Since its establishment in 1919 as the second University of
California campus, UCLA has been repeatedly renowned for excelling
in research and providing a good education, yet some students and
faculty believe there is still something lacking ““ the
inclusion of a diversity requirement in the existing general
education curriculum. Out of the eight undergraduate UC campuses,
UCLA is the only institution which lacks the requirement ““ a
requirement that proposes to discuss issues of diversity through
characteristics such as race, gender and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Diversity requirements at other universities make it mandatory for
students to take courses that deal with cultures of
underrepresented groups in an effort to help students better
identify with not only their diverse student body, but the world as
well. An idea to include a diversity requirement under the general
education curriculum at UCLA made its first leap in 1987 by
then-Chancellor Charles Young. There have been a number of ups and
downs along the way and compromises have been made by both sides.
But after 17 years, the implementation of a diversity requirement
is now closer than ever to becoming a reality, as a proposal will
be put to vote this fall.
A new idea not welcomed At the 1987 Lake
Arrowhead Conference on affirmative action and ethnic diversity,
Young endorsed the proposal for UCLA to implement a general
education ethnic and gender studies requirement. Two years later, a
committee was assigned to address this issue and create a proposal
for the Faculty Executive Committee of the College of Letters &
Science (now called the UCLA college) to review. At that time, the
general education ethnic and gender studies requirement called for
students to take two courses, one lower division course, and a
second upper or lower division course, to focus on issues dealing
with gender, race and ethnicity. Though a two-course requirement
was proposed, some of the courses would be pulled from existing
classes and would also fulfill general education requirements. The
proposal did not make it past the preliminary stages and was
dropped by the Faculty Executive Committee of the college in May,
1990. This defeat was shortly followed by another, when a new
proposal, the American Diversity and Cultures Requirement, was
presented to and rejected by the Council of Undergraduate
Education, housed under the Academic Senate. This new proposal,
taking the place of the first, asked students to only take a
one-quarter course that would fulfill the requirement.
Reinventing general education Since the early
defeats, many aspects of the proposal have been changed including
how it would fit in with the rest of the GE curriculum. The 2001
College GE reform, restructured the General Education requirements
and was put in place by the GE governance committee. The regrouping
has made it possible for a potential requirement that may be less
burdensome to students, said Robin Garrell, chairwoman of the
Faculty Executive Committee, referring to the fact that courses now
fulfill both a diversity requirement and a GE requirement. Though
the reinvention of the GE curriculum has immensely contributed to
the close reality of having such a requirement, there are still
many differing opinions among both students and faculty.
“Some students and faculty feel that simply being at UCLA
exposes you to certain aspects of diversity ““ others feel it
needs to be a formal requirement,” Garrell said. “Some
sense that when we did reinvent the GE, the way it was done
diminished the need for a specific requirement.” Many
supporters of the requirement do not feel the same way and believe
that a need for a diversity requirement still exists. Academic
Affairs commissioner for the Undergraduate Students Association
Council, Eligio Martinez said the ultimate goal for a diversity
requirement is to expand students “˜”horizons” and
challenge students to “think outside the box.” A
student committee under the Academic Affairs Committee has been
working on a student version of the proposal for several years now.
“It is not enough just going to UCLA. It’s one thing to
be a student, but it’s another thing to be an active
student.” Martinez said and then posed this question:
“How many students take the time to talk to someone they
don’t even know out of class?” In the past, UCLA
faculty has turned down certain proposals due to the lack of
existing courses that addressed diversity. “But they
can’t use this argument anymore because we offer more classes
and programs that deal with ethics, gender and diversity … still
some new classes will be created, just as they are every year due
to new faculty, curriculum changes and passionate students,”
Martinez said.
Importance of becoming official Though there is
no official recognition of a diversity requirement in the GE
curriculum, many of the existing GE courses most students take
explore ideas related to diversity. Many students and faculty are
grateful for these classes, but some feel strongly that
partial-class focus on diversity does not fulfill the intentions of
the requirement, Martinez said. “Keep in mind some courses
touch upon diversity for only one or two weeks, we want courses
that go in depth and for the majority of the course to deal with
diversity,” he added. Professor Raymond Knapp, head of the GE
Governance Committee, emphasized the importance for UCLA to
formally implement such a requirement. “UCLA has cared about
this for a long time even though there is no requirement. …
Classes have been already created and students have already taken
classes. … It says a lot to have the requirement on books,”
Knapp said. Knapp added that “a very strange message is
conveyed” by the fact that UCLA is the only UC lacking such a
requirement. “In fact, we do a lot with diversity. It is a
way of making what we already do visible,” he said. Since the
school is now in a better position to enforce the requirement,
Knapp feels optimistic that the proposal will gain the vote of the
faculty from the UCLA College as well as the School of Theatre,
Film, and Television and the School of Arts and Architecture.
