【正文】 s pressing social problems. Issue 8 Many of the world39。 thus a useful insight or discovery can e from a researcher or student from any nation. Another pelling argument for a global university involves the increasingly global nature of certain problems. Consider, for instance, the depletion of atmospheric ozone, which has wanned the Earth to the point that it threatens the very survival of the human species. Also, we are now learning that dearcutting the world39。s distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots。s cultural traditions are preserved and generated. The speaker39。s ultmaate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to withhold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society. One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a wouldbe leader must fzrst gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, plete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career。s educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long tenn. A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a mon core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to bee reasonably informed, productive members of society. In addition, a mon core curriculum would provide a predictable 3 foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all schoolchildren are taught core values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survivevalues such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others. However, a mon curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to childrennotions that may or may not reflect those of most munities, schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influencepeddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society39。s viewpoint. Understandably, neither the batants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded. Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissezfaire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity. Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker39。s claim. Assuming mon ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, munity, or global level. At the personal level, by listening to their parents39。s children in mind. Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and onesided nature undermines the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish to suppressas some sort of threat to its authority and power. Although this scenario might seem farfetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level. Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic groups who make up the state39。 thus I think this view is realistic. Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the government39。s claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government。 accordingly, by assisti