luminaries—Pitirim Sorokin, EmilenDurkheim, Max Weber, and GeorgenHomens—were hardly leftists. Butndon’t look for Eliot or Sorokin in thenEnglish or sociology departments ofntoday’s American campuses. Withnsome honorable and courageous exceptions,nthese departments are fillednwith excellence-haters who wouldnhave trouble selling shoes if they everngot off the dole. No wonder they hatencapitalism. Faced with the prospect ofnbeing educated by such a dismal crew,nEliot might well have opted for computernscience and Sorokin for businessnmanagement.nGlobal Education is the latest fadnamong educationists. It might havenpassed into the general curriculumnwithout fanfare if it were not for thenvigilance of Tom Tancredo. Tancredonis the Coloradoan who is EducationnSecretary William Bennett’s RegionalnRepresentative in the Rocky Mountainsn(U.S. Region VIII). A few yearsnago he outraged all right-thinking mennby suggesting that America’s Christiannmajority should have their point ofnview represented in the public schools.nNow he has authorized an assistant,nGregg L. Cunningham, to investigatenGlobal Education, the new name fornWorld History. Cunningham analyzednvarious publications put out by thenCenter for Teaching International Relationsn(CTIR) in Denver. CTIR conductsnteacher workshops and summerninstitutes, publishes curricula, and offersnconsulting services to publicnschool districts. It even offers graduatendegree programs in connection withnthe University of Denver. About 500nteachers a year, on the average, havencompleted its programs over the pastndecade.nCunningham was looking for trendsnand significant statements. He nevernpretended that all the CTIR’s publicationsnwere the same, that good teachersncould not use other, balancingnpublications and curricula, or that allnGlobal Education institutes are thensame.nWhat he did find, however, wasnnoteworthy. The publications exhibitna one-world bias, tend to emphasizenthe moral equivalence of the U.S. andnthe Soviet Union, and promote cultur­nal and moral relativism. This is mostnexplicit in CTIR’s World Citizen Curriculum,nTeacher Resource Guide,nwhich informs us that “to resist thennew world order is to miseducate”; asksn”Is any one person or culture ‘right’ orn’wrong’?”; and places the KGB andnCIA on the same level.nOf course, the students do not get tonsee the teacher’s guide. They arenasked, however, in other curricula ton”think of the U.S. and USSR as rivalnstreet gangs.” This comes from CTIR’snTeaching About Conflict, NuclearnConflict and the Future, which alsonexplains that “students don’t need tonunderstand the global political situationnor the details of the arms races.”nThey should, however, “give up blaming”nand “find a Russian and get tonknow her or him.” (There is no hintnthat we might want to learn Russian tondo this. And why bother? The Sovietneducational system teaches foreignnlanguages.)nThe teacher’s guide for this curriculumnsuggests that, to impress on thenPresident the enormity of his actionsnin the event of nuclear retaliation, wenput the U.S. missile firing code in thenchest cavity of an aide. In order to usenour nuclear defense, the Presidentnmust kill the aide with a butcher knifenand dig the code out of his chest. (It’sntoo bad David Stockman isn’t still anPresidential aide.)nThe curriculum guides often aimnnot at giving students facts with whichnto make their own decisions, but atnchanging values. The CTIR’s TeachingnAbout U.S. History urges projects innwhich the children criticize their parents’nvalues and imagine alternativenlife-styles. This includes discussingn”issues” and “values” where the kidsndisagree with their parents; writing essaysnabout Mom and Dad’s “faults”nand “problems”; passing judgment onnthe size of their families; and answeringnquestions on the cost of the familynhome, the number of cars, etc.nThere is an entire publication onndeath education. It not only encouragesnthe students to brood upon theirnown death, including reading suicidennotes, but laments our culture’s refusalnto “encourage visits” from the “spiritsnof the dead” as an “open and joyous”nPOETRY OURNALnPlains Poetry Journal is like North Dakota: a well-kept secret. Traditionalnpoetic conventions forged into vigorous, compelling new poetry. We’renwhat you despaired of finding! Sample for $3.50; heartening manifesto fornSASE. Plains Poetry Journal, P.O. Box 2337, Bismarck, ND 58502.nnnSEPTEMBER 19861 7n