Diversity classes carry bias, fail to promote awareness

Welcome to diversity hell. America may be the land of the free
and the home of the brave, but at universities all over this great
country, students are subject to the totalitarian rule of
“diversity.”

In the past, diversity was used mostly in the context of mutual
funds. But now it is the most overused buzzword this side of
“tolerance.” At UCLA, you’ll hear it everywhere
from “genetic diversity” to “diversity
classes.”

“Diversity” is the most important requirement of
every freshman class. “Diversity” is the “heart
and soul” of every educational experience. In truth, the call
for “diversity” is a calculated plan to promote leftist
ideals.

Only one glorious tower of truth and wisdom remains standing
despite the siege of “diversity.”Â That pristine
bastion of reason is UCLA’s system of required classes. It
doesn’t include a “diversity requirement.” And
the leftists are fighting mad. How could this be? You don’t
have to complete an Afro-American studies course to graduate with a
degree in engineering? Insane!

You don’t need to sit through hours of lectures on the
history of the homosexual community in order to graduate with a
B.A. in economics? Homophobic blasphemy!

You could miss the entire area of women’s studies and end
up going to medical school? Revolting.

Guess what? UCLA is right not to have a “diversity
requirement.” A “diversity requirement” is not
only detrimental to the idea of a cultural melting pot as a whole,
it is downright offensive. Are “diversity classes”
designed to make an engineer more touchy-feely? Are they supposed
to “bring people together?” Or are they really just a
device to shape cultural and political opinion, preaching
victim-hood with the slogan, “see how tough we have
it?”

There are (in my humble opinion) three types of “diversity
classes.” The first can be labeled the “ethnic
education” group. This group studies various minority
cultures, including Afro-American studies, American Indian studies,
Asian-American studies and Chicana/o studies. The second group is
composed of one area: women’s studies. Label it
“feminist education.” The third group is also composed
of one area: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies. This
is “behavioral education.”

The first group is by far the least troublesome. “Ethnic
education” discusses the history, hardships and viewpoints of
certain ethnic groups.

For example, Afro-American studies classes are dedicated to the
“heightening of self-awareness and self-pride” and the
“broadening of perspectives to take into account more than
one cultural view,” according to the UCLA General Catalog.
These goals are less problematic than those espoused by the other
two groups, but they are problematic nonetheless.

Should people appreciate the difficulties African Americans have
experienced throughout history? Obviously they should, but not in
an environment which then uses past hardships as an excuse to
account for current difficulties. Requiring students to learn the
history of a people in a class which then uses that history to
promote liberal ideals (affirmative action, slavery reparations,
etc.) is unacceptable.

Should people know about African Americans? Of course, but
in the context of human history, as part of a larger picture, not
separated and magnified in size. By separating African American
culture, the melting pot of the UCLA community is divided into
racial cliques. This study area also begs the question: does
every group on the planet deserve a study area? Isn’t it a
bit biased to pick only a few select groups as deserving of a study
area?

The second group, known as “feminist education,” is
composed of women’s studies. There is a flaw the size of
a cavern in requiring such courses.

The lower division introductory course, Women’s Studies
10, discusses the “historical basis of women’s
subordination,” according to the catalog’s course
listing. If you’re a guy, you can pretty much guarantee
you are going to feel rather uncomfortable ““ many feminist
ideals are blatantly anti-male.

How about women who are against modern feminism and its
perspective on the world? Not all females believe that women are
completely subjugated and oppressed, and that women should be equal
to men in every solitary aspect of being. Should someone who wants
to learn about biology be forced to sit through hours about
“Feminist Theories in Social Sciences” (course
110A)?

And what about all the tie-ins to gay and lesbian courses?
Women’s studies lists as supporting courses centering on
homosexuality. Which brings us to …

Group three: “behavioral education,” composed of
classes discussing homosexuality. The university is free to offer
LGBT courses, but forcing students to take LGBT studies is just
plain wrong.

According to many major religions, homosexuality is a grave sin,
and it is an insult to force a religious person to sit though
lectures attempting to state that homosexuality is
acceptable. 

There are also many students who believe that homosexuality is a
behavior or a choice, not a biological trait such as race or
sex. To force students to take classes stating that
homosexuality is as inevitable and unchangeable as skin color is to
be ideologically discriminatory.

Carol Geary Schneider, president of the American Association of
Colleges and Universities, in the association’s
“National Survey on Diversity Requirements,” stated:
“College and university leaders agree with the American
public that learning about diversity is essential to help
today’s graduates succeed in the workplace and to strengthen
American’s increasingly diverse communities.”

Respectfully put, this is hogwash. Succeeding in the
workplace and strengthening communities has nothing to do with
taking diversity classes.

All the sensitivity required in the workplace is the wherewithal
not to use racial slurs in the office. And strong communities
are built by people who share common values; people who are willing
to work for success. Human sensitivity is required, not hours of
preposterous courses and work done to fulfill the liberal
agenda.

So let UCLA’s system of required classes stand, a fortress
of reason against the relentless tide of “diversity.”
For if the fortress falls, campus reason falls with it.