Enforced ‘diversity’ GE courses have no place at UCLA

By Daniel B. Rego

The tone of many of the people who support what they term a
“diversity” requirement suggests that they believe
students can only learn from being around people who look different
from them. They claim that this “diversity” is somehow
an education, without which going to class is supposedly
meaningless. This idea is obviously ludicrous, and those who
support a so-called “diversity requirement” make little
sense. A close examination of this proposed requirement indicates
as much.

We must first clarify what is meant by “diversity.”
This high-sounding term is tossed around, though people often fail
to define it. Usually racial diversity is pushed for most
vehemently. By experiencing racial diversity, everyone is somehow
supposed to become better “educated.” This is the very
thing that proponents wish to further through new university
requirements.

Proponents argue for the new requirement based on the idea that
people learn from others who are different. Equating
“different” with race is a very frightening concept. It
assumes that people of different races are necessarily different
from each other, and also, that people of the same race are alike
so as to make the racial difference noticeable.

This is nothing more than stereotyping. This should not be
enshrined in any way, shape or form as a requirement of the
university. The belief that racial diversity helps people learn in
class is ludicrous. That would mean that a person is better
educated when his classmates are of a certain race. One race better
then another? This is sick.

I have too much experience to buy into the myth that people are
different because of their race.

Background and culture are not the same as race. I have known
people of different races who have more in common with me than many
members of my own race. I have also had classes in which I was the
only white person. That neither hurt nor helped my education.

Did I learn anything, or was my experience changed by who my
classmates were? Racially, no. But they were all individuals, and
my experience came from that. I didn’t take the class because
of who else was there, but because I wanted to learn what the
professor was teaching.

Thus, learning about other “cultures” or stereotyped
views of various races has absolutely no educational value. Before
we start learning about “other cultures,” perhaps we
should learn about American culture, especially the many positives
that do exist in our history and culture.

Some people on campus know more about the history of another
country than they do of their own. There are those who believe that
American culture is inherently racist/sexist/etc. Perhaps we
shouldn’t take suggestions from those with clearly prejudiced
views. American culture is not limited racially ““ it is
inclusive, regardless of race.

An additional problem comes from the imposition of yet another
university requirement. A diversity requirement would either be
imposed in addition to current General Education requirements, or
it would necessitate that one G.E. be taken from a smaller number
of options. Either way, students are limited. The former imposes
yet another class that we are required to take, while the latter
makes it more difficult to schedule classes.

Many of us are students with double majors, transfers who need
to catch up or students with minors. A diversity requirement would
impact us negatively. Another requirement would just be a burden
that hurts more than it helps.

It becomes clear that this so-called “diversity
requirement” is of no value to students at UCLA. If some
students want to take classes that others might find useless, then
they should feel free to do so ““ it’s their tuition
money. But they shouldn’t burden the rest of the campus with
a misguided policy that has no legitimate basis in education.
I’m far too busy getting a real education at UCLA, which
““ despite the many complaints ““ remains one of the best
universities in the United States.