that they will need in real-life tasks.

Domain V: Professionalism and Advocacy

As part of the last domain, L2 teachers are required to possess certain professional qualifications and individual characteristics to be able to support L2 learners’ linguistic, cultural, and academic development. This domain lies at the heart of the profession. Competent L2 teachers demonstrate knowledge of the history of L2 teaching, keep up-to-date with new trends and current educational research, and follow domestic and international issues related to language planning and policy, as well as other advances in L2 education. Moreover, considering language learners spend only a limited amount of time with language teachers, it is very important that L2 teachers collaborate with the mainstream teachers and build partnerships with outside resources and parents to support the linguistic, cultural, and content areas of development. Also noteworthy is that such teachers claim responsibility for L2 learners and are able to apply effective strategies to advocate educational and social equity for their students, both at the institutional and broader community levels (Crawford, 2004). For instance, such teachers serve as a resource to promote a school environment that values cultural and linguistic diversity, and they advocate for equitable access to resources for language learners by becoming members of organizations (e. g.: TESOL) that support L2 learning and teaching.

Furthermore, in order for teachers to apply these professional competencies in actual classroom practices, they need to posses certain individual characteristics and dispositions that complement their professional qualifications. Unlike learning other subjects, language learning requires a great deal of patience and perseverance. Hence, L2 teachers need to be caring, compassionate, understanding, self-sacrificing, and patient. They need to establish a good rapport and empathy with their students, offering them timely motivational support. Only by doing so can they understand their students’ socio-psychological well-being and invest additional personal time and effort in students’ learning.

Last but not least, L2 teachers need to remain positive and enthusiastic about their students’ progress, because the process of L2 development is a bumpy road with lots of ups and downs. To help their students, teachers need to be able to identify their students’ struggles correctly and provide them with developmentally appropriate support. In addition, they need to be fair and treat all of their students equally. In doing so, they need to know their students very well and think outside the box, supplying innovative in-class and self-study strategies. Finally, in order for L2 teachers to be able to competently demonstrate these personal traits, they need to have effective communication skills. While such teachers are very good and empathetic listeners, they also need to be able to communicate their thoughts and feelings effectively, and with mutual respect and appreciation, to support their students’ learning.

Saban Cepik is Assistant Professor/Department Chair, ELT, Zirve University.

References

• Brown, D. H. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Edition). New York: Pearson ESL.
• Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
• Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom. (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Dörnyei, Z. – Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Horwitz, E.K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn – Bacon, Inc.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krashen, S.D. (1987). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thompson-Heinle.
• Pavlenko, A., – Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 1545-177). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39: 158-177.
• Richards, J., – Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

It seems that uncertainty instead of diversity is prevailing from the eve of post-modernism, thinning the lines between world cultures and societies from day one. In search of “theory of everything,” we have almost forgotten all good and great theories and ideas about everything, leading us to skepticism and unbelief. The challenge of open skepticism tends to create more refusals than acceptance and the objective of higher education fails bitterly here, an objective that is to create a global level of understanding of the universal phenomena and to proceed with a uniform level of evolution of the intellectual mind. Instead of growing intellectual maturity and reflexivity, the symptoms of anxiety and panic and/or withdrawal are prevailing. Is this a healthy sign? Will we be able to save the sanity of the world?

In sanity lies peace and stability, and both are at stake. Now there are two choices: The first is whether the world knowledge leaders should aspire to regress back to pre-industrial revolution’s feudal monarchy based upon resignation to a single authority, where people are more entitled to powers by declaration of ownership and where there are no choices but moralized obedience to such authorities. In corporate world, Machiavellian moral has already been resounding that might is right and means may not justify the end. Such regression calls for the indoctrinated agenda of the education with priests and preachers ruling the mobs and world streets are rushing for it. The second choice or alternative is that people should embrace postindustrial Marxist-Socialist interventions, which celebrate sharing rather than ownership. The individuals sub-serve the community and in turn communities the nation; whereas, the nations must not compete in status but protect the welfare of its citizens. Whether the traditional concepts of “welfare” and “citizenship” still exist in today’s world is questionable.

Since the right of choice is still available, the nations and communities are making blind choices without thinking of the outcomes of the outcomes. What will happen to nations who will fail to attain socio-cultural and political balance in their visions? They may hear the sound of the doomsday bell ringing in their ears, thinking that they have enough time to fight till the “end.” Actually, sound travels slower than light and people are misled to believe that doomsday has yet to come, whereas, the reality has crossed that threshold much earlier and what they are witnessing is the after-math; just like a Tsunami that passes in a few minutes and only some people survive to witness its after-effects. The victims remain in shock, while those who have not experienced a Tsunami themselves hang in confusion, pondering whether their present condition is the result of the Tsunami or post-Tsunami mishandling of affairs. They may continue creating split-hair logics till doom, but their wish to reverse time remains a dream.

Similar has been the case with the “corporate” Tsunami; it came and it won – not just overpowered but overthrew everything else. We were in midst of celebrating the glory of human worth crowning individual freedom and liberalism while achieving the impossible, reaching beyond skies and galaxies through advents of natural science. We are unable to justify from where this financial meltdown came and suddenly we found ourselves struck with global recession, as if travelling on the smooth pathways of the Milky Way, we were suddenly engulfed by a black hole.

Will this mammoth spit us out alive? Is living inside a dragon “life”? Are we not inside a cave as Plato had remarked, but inside a dragon? The world outside is no more a safer place to live with nuke ideas, but living inside the dragon, the corporate culture, is wearing us out of our vitality and enthusiasm. Our weakening may weaken the dragon but do we want to die with the dragon or live with it? Those of us who believe in the afterlife, we may have the spirit to risk martyrdom or if we have the feudal courage, we may have cut the stomach line of the dragon with our bear hands, as if ploughing the fields. Kingship and martyrdom are the stories of the past. We believe in peace not war, therefore we should manage to live with the dragon. Now onwards, every tear or drop of perspiration is creating dwarfs of “relativism” and “nihilism.” The harder we work, the more we reduce in size, creating our own prototypes. Small is beautiful, but what will happen when all of us will be cut to the same size? We are shrinking together; whether or not will we grow together is questionable. I grew up listening to the stories that explained how once the earth was populated by giants and dinosaurs, and a Tsunami came and all of them became extinct.

