Column:

Setting the record straight on diversity course requirement

By ChaToyya Sewell

Published March 19, 2010

For obvious reasons the proposed diversity course requirement is in the forefront of many minds on campus lately. Whether you support or are against the proposed requirement, these decisions should be based on factual information.

For the last three semesters, I have been an acting co-chairwoman in Four Front, which is a coalition of minority student groups on campus. Our mission is to support each other in advocating for a campus that is more inclusive and representative of those with minority backgrounds.

For the last eight years, Four Front has been working closely with faculty and staff to amend the general education requirements to include a diversity course requirement.

It is important to note a diversity course requirement differs from a diversity course. Our proposal is for a certification system, a system not without precedent on our campus. We are holding that courses be certified as meeting the diversity requirement in a method modeled after the way writing-intensive certification is given on our campus.

This would not be a course that brought out the laundry list of diverse issues. This would not be something unproductive and limiting for students from marginalized backgrounds by portraying communities as monolithic.

Instead the courses certified would be embedded with components, which are up to the discretion of faculty council if this measure passes, that we would hope to either teach students to have these controversial discussions in a culturally-competent and sensitive way or provide some history on different under-represented groups.

Another concern I hear frequently is students would be penalized for their political beliefs in courses that have a political agenda. I respect academic plurality as a cornerstone of what academia is built on and would not threaten that. Academic plurality statements are enacted in all departments, outlining steps a student can take should they feel discriminated against because of their beliefs, making this myth an impossibility.

Furthermore, we envision a broad range of topics certified for the requirement allowing students to choose something they feel comfortable with and some without current political ramifications. For example, a student who would not feel comfortable taking a course addressing women's reproductive choices would be able to take a course over the first dynasties of Ancient China, or something similarly lacking in political discussions.

We want these courses to be safe spaces for respectful conversation to thrive. In order to limit those whose resentment of the course will damage the experience of others, a broad array of courses should be available to tempt all palates, so to speak.

Because of the broad range of courses we envision being certified, the possibility of cross-listed courses would be upped, making this weight neutral in terms of academic course loads.

Like writing-intensive, we would hope diversity-certified courses would be embedded in most majors or could be applicable for other general education requirements, such as the humanities or social science requirement.

We are not a forerunner in this field, contrary to popular belief. Universities like the University of Michigan, among many others, have enacted diversity course requirements or similar programs to success in their general education requirements.

In the last two years, I have been involved with this work (Four Front co-chairpersons have been leading this initiative for eight years), I have learned so much.

I've learned about researching outcomes, presenting initiatives and that political realities do not always match ideological hope. I've learned patience, resistance and activism. I've also learned the world is quickly changing. For MU to continue to produce successful graduates in all fields, we need to realize this is a global economy we are living in, and the ability to be culturally competent is a highly marketable skill.