Editorial: Diversity requirement deserves solid conclusion

After 17 years, faculty members voted 141 to 108 against an
academic diversity requirement last month. But the faculty must
remain committed to the concept of diversity and both sides should
work quickly to ensure the issue doesn’t slip away into
another 17 years of debate.

The faculty members who called it vague were correct: the
defeated proposal was designed with minimal disruption to the
existing curricula. Although no statistics were released, most
students would have likely taken an approved class regardless.
Meant to be an easy sell, its value was largely symbolic.

Now that the easy path has been rejected, the faculty cannot
ignore the underlying issue: UCLA remains the only UC campus
without such a requirement.

The University should confirm the importance of diversity and
make sure students have the opportunity to explore questions about
race, gender, sexuality and class with within an academic
context.

Making diversity part of the curriculum will give structure and
meaning to the experiences students already have while living in
Los Angeles and attending UCLA.

Students understand this need better than anyone. Elected
student leaders began advocating for such a requirement over 15
years ago. Since then, various committees have voted down every
proposal.

Last spring, student activists protested in a tent city on
campus to bring the issue renewed attention. The cause was also a
prominent feature in the campaigns of many student council
members.

After the demonstration, faculty leaders promised to implement a
requirement by Fall 2005 ““ provided the proposal pass a vote
by the Academic Senate.

That vote finally occurred during the last week of fall quarter
and was the first time the issue has successfully passed out of the
Faculty Executive Committee. However, out of 1,262 eligible faculty
members, only 249 individuals went online to vote, and the proposal
now stands narrowly defeated.

The lack of faculty interest is surprising, especially
considering how strongly students feel about the issue. After all
how often do students take an organized, prolonged and proactive
interest in the greater structure of their education?

The faculty must heed these calls.

A diversity requirement would not mean rewriting the entire list
of GEs, nor should it impinge on the academic freedom of
professors.

After nearly two decades of failed attempts and fizzled
discussion, it’s time to decide the fate of the diversity
requirement. Its advocates should establish a proposal that
inspires, and not settle for symbolic substitutions. Perhaps they
should consider a stricter definition or something more unorthodox,
such as a senior thesis, community project or individual study.

Additionally, the full Academic Senate ““ not just the 19.7
percent that voted in December ““ should decide if it is
committed to implementing a diversity requirement. If faculty
members are truly indifferent or opposed, they should voice their
views. Their silence has been the most unproductive and troubling
component of this saga.

It is time for a conclusion.