I’ve been informed that post-modern life knows no ethical limits, understanding that values are a matter of choice, a matter of aesthetical personal taste, and suddenly I am reminded that the purpose of higher education was to develop that aesthetical taste in favor of public good. Why then should we refuse the hegemony of valued knowledge and insist on creating new knowledge of “no taste”? No wonder this “new knowledge” is impoverishing both bodies and minds rather than nurturing them. The knowledge remains stratified and complex, non-chewable and non-digestive for the common as it was engineered to fit the purpose of the “elitist corporate.” The elitism is created on the type of education one has received rather than how knowledgeable one is, where reason reigns supreme and traditional methods of acquiring knowledge are blandly rejected being accused of spreading false prophecies and hearsay.

It is not only in the field of knowledge that legitimization of factionalism and particularism has gone too far, it has also affected the social fabric of society as well. When we witness the mixing of gender and social identities, the puzzled mind asks: which gender of which race do you belong to? Elongation of the ego exposes shadows and in a consumerist world, the question is how we can cease any production. Who will dare stop them? Who has the right to exercise “choice”? Whatever come may, the post-modern world is committed to the challenge of social change and social justice, no compromise, no deal to public freedom, whether they create demons or mole hills. They are liable to create colonies and their inhabitants. Does residence and citizenship still matter?

As the Tsunami of media and information technology has been rising, social sciences have remained dumbfounded as individuals become plain victims questioning oneself in sheer pain and guilt about one’s identity: who is the citizen of which world, real or cyber? Citizenship itself is challenged employing virtual rights over social networks. With the population of cyber networks increasing at a faster rate than the population of countries and may be that of small continents, everyone is jubilant at the promise of post-modernism fulfilled – the promise of diversity. It is not setting new world order, but a new social order, defining rules of communication and relationships, where virtual existence matters more than the real one and remarkable solutions for issues related to time and space are readily available.

The citizens of a global world have never experienced such flexibility before. The gates of Eden are wide open and you do not need to carry a “good deeds license” to enter. All you need is a cyber-work-space to enter the world of ideas. Is it a dream or an “afterlife” because that too appears to be more virtual than real. Again the boundaries are thinning between the virtual and the real, between a scope of possibilities and number of its realization, all that corporate citizenship wants is huge numbers so the giants are feeding on numbers and digits. Should I worry?

While waves of uncertainty crash to a shore nearby, I embrace the warmth of diversity emanating from the Sun above. I recognize my impotence before such radiance and realize that just like the sun, there is a unity that binds humanity together.

Dr. Arif is the Head of Department Psychology, University of Central Punjab, Pakistan.

Note

[1] Heterotopia: An idealized utopia of heterogeneity, that of mixing social gender and identities by realizing the principle of diversity

My most recent visits were to Pakistan and Finland, two countries that on the surface have very few in common, if any, in terms of continent, climate, people, culture, population, economy, politics, stability… you name it. And my conviction was once again confirmed that it is absolutely a necessity to see a country with your own eyes and get firsthand knowledge to be able to see beyond what you have through other means.

The Fountain presentation on media and values was conducted in four universities with great interest and participation. Students and faculties actively joined the discussion with invigorating questions on the universal themes and values The Fountain cherishes. Despite what the Western mind would expect of Pakistan, interestingly, the female ratio in the academia is visibly very high and their voice is no less strong than their counterparts in the West.

Finland has its own texture and character by all means. Although it was mid-April, there were still pockets of muddy snow especially in the northern-facing shades of the landscape and buildings. Hardly anyone in the streets was around, even at the airport terminal, with the exception of those enjoying the spring sun during their lunch break.

However different any given country might be from another, culture of coexistence is inevitably a common theme in both regardless of continent or culture. The Minister of Culture and Sports, Paavo Arhinmäki, who opened the conference organized by Finland Dialog Association and The Fountain in Helsinki on April 24, said “Encountering ethnic and cultural diversity is no longer the experience of just a few. It has become an everyday reality for many more people worldwide. Interactive skills and conflict resolution must become part of everyone’s civil preparedness. The desire to participate and act only becomes greater through personal involvement.”

This quote summarizes the universality of our need for greater awareness of peaceful coexistence and proves that our differences are a richness of diversity. Hence, this is one of the many reasons why The Fountain is actively engaged in different continents and societies and what we try to reflect in the contents. In the same vein, this issue covers themes that are universally relevant, like What It Means to Be Human, food safety, environment, bad memory, and senior citizens. This issue also offers thought-provoking articles on natural sciences, appreciating the compatibility of the type of food animals consume with their digestion system, the perfect physical make-up of birds, and the very interesting balance in the world that is bound with its rotation. Challenges in the gifted education are also separately discussed.

For those of you in the northern hemisphere, we wish you a good summer, and a reasonable winter for those of you in the south.

Although the dialogue of civilizations has always been laudable, modern global developments such as economic inequalities, environmental destruction, the spread of information technology, and the increasing power of civil society make dialogue critical for global peace and welfare. Facing these Herculean global challenges, economic and political solutions are not enough because they empower the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak, leading to the erosion of human dignity. Without a moral dimension, globalization is doomed to remain fragile. Furthermore, it can create resentment as well as a sense of injustice and anger among the poor and weak. However, conflict between the winners and losers in globalization is not inevitable. Religious leaders have the authority and responsibility to add a moral dimension to globalization by voicing “the silent cry of those who today suffer from want, hunger, disease, powerlessness, and lack of freedom” (p. 11).¹ In Sacks’ account, religion is integral to global politics.

