Loud voices from too few individuals have challenged the UCLA College’s diversity requirement.
The polling process ended in 2014 after a faculty majority approved the requirement and the Academic Senate Legislative Assembly voted for its implementation. 2015 should have marked the start of course selection. Instead, the opposition has halted the process by imposing an unprecedented expanded vote.
How can 59 faculty derail a democratic process that more than 600 voted on? Why does opposition emerge only in regard to issues of diversity? Why do initiatives led by communities of color become subject to higher standards of scrutiny? Who are the faces behind the opposition, and what unfair powers do they have?
Even among students, separate petitions seek to either delegitimize or support the diversity requirement. But questions about student opinion distract us from improving our campus.
Let us recall that we have already addressed student opinion: In the 2011 student government election, students demonstrated their support for a general education diversity requirement by passing the Communicating Unity Through Education initiative with a 62.9 percent majority and 5,337 ballots in favor.
More than any voice at UCLA, the student voice in support of the diversity requirement has remained powerful.
In February 2014, the Asian Pacific Islander town hall – held in response to the racially charged sexist flyer sent to the Asian American Studies Center – reinvigorated the demand for the diversity requirement, spurring Chancellor Blockto call for its passage by the end of 2014.
After significant progress, we are once again halted by the racism embedded in UCLA’s bureaucracy.
Although the Academic Senate of the University of California system has committed to diversity in its academic mission, UCLA’s Academic Senate has yet to follow suit
David Schaberg, Victoria Sork, Joseph Rudnick, Alessandro Duranti, Judy Olian, Christopher Waterman, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Vijay Dhir, Rachel Moran, Franklin D. Gilliam Jr., Teri Schwartz, No-Hee Park, A. Eugene Washington, Linda Sarna, Jody Heymann, Robin Garrell, Cindy Fan, Wayne Smutz, Virginia Steel – as academic deans, some of you have supported the diversity requirement.
Nonetheless, we ask you to maintain that commitment and be accountable to the climate of your respective schools and divisions. If 59 renegade faculty harbor bigoted viewpoints, why are they appointed to teach in the first place? There must be consequences for actions that prevent diversity initiatives from being implemented.
The protected power of these 59 faculty demonstrates the discriminatory values upheld at UCLA. The 2013 Moreno Report highlighted this reality, and resistance to the diversity requirement is a symptom of it all.
We call on the entire campus community to ensure the implementation of the diversity requirement in the College.
To faculty allies: We are grateful for your advocacy, and we further acknowledge your efforts to combat discriminatory climates noted in the Moreno Report. Still, we challenge you to continue highlighting UCLA’s diversity issues. Be vocal because students are here to support you.
To non-College: We urge you to respect and support the College’s passage of the requirement, regardless of your position on the proposal. As noted by the Academic Senate Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity’s statement and Professor Paul Barber’s open letter signed by more than 350 faculty, the upcoming vote sets a dangerous precedent against jurisdictional integrity. Vote “yes” to protect your unit’s autonomy over its own academic policy.
To senior administration: Remember that you are accountable to the commitments UCLA has made to equity, diversity and inclusion. As we hire a new vice chancellor position created to address these issues, we must align administrative commitment to our academic curricula.
Chancellor Block and Executive Vice Chancellor Scott Waugh, what message do we convey if the diversity requirement fails now? Undoubtedly, it would be a tremendous failure to the chancellor’s charge in February 2014.
To students: we have come so far since introducing the diversity requirement three decades ago. Time and time again, we have proven the unquestionable student support for its implementation. As the irrational vote approaches, we should not need to re-initiate a petition to re-showcase support simply because our opposing counterparts have done so.
Instead, let us focus on challenging individuals of accountability – deans, department chairs and more – to pass the diversity requirement once and for all. We accomplished this campaign during fall quarter, and we can triumph again.
Although the expanded vote is unjust, the diversity requirement must pass. If it fails now, then the entire campus will have failed its institutional mission to diversity and the confidence of students of color.
Jazz Kiang is a third-year Asian American studies student and director of the Asian Pacific Coalition.
Evelyn Tran is a fourth-year microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics student and president of the Vietnamese Student Union.
