Reich's discursive strategy is to examine the weaknesses of liberal theory from the perspective of multiculturalism, to subject multiculturalism to a liberal critique, and to draw from these negative arguments a positive conception of liberal multiculturalism that respects the interests of parents, students, and the liberal state. Rather than driving liberalism and multiculturalism further apart, he hopes to show how they share a common concern for “minimalist autonomy,” understood as “a person's ability to reflect independently and critically upon basic commitments, values, desires, and beliefs, be they chosen or unchosen, and to enjoy a range of meaningful life options from which to choose, upon which to act, and around which to orient and pursue one's life projects” (p. 92). A liberal multicultural education, he claims, is the best way to cultivate this ability for critical self-reflection and participation.

Reich agrees with Will Kymlicka and William Galston that the professed liberal ideal of neutrality is untenable. The political virtues and conception of reasonableness that John Rawls, for example, believes is required by political liberalism cannot be understood or justified apart from a more comprehensive ethical conception of the person and of social cooperation (p. 50). Civic education in general must attend to this interplay between political life and nonpublic commitments and capacities. A liberal multicultural education in particular is good for citizens because it simultaneously prepares them to participate in a diverse political society and construct a moral identity of their own.

Then, Reich turns the tables on the dominant multicultural political theories. As a description of liberal democratic societies like the United States, multiculturalism is more or less accurate, Reich believes. Although this is important, it is not his primary concern (p. 11). As a normative concept, it has been used to advocate for a variety of social, educational, and political reforms, some of which Reich approves of, but not for the reasons that multiculturalist political theorists have offered.

Reich rehearses many of the standard liberal objections to these theories, such as their dangerous tolerance of “internal restrictions” on individual members of protected groups and the inadequacy of a right to exit from these groups, especially for children (pp. 66–68). However, his most important objection to existing multicultural theories is that they rest upon fixed and parochial conceptions of cultural identity. Despite their differences, he argues that Joseph Raz, Avishai Margalit and Moshe Halbertal, Chandran Kukathas, and even Kymlicka make this mistake. For example, Kymlicka believes autonomy depends upon membership in a single “societal culture.” Reich responds that the “value and importance of autonomy lies in enabling not only choice within culture, but also choice beyond one's culture” (p. 76). Only when individuals can negotiate these cultural boundaries and reflect critically on their own wants and desires, Reich argues (with help from Martha Nussbaum and Charles Taylor), will they be able to make a life for themselves and participate in liberal democratic politics. In other words, a liberal multicultural education must enable students to interpret cultural similarities and differences in their own creative way (p. 186).

Liberal theories of civic education traditionally have revolved tightly around the problem of instructing future citizens to value autonomy—their own and others—in a morally and politically responsible way. Two questions have dominated the field: How many years of schooling should a state require, and how much say should parents have over school curricula? One strength of Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education is that Reich takes the interests of children as citizens just as seriously as he takes the interests of parents and the state as guardians: “[T]he goal is to enable children to decide who they want to become and to be able to participate as informed citizens in a democratic diverse state” (p. 140). He asserts that young students have a “proto-right to selfgovernance” (p. 158) that justifies a liberal multicultural education and that is not automatically overridden by legitimate state interests or parental authority. This “trilogy of interests” is the foundation of his “bridging” theory of liberal multiculturalism.

The bridge does not extend as far as Reich would like, however. Not only does he believe that a liberal multicultural education may foster a harmonious “fusion” of intellectual horizons; it “makes possible the cosmopolitization of one's identity” (p. 187). To achieve this goal, he needs a more complex analysis of conflicting interests than his account of the “trilogy of interests” underlying the policy problem of home schooling. The “hermeneutic pedagogy” (p. 186) Reich recommends must be informed by an assessment of the deep conflicts of interest over such issues as sustainable growth, environmental protection, and human rights. If students are to receive a cosmopolitan multicultural education, whether from their parents at home or in the public schools, then they will have to be taught how to discuss political issues like these and why reasonable people disagree so vehemently over them. These are not policy problems. They are political in the sense that they raise fundamental questions about membership, participation, and equality in democratic political institutions.

One pedagogical technique Reich suggests is community service learning (p. 221). However, such projects as volunteering at soup kitchens and tutoring at-risk students in afterschool programs are not likely to spark a searching dialogue on the terms of political membership. Something more is needed. Consider the citizenship class that is offered to Hmong refugees in St. Paul, Minnesota, through the Jane Addams School for Democracy and the University of Minnesota (<http://www.cura.umn.edu/reporter/00-Jun/article2.pdf>). In this setting, college students help refugees and immigrants prepare for the United States citizenship tests. Discussions in this class about what it means to be a citizen occasionally prompt the kind of self-reflection and mutual respect cosmopolitan multiculturalism requires. Immigrants, refugees, their more assimilated young adult children, and university students sometimes find themselves in unfamiliar territory, reliving difficult past decisions they have not discussed together before. Not all students are mature enough for this kind of democratic experiment, but similar collaborative projects involving college and secondary school students may prepare them for future dialogues on divisive political issues. More attention to these issues, rather than to vouchers and charter schools, would have made Reich's case for a cosmopolitan civic education more compelling.