Belying Enlightenment predictions that religion would become “mute, marginal, and mild,” (p. 11) people are turning to religion across the globe, from Latin America to the Middle East, from the U.S. to China. Increasing global religiosity does not necessarily contribute to humanity’s hope for peace due to the dual nature of religions as a source of conflict and conflict resolution. In order to contribute to dialogue, harmony, and peace religions must find ways to “acknowledg[e] the integrity of those who are not of our faith.” It is their willingness to “make space for difference,” to “hear the voice of God in a language, a sensibility, a culture not our own,” or simply, their capacity to “see the presence of God in the face of a stranger.” If religious leaders fail to accommodate other religions, with the increasing salience of religion in international politics, religions will continue to be a source of discord, not harmony. Sacks is unequivocal in his contention about integrating faith into solutions to global problems: “If faith is enlisted in the cause of war, there must be an equal and opposite counter-voice in the name of peace. If religion is not part of a solution, it will certainly be part of the problem” (p. 9).

After describing the moral and political necessity of incorporating religion in global politics, Sacks answers the most thorny question facing religious mobilizations for equality, peace, and harmony: Can monotheistic traditions accommodate the dignity of followers of other monotheistic and polytheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and philosophies? Is the unity of God compatible with the dignity of difference? Offering a Jewish perspective on monotheism, Rabbi Sacks suggests that monotheism is compatible with the diversity of religions.

Before explaining the Jewish perspective for making space for other faiths, Rabbi Sacks argues that the notion of the universality of truth and the danger of particularity (a notion he traces back to Plato’s The Republic) can have non-religious as well as religious roots. Rabbi Sacks identifies Western universalist cultures that have propagated the idea of the existence of one universal truth: ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Christianity and Islam, and the Enlightenment. In addition to these five universalizing cultures, the world is going through a sixth-global capitalism. These attempts to unify the world under one religion or culture are not compatible with the Divine Will that is revealed by the diversity and complexity of the natural and social world. Despite his criticisms of universalist cultures, Sacks claims that some universal moral truths exist as codified in the Biblical “covenant with Noah” which forms the basis of modern human rights norms. Despite the existence of these moral universals, Sacks rejects that the existence of one God requires “one faith, one truth, one way.” By creating complexity and plurality in the cosmos, God teaches a lesson on the dignity of difference.

According to Sacks, Judaism represents the best example of a monotheist accommodation of religious plurality. In contrast to the universalist monotheisms of Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a particularist monotheism that “believes in one God but not in one religion, one culture, one truth. The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind” (p. 55). One God shows His majesty and mercy through diversity in the cosmos as well as in faiths. God and religion are uncoupled. “God is universal, religions are particular” translations of God in a specific language in the form of a specific life, nation, and community of faith.

Rabbi Sacks’ account puts Abrahamic religions on equal ground. Stressing that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of revelation, Sacks argues, “In the course of history God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, and Islam to Muslims. Only such a God is truly transcendental-greater not only than the natural universe but also than the spiritual universe articulated in any single faith, any specific language of human sensibility” (p. 55). However, as I explain later, Sacks revised or removed many of his statements accommodating Christianity and Islam in later editions of his book.

The dialogue of civilizations is the key to sustaining moral universals, accommodating the dignity of difference, and humanizing globalization. To this end, Sacks envisions two simultaneous dialogues with complementary functions-an interfaith dialogue and a faith–globalization dialogue. Before defining the term “dialogue,” he clears up some misconceptions about it. Dialogue is not about winning an argument or changing one’s own beliefs, but it is a “disciplined act of communicating . . . and listening.” By communicating we make our “views intelligible to someone who does not share them.” By listening we enter “into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to” our own. In short, the aim of dialogue is not “to change one’s beliefs but make space for another deeply held belief” (p. 83). Once the space for another’s belief is created, the dignity of difference can flourish.

While interfaith dialogue should focus on finding religious justifications for the dignity of difference, faith–globalization dialogue should offer ways to enhance distributional justice in world resources. The integration of religious communities into this process is imperative because they embody the moral responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor and oppressed.

Among some Jewish moral responsibilities is tzedakah, which requires Jewish people to give charity for distributional justice. In addition to tzedakah, Jonathan Sacks stresses education, civil society, and environmental sustainability as other topics which activists should incorporate into the dialogue of civilizations.

The Dignity of Difference is an important contribution to the debate about interfaith dialogue, as well as globalization and its discontents. It weaves its argument through theology, political science, economics, and philosophy. Yet, there are three issues Sacks fails to address. First, it is not clear to what extent Sacks’ reading of Judaism is a standard Jewish reading. In other words, “how Jewish is his description?” This is important because of his claim that Judaism is the only particularist monotheism advocating the dignity of difference and accepting Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on equal theological grounds. As Richard Harries the Bishop of Oxford details, after the first publication of the book, other Jewish authorities criticized Sacks’ description of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as being on equal theological grounds.² This criticism suggests that there is not a unity of opinion among Jewish scholars about whether and how to accommodate other Abrahamic traditions.

These criticisms led Sacks to rephrase and remove some statements. For example, in later editions, he removed this statement which had been included in the first edition: “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of revelation-faiths in which God speaks and we attempt to listen.” He also revised the statement that “God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims” so it became “As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with the singular people, but [this] does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faith finding their own relationship with God within the shared frame of the Noahide laws.” From an interfaith perspective, these criticisms and Rabbi Sacks’ responses indicate interfaith dialogue may not be sustainable without an intra-faith dialogue within each religion.

Secondly, Sacks refers to seeing God in the face of the stranger, but his examples and his argumentation are based on monotheistic traditions. Accepting the dignity of an atheist or a polytheist from a monotheistic perspective is hard, and Sacks fails to get directly involved with this difficulty.

Third, while Sacks talks about accommodating more religious voices in global governance to rectify the inhumane aspects of globalization, he tends to ignore the most outstanding obstacle in front of the integration of religious voices into politics: secularism. How can secular state institutions integrate religious voices while maintaining the separation of church and state? With their claim to sovereignty, nation states, tend to eliminate differences in the name of state- and nation-building and security. Can secularism, sovereignty, and nation state accommodate religious pluralism? If so, how?