Live Maluia is a fourth-year sociology student and president of the Pacific Islands Student Association.
Wali Kamal is a third-year applied mathematics student and president of the Muslim Student Association.
Lila Reyes is a fourth-year political science student and the chair of the Campus Retention Committee.
Miriam Rodriguez is a fifth-year Spanish and Chicana/o studies student, the outreach coordinator of the American Indian Student Association and chair of the Student Initiated Outreach Center.
Luis Sanchez is a fourth-year sociology student and internal chair of the Community Programs Office Student Association.
Hayley Iwig is a fourth-year psychology and classical civilization student and president and retention coordinator of the American Indian Student Association.
Russell Castro is a fourth-year history student and vice chairperson of the Campus Retention Committee.
Not to choose sides, but the wording in this editorial is troubling because they state ” If 59 renegade faculty harbor bigoted viewpoints, why are they appointed to teach in the first place?” Those have to be the most dangerous of viewpoints. By questioning and insisting on punishing and discriminating against individuals who do not hold the same opinion as others is just as bad as what the editorial is fighting for in the diversity initiative. How can UCLA create a campus of scholarly excellence, diversity, and tolerance if everyone thinks and acts the same regardless of whether they are in a majority or minority without fear of being reprimanded for a dissenting opinion or viewpoint? People can be against the initiative from a financial or logistical standpoint (whether it will costs too much, be a burden on students, there is no clear path on implantation, etc.). This doesn’t mean they’re bigoted or against the values the requirement is seeking. Has anyone cared to really ask and listen to the other side? Create allies and not an “us or them” environment on campus.
These thugs have no respect for academic freedom. Saying professors shouldn’t be able to teach because they don’t support your authoritarian attempts to push your hateful and divisive racist ideology on the entire campus? Columns like these are great because the leftists at UCLA show their true colors — as enemies of freedom, particular academic freedom.
Diversity requirement = code for letting in less qualified students ahead of, and instead, of more qualified students.
The dumbing down of the UC system continues, under the decaying banner of the libs / leftists.
I have a monkey wrench. I am going to say that I believe that Black college graduates are 1)More successful 2)More productive 3)Less prone to failure 4)Help their companies more than White graduates from the same institutions.
I have known of people in L.A. County Public Defenders office, who scored the ONLY perfect score EVER! They won the most cases, and had been passed for promotion by people who did not perform nearly as well.
In Hollywood, Black films and Black movie stars are far more profitable than people like Tom Cruise. We know about this. Producers? Same thing. The most successful producers – Black.
What about other industries? Black people don’t have as many representatives in all industries, but I believe they out-produce, out-profit, and out-do their White college peers.
How about that? I want to keep this challenge out there – until we can hear the racist anti-diversity crowd start to change their song.
See my prior message. You will be silent Lyle. You will not speak for people of color. I have not given you permission. Who else has? How dare you assume. Be Silent! Filth!
Jason – you are a racist person who is attempting to pretend to be a minority, using name calling, bullying and insanity to silence people who are exposing racism.
Next time you pretend to be a “person of color” you probably should avoid using terms that are unique to Anglos who have racial bias. And the use of the word “FILTH” in all caps is characteristic of a unique demographic – and I think everybody knows what I am talking about.
Shouldn’t you get back to your studies White boy? I’m gonna call you J-Edgar – cause you are apparently a sick, narcissistic, racist. .
I cannot believe the abuse you have leveled against me. Because I’m from Canada and you don’t think I fit your definition of how I speak you call me white??!! We cannot continue to allow unbelievable racist speech such as yours. You will not tone police me. You will be SILENT!
You are the authoritarian. Deny the impact of slavery and post-slavery genocide on Black people. Everybody in the world sees people like you for what you are- seething racist. And you show youself in public. How shamefull.
Thugs? These are college students who have nothing to do with gangs. I think you are using the word “thug” as a code word for the N-word.
Also, “hateful and divisive racist ideology?”
Wait. UCLA has been a very racist place since the campus opened. The documented acts are on television and print. The racist actions by UCLA instructors are very clearly designed to harm Black students. Putting a question about Michael Brown in the test – the same week as the death of Michael Brown? That is indeed racist – and intentional.