Greater progress in recent years Though the
idea has existed for 17 years, immense progress toward approving
the requirement has been made in the recent years ““
spearheaded by passionate students who feel there is a flaw in
their education. After the reinvention of the GE curriculum in
2001, a diversity requirement was still not added. This caused a
“big stir,” encouraging Knapp, who at the time was the
chair of the undergraduate council, to bring the issue to the
attention of the faculty, said Sophia Kozak, last year’s
academic affairs commissioner for USAC. Following that event, a
subcommittee of the undergraduate council, comprised of faculty and
students, collaborated in an effort to form a new proposal. The
group focused on new aspects of the requirement, such as what the
requirement would entail, and more importantly, the definition of
diversity. As a result of the subcommittee’s work, a proposal
for an idea of implementing a diversity requirement was put forth
and approved by the GE Governance Committee, Faculty Executive
Committee of the UCLA College and the Undergraduate Council in
spring 2003. The original proposal created by the subcommittee
included a two-course requirement ““ one course addressing
diversity at a local level, and one course addressing diversity
from a global perspective. But the subcommittee under the
undergraduate council decided to drop the second requirement at the
last minute, thinking the Academic Senate would not support the
proposal if it required two courses, Kozak said.
A promise was made The subcommittee’s
proposal in May 2003 included a list of courses from the Society
and Cultures, and Arts and Humanities foundation area of the GE
curriculum that could fulfill the proposed requirement. According
to the proposal, “a substantial percentage of courses in both
the arts and humanities foundation area and the society and culture
foundation area carry significant “˜diversity
content.'” This concerned many students, probing the
Academic Affairs commission to create a student committee to
comprise their own version of what the diversity requirement should
look like. Kozak said students’ main concerns were that the
endorsed proposal was “watered down” and did not
adequately address issues of diversity. Summer 2003 was a busy time
for the student committee as they not only worded their own
proposal, but also began conducting their own survey to see what
GEs they believed would qualify for the requirement. Along with
ceaselessly trying to get a diversity requirement implemented, in
the 2003-2004 academic year there was a push in the Academic Senate
to standardize the GE curriculum of the School of Theatre, Film and
Television, the School of Arts and Architecture, and the Henry
Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science to parallel those
of the UCLA College, making it easier to implement a diversity
requirement for all incoming undergraduates. Though the Henry
Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science has been
resistant, the School of Arts and Architecture and the School of
Theatre, Film and Television have revised their GE curriculum and
supported the idea of a diversity requirement, bringing the
requirement one step closer to implementation. In an effort to
finalize the requirement, last year’s student leaders drew
campus wide attention to diversity in hopes of gaining the support
of the Academic Senate leadership. The group walked out of their
USAC meeting and marched to tents set up on campus to kick off a
three-night campaign for the requirement. Organizers believe Tent
City turned out to be a significant gain in the fight for a
diversity requirement at UCLA. “On the last day we got the
chair and the vice chair at the time of the executive board to
publicly commit to the idea of a diversity requirement,”
Kozak said.
The final steps Winter quarter of 2004 marked
another triumph, as Knapp established a student/faculty advisory
board within the GE Governance Committee to revisit all the GEs and
determine which courses are appropriate. One of the first of its
kind, this committee nearly had an equal student to faculty ratio,
while most committees on the Academic Senate only have one student
representative. Because the proposal for the idea of having a
one-course diversity requirement had already been approved, the
proposal that students created during the summer of 2003 would have
been difficult to see implemented, Kozak explained. “But the
student proposal has helped establish criteria for the
qualification of classes. … It lets students’ views
contribute to the criteria (and) some concerns from our proposal
have been taken in account and we have seen the faculty take it
seriously,” Kozak said. If passed, the diversity requirement
in its current form requires incoming freshmen to take one course
that heavily focuses on issues of diversity like race, gender and
religion. In addition, the requirement will be a part of
students’ existing GE curriculum and can simultaneously
fulfill other GE credit. Kozak said students would like to get more
out of the requirement in the future. “Students would like to
see a supplemental list of upper division courses that include
diversity requirement criteria and can count towards graduation
requirements … but this still needs to be worked out,”
Kozak said. As for now, the focus is to bring this requirement to a
faculty vote in the three schools, which is scheduled to take place
this fall. Then the proposal will be directed to the Legislative
Assembly, where, if approved, will become an official policy. If
approved, the next step includes creating a process for granting
certain courses with diversity credit and presenting these classes
to the Faculty Executive Committees and the undergraduate council
for approval. Kozak is optimistic that by fall 2005, the
requirement will be in full effect. Students and faculty both feel
that implementing a diversity requirement is an important step to
take. Though some continue to argue that there is no need for the
requirement at such a diverse campus, Kozak sees the matter in a
different light. “You can take a hike through a forest and
think you have experienced it to the fullest but you may not know
the name of every plant ““ you have to really study it,”
she said.