Interfaith dialogue can provide solid, theological ground for the religious foundations of the dialogue of civilizations. Creating space for others’ beliefs is one of the most important and urgent challenges of increasingly interconnected and complex global world politics. By articulating Jewish justifications and parameters for the dialogue of civilizations, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks joins the company of other religious voices such as Fethullah Gulen³ and scholars such as Fred Dallmayr⁴ advocating interfaith dialogue, tolerance, and harmony. Any religious and secular voices advocating that end will help both to avoid the clash of civilizations and possibly to add a moral dimension to globalization.

Voices for interfaith dialogue from Judaism are particularly important for religious and practical reasons. Jewish scholars’ struggle to accommodate other religions can influence other Abrahamic religions and the interactions of Abrahamic religions with non-Abrahamic religions. Politically, it is important because Jewish voices for interfaith dialogue may moderate the ongoing tensions in the Middle East and Palestine.

Notes

1. Jonathan Sacks expands some of his arguments in his subsequent book To Heal A Fractured Word: The Ethics of Responsibility. New York: Schocken. 2005.
2. Richard Harries (2004). “Jonathan Sacks’s The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations,” Scottish Journal of Theology. (57)1: 109-115. For another thorough review see Fred Dallmayr (2003). “The Dignity of Difference: A Salute to Jonathan Sacks,” Kroc Institute Occasional Paper # 24:OP:1.
3. Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams (Compiled by). Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen. Fairfax, VA. The Fountain Press. 2000.
4. Fred Dallmayr. Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices. New York. Palgrave Macmillan. 2002.

What is multicultural education?

A good place to start is with a workable definition of what is meant by the terms “multiculturalism” and “multicultural education.” Multicultural education is a progressive approach for transforming education which holistically critiques and addresses current shortcomings, failings, and discriminatory practices in education² It is based on social justice, educational equity, and respect for thought. More specifically, the components required in ensuring a multicultural education are: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and social culture³ It seems apparent that each element, somehow, is related to the others, and each requires considerable attention, particularly when thinking about the efforts of conflict resolution in the world. In this paradigm, to be tolerant in social interactions, to give value to every opinion, and to not criticize and object to others seems to be the distinguishing features of a multicultural society. When people are overly harsh the result is destruction, while people who are trying to be constructive bring richness and reflection⁴ The idea of “if you do not like something, make a better one” fits very well with the idea of multicultural education, in which the main task is to reduce the form, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination between in-groups and out-groups.

Why do we need multicultural education?

We live in a world in which interracial conflicts and tensions seem to have become an inevitable phenomenon of daily life. On the positive side however, the last millennium has made us more knowledgeable about the nature of global acceptance, the equal-status situation, and mutual expectations. In today’s society, as we enter the 21st century, the deepening ethnic background of nations, diversity within societies, and an increasing percentage of people who speak a second language have made multicultural education crucial. Multicultural education is seen as an opportunity to improve race relations and to help all students gain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to take part in cross-cultural interactions. Children learn the difference when playing with one another⁵ The same is true in education, as teaching has become a multicultural experience. Instead of fearing or ignoring the diversity in the classroom (and society), teachers can use diversity to enrich instruction. Multicultural education helps teachers to use diversity as a resource that can bring more meaning, tolerance, and opportunity to multicultural classroom. Both teachers and students belong to diverse groups distinguished by variables such as age, social class, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Multicultural education for a changing world

In American public schools and colleges, about 46% of the student population comes from students from different ethnicity with 14 % of school age youth living in homes in which English is not the native language⁶ Today, most classroom teachers are likely to have students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This brings its own problem in that many students are assimilated in social interaction, and are faced with cultural assimilation. To overcome these difficulties, educators keep looking for more creative, thoughtful, and meaningful educational reform movements. In this sense, multicultural education is able to help students develop a sympathy and understanding towards each group’s perception and point of view. Dewey repeatedly stresses the importance of interaction in education. This interaction is an ongoing process between the individual and the subjects and other people. Dewey talks about a person who tries to build a castle in the air; even when he tries to do that, he interacts with the objects which he constructs in his imagination. As a human being, however, we are more complex creatures than animals. Each human being is a special creature, composed of different feelings and characteristics. Dewey’s ongoing interaction between the individual and other persons becomes essentially important when thinking about the existence of cultures with their uniqueness and distinctiveness. In this sense, school is a place of social interaction between teachers and students. Teaching and learning in a school environment mostly occurs through social interactions in groups. Helping students to develop a sense of reflective and positive identification with their cultural groups does not mean that it is not possible to establish an intercultural exchange between different groups. It means that through developing and clarifying the boundaries of cultural identifications, optimistically students will acquire more positive attitudes towards their neighborhoods and communities.

The rise of multicultural education

Democratic changes in nations contribute and stimulate the growth of multicultural education. Providing people with the freedom to function beyond their ethnic and cultural boundaries keeps societies more democratic and free. Using dimensions of multicultural education (e.g., prejudice reduction) can help students to develop more democratic values and attitudes. Improving dialogue efforts and tolerance in this kind of education might help students to understand, investigate and determine how equal opportunities could be gained by giving everyone a voice. Educators today face unusual challenges and want rapid solutions to educational problems. In particular, problems associated with racism, ethnicity, and prejudice make the situation intolerable, because of the high public expectations. In this sense, multicultural education can be a promising factor in implementing intercultural exchange and in helping students to gain democratic values and attitudes. One of the most effective ways to teach respect for diversity is to eliminate unawareness. If we want to understand other cultures, whether they be superficial or insightful, we had better gain a sense of perception that allows us to distinguish things more clearly and with less bias⁷ For that reason, establishing cultural exchange programs has proven to be successful in improving understanding, insight, and eventually tolerance into the classroom. Teaching lessons that either directly or indirectly address the issues of multicultural communities in the classroom, neighborhood, and nation is another important tactic that teachers can adopt when trying to help children and young adults understand the importance of respect for diversity. Teachers who bring their healthy values and virtues to the classroom can strongly influence the attitudes of their students.