To call people who are demanding fairness and equality “racists” is very confusing. How is fighting an all-white admission policy, and hostile actions considered “racist?” And what does racism have to do with the “left?” I am very conservative – and think that racism has nothing to do with conservatives.
Mifty – I think you are an extreme racist. I think you use the “N-word” regularly, and that is why you chose to use the word, “Thug”. It is now on the record, and I will not hire UCLA grads – of any ethnicity. I think UCLA is full of people like Mifty. How about that?
It’s actually pretty comical to consider that the authors of this opinion piece, who are clamoring for a mandatory diversity curriculum, are agitated so much by a minority viewpoint that they would seek to fire anyone who adopts said viewpoint. I think the pot just called the kettle black.
I agree with them – because the same people are promoting policies that are unfair. I don’t think genocide and discrimination of Black people is comical. Only somebody from a group that is not excluded, who is a racist, would find this situation comical.
Question: So the title of the article states racism. Where in the article is there any mention or concrete evidence of this?
Also, I think I might see why some professors might not be in support of this requirement. For me, I’m an education major (grad student) and am in the process of getting my credential. Since I’m in UCLA’s education department which is all about social justice, I’m all for diversity and the importance of it! However, the main issue I see which will almost guarantee it to fail is the lack of intrinsic motivation.
The reality is: there will be students who are open to the idea of diversity, students who are totally closed off to it, and those who are totally for it. The problem is that the students who are totally for it will think the idea is friggin awesome, but the others may not. I mean, looking at the school of the arts, I know people who fit in those 3 categories and it’s exactly that way for them: either they care or don’t care or kind of care. The requirement will not be able to change their views on diversity. If they’re not already motivated by themselves, they will simply see this as “those liberals trying to get us to see things their way” and, at best, do nothing, and at worst, mock the requirement.
I didn’t expect this post to be this long, but just some food for thought from the perspective of someone whose job is to engage with the concept of student motivation on a daily basis. And I’m not against diversity, but just don’t think this is the way to motivate people to embrace it, so I can see why some people may be against it for a reason other than racism. Also, as an educator I find it offensive that the article suggests that if a teacher isn’t in favor of a diversity requirement type of thing then they’re not fit to teach. Again, there are many reasons why someone may not be in favor of something like this.
Anyway, there’s my 2 cents or whatever that phrase is. (English wasn’t my first language so some phrases aren’t too clear to me but sound familiar). Sasha out~
Evidence? Have you read the newspaper the last 7 years? It sounds like you are in complete denial – like the Silent Germans.
Yes I have read the newspapers, but that’s why I’m so critical of this piece: the newspapers have been talking about racism in general and also have shown us exact ways in which racism is an issue. However this article does not; it is purely idealistic garbage. Yes there’s racism at UCLA, but…the claim that this article is making is racism is the root of why these specific faculty members opposed the Diversity Requirement. Again, though, where is evidence that it was the reason for their actions? Ever consider that there are other reasons that people oppose things? Just because someone doesn’t seem to support the liberal-progressive agenda doesn’t mean that they’re against it for the reason that liberal-progressive people believe. The irony is that the left thinks this way and reduces human thought into “our way” or “not our way” and labels “not our way” thinkers as bigots. Humans are more complex than that; don’t lump them all into one category without any hard evidence. Ideals aren’t evidence, they’re convictions that lead to discovery. If you can’t see how blinded by ideals you are, then wow…this generation.
What then was UCLA’s principles of community education bit about? https://diversity.ucla.edu/strategic-plan/Principles_of_Community.pdf
That link is great, perhaps they should include a copy of this on every syllabus, meeting agenda, etc. Too many issues and meetings on campus have been marred by choosing sides and only the “preferred” opinion rather than compromise and understanding.
Agreed. Serves as a gentle reminder of what we signed up for by being here (students, faculty, staff, & alumni). It makes me cringe to think we are using up time and resources internally when we could be out in the world making it better! We should strive to be the “blue & gold” standard not only in research and prestige, but also in compromise, understanding and innovative thinking.
