Diversity criteria needed before implementation
By Thyda Duong
May 13, 2004 9:00 p.m.
Correction Appended
Almost two decades of advocacy have paid off for supporters of
the diversity requirement, which is currently undergoing a
year-long implementation process.
After announcing its commitment to approving the proposal at a
rally last Thursday, the executive board of the Academic Senate
expects the requirement to be implemented into the curriculum by
fall 2005.
“The regulations for the requirement need to be formulated
prior to an academic year for it to be set as requirements for
incoming students,” said Academic Senate chairman Clifford
Brunk.
The criteria for the requirement and a preliminary selection of
courses will be determined by representatives of the undergraduate
council and the newly formed General Education Committee, which
will include students.
A faculty vote on the requirement will follow the formulation of
a ballot that outlines the requirement.
“The vote will take place next fall, ideally,” said
Robin Garrell, faculty executive committee chairwoman for The
College. “However, this is dependent on the formulation of
the ballot, which undergoes several processes and requires
time.”
The results of the vote will be reported to the Academic
Senate’s Legislative Assembly winter quarter 2005, and if it
is approved, the requirement will be implemented by 2005, say
senate representatives.
Though student activists are satisfied with the commitment, they
hope the process would move along as soon as possible.
“If it were up to us, the requirement would be in place
tomorrow,” said Eligio Martinez, chief of staff of the
Academic Affairs Commission of the Undergraduate Students
Association Council.
“However, I think Dr. Brunk said it best when he said that
the faculty is slow, but the process will give us an opportunity to
do it right,” he said.
“This coming year will provide us with time to make this a
really great requirement,” Martinez added.
The decision to commit to the requirement came after students
erected a “tent city” in Schoenberg Quad for three days
last week, garnering attention and support.
Many students are in favor of the requirement because it is an
opportunity to take classes that they may otherwise not take.
“I think that people are so busy trying to take major
classes that the diversity requirement gives them a concrete reason
to take a cultural studies class,” said Lisa Yuki, a
second-year political science and history student.
Though support for the requirement is apparent, others have
remained in opposition to the proposal because they believe force
is an unsuitable means for student enrollment in diversity
courses.
Jonathan Tiongo, a third-year sociology student minoring in
education, said he supports diversity, but not a requirement.
“The actual courses are good because they allow you to
learn about other cultures, but I think making it a requirement is
a bad idea,” Tiongo said. “Forcing it on people will
just make them apathetic and not take it seriously.”
He said required classes, such as GEs, should be eliminated
altogether.
“We’re paying so much for our education that we
should have a choice as to which courses and subject matter we
take,” he said.
Others have said they recognize force as a positive thing and
remain strong supporters of the requirement, which would be
implemented into the GE curriculum.
Misconception of what the requirement entails is what might be
creating opposition, but the goal of the requirement is to provide
students with a well-rounded education, as with any other math or
science GE course, Martinez said.
Both students and the administration agreed the requirement
would be important to the curriculum.
“There are lots of GEs that people don’t want to
take, but that doesn’t make them any less important,”
said Beto Medina, a second-year psychology and sociology
student.
“I don’t know why people are against the
requirement,” Brunk said. “For me, it’s a
no-brainer. I am very much opposed to an additional requirement of
a specific course; however, this proposal will not amount to a
change in the number of courses taken. It will include one or
two courses already present in the general education program that
have a sufficient diversity component.”
Currently, 60 percent of GE courses fall within the parameters
of the proposed requirement ““ something that student
activists say is too vague.
“I would like to see a two-course requirement that would
focus on international issues as well as local,” Martinez
said, “However, the details still need to be worked
out.”
In efforts to create a requirement that will include what
students conceptualize it to be, students who have signed the
diversity requirement petition may be approached to offer their
opinions as to how they would like the requirement to be developed
and executed, Martinez said.
“There are a wide range of opinions and I plan to be very
available to hear what students have to say,” Martinez
said.
Correction: May 20, 2004, Thursday
The article should have stated that the general education
committee has been in place for a number of years, but a work group
has been established to define the criteria for the proposed
diversity requirement. Also, the accompanying graphic for the
article “Process of Implementation,” should not have
included steps 2 and 3 and should have clarified that the
legislative assembly would ratify the vote.
