EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo
Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone
Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega
Staff Representatives
 Amanda Fletcher
 Kelly Rayburn
 Marcelle Richards
Vytas Mazeika
Corey McEleney
Linh Tat
Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
The Undergraduate Students Association Council met with faculty
this week to discuss including a diversity requirement to the
proposed changes to the general education curriculum being
considered by the Academic Senate.
The current proposal before the Academic Senate requires
students to take three courses in a Foundations of Society and
Culture group ““ one in social analysis, another in historical
analysis and the third an elective in either of these subgroups.
Rather than have third course be an elective, USAC would like the
Academic Senate to make this course a diversity requirement.
A diversity requirement would obligate students to take a class
in race, ethnicity or gender studies. Currently, UCLA is the only
University of California campus that does not have a diversity
requirement.
While having a diversity requirement would provide students with
many benefits ““ such as increasing awareness of issues
affecting underrepresented communities, developing tolerance for
other groups, and preparing students to communicate effectively
with other social groups in the real world ““ the costs of
requiring students to take these classes cannot be ignored by the
Academic Senate.
The impact of forcing more than four thousand incoming students
to take an ethnic, gender or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
studies course by the time they graduate would greatly tax the
resources of each of these departments. The departments would have
to hire more professors, increase the enrollment capacity of
classes and provide more teaching assistants to accommodate the
increased demand for these courses. This situation is complicated
by the budget cuts looming over the UC ““ if UCLA can’t
afford to hire the necessary faculty and provide the requisite
resources to accommodate the changes a diversity requirement would
bring, departments offering race, gender and LGBT courses would
either be overworked or experience an erosion in quality.
Beyond just the logistical issues of enforcing a diversity
requirement are the actual courses themselves, specifically the way
they are taught by the current professors and lecturers.
Most students who have taken an African American, Asian
American, American Indian, Chicano/a, women’s or LGBT studies
course will admit that the courses are geared directly toward
students who represent the group of course study. If a student does
not fit the gender, race or sexual orientation the course deals
with, not only will that student be a minority in the class, but he
or she may be put in uncomfortable and even inflammatory
settings.
Unless this problem is addressed, the good intentions of
implementing a diversity requirement could prove counterproductive.
In order to become successful, the change has to start with the
professors and lecturers who teach these ethnic and gender studies
courses. Hopefully having a diversity requirement will make classes
more diverse and challenge professors to be more critical of the
curriculum they teach.
If the Academic Senate decides to bear the risks of adopting a
diversity requirement, it needs to make sure the requirement brings
about worthwhile change. Surveys demonstrate most students oppose a
diversity requirement ““ and whether they will have a
productive mindset when entering these classes is questionable.
When deciding what courses fulfill the GE requirement the
university should include courses that can still provide a wide
range of choice, which includes offering classes in both the social
sciences and humanities ““ if students have more choice of
what classes to take, they’re less likely to oppose what has
already been depicted by many as “indoctrination.”
The Academic Senate should approve the diversity requirement,
but in doing so, they need to be prepared to provide solutions for
the problems it will raise.