Jihad. Sex. Liberty. Love. Morality. These words all have
something in common with the word diversity.
That is, they are each not as simple as their textbook
definition. Their semantic meaning is different from their
situational meaning. To even further complicate the issue, words
will forever fail us to a certain extent in that they will be
understood differently from individual to individual.
That is why most written works must strive to be clear and
concise. But a lack of clarity is one of the major weaknesses of
the proposed and recently voted-down diversity requirement, which
attempted to oblige students to take one GE course including a
diversity element.
The requirement falls into a precarious place, as its creators
neither wanted to restrict it to one specific definition, which
would exclude too many GE classes, nor did they want to be so broad
that it seemed difficult to implement.
For the time being, however, the proposed definition is too
broad. Though the idealist in me recognizes the beautiful attempt
to “ground students in the realities of a multicultural,
transnational, global society, and provides tools for studying the
complexity of diverse communities,” the realist in me
realizes that this particular definition seems problematic in
practice.
This seems more a statement of an overarching goal or purpose,
rather than a substantial definition of the details that will come
into question when trying to apply the requirement through existing
courses.
I say “seems” specifically because, as an initial
step, the goal is one that is honorable, and more importantly,
suitable for its purpose. However, a goal’s purpose is to
declare the commitment towards an ideal, and is not one of real
utility in practice.
To apply this definition, the committees will have to use a more
specific criterion. According to the reports by the General
Education Governance committee, a few steps have been made to this
effect and some student groups have suggested a set of
criteria.
But the GE Governance committee is not yet ready to support any
specific criteria ““ and for such a broad change that will
affect not only students in The College, but also the School of
Arts and Architecture, and the School of Theater, Film and
Television, it is troubling to ask that the requirement be passed
without clear examples of these criteria.
There is a list of classes and their estimated fulfillment of
the requirement, so some specific reasoning must have been followed
when creating the list. But as it stands, it is difficult to see
what that reasoning was, and how it would have been reflected in a
finalized diversity requirement.
Which brings us back to the key word: diversity. Because of
previous education and experiences, diversity will mean something
different for each person, These differing opinions need to be
reconciled in a diversity requirement. The meaning of diversity
itself ““ and not the goal, which is obviously diversity
““ needs to be explicitly defined. I will not pretend this is
an easy task, but it is difficult to foresee success without
it.
Though this is the chief predicament of the suggested diversity
requirement, there are other concerns that also need
resolution.
For one, it seems overly simplistic to believe that a change in
GE requirements would not have a noticeable effect on course
enrollment.
It is uplifting that these “diversity” courses are
popular and that a large portion of the student population already
takes these classes. But the effect on enrollment in the classes
that do not fulfill the diversity requirement needs to be
considered as well. Though diversity is admirable and essential, we
cannot ignore the importance of classes that may not fit the
requirement.
If upper-division classes could fulfill the requirement instead
of the mostly lower-division classes that have been considered for
diversity status, then those with majors that naturally lead to
studies in diversity would not be forced to take an extra
lower-division diversity class. This strategy seems to be effective
for the English major, whose classes for the major also count
toward GEs, and this strategy might similarly resolve these
diversity requirement problems.
Also ““ and I say this with confidence ““ yet another
GE requirement will affect student workload to some degree. Take my
experience, for example. As a freshman I took two classes for two
different requirements. Later, a distraught counselor told me I
should have taken one class to fulfill those two requirements to
free up essential units. More requirements will only further
complicate such issues.
Furthermore, the most recent list of diversity classes seems
short ““ and even as an English and sociology student studying
what I like to think of as classes concerned with diversity ““
in theory I will have fulfilled my requirement only through
linguistics GE classes taken for my own pleasure.
Until these concerns have been dealt with, the diversity
requirement will be difficult to smoothly implement, or even
complete. It would also benefit those in favor of the requirement
to find out why only 249 faculty members showed up to vote for such
an important change.
Generally, the requirement seems rushed and still fraught with
questions. Perhaps it is best that it did not pass for the time
being.
If the goals of this requirement are truly to “teach
(diversity) within an academically sound framework” and to
“provide a mechanism for ensuring that courses addressing
diversity issues continue to be developed and offered,” then
I suggest that the changes be made to the classes without being
made a requirement.
Students themselves should find diversity interesting and take
such classes for their own benefit. We don’t need a
requirement to tell us of its importance.
And in return, UCLA will not only be making the public
commitment to diversity it so desires, but also truly demonstrating
the diversity its campus promotes in a wholly innovative way.
Hashem is a third-year English and sociology student. E-mail
her at nhashem@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.