Conclusion

Multicultural education is a new trend and it will become incorporated into most school curriculums in future years. Several prestigious universities in the world today require students to take classes in social studies. Thus, by using multicultural education, teachers, in particular, can help children value the significance of treating all people with self-esteem and not judging groups of people for the actions of a few. More importantly, teachers must model tolerance and compassion in their words and behavior. They should also encourage children to explore their feelings about prejudice and hatred. In doing this, the society will secure a better chance to stop any further destruction and will be able to present potentially powerful opportunities for the next generation to learn and integrate respect and dignity for all people.

Many people today, even those who already live in a multi-cultural society, have problems dealing with “others,” and blame each other for certain issues or follow a different way⁸ Blaming each other because of our origins or culture is not the solution. Rather, trying to understand and analyze people for their personal values and cultural diversity will help to mobilize and construct a caring society. As a matter of fact, religion teaches us to tolerate others and accept that people live in different groups and societies. The beauty and uniqueness of diversity is expressed in the Holy Qur’an and in the New Testament:

O mankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another (and so build mutuality and co-operative relationships, not so that you may take pride in your differences of race or social rank, and breed enmities). Surely the noblest, most honorable of you in God’s sight is the one best in piety, righteousness, and reverence for God. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Hujurat 49:13)

You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. (Matthew, 5:43-44)

Notes

1. Dewey, J., Democracy and Education, Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1916.
2. Gorski, P, Multicultural education and the internet: Intersections and integrations, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA:2000.
3. Banks, J., Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society, Teachers College Press: New York and London:1997.
4. Gulen, F., Pearls of Wisdom, The Fountain, 2001.
5. Dewey, J., Experience and Education, the Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series Simon Schuster, 1938.
6. http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/ (U.S. Bureau of the Census)
7. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/tolerance/3_stereotypes.htm
8. http://www.rumiforum.org/

“Any people who would like to secure their futures should apply as much energy to the upbringing of children as they devote to other problems. The energy devoted to many other things may go in vain, but whatever is spent for the upbringing of young generations to elevate them to the rank of humanity will be like an inexhaustible source of income.”
M. Fethullah GULEN

In thousands of American classrooms, early childhood educators and caregivers are faced with the dilemma of meeting the needs of an ever-changing population. As the population becomes more diverse, classrooms are beginning to reflect the larger population. In response to the expanding needs of young students, instructors and caregivers increasingly are trying to incorporate multiculturalism into their class curricula. This article will explore how diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism have impacted the early childhood classroom.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

The concept of early childhood education, which originated in the 1800s with the formation of kindergartens, focuses upon children between 3 and 8 years of age. In many arenas, early childhood education theories center on encouraging and supporting the educational needs of young children.

The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) position statement on “Critical Issue : Promoting Children’s Readiness to Learn” states: “In most instances, children come to school ready to learn but with different cultural, educational, and environmental experiences to draw from. It is the responsibility of the educational system to meet children where they are and encourage and support their development from that point” (1999, p. 1).

The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 echoes NCREL’s position: “Consistently poor early education programs hinder children’s cognitive and language development. As a result, some children are unprepared to attend school and learn to read, the foundation of nearly all later learning” (Title II, Part C, “Early Childhood Educator Professional Development,” 1999, p. 1). Both NCREL and The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 touch upon the concepts of cognitive development and school readiness.

School readiness, as defined by Kagen et al., encompasses two points: readiness to learn, and readiness for school. Specifically, “… readiness to learn … involves a level of development at which the child has the capacity to learn specific materials…” (Kagen, 1990; Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Lewit & Baker, 1995). On the other hand, readiness for school is defined as “… a specific set of cognitive, linguistic, social and motor skills that enables a child to assimilate the school’s curriculum” (Kagen, 1990; Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Lewit & Baker, 1995). Hence, there is a possibility that a child may have a readiness to learn but lack a readiness for school. For example, a 3-year-old girl could have the ability to recognize colors; however, she may not have the ability to participate appropriately in a school setting.

On June 8, 1999, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley gave an address to the National Press Club. Entitled “Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes’ Study,” it emphasized the following points: “What we know can be summarized this way: the quality of experiences in the years matters, and there appear to be critical periods in the first few years of life for acquiring certain language and cognitive skills. Therefore, the stakes are highest in the earliest years-the stage in life when children are their most vulnerable, and a stage when it has been proven difficult to build support for public investment” (1999).

The preceding excerpt alludes to a connection between language and cognitive skills. The emphasis on developing language and decision-making skills has resonated among early childhood educators for decades. Language development and cognitive development is important, because if children learn how to express themselves effectively, their cognitive abilities may grow exponentially. Furthermore, if children’s cognitive abilities become sharp, they may develop a better understanding of those who are different and make decisions accordingly.

It is well documented that many children become aware of differences among people before they enter a kindergarten classroom. Maritza Macdonald, contributing author of “Explorations with Young Children: A Curriculum Guide from the Bank Street College of Education” writes that children “… between the ages of 2 and 5 … become aware of gender, race, ethnicity, disabilities and other differences among people” (1999, p. 5). In “‘Do You See What I See?’ Appreciating Diversity in Early Childhood Settings” by Dr. Barbara Kupetz, it is stated that “children are around two or three when they begin to notice physical differences among people-some are short and others tall, some have blue eyes and others brown, and some have dark skin while others have light skin.” Both Macdonald and Kupetz point out that most children can discern differences among individuals at an early age. Hence, early childhood educators are not simply charged with teaching “empty vessels.” On the contrary, many educators are faced with the task of educating individuals who already may have formed negative perceptions of people who look different.

DIVERSITY AND THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION CLASROOM

Diversity means different things to different people. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines it as: “1. Quality, state, fact, or instance of being diverse; difference 2. Variety.”(2) While this definition touches upon the point of difference, it does not convey various perspectives that make up the concept of diversity.

