Sweden, or as if it did not exist even innhereditary monarchies or the medievalnCatholic Church. Bureaucracy, peoplenlike Katz contend, is instituted in modernnAmerica specifically to reinforcenclass attitudes and racial discriminationnthrough a forced regimentation vifhichnimposes mandatory education on a reluctantnproletariat.nThe facts are just the opposite of thisncontention. The immigrant and the nativenworking man have always correctlynseen clearly that education was a waynout of the blue-collar trap. At the turnnof the century. Lower East Side Jewishnparents nearly rioted when, because ofnovercrowding, their children werenthreatened with exclusion from thenclassroom. Slaves and freedmen soughtneducation with the same passion, oftennrisking the wrath of the law to gain it.nWhite Southerners operated on the samenprinciple, fighting tenaciously to keepnthe black man unlettered, knowing instinctivelynthat education was the vitalnkey to upward mobility.nNeither was the American publicnschool system genocidal in terms ofnethnic heritage and traditions as thisnnew class of historians argues. MissnRavitch contends that American societynhas been singularly tolerant of foreignncustoms, citing the ironclad rights ofnimmigrants to use their native languagenfreely and publicly, to establish papersnand schools and organizations using thatntongue—often with tax-exempt status.nThis was not always the case abroad.nToday society leans over backward fornthe immigrant, often establishing bilingualneducation in large Spanishspeakingnareas—a precedent creatednby turn-of-the-century bilingualism fornGerman-speaking students in such areasnas Indianapolis and Baltimore.nYet the revisionists argue that thenimmigrant was assimilated through educationalncoercion, conveniently forgettingnmany of the realities of Americannlife. “The non-English ethnic groups innthe United States of America werenAnglicized not because of nationalitynlaws which were unfavorable towardsn16nChronicles of Culturentheir language but in spite of nationalitynlaws favorable to them,” Miss Ravitchnquotes Heinz Kloss, a German scholar.n”The nationalities could be given asnmany opportunities as possible to retainntheir identity, yet the achievements ofnthe Anglo-American society and thenachievements which this society offerednwere so attractive that the descendantsnof the ‘aliens’ sooner or later voluntarilynintegrated themselves to this society.”nAnother of the favorite revisionistnbfete noires is vocational training, asnthey posit that the practice has beennone of the most class conscious and exploitativenof all educational practices.nObviously, in some cases, intellectuallyntalented youths were pigeonholed awaynfrom academic courses, but in the majoritynof instances the choice was notnbetween “shop” and a doctorate in humanenletters, but between a trade andnlife as an unskilled laborer without evenna high school education. Interpretingnsuch circumstances in a scholarly propernmethod. Miss Ravitch also demolishesnseveral studies contending that publicneducation reinforces some supposednform of class structure; utilizing wellanalyzednsophisticated data, she provesnfirmly that upward social mobility is anfact—not a sinister myth—in Americannsociety.nIn most measurable categories of socialnmobility, the United States offersnthe greatest opportunities for its citizens,nparticularly for members of the workingnclass to move into “elite” occupations.nFully 10 percent “of sons whose fathersnwere manual laborers moved into thesenvocations, a greater percentage thannany other industrial nation. Similarly,na 1964 study found that a mere 10.5npercent of the current generation of bigbusinessnexecutives . . . are sons ofnwealthy families; as recently as 1950 thencorresponding figure was 36.1 percent,nand at the turn of the century 45.6npercent.”n1 he net effect of Revising the Revisionistsnis a thorough refutation ofnthe claims of those who see a cliched,n”fascist,” “racist,” class-biased monolithncontrolling the educational system. Itnopens the windows and allows somenfresh air into the closed confines ofnpreviously unchallenged dogma, injectingna dose of common sense into an importantndebate. “The schools,” saysnMiss Ravitch, “are limited instrumentsnwhich have certain general responsibilitiesnand certain specific capacities;nsometimes they have failed to meetnrealistic expectations, and at other timesnthey have succeeded beyond realistic expectationsnin dispersing intelligence andnopportunity throughout the community.nIn order to judge them by reasonablenstandards and in order to have anynchance of improving their future performance,nit is necessary to abandonnthe simplistic search for heroes andndevils, for scapegoats and panaceas.” DnIn Persuasion At Work, Vol. I, No. 9, “ATTACKING WALL STREET UNDERnTHE BANNER OF GOD”:n”The thorny issue of church/state relationships now has a thorny twin, church/neconomy relationships. Just as the Jonestown disaster raised the question of whatnkind of operation Mr. Jones conducted within the shelter of the church label,nso the thrust by religious groups to regulate the business community raises anquestion about the nature and intent of these operations which claim thenimmunities of the church.”n”As elements of the church gather momentum in their determined campaign tondestroy one economic system and impose another upon capitalistic nations, theynare inviting, nay, forcing a public reassessment of whether special privileges orntax exemptions can be granted carte blanche to every activity conducted undernthe name of religion.”nnn