As the other commenters have pointed out, this editorial itself is bigoted. There are many reasons why someone in favor of diversity and inclusiveness might be against this particular requirement, and more importantly, why someone in favor of diversity and inclusiveness would feel it was important for the entire campus to vote on the requirement, not just a small percentage of professors in the College of
Letters and Science. Here are just a few;
1) The original vote among College faculty did not include any ‘con’ arguments against the requirements; these were actively stifled and the fact that there even were ‘con’ arguments was not made publicly available to those voting. Given this, I could see why having the requirement voted on in a wider forum with all sides being considered would make sense.
2) Those in favor of the requirement listed courses that ‘consider more than one viewpoint’ as qualifying; they then listed many courses that qualify, but did not actually determine which courses could/would be approved, or if there were enough seats in those courses to allow students to satisfy the requirement without creating a huge backlog. In this era of state budget cuts, rising tuition, and lack of access to required courses, is adding another requirement really the best way to allow students the academic freedom they need to complete their education in a timely and cost-effective manner?
3) The authors of the requirement are for the most part the instructors of the ‘approved’ diversity courses; these instructors have a vested interest in maintaining and increasing enrollments in their courses to justify their continued existence, and also to ensure that state resources flow into these courses (money for TAs, etc.).
What better way to ensure a subset of courses are guaranteed support in perpetuity by playing the diversity card and making it politically unpopular for anyone to suggest that students shouldn’t be required to take these courses?
4) There are many better ways to promote diversity and inclusiveness on the UCLA campus than by forcing students to choose from a handful of courses selected by people with only a limited viewpoint. I took a south campus class last year where the instructor filled in a little history between the equations, and pointed out how difficult it was for women and minorities to contribute to science until the past few
decades. Should this course satisfy the diversity requirement? I certainly learned something from it, but I doubt the committee that approves courses would allow it to count because it doesn’t teach science from ‘different viewpoints’.
Instead of calling everyone who might question the requirement a ‘bigot’, why not allow an open and honest discussion on this campus, with a full vote, as to the best ways to promote inclusiveness in an academic setting? It makes sense to me.
The kind of radical intolerance expressed by this article is the real threat to campus climate. The irony of trying to vilify and silence others who have diverse viewpoints is apparently lost on these students who favor the Diversity Requirement. And if the Diversity Requirement measure ultimately fails, the sentiments expressed by these students will be the explanation. Based on such sentiments, who can’t anticipate that the Diversity Requirement would be used as a stick to enforce particular (rather than diverse) viewpoints and life perspectives? No thanks.
No – you are wrong. When an all-White state with no Blacks in UCLA, says to those Blacks – you don’t have the right to be here – there is a real problem. You don’t think so – you are the problem. End of discussion. Why talk with somebody who has no problem with exclusion of the most at risk ethnic group? I thik you are – by your very indifference to this – a profound racist.
STOP SPEAKING FOR US YOU FILTH!
Jazz Kiang, Evelyn Tran, Live Maluia, Wali Kamal, Lila Reyes, Miriam Rodriguez, Luis Sanchez, Hayley Iwig, & Russell Castro: The tone of this bigoted piece is disgraceful and you ought to be ashamed to have your names associated with it.
Agreed. I was almost expecting the last paragraph of the article to read, “Get rid of all the white people!”
Shame.
So – you think that the current admission policy – drafted by White Supremacist Ward Connerly – is what you want? And you say Black people are dumb? Would you care to back that up? Because I”m going to make you. I think Black people are 1000 times smarter than Whites.
I think White people are capable of intelligence – but they have been so lazy and unchallenged – by enslaving non-Whites – they no longer are able to compete intellectually – with anybody.
Compare productivity of White versus non-White workers. Here is how the top ethnic groups perform in various major sectors of the economy:
Industrial Tech Arts Sports Entertainment
Black Asian Asian Black Black
Hispanic White Black Hispanic Jewish American
Asian Black Hispanic White White
White Hispanic White Asian Asian
Productivity, Profit, Advancement, Salary are factors to look at – and when you understand that African Americans are key factors in the arts, entertainment and sports – you will see that they are responsible for as much as 80% of the revenue. The music industry in the 80s was given big boost by two Black artists – Michael Jackson and Donna Summer. Their recordings brought in as much as half the entire revenue for the industry. Without them – the industry might have been as small as 5% of the size.