Macdonald states: “The concept of diversity includes the perspectives of multiculturalism and nonsexist and antibias education. Diversity encompasses children’s individual interests and capabilities, racial and cultural differences, age and gender difference and language differences” (1999, p. 5). Her definition incorporates the range of differences that teachers and caregivers face everyday. Macdonald completes her definition by adding: “It also includes the social realities that affect children and communities, including availability of economic resources, access to technology, health and safety concerns, demographic make-up and locale” (1999, p. 5), Here she addresses social factors that can make a child seem different. Thus this definition can be applied to a child who is part of a racial minority, has a learning disability, does not share the majority’s native language, is homeless, or has a chronic illness. In other words’ the needs of a multitude of children are included.

Inclusion, which falls under the umbrella of diversity, is becoming another growing concern of early childhood educators. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion (ECRI) released the following statement on inclusion: “Early childhood inclusion, formerly known as ‘mainstreaming’ or ‘integration,’ refers to the full and active participation of young children with disabilities in programs with typically developing children. In principle, including children with disabilities in early childhood classes and community settings is a well-accepted practice”(1998, p. 4). This position adds an all-too-often ignored segment of an already diverse population: children with disabilities.

Deanna Jordon’s “Inclusion in the Preschool Setting” illustrates the challenges of seeing to the needs of special children in the early childhood classroom: “In many preschools and daycares today you can find a growing number of special needs children. These children have disabilities ranging from hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder, speech and language difficulties, blindness, deafness, mental retardation, and physical impairments. Thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act, our society is becoming better equipped to meet the needs and challenges of these special children. Unfortunately, many daycare providers have little to no special training to deal with these children.”

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990, many school districts remain ill-prepared to educate this special population.(3) Part of the challenge of implementing change within the early childhood school setting lies in the fact that many school administrators and teachers encounter financial, cultural, and social obstacles that prevent a fully inclusive atmosphere. ECRI supports the concern of inclusion by stating: “… family members, teachers, and administrators often encounter practical problems and policy barriers when they try to include young children with disabilities. Such barriers may prevent inclusion from occurring or may affect the quality of the experience for all children.”

When a person looks at all the problems faced by early childhood educators, it is not difficult to see why many teachers feel overwhelmed. Alison Levy, author of “Culture in the Classroom,” succinctly puts the point of view of early childhood educators into perspective: “In a field where burnout is common and salaries are low, there is not sufficient respect and appreciation for what teachers accomplish. It is often hard to accept this added challenge of continued learning” (p. 10). Although Levy acknowledges that educators face a number of barriers, she goes on to say that children who participate in multicultural settings gain valuable experiences. Hence, despite the obstacles that come with diversity and inclusion, both concepts are worth pursuing in multicultural classrooms.

MULTICULTURAL CLASSROOMS

Very few individuals can deny the importance of building strong communities within classrooms. Many teachers “… have become more interested in multicultural education, with the assumption that such approaches help children feel more welcomed, validated, integrated, and able to cooperate with others in their classroom” (Allen, McNeill, & Schmidt 1992; Brendenkamp, 1986; Byrnes & Kiger, 1992, Gollnick & Chin, 1994).

Levy concurs with the preceding statement by speaking to educators directly: “… if your class includes a variety of cultures or abilities, the group spends more time learning about and cultivating an understanding of those unique features.” Validation, integration, cooperation, and cultivation of ideas and experiences are of vital importance. Consequently, if educators ease this process for young students, they will impact the futures of their students. Macdonald emphasizes the impact of diversity on decision making: “… when you include diversity in your work with children, you are preparing them for citizenship in a society where people speak different languages, practice different customs and embrace different values. By starting in early childhood, you will be helping individuals learn to work together, communicate across differences, and value just and fair treatment for all” (1999, p. 10). Both Levy and Macdonald encourage educators to remain aware the impact teachers have on the well-being of future societies and generations.

M. Fethullah Gulen, a noted scholar who has been molding the minds of students for close to four decades, maintains that there is a direct relationship between a community and its young people. In his Towards the Lost Paradise, Gulen explains: “A community maintains its liveliness through the spirit of its young, and flourishes through it. When a community loses this spirit, it fades and withers away, like a flower whose veins have been cut, and it is finally crushed under foot.”(4) His comparison of a flower to a child is all the more poignant when we look at the loss of innocence thousands of children have experienced due to violence in schools.

CONCLUSION

Diversity and multiculturalism may seem like concepts that are not age-appropriate for young children. However, I contend that issues of diversity must have a place in the early childhood curriculum. Although children may have difficulties articulating the differences they see around them, they are aware of the concept of difference. Just as classroom populations are changing, the face of early childhood curriculum also must expand and grow to meet the needs of the twenty-first century.

FOOTNOTES

1. M. Fethullah Giilen, Criteria or The Lights of the Way -1 (Izmir, Turkey: Kaynak A.S., 1998), 55.
2. Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary, 3d ed., (N.p., n.d.)
3. Americans with Disabilities Web site: www.usdoj.gov/crt/ ada/adahoml.htm.
4. M. Fethullah Giilen, Towards the Lost Paradise (London: Truestai, 1996), 25.

REFERENCES

• Americans with Disabilities Act. www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahoml.htm.
• Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. “What is Inclusion?” www.inform.umd.edu/EDUC/Depts/ecrii/inclu.html
• The Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999. “Title II, Part C, Early Childhood Educator Professional Development.” (4 pp.). www.ed.gov. offices/OESE/ESEA/prospectus/title2-c.html
• Gulen, Fethullah M. Criteria or the Lights of the Way -1 (Izmir, Turkey: Kaynak A.S., 1998)
• . Towards the Lost Paradise. London: Truestar, 1996.
• Jordon, Deanna. “Inclusion in the Preschool Setting.” www.earlychildhood.com.” Informative Articles from earlychildhood.com.
• Kupetz, Barbara. ‘”Do You See What I See?’ Appreciating Diversity in Early Childhood Settings.” Early Childhood News (Jul.-Aug. 1998): 1-5.
• Levy, Alison. “Culture in the Classroom.” Early Childhood News (Jan.-Feb. 1997): 1-9.
• Macdonald, Maritza. “Valuing Diversity: An Excerpt from Explorations with Young Children, A Curriculum Guide from the Banks Street College of Education.” www.early-childhood.com.
• North Central Regional Educational Labor. “Critical Issues: Promoting Children’s Readiness to Learn.” www.ncrel.org/ncrel/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea700.htm.
• Riley, Richard W. “‘Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes’ Study.”8 June 1999. (Speech).

