Our university will soon become the last in the University of
California system to institute a diversity requirement.
For students, this could mean taking more classes. For
departments, this will mean more paperwork and even pressure on
professors to teach classes they might not otherwise teach. In
these respects, the requirement will have clear and harmful
consequences.
But what the diversity requirement ““ a class on diversity
issues that has to be taken as a general requirement ““ will
mean for the goals and philosophy of UCLA is still in question. It
all depends on what the diversity requirement ends up being.
Currently, the diversity requirement at UC Berkeley compels
students to take an American cultures course that relates to an
understanding of “race, culture and ethnicity” in the
United States. At UC Santa Cruz, students must satisfy a U.S.
ethnic minorities/non-Western society requirement. At these
universities, students can choose from a vast selection of classes
to accommodate their interests and passions.
Certainly this type of diversity requirement is not unhealthy
““ it might even be beneficial. By exploring a country or
culture of their own choosing, students will have a broader, more
far-reaching education, and gain a better understanding of the
world in which we live.
But many supporters of the diversity requirement want something
different. They want to force students to take very specific
classes from very specific departments.
At UC Santa Barbara, for example, students must take a course
relating to the “experiences” of American Indians,
blacks, Latinos or Asian Americans. At UC Davis, students are
obliged to take courses that, as reported by the Daily Bruin,
“emphasize issues, topics and perspectives that have
traditionally been underrepresented in programs of study of race,
ethnicity, social class, gender, sexuality or religion.”
In these instances, the diversity requirement is subjectively
defined, and the diversity of some cultures is trumped by the
diversity of others. Why do Latinos or blacks add to the diversity
of our school and country more than Russians or Armenians do? If
they do not, then why does the diversity requirement grant special
preference to them?
The reason is that this mold of the diversity requirement is the
brainchild of demagogues who, in their own sly way, want to
represent some cultures at the expense of others. But reasons here
are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the diversity requirements at Santa
Barbara, Davis and other universities narrow the scope of
“diversity.” It is my belief that all cultures ““
from Jewish culture to French culture ““ have something to add
to the knowledge of the world. The restricted manifestations of
diversity requirements reject this notion. They hold that the
golden key to diversity lies in the hands of a specific set of
selected cultures. Whether intentionally or not, this sort of
diversity requirement is a blatant expression of cultural
imperialism.
“Learning about another culture expands one’s
knowledge,” said Alec Mouhibian, president of Students for
Academic Freedom at UCSB, in a phone interview. “But at SB,
the diversity requirement means being forced to look into a
politicized kaleidoscope of victimhood and pick a color. The
result, on this campus, has not been an illuminated consciousness
but rather a bunch of people blinking blindly in
confusion.”
The word diversity itself is vague and confusing. The diversity
requirement seems to address racial and cultural issues alone. But
the true lack of diversity on college campuses is in the matter of
ideas, not skin colors. Now more than ever, monolithic faculties
have a stranglehold on academia.
According to a scientific poll conducted by the Center for the
Study of Popular Culture, the vast majority of professors at U.S.
colleges and universities is registered with the Democratic
party.
At UCLA, for every 137 Democratic professors, the study found
only 11 Republican professors.
The diversity requirement overlooks these startling numbers
completely. It attempts to fix a seeming problem of cultural
appreciation but not a glaring problem of political
monopolization.
In the end, the diversity requirement is a shallow and
artificial way to fix society’s underlying problems.
But since it is coming our way, we must make the best of it.
Some schools have chosen to make diversity about a small group of
races. UCLA should make it about a universal group or races,
cultures and ideas. It is only in this manner that the diversity
requirement can live up to its name and give to UCLA a true
understanding of human flourishing.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.