Buzzwords come and go. One of education’s latest is “culturally responsive.”

Sigh.

What’s usually omitted is how cultural responsiveness benefits us or our understanding of the world.

Whole bodies of research laud this phrase as being the way to teach and learn in an increasingly diverse society, and I don’t disagree with all of the tenets.

We should build bridges “between home and school,” as it makes the most rambling lecture relevant.

Teachers and professors should use a “wide variety of instructional strategies,” as that will end forever our rambling lectures.

I harbor no resentment for those precepts.

But why should we know and praise cultural heritages? Why should we research multicultural information, resources and materials? Why should we discover the “legitimacy of cultural heritages?”

America’s melting pot makes a mighty fine broth. Cultural responsiveness, and most methods of dealing with multiculturalism, adds chunks.

What’s the point? Chunks do not add flavor.

Large, potato-like blocks of cultures can add flavor, but only once they’ve absorbed some of the existing broth. Just so, stewing cultures are best when dissolving a little at a time.

The most troubling part is yet to come.

Behind this new multiculturalism is the idea that it is transformative, that students become “social critics.”

Students should learn about other cultures and compare them to their own, resolving differences along the way.

In my upper division multicultural electives — not in the academic journals, where this research gets published — social criticism suddenly becomes the idea that conflict exists only because people within a culture do not understand those in their foe culture, or that all conflict can be solved by understanding.

Tell that to Iraq. That country is ravaged by sectarian violence, and decidedly not because the Sunnis misunderstand the Shi’a.

They understand each other quite well. It’s simply that they hate each other because of it. Cultural wars start because people stubbornly grasp on to their culture and make no concessions.

All wars since at least the World War I have been, essentially, conflicts that continue because of either the petty or huge disparities between cultures. The solution to mass cultural war is mass individualism.

Suddenly, that’s a viable option. In our Age of Computers, Information and Things That Go Beep in the Night, understanding others is important. However, relying on yourself and standing up without individuals in your culture at your back is more important.

Over our modern and developing telecommunications, you are not, a priori, held accountable for the sins of your fathers. At the same time, you are held accountable simply to yourself.

By fostering a cultural mob mentality, we don’t take advantage of our new possibilities.

We should not reinforce this mob mentality, yet we do exactly that when we reinforce dissolving cultures.

Our broth’s flavor is ruined when we freeze-dry our new and exciting cultural vegetables, forever preserving them in Saran Wrap without throwing them in the broth.

We should, instead, let homogenization take its course.

Let them soak in some of the existing cultural goodness, and new flavors will appear.

Just because we once diced our vegetables — because we once aggressively attacked indigenous cultures — doesn’t mean we’re obligated to preserve every culture as it is now.

Let stew our multicultural broth — let it take as much time as it needs.

As college students, we should address the historical legacies of our many cultures.

Emphasis on “historical.”

Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper. Be sure to pick up next Friday’s issue of The Collegian for featured comments.