0.1 Beyond convention, beyond critique: toward a third way of  (Page 9/12)

• “Fundamentally we all have the same needs and aspirations” – Nelson Mandela (2003, p. 294)
• “The law of being is to live in solidarity, friendship, helpfulness, unselfishness, interdependence, and complementarity, as sisters and brothers in one family, the human family” – Desmond Tutu (2011, p. 50)
• “Our destinies are tied together. There is no separate black path to power and fulfillment that does not have to intersect with white roots. Somewhere along the way the two must join together, black and white together, we shall overcome, and I still believe it.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1996, p. 23).
• “We all belong to one species—humankind. There is only one ongoing conversation—the human conversation, consisting of the work, play, parenting, conversing, and imagining in which we all engage and of the beliefs, hopes, and aspirations that we hold.” – John Goodlad (2003-2004, p. 20)

The motto “E Pluribus Unum” is criticized by many critical theorists, yet famous proponents of equity outside and inside of education express the need for diversity within unity. Martin Luther King, Jr. constantly warned civil rights workers that the ultimate goal of the civil rights movement was “not to defeat the white community” but rather “reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community” (King, 1992, pp. 30-31). And James Banks (2000) argues, “A major problem facing the nation-state is how to recognize and legitimize differences and yet construct an overarching national identity that incorporates the voices, experiences, and hopes of the diverse groups that compose it” (p. 28).

Does the concept of E Pluribus Unum have any place in programs preparing leaders for equity and social justice? Patrick (1997) sheds some light on this issue in his discussion of three different models of E Pluribus Unum: (a) monolithic integration, (b) pluralistic preservation, and (c) pluralistic integration. Monolithic integration would assimilate all cultures “through radical subordination or even elimination of ethnic and cultural pluralism” (p. 4). Monolithic integration is, in short, the conventional melting pot model.

Pluralistic preservation places its emphasis on preserving cultural identity and cultural determinism, and “subordination of an overarching American identity and culture to the primacy of multicultural identities” (p. 14). Pluralistic preservation is a model that many critical theorists embrace.

Patrick’s third model of E Pluribus Unum, pluralistic integration , originally developed by John Higham (1963), “assumes both the fundamental compatibilities and continuing tensions of civic and national unity with social and cultural diversity” (Patrick, 1997, p. 17). Pluralistic integration assumes a middle ground between the other two models, balancing majority rule with the rights of minority groups, individual freedom with social responsibility, and common values with cultural integrity (Patrick, 1997).

What role should the three models of E Pluribus Unum play in principal preparation programs? My belief is that, rather than either ignoring the concept of E Pluribus Unum all together or focusing on one of the three models (the “correct” one), students should be exposed to and discuss the merits and drawbacks of all three models. Students should have opportunities to generate their own theories on the proper relationship of unity and diversity, and discuss how they will work with members of a school community to explore that relationship.