Cesar Chavez said, “We need to help students and parents cherish and preserve the ethnic and cultural diversity that nourishes and strengthens this community – and this nation.” When the faculty of the UCLA College of Letters and Science passed a diversity requirement in October 2014, I felt immense pride to be a Bruin. After the publication of the Moreno report, which detailed the deteriorating racial climate and lack of leadership on issues of discrimination and bias at UCLA, it appeared my university was taking a stance towards change and improvement, embracing Chavez’s message. However, that pride dissipated when 59 faculty members successfully petitioned for a revote. More egregiously, I have recently come across a Daily Bruin submission as well as a public email circulating among faculty that is riddled with inaccuracies about this initiative. The critical and groundbreaking nature of the diversity requirement for UCLA has compelled me to unpack the fallacious claims:
The first issue claims that the diversity requirement: “forces students to take a course on top of their already rigorous academic schedule in order to graduate.” This initiative is explicitly designed to not disrupt the student’s academic progression. A directive of the ad hoc Faculty Committee is to ensure that this requirement will not force students to take additional units to graduate. Additionally, the committee was instructed to look “through courses that fulfill multiple requirements simultaneously, e.g. major requirement + diversity requirement.“
A second claim: “The diversity requirement institutionalizes racial, ethnic and religious divides within the community.” Awareness fosters inclusion, not division. These classes will provide students with a safe environment to develop a new understanding of their own culture and an opportunity to explore new cultures. As stated on the UCLA Faculty Collaboration Site, this requirement is needed in order “to better prepare UCLA students for the increasingly diverse and interdependent campus and world that they inhabit and will lead.”
A third inaccuracy: “University administration has presented no plan to deal with the capacity issues that will be imposed on the classes that would become required.” The University has outlined a plan for ensuring that the requirement will not produce overcrowding. The ad hoc faculty committee produced an implementation report that noted 110 courses currently on the books that fulfill the requirement and have sufficient capacity to handle additional enrollees. Funds have already been committed for course development and instructor training.
A fourth unsubstantiated claim: “The diversity requirement forces students to take a class where you could be subject to ridicule for your religious beliefs, ethnic background or sexual orientation.” The purpose of the diversity initiative is to provide a safe forum for discussion. A recent campus climate survey revealed that 24 percent of respondents had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive or hostile conduct. The diversity requirement can help change this by creating a culture of awareness and inclusion.
One final misguided claim: “The diversity requirement requires more of your tuition dollars to be spent irresponsibly.” The UCLA College of Letters and Science is a liberal arts institution with an obvious gap in the area of cultural awareness and diversity. Lamentably, UCLA is one of only two undergraduate-serving UCs without a diversity requirement. These classes embody exactly what a true liberal arts education is all about: broad, thoughtful and encompassing knowledge.
I feel the need to emphasize that diversity is an issue we must take seriously. As a straight, white, middle-class Catholic, I cannot claim to know what it is like to grow up in an underprivileged area or to be of a race or of a sexual orientation that is constantly discriminated against – but many of my classmates can. Each person at UCLA does not live in a bubble: We must be aware and openly communicate about the diverse world we live in.
I came to UCLA to learn, grow and develop leadership skills. But no one can lead without understanding and empathizing with the cultural and societal differences that exist in this world. I truly believe that this requirement will help foster open-minded leadership at UCLA.
Lastly, I would like to point out that much of the funding this university receives requires diversity outreach. It would be inappropriate to ignore that the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health, which provide UCLA with millions of dollars every year, require the faculty and students they fund to partake of diversity and outreach activities.
I implore the faculty of UCLA to vote in favor of passing the diversity requirement.
Guenther is a graduate student in biochemistry and molecular biology and a member of UCLA’s Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity.
Had to look to the last line to see the author is a graduate student and therefore wouldn’t be subject to the requirement he is trying to force on other people.
I still think this is ridiculous. This requirement implies that 80% of our school is the same race (read: white), when in reality it’s the furthest thing from that. We have diversity as it is, and a diverse campus allows for us to learn about others cultures. It’s not something that needs to be forced.