The dirty secret in America that Jason and the other trolls don’t want you to know about – BLACK AMERICANS ARE THE BEST STUDENTS, BEST WORKERS AND THEY BRING STABILITY, MORAL AND FUN TO WORK AND PLAY.
The people who live to exclude Black people from America – are damned. They live to harm others – and one of the ways you can prove that they are NOT objective – ask them what advocacy they’ve performed for Black people. If they have done none – it is a good indication that they are racist. If they have never done any advocacy for anybody – chances are you’re talking to a wealthy, racist White male.
Please UNSUBSCRIBE me from this and any other e-mail list.
Next time – before commenting on an issue related to race relations – do some research. Talk to an African American – with all As, and perfect test scores. They do exist, you know.
When you hear their experiences with racist teachers, and the racist environment created by people like you – you will shutter. It will make you sick to your stomach. You will realize how utterly racist and wrong you are. Do it. Don’t just run away and cry like a whopped Judas. Stand up and do something for the people you and your ancestors stomped on. Stop being a global joke – like most racist White Americans.
As a person of color I demand that you cease speaking in any such way that may represent or indicate my opinion. Lyle, you will be silent and cease speaking. Until I give you permission to even comment on anything that may affect anything which touches my experience, I demand that you be silent. RACIST PIG! You shame the rest of us and the cause. BE SILENT!
Jason,
You are really confusing a lot of people. “As a person of color..I demand that you cease speaking….”
What kind of insanity is this? You want everybody to check with you before they express themselves? Sounds like you are a troll, not a real person with a real opinion.
Lyle is right – on every point. His post is critical of racism at UCLA, and it seems to be based on a lot of experience.
You call him a racist PIG, and you use the word, “FILTH” repeatedly. But you don’t explain yourself.
1. Anonymous person who uses terms and language uncommon to most Black people
2. Tries to bully others
3. Calls names without explanation
4. Accuses others of misrepresenting his “opinion” but does not seem to have an opinion
5. Says he is a “person of color” – but not Black. Red flag.
No picture, generalizations, attacking people instead of spelling out your objection.
I think you are either a White racist pretending to be a minority, or you are a victim of Stockholm syndrome.
I will be reporting your post as abusive, and I hope Lyle sues you for hate speech and bullying. I will witness on his behalf. You are actually demonstrating to the world that UCLA students are a bunch of spoiled racist brats – who hate Black people.
– Jeffery (Note: I am a White person who loves Black people and has no respect for racist Whites and Uncle Toms).
Racist trolls – are often frustrated, gay, White males – pretending to be Black. They bully, disrupt, call people names. Nobody really quite understands where they are coming from. Thus – Jason Westerly. Can’t find him so I think he is a fraud.
No slaves anymore Sarah, gonna have to unsubscribe yourself. And you do it in your settings – not on the message board itself. Seems you are not too familiar with technology that is over 20 years old; could it be that you are unaware of other things that have been here a while?
There are contributors who have not indicated their race. This is unacceptable and as a person of color, I will not tolerate any attempt to speak for people of color by those not of color. Regardless of your involvement in a diversity program, if you lack color, you must not speak. You must not even appear as a contributor. I will say it again, you must not speak if you are not of color. Your opinions, experiences, and any victimizations and oppressions you may claim are invalid because of your lack of color. YOU MUST NOT SPEAK. SILENCE!
I will tell you to jump in the lake. You are not a person of color, you have no rights to demand that others restrict their opinions. “Invalid”? Are you nuts? I hope that you try to silence people like that in person – I want to see your face the next day. Bullies don’t learn until they learn.
How dare you! Stop speaking for us. Stop. You will Stop. Stop oppressing the black people with your claims. Horrible. You are Horrible. Racist PIG!
You need to get off this board. You can’t come here and make up your own rules and start imposing them on others. I have reported your post and I really hope you try to bully people like this in person.