Anastasia Lukianchikov: Diversity requirement is a small step in the right direction

This column represents the first in a series on the diversity requirement at UCLA. This week, columnist Anastasia Lukianchikov explores both the good and bad of the requirement, and argues that with some enhancements, it can be a powerful force for good on the campus.

I had never realized that I was white before I entered UCLA.

The word was never attributed to my identity while born and raised in the U.K. Even there, my Eastern European features were notable enough that I did not look obviously English. So I rarely recall being called “white” or even “Caucasian.”

That should offer some indication of my homogeneous upbringing. Not to mention my laughable cultural naivety upon entering university in the US.

But my perspective quickly flipped during the course of my first year. Within my first firm group of friends, I found myself among a group of 20 nonwhites. All of a sudden I was called white every day.

That was the beginning of a chain of self-questioning. I questioned what constitutes a culture and what parts are immutable. I questioned the extent to which individuals are capable of cultural adaptation.

It was ultimately a priceless lesson in humility that mirrored developments at the end of last year when UCLA announced that all future incoming undergraduate students must fulfill a diversity requirement. The requirement is one course that addresses racial, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, sexual orientation, religious or other types of diversity. Over a hundred offered courses – many included among standard general education requirements – meet this requirement.

As a first step, the diversity requirement is a momentous achievement. While at the Diversity Symposium held at UCLA last month, I learned of the years of unsuccessful campaigns, yet unrelenting efforts that led to the requirement’s passing. But its passing reveals two things.

First, the requirement is very small. It is hardly the cumbersome burden described by critics as being shoved on students – especially considering the degree of overlap with existing requirements. And academically, the diversity requirement is lacking in relation to its envisioned purpose. It is a requirement for those unconscious of diversity and the illusions of self-perpetuating boundaries – notions that are difficult to challenge with one class.

But more importantly, the requirement is an unambiguous shift. UCLA now stands for diversity. UCLA has rightfully elevated the value of diversity and the value of its intersections with academic learning. That stance is immovable.

But if these are the values we actually care about and want to practice to uphold, then the diversity requirement needs to provide a greater incentive, environment or opportunity to do so. These values cannot be learned in a vacuum – they are experienced and provoked. One class typically won’t do this.

To do so, the diversity requirement needs to be enriched through other initiatives. The actual learning environments need to be restructured so as to offer this academic reward, or better yet, provide opportunities to enrich intergroup interactions beyond the classroom. And it also needs to be done while still preserving choice and willingness – cultivating curiosity rather than conformity.

The real initiative will have to come from the collective efforts of students and faculty in more strategic steps.

First, an effective requirement will rely upon the action of conscious teachers – in all fields. The need for incorporating diversity should not just be addressed by faculty in ethnic studies departments, nor by departments only within North Campus. We need faculty from all departments to be responsive to these issues and trained to incorporate them in seemingly unrelated subjects. Otherwise, the purpose of the requirement won’t reach the bulk of the student population generally isolated from these issues.

Secondly, there is little overlap between student and academic affairs for promoting diversity. If these values are going to permeate beyond the four walls of a classroom and faster than a glacial pace, then the initiative can be expanded to unite faculty and student efforts. This campus is bursting with isolated cultural events, student groups, seminar discussions and campaigns. Enduring lessons from diversity will come from the complementation of academic with social settings on campus.

And if we cannot agree on the steps needed to advance a diverse society– or even acknowledge responsibility–, then at least the academic value is undeniable. We have very clear reasons for the pursuit of diversity.

Studies have repeatedly found that social diversity enhances creativity, provokes greater sharing and analysis of information and is correlated with higher performance. Greater intergroup contact has also been found to generally reduce prejudices between conflicting groups. So it seems intuitive that heterogeneity provides a more optimal learning environment. A major tenet of education is the understanding and respect of both one’s own and other cultures.

Navigating diversity is a modern imperative. It is one of the greatest skills a student can gain – and it is most needed by students in a historically dominant position if we are to break systemic patterns of racism and ethnocentrism.

The goal is to incite innovation, conversation and awareness of differences, culture and inequality in students. That process is not meant to be comfortable – least of all to whites.

I experienced that discomfort firsthand during the lessons of my first year. But once faced, I turned outwards. I turned outwards because as I understood myself a little better – I began to yearn, to understand the people around me. The differences among us made it all the more wonderful.

That experience is the reason why I learned to try to embrace disparity, friction, unfamiliarity and all those timeless difficulties of so-called “diversity.” It couldn’t happen until I was placed in a rootless environment. And it is a beautiful and humbling thing when you find how much you can have in common with individuals completely different from you – or how much you have to learn from each other.

The diversity requirement is a small step in the right direction, though it is dissonant from its claimed academic purpose. But its acceptance now gives space for the tougher conversation: how to actually foster diversity.