Since 1960s immigrants were given incentive to live in America, which led to newly multicultural schools having to slowly adapt to not just a new consumer society where mothers also worked, but to different ethnic groups.
It turned out that just as Chinese parents cannot raise their kids in another culture, the same applies to teachers in multicultural schools and universities. These unprepared teachers and lecturers produced graduates that were unprepared for daily adult life as a result.
Apart from the mere skin differences, the cultural differences became a quagmire because each culture attaches varying levels of importance to each of the six cultural dimensions, such as the USA. This will change with demographics and organized minority groupings.
Some authorities attempted to find solutions to this multicultural mix problem in education and asked consultants how to “manage” schools. The answer given (as one example) was that the majority teacher ethnicity should decide who the principle should be and that it would likely be someone of their own ethnicity.
Another solution proposed was to vastly improve “communications” in the organization.
The problem with the above recommendations was that it did not consider the students and all their possible ethnicities and cultures. E.g. who would a student view with respect? Do the “class” respect the teacher? Do students respect each other? From the above observations black students prefer “strong” teachers and that white students can easily adapt to any “teacher,” but maybe not any old non-performing student, which is where “communications” comes into it. Black people like to “socialize” while whites don’t as much. So what do you do when someone tells you that he wants to talk now and that you should listen?
However, the communication approach works better in rural towns and not so much in cities where it was found that cities break down “socialising” into a depthless ritual exchange of goodwill tokens, making that suggestion moot.
Another aspect confusing people (a lot) and therefore not touched on by most is the masculinity dimension. Minorities appear to blame whites for being “masculine” and supremacist, but the truth is on a personal level, whites fit in quite easy because their CULTURE is masculine, not the individuals. It is in fact black individuals that are viewed as “strong” via the power distance dimension, despite their culture being feminine e.g. wanting things to be equal and happy where no one stands out or performs better than the other.
One can imagine in a school where the teacher is from a masculine culture, demanding “performance” from a feminine black boy, resulting in the “strong” black boy beating a white female teacher. Then the boy’s father said he will come and finish the “job.”
The impact of the masculine/feminine dimension in cultures and the conflict it causes is totally swept under the carpet because it is politically incorrect. It is not all bad though e.g. whites and Indians get along fairly well. But instead of people mentioning it, they prefer maintaining silence on all of it.
Going back to basics in pre-primary schools, experience have shown that most teachers are female and that classes will never consist of more boys than girls. The reason is that having three more boys than girls makes the class uncontrollable. So teachers knowingly manipulate the student intake to enable this condition.
Moving the argument to universities, the problem is simply exacerbated by an even more liberal approach: encouraging “affirmative action” students for sports or quotas and even feminized study topics such as “genders.” This gives priority to feminine cultural thinking without anyone realizing it, because we must be all the “same”.
It is therefore possible that demographics and ethic cultural mixing have already turned America into a feminine society, something that nobody wants to confirm. This cultural dimension, on its own, can destroy the exceptionalism of America.