IB I CHRONICLESnceuticals, office equipment, and the like are manufactured.nImagine that diversity of productivity in Chicagoland (Chicagonand its suburbs), with its slightly larger population, orneven in the entire state of Illinois. Swiss, wherever possible,nbuy Swiss, whatever it may cost, “for the quality,” but alsonout of a clear sense of self-preservation.nThe Swiss do not believe in deficit financing, and they donbelieve in maintaining the value of the Swiss franc. Whennforeigners, despite horribly high real estate prices, startnbuying too much land, the Swiss yell “Ueberfremdung”n(over-alienation) and prohibit it. They believe in the freenmarket and have relatively free trade, but they do not believenin allowing themselves to be put out of business or boughtnout by foreigners.nSwitzerland certainly owes much to its Christians andnespecially its Calvinist heritage. Even though the majority isnno longer Protestant, and most of the Protestants know littlenabout John Calvin, all Swiss share two Calvinist convictions:n(1) the depravity of man; and (2) the obligation to work asnhard and as well as possible. The former makes them realizenthat there is no such thing as a free lunch and suspect thatneveryone else is out to steal a lunch at Swiss expense. Thensecond conviction remains in force, although the Swiss havenforgotten that for Calvin it was “soli Deo gloria” — thenglory of God alone—that counted.nIf Switzerland faces a danger to its spirit today, it isnbecause Swiss society has virtually lost its Christian foundation.nIf there is one advantage to the Swiss establishednChurch system, it may lie in its prevention of the powerfulnreligious symbolism of Christianity from being expellednfrom public consciousness, as is being done in the UnitednStates. This, perhaps, may permit the civic virtues ofnChristianity in Switzerland to survive a generation or twonlonger than the faith itselfnSwitzerland is a society of practical pluralism — greatncultural diversity, a great personal freedom. Swiss intellectualsninveigh against their own “bourgeois mentality” —n”Buenzligeist” (petty Swiss federalism?) in German—butnnot too effectively. Unlike the Germans, they do not sing anSwiss version of “Deutschland ueber Alles” — in fact,npractically no Swiss knows his own national anthem bynheart. Whenever someone actually says, “Switzerlandnfirst!” most Swiss recoil in polite horror. They know that itnisn’t nice to say it. But they also know that it is absolutelynnecessary to do it. And they act accordingly. They exemplifynan understanding of the Gaspari-Millendorfer maxim,nand have and follow a basic consensus about the way tonstructure a fulfilled life. Where a consensus of values exists,ngreat freedom and variety can reign. But where no consensusnconcerning fundamental values exists, the system becomesndisoriented. Switzerland is an example of a successfulnpluralism, but a very special kind of pluralism, one that cannexist in the United States only if we recover what Switzerlandnhas not yet lost: that basic consensus about the way tonstructure life.nTHE COLOR OF CULTURE by Sidney HooknAs an observer of the educational scene at StanfordnUniversity during the last 14 years, I am taking thenliberty of offering some comments on the proposed reformsnin the course on Western culture. Among my professionalninterests has been a prolonged concern with the philosophynof education and with the philosophy of the curriculum. Ingreeted with approval the reintroduction of the course innWestern culture in 1980 and have followed closely thendiscussions of the various reform proposals for it. Suchndiscussions about the courses on Western culture — theirncontent, their organization, and the most effective methodsnof teaching them — have been held on many other campuses.nTwo things, however, are distinctive about the discussionnat Stanford.nThe first is the almost complete absence of reference to anconsiderable literature by highly qualified scholars on thengenuine problems that are involved in exploring perfectiynlegitimate differences about methods of approach, content.nWestern or universal (world) orientation. For example, a fewnyears ago a national conference was convened at MichigannState University on the subject: What Americans ShouldnKnow: Western Civilization or World History? The pub-nSidney Hook is Senior Research Fellow at The HoovernInstitution. A version of this essay appeared as a letter tonthe senate of Stanford University in The Campus Report.nnnlished proceedings (1984) were edited with an introductionnby Professor Josef W. Konvitz. There is hardly a single topicnof educational interest broached in the discussion at Stanfordnduring the last two years that has not been considerednin depth in those proceedings — including questions ofnperiodization, chronological coverage, and the extent tonwhich the cultures and histories of other areas of the worldnshould be integrated into the required course. For all thendifferences among participants, the discussions were conductednon a distinguished intellectual level. The bibliographicalnreferences call attention to other scholarly writingsnon world history and world culture courses. The discussionnat Stanford seems to have ignored a considerable amount ofnrelevant literature on the central themes in dispute.nThe second distinctive thing about the discussion atnStanford is the deplorable level of discourse and thendenunciatory abuse which have marked the exchange ofndifferent points of view. The course in Western culture atnStanford has been attacked as racist, sexist, and imperialistic.nOne critic of the course declared that Western culture as itnstands is “not just racist education, it is the education ofnracists.” More distressing even than this violation of civilizedndiscourse was the lack of appropriate response from thenhumanistic scholars who have taught in and designed thenprogram, and who should have protested the degradation ofnthe intellectual level of the discussion.n