Diversity requirement needs definition, review

Next week, faculty members will be asked to vote on a new
graduation requirement in “diversity.” Although it
might make us feel better, it would be academically irresponsible
to approve such a poorly thought-out, ill-defined proposal.

A diversity requirement cannot be imposed before it has been
clearly defined.

The Undergraduate Students Association Council admitted its
description of a diversity course was “deliberately left …
somewhat vague” because everyone has his or her own
definition of “diversity.”

A report to the council offered this definition: “The
complexity of diverse communities defined by characteristics such
as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, religion,
sexual orientation, age and others.” Deciding which courses
““ and which course instructors ““ have a
“substantial” enough focus on these characteristics is
extremely difficult.

Because of this, even several strongly supportive committees
could not agree on definitive classifications for many of their
candidate courses. The General Education Governance Committee
states that courses on its “likely” list may still not
qualify for the diversity requirement. The governance committee
recently concluded, “We are not yet ready to propose our own
criteria.”

The preliminary list of courses classified as “case
already made” includes classes on rock and roll, electronic
dance music, the American musical, documentaries and pre-Columbian
art. While some of these approved courses pertain solely to
Americans, other courses relating to different cultures are not
included.

Wouldn’t the experiences of Europeans have relevance to
diversity? Why are survey courses on the Greeks, the Romans, world
literature through the 20th century and the GE Cluster on history
of social thought excluded? The academic rationale for why the
former courses get diversity credit while the latter do not has
never been given.

The faculty cannot responsibly impose a new graduation
requirement on all undergraduates (including thousands of transfer
students) without specifying the detailed mechanism by which
required courses will be selected. We cannot provide the necessary
academic guidance for these far-reaching decisions merely by
writing a “blank check” to the GE Governance Committee
to work it all out in a great hurry.

My service on the committee convinces me that reviewing over 100
new proposals is too complicated and time-consuming to delegate
entirely to them.

What’s the solution? The faculty should be given more time
for adequate consideration to resolve these issues.

The next problem is that insufficient thought has been given to
the impact of this new requirement, on both students and
faculty.

The GE review asserts that the proposed requirement is
“not likely to have a discernible effect on enrollments in GE
courses.” If this were true, then there would be no
substantive reason to pass this requirement. Having achieved the
public relations goal of honoring diversity studies, there would be
no need to drag in the burdensome machinery of a new graduation
requirement.

Actually, it is likely that many students are not currently
taking any recommended diversity courses. The list has been
inflated by including restricted courses, such as those in the
Honors Collegium, seminars for majors and the second or third
quarters of some courses with enforced prerequisites.

But nobody has checked which students are taking which courses.
Because these courses are not spread uniformly across all
departments, many students will likely graduate with two or more of
them (history students). This would also mean there is a
significant number currently graduating with none (natural sciences
students).

The enrollment pressure on diversity courses would therefore
have to increase, while it decreases for non-diversity GE courses.
No planning for these redistributions of resources has been done.
The committee’s hopeful assertions that the new requirement
will not increase workload for anyone, and that departments which
fail to win diversity credit for their courses will not be
“penalized,” are unconvincing.

We must first find out how much the diversity course list will
alter student course choices. We can publish this list, and see
which courses students actually take. Only then will we have data
on which to base a decision about a possible requirement.

Malkan is a professor of physics and astronomy.