Cultural diversity has two vital benefits. First, individuals from different groups and cultures get to know each other, which engenders respect and consideration for each one’s beliefs, values, and ways of life. Achieving such a goal is a must for countries like America, which hosts many different cultures and groups. Such an understanding is becoming crucial for all nations, even for quite homogenous ones, as all are quickly becoming dwellers of the same global village. Humanity needs examples of successful multicultural societies. The second benefit is the exchange of knowledge and experience. This article elaborates on the second benefit.

Today, in many American-made movies and television serials (such as Kung Fu), we see a wise Asian man who is always calm, never panics, and brings such unique, humanitarian solutions to problems that the Americans on the scene are amazed. Although these are not real stories, they give the flavor of possible benefits to be derived from exploring different perspectives and philosophies.

The fact that all individuals living in the vast variety of societies found on our planet are human beings is often overlooked by individuals, communities, and even social science professionals, depending on the rate of their self-containedness. All individuals living in different societies are, without doubt, human beings; the differences separating them are merely external elements. Thus everyone, regardless of his or her society, experiences common problems; only the context changes. For example, a beggar and a king both feel anger at times. The beggar’s anger may lead him to hit his wife, whereas the king’s anger may cause him to engulf the nation in war. Another analogy is that of a pickpocket to a computer hacker illegally transferring funds.

Throughout history, human cultures and groups have dealt with the same characteristics and problems as we, the people welcoming a new millennium, are dealing with now. As contemporary cultures reflect inherited perspectives and philosophies, centuries-old cultures and civilizations may be invaluable resources for finding new points of view and approaches to our problems.

The emphasis placed on such a cultural exchange by both American individuals and institutions at all levels is not as great as that which has been placed on other, but less important, issues. For example, a typical American secondary school student’s knowledge of world geography and foreign languages has long been inferior to that of his or her European counterpart. This indicates a lack of interest toward the rest of the world.

The same indifference can be observed in American nightly news programs, even on national television channels. For example, the “World Report” news programs usually give domestic news (unless there is a war going on in which America is heavily involved). Might such an ethnocentric view of the world stemming from being the sole superpower be responsible for this attitude?

Sometimes people living in a system, even a well-functioning system, cannot solve their social and individual problems because they cannot raise themselves above the flow of events. The most frequently used tool to solve any problem is power, especially if it is abundant and readily available. Power often is seen as the best shortcut to the solution due to the deceiving ease of its exertion, which also allows its user to ignore or to not consider its potentially serious side effects.

The power applied may be physical, economic, military, or technological, depending on the nature of the problem. However, its exercise is not always the key to the solution. A mighty lion caught in a hunter’s net should have the modesty to request help from a tiny mouse, for the latter’s sharp teeth may work where the lion’s devastating paws cannot. One should have the wisdom to know a gallon of gas cannot attract that which can be attracted by a teaspoonful of honey.

A simple but enlightening example of how different perspectives can help to solve problems is given below. During the heated negotiations between two political parties for a coalition in Turkey, a simple but totally satisfactory suggestion by a Turkish newspaper columnist attracted my attention. The two parties, having an almost equal number of representatives in Parliament, could not share the ministries, for ministries have varying degrees of political weight. The columnist’s suggestion was not inspired by a similar case from a contemporary democracy, but from a parable describing King Solomon’s approach to a similar problem: Two heirs could not agree on how to divide their inheritance equally, because they could not agree on the value of the items to be inherited. King Solomon suggested that one heir divide the inheritance into two equal halves, after which the other heir would have the first choice. Thus, an ancient parable offered a practical solution to a conflict in a contemporary democracy. Whether his suggestion was considered or not is beyond our concern here.

One can find books of ancient and contemporary philosophers and different cultures in bookstores, but who reads them? The general public, especially the youth, should be made aware of these resources and directed to make use of humanity’s historical experience. For example, various herbs used in some parts of the world for centuries to treat specific illnesses are now preferred over drugs developed in laboratories, for they are all-natural, non-addictive, and have no side effects. Obviously, cultures and civilizations have much more to offer each other than herbs. I wish that Americans would look sincerely for the wisdom that different civilizations and cultures have to offer.

Note: Since this article is intended to reflect a broad perspective, I gave no specifics about the methodology to realize the goals indicated and no thorough examples. Such examples in different fields, along with their methodologies, can serve as the content of separate articles.

By answering this argument we shall show that we do indeed accept the same biological facts, but do not agree about the ‘laws’ which try to explain them, nor about the limits and qualifications for the operation of those ‘laws’.

Unlike other Scriptures which claim Divine authority, there is no proposition in the Qur’an which can be contradicted by established scientific knowledge as untrue. The Qur’an does not underestimate the importance of reflection and argument, but it does indicate that our suppositions about the origin of creation cannot explain the reality of it: we simply were not present there.

I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation: Nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray (al-Kahf 18.51).

This verse should not be interpreted to mean ‘Do not ask questions or do not research’, for the Qur’an encourages scientific research explicitly. It is, rather, a warning about those who vainly claim to explain the phenomena which happen outside the normal course of events and cannot be described in terms of material causes and effects. Since the creation is the great, inclusive miracle, human beings can neither imitate it (that is, they cannot create out of nothing) nor explain it. To attribute the creation to God makes everything plausible and saves scientific inquiry from fruitless uncertainties and insecure speculations. To understand the basic principles of the reality of creation is most important. If they are properly understood, useful and worthwhile aspects of the theory of evolution can be sifted out from pretentious and false interpretations of it. For, in every idea, even if it is against common sense in general, there are some elements of truth. The biological facts, rightly so called, such as variation, adaptation, natural selection and mutation, in evolution theory, should be differentiated from the ideological and metaphysical baggage they have accumulated.

