WHEN WE ARGUE about whatnshould be taught in schools and colleges,nat stake is our conception of thenworld. Our theory of the world tells usnwhat we should teach, and whom wenmay ignore.nDebates precipitated by SecretarynBennett’s important criticism of thenStanford curriculum centered uponnthe inclusion of formerly-ignoredngroups. But how to include Africa,nAsia, Latin America, and the Pacific innsuch a way as to hold the wholentogether? Merely political argumentsnagainst or for affording a full hearing tonthe neglected parts of the worid arenbeside the point. If Africa, China, andnLatin America are important, they belongnwithin the curriculum, and if not,nthen mere institutional politics shouldnnot make any difference. But whatndefines importance? The real questionnis not how to include everyone, butnwhy to include anyone, East or West.nThere has to be a single theory of thenwhole, of what has made the world wenpropose to explain to the coming generationsnand so to hand on to them.nI think we should continue to laynstress on the West and its history andnculture, because the West has madenthe world we know. Anyone who wantsnto participate in world civilization innthe coming century had better knownprecisely how and why the West hasndefined, and will continue to define,nthat civilization. Why do I say so?nBecause everybody wants what wenhave.nPeople aspire to those material advantagesnthat flow, uniquely I think,nfrom the modes of social organizationnthat the West has devised — the West’sneconomics, the West’s science andntechnology, and also, let us say itnstraight out, the West’s politics andnphilosophy. Since the simple fact ofnworid civilization is that the West hasnnow defined the worid’s economy, politics,nand philosophy, and since allnsocial systems measure themselves bynWestern civilization in its capacity tonafford to large masses of people bothnmaterial wealth and political power, thenWest demands close study.nStudy India, China, Japan, Latinn6/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnAmerica? Of course. But what do wenwant to know? One critical questionnthat demands our study of the rest ofnthe world is simply this: why has thenWest created what the rest now wants?nWhy is there no capitalism in India,nChina, or Judaism? Why no science innAfrica? Why so little democracy innAsia? And, conversely, why all of thesenin the West?nWe have so much to learn fromnother countries, once we establish ourncommon questions and perspectives.nBut there is no understanding thenworid without the West. Democracy,ncapitalism, anticolonialism, science,ntechnology, ever-rising productivity innindustry and agriculture — these deeplynWestern (and, as a matter of fact,nquintessentially American) values arennow universal. They define what therenis to know about everyone, everywheren— beginning, of course, with ourselves.n— ]acob NeusnernTHE BENNETT interregnum hasncome to a close at the Department ofnEducation. The former secretary ofneducation had his shortcomings, butnthe vice with which he was most frequentlyncharged — being “confrontational,”nfailing to “build coalitionsnwith educators” — was actually hisngreatest virtue. Bennett knew betternthan to attempt significant reform bynbackroom dealings and conciliationnwith professional educators. He frequentlynbypassed congressional committeenmeetings in order to work thentalk shows. Instead of deliveringnspeeches within the Beltway, he hit thenroad to Harvard and Stanford and 43nother colleges and universities; and asnThe Chronicle of Higher Educationnnotes, “he rarely abided by the etiquettenof not criticizing one’s host.” Bynsuch tactics he heightened publicnawareness of the dismal state of Americanneducation.nBy contrast, the new secretary ofneducation, Lauro Cavazos, promises tonbehave himself He has gone out of hisnway to renounce Bennett’s positionsnand called for an expanded Depart­nnnment of Education, more money (“thenbest funding possible”), and bilingualneducation. His performance at his confirmationnhearings led Senator Kennedynto pronounce himself “very impressed.”nAt this writing, Ceorge Bushnseems likely to keep Cavazos on, havingnmade much of his delight at havingnthe first Hispanic cabinet officer; and atnany rate. Bush aides have made itnknown that whomever they appointnwill be nothing like Bennett. Thus,ninevitably, the Department of Educationnis reverting to the role for which itnwas designed — the federal governmentnbranch of the education establishment.nWhether the administrationnis Republican or Democrat makes littlendifference.nA sample of what we can expect isnthe case of Shirley Curry, an EducationnDepartment official presently beingnpilloried in Congress for decliningnto fund a program called “Facing Historynand Ourselves.” Purportedly anHolocaust education program for highschoolers,nit is reported by scholars whonhave reviewed it to minimize the rolenof the Nazi Party, preferring to attributenthe genocide to the Pope, thenCatholic Church, Martin Luther andnthe Lutheran Church in Cermany,nand Christian civilization in general;nthe program’s high-school audience isnmeant to believe, as the title implies,nthat the blame attaches to “ourselves.”nWhen Dr. Curry first turned down thenprogram two years ago, questions werenraised in Congress, but Secretary Bennettnstood by her. Scarcely had Bennettndeparted, however, when her criticsnreturned, accusing Dr. Curry ofn”anti-Semitism.” The message is clearnfor any other Bennett holdovers innoffice: stand and deliver. (MK)nETHNIC DISTURBANCES posen”the most immediate threat tonGorbachev, the one thing that couldnput him out of power,” said the DeputynDirector of the CIA, Robert M.nGates. Zbigniew Brzezinski and othernUS analysts concurred. The recentnethnic strife in Estonia, Latvia, Armenia,nAzerbaijan, Romania, Bulgaria,n