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
