It is easy to be in favor of multicultural and global education，in principle.If only we understood where other people were coming from—if only we had more sensitivity to their cultures—we might not be so wedded to our own points of view.And we might have a better chance of avoiding the conflicts that come from ethnic superiority.However，when we come to apply this principle，there are some serious problems.The New York State Regents‘goal for global education，which has also been taken up by multiculturalists，makes some of these problems very clear.According to the goal，“Each student will develop the ability to understand，respect，and accept people of different races，sex，cultural heritage，national origin，religion，and political，economic and social background，and their values，beliefs，and attitudes.”

　　This goal，expressed in a lot of positive words，sounds very broad-minded，and very reasonable.And up to a point，it expresses what we‘d hope for from a multicultural and global education.And educated person is not narrow-minded or provincial.So，of course we don’t want students to be prejudiced—to prejudge the correctness or desirability of some idea or action before they know anything about it.We want them to be open to new ideas and ways of doing things.But do we really want them to“respect and accept”the values，beliefs，and attitudes of other people，no matter what they are? For example，should we teach students to accept the sexism of the Japanese or their racist attitudes toward immigrants just because they‘re part of the Japanese culture?

　　People who support this kind of approach to multicultural and global education may think they are being objective—even scientific.They may think they‘re freeing themselves from the limitations of their own culture and its values.But by not taking a position，they are taking one.They are saying that apartheid is okay;that there is nothing wrong with murdering someone who has committed blasphemy.

　　They‘re also teaching their students not to make moral judgments.If any custom or law of people in any culture is as defensible as any other，what kind of judgment is possible? So，without intending to，they encourage students in prejudice of a different sort.Instead of mindlessly assuming that others’ways of doing things have to be wrong，students will mindlessly assume these ways of doing things have to be right—or at least as good as anyone else‘s.It’s important that we teach our children about each other‘s and other people’s customs and values.We are unlikely to survive if we don‘t.But this does not mean teaching students that they need not hold other people’s practices—and our own—up to moral scrutiny.If we do this，we confuse objectivity with neutrality.

　　1.What is wrong with multicultural education according to the author?

　　[A] Its goal is too idealized to be of any practical value.

　　[B] Its principle is seriously flawed and can cause misunderstanding.

　　[C] It should not be directed at students at college only.

　　[D] It fails to teach students to take a position.

　　2.It can be inferred from the first two paragraphs that the author thinks that students should be trained to____.

　　[A] understand the values，attitudes and beliefs of other people

　　[B] prejudge the value of some idea or action before they understand it

　　[C] be provincial and open only to better ideas and ways of doing things

　　[D] respect and accept only new values，beliefs and attitudes

　　3.The Japanese example is used to show____.

　　[A] racial and gender discrimination is still rampant in some countries

　　[B] Japan has done little to meet the goals of multicultural and global education

　　[C] the approach to multicultural and global education should be made objective

　　[D] students should learn to bring other people‘s practices to closer scrutiny

　　4.Towards the other people‘s customs and values，the author advocates____.

　　[A] sensitivity [B] objectivity [C] neutrality [D] respect

　　5.The word“apartheid”(Para.3) is closest in meaning to____.

　　[A] violence [B] segregation [C] objectivity [D] indifference

　　1.[D] 意为：它不教导学生采取某种立场。在第一段第四句作者指出，当我们想把多文化和全球教育的原理加以应用时，就产生了一些严重的问题。对于这样的严重问题，作者到第二段具体提到并举出日本人的种族偏见作为例子。从下文来看，作者的意思是：评价一种文化时，我们不应该采取中立的立场，而应该有一种社会正义立场。而目前实行的多文化教育恰恰教导学生采取价值中立的立场。[B]意为：其原理存在严重问题，可能引起误解。

　　2.[A] 意为：理解其他民族的价值观、态度和信仰。第一段提到纽约州立大学教育委员会为多文化教育确立的目标：教会学生理解、尊重和接受不同种族、性别、文化传统、民族、宗教信仰的人以及不同的政治、经济和社会背景的人，理解、尊重和接受他们的价值观、信仰和态度。从第二段最后两句来看，作者反对的是“尊重和接受”(respect and accept：)某些不良价值观、态度和信仰，如日本人的性别歧视(sexism)和种族歧视观念。作者并没有反对去understand.[B]意为：在没有理解之前预断某种思想或行动的价值。第二段第四句提到，我们不应该教学生这样做。[C]意为：目光狭隘，只欢迎一些好的观念和做事方式。[D]意为：只尊重和接受新的价值观、信仰和态度。这里“新的”是不对的，作者只提到不应该全盘接受和尊重某些不良的价值观、态度和信仰，并没有区别价值观等的新旧问题。

　　3.[D] 意为：学生应该学会仔细审视其他民族的习惯做法。第二段提到了日本人的性别和种族歧视思想，用以说明前一句旨在说明的道理，即不能教学生不加甄别地“尊重和接受”某些民族的价值观、信仰和态度。实际上，这是全文旨在说明的道理。[A]意为：种族和性别歧视在某些国家仍然很猖獗。[B]意为：日本在实现多文化和全球教育目标上没有尽责尽力。[C]意为：应该使多文化和全球教育的方法变得客观。

　　4.[A] 意为：敏感。这里所说“敏感”，当然应该包括对这些习俗和价值观的评价。作者自然是不赞同盲目地尊重或采取中立立场，因此选择项[C]和[D]表达的意思不对。在本文中，作者并没有提到“客观”地看待不同民族的习俗和价值观的问题，相反，他批评了某些人所谓的“客观”或 “科学”，指出，人们应该警惕将客观和中立混为一谈。言外之意，这些人所谓的“客观”仅仅是所谓“(价值)中立”而已。而这是作者所批评的。

　　5.[B] 意为：隔离(或分离)。该词通常用来指种族隔离