In our approach, evolution may be described as the changes and variations in the form of creatures, especially in living beings, and the genetic and environmental factors associated with those changes. We do not assert that living beings are fixed and unchangeable in their forms. To claim that would imply a limitation upon the knowledge and power of God which is contradictory to His Names, the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful. The creation reflects His Names through its novelty within renewal, its prolific variety amid abundance. Individual diversity is programmed into the genetic mechanisms which, as they unfold and evolve under the prompting of environmental factors, display (for our admiration and understanding) the action in the world of Divine grace and power. The many hundreds of apples on a single tree are not identical, nor are they identical over different seasons-they are only similar. Thus, the first emphasis in our definition of the concept of evolution is change which is vital for the maintenance of ecological diversity and balance.

To paraphrase the Qur’an: God imposes the law of change and evolution as a basic principle in the universe. In the enforcement of this law, He creates pairs and opposites which, interacting according to subtle purposes, are placed in the core of every being. Thus, the change-dependent evolution and the dynamic balance in the universe, have been realized through the intersection of the opposites continually since the outset of creation. There are many verses in the Qur’an (for example in Chapter 55, al-Rahman) which indicate change and balance.

The ideologues of evolution theory, however, ignore the Divine wisdom, measure and purpose in the universe, claiming that the change they observe is an effect of coincidences-random variations, aimless mutations.

In the light of recent findings, we know the apparent causes of change to be mutations, which are the hereditary alternations in the genetic information; the differentiation of an isolated population from its ancestor through multiplying inside the population; adaptation and so-called ‘natural selection’, that is the decrease or extinction of generations which are weak and unable to reproduce in their immediate environment.

Believers in the One God affirm that everything, from subatomic particles to galaxies, is created by Him, that He is Omniscient and Omnipotent, and everything acts under His will and command. Causes are created by God in the appropriate time and space and the appropriate order and combination as a sort of veil for His dignity and might. He only says ‘Be!’, and all the material causes, such as heat, moisture, air, chemical elements, radiation, etc., are. If such causes are seen in this way, if their being brought together into an order is understood to be a response to their need (their prayer) to participate in a collaborative universe-and if their being causes is confirmed by observations and experiments-then, we may regard causes as a useful way to explain biological phenomena.

We know that diversity in a species is realized through mutations in the genetic program, arranged by Divine wisdom, not by coincidence. The evolutionist idea that the mutations are arbitrary, that useful changes can occur by sheer chance and lead to the development of a living being, or that a lot of random mutations can accumulate to enable a sudden leap from one species to another, has not been confirmed by experiments and observations. To accept that the mutations are arbitrary interferences in the genetic order is like accepting that a rocket can be generated out of a sound aircraft by raking it randomly with machine-gun fire. Certainly, computer-aided probability calculations show that it is impossible for thousands of random mutations to accumulate on a living being and change it into another species. Any such change is manifestly against that organism’s survival and would have to overwhelm it suddenly, not gradually.

Some bacteria can be given the ability to synthesize insulin by means of genetic engineering. This is a kind of planned mutation. Such a transfer of ability is, though remarkable, a relatively small change: it is, in any case, only possible because of the relevant ability being present in the genetic material being transferred. It is sheer arrogance to claim that living beings having millions of such able genes have evolved from each other by arbitrary, random mutations.

Adaptation is a biological manifestation of the flexibility coded into the genetic programs of living organisms; it carries the potential, within the limits of the species, for the organism to survive in changing conditions and to sustain that survival through reproduction.

When environmental conditions change, responsive adaptations occur- e.g. change of colour or density of hair, size of ears-in proportion to the flexibility of the organism’s genetic potential. If the organism cannot adapt adequately, the species does not mutate into some new species, it goes extinct. That is what happened, we presume, to dinosaurs and dodos.

The diversity of various human races can also be explained by the flexibility of their genetic potentials in response to different geographical, climatic and environmental conditions, provided, as before, that the changes are contained within species boundaries. Intermarriages between the various races add to the diversity within the species boundaries, they do not yield another species. The working of genetic potential can also be seen in the way that insects adapt to pesticides, and certain bacteria acquire a nearly invincible resistance to particular antibiotics. Insects or bacteria become more resistant, but they do not become different species. Their potential for adaptation is understood, by believers, as a power to survive given to them by Divine Wisdom.

We do not wholly reject the concept of natural selection. However, it is necessary to criticize the extreme interpretation evolutionists make of it. First of all, there is not an absolute ‘cruel competition’ in nature which the strong dominate absolutely, nor a pitiless ‘selection’ process of exterminating rivals in the struggle for food (survival). Rather, there is a dynamic balance among the great variety of creatures which is characterized, overall, by mutual collaboration and solidarity. The killing of weak creatures by the stronger ones is not random, nor characterized by a drive to exterminate and monopolize resources for survival. On the contrary, it is, overall, purposive and beneficial. Predators prey, generally, on weak and sick animals, and this ‘selects’ the fit and healthy for survival and, quite probably, prevents epidemics within and between species. Also, it is manifestly obvious that the apparent ‘competition’ in nature is the outward face of a subtle and complex feeding chain which is vital for the overall balance of the ecosystem, providing niches for great numbers of species, not least those which feed on the left-overs of others thus cleansing and purifying the food-chain.

Another factor affecting natural selection is the difference in rates of breeding. One bacterium multiplies by millions in one day, a fly by thousands in two days. Vertebrates, except fish and amphibians on the other hand, breed far more slowly. From the base of the food pyramid to the top, the production of food increases in quality but decreases in mass, and consequently a lot of tiny living organisms are the food of larger ones. The difference in breeding rates among members of the same species causes rapid multiplying of a certain group, but not the change of its species. An organism with many young has more opportunity to survive in changing environmental conditions, because when the number of its young increases, so too do the combinations of genetic characters. Even after drastic environmental changes, a few may survive.

The concepts used by evolutionists used to explain biological realities have a merely nominal reality, they are far from being ultimate causes. Attributing reality or, worse, Divine power to concepts which can be useful only for building mental models, and ignoring the knowledge, might and eternal wisdom of the Creator, means binding our hearts and minds to nature, like nature-worshippers and polytheists generally.