Report of the Diversity/Global Advisory Group
Submitted
to CASL Executive Committee
March
13, 2002
Committee
Kathryn
M. Anderson-Levitt, Chair, Behavioral Sciences
Neil
Flax, Humanites
John
Gillespie, Mathematics
Linda
Fisher, Natural Sciences
Gerald
Moran, Social Sciences
K.
H. Padmanabhan, School of Management
Leslie
Thornton, School of Education
Kesh
Varde, College of Engineering
Pamela
Gerald, CASL student
Jonathan
Glab, CASL student
Angel
Grubb, CASL student
Jody
Florkowski, CASL student
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The CASL Executive Committee formed the Diversity/Global Advisory Group in Winter 2001 and charged it to gather data and present alternatives on diversity education. The Advisory Group was guided in its work by several key reports and documents, including the last accreditation report on UM-D by the North Central Association (1993), the UM-D Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Education, information on requirements at other institutions gathered by CASL’s 1999 Task Force, a survey of colleges and universities nationwide by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2000), and a wide-ranging bibliography of relevant literature.
The first task of the Advisory Group was to consider the need for diversity education, in particular by getting a picture of what UM-D students are currently taking in the way of diversity courses. A study of graduates’ transcripts indicated that, defining diversity education in the broadest possible framework, at least one third of CASL students and 46% of all UM-D students take no diversity course at all. Using progressively stricter definitions, the number of students taking no diversity course climbs as high as 62% for CASL students and 73% for all UM-D students.
The Advisory Group then developed five key issues or questions to be considered in any future discussion of diversity education:
The Advisory Group prepared a chart (Table 2, page 8, in this report) which sets out the various options as they intersect with one another. The chart proved useful for keeping the choices in focus during the Group’s deliberations. Arguments for and against the various models and approaches are presented in the text of the report.
The Advisory Group zeroed in on four hypothetical models of diversity education which seemed to be particularly worthy of further consideration. The four models are set out in some detail. The sampling however is not intended to exclude discussion of other possible models.
After long deliberation, study, and the give-and-take of collegial discussion, the Advisory Group, by consensus, offers Recommendations on some of the key issues. With other issues, the Advisory Group simply presents the alternatives for further consideration by CASL faculty.
Recommendations:
Table of Contents
|
4 |
|
· What Are the Issues We Addressed? |
5 |
|
· Why Do We Need Diversity Education? |
9 |
|
· Are Students Already Taking Diversity Courses? |
12 |
|
· Global or National and Broad or Narrow Focus? |
14 |
|
· Awareness-raising or Critical Approach? |
15 |
|
· Voluntary or Mandatory Methods? |
16 |
|
· Specific Mandated Course(s) versus a Cafeteria-Style Requirement |
19 |
|
· Samples of Alternative Diversity Requirements |
21 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
References |
27 |
|
Appendices |
|
|
A. Glossary |
A-1 |
|
B. Graduating Student Survey 2000 |
A-2 |
|
C. Examples of Multicultural Course Requirements |
A-5 |
|
D. UMD Alumni Survey 1996-2000 |
A-9 |
|
E. Student Questionnaire |
A-10 |
|
F. The Study of Graduates’ Transcripts |
A-13 |
|
G. Lists of Courses Used in Transcript Study |
A-16 |
|
H. Transcript Study Data |
A-22 |
|
I. Thornton Proposal |
A-24 |
In December 1999, the Curriculum Committee of the College of Arts, Sciences and Letters (CASL) noted in a document entitled "General Education Distribution Requirements: Review and Recommendations,"
The committee believes that our College has a very real and important obligation to engage our students in the intellectual exploration of aspects of our multicultural campus community, the larger local community, and the world beyond. The committee believes that now is the time for our College to seriously consider adding this dimension to our distribution requirements. … The committee recommends specifically that the possibility be explored of identifying an inventory of courses throughout the College’s curriculum that address matters of cross-cultural dynamics.
In response, CASL established an ad hoc Committee on Multicultural Commonalities and Differences. The ad hoc Committee examined the practices on many other campuses but concluded, in a September 2000 memo to the Dean, "not to recommend a course in multiculturalism as a CASL requirement." However, discussion continued in the CASL Executive Committee, and in Winter 2001, CASL Executive Committee asked Katie Anderson-Levitt to form the current Advisory Group, with the charge to gather data and present alternatives.
Meanwhile, a campus-wide Task Force on Extending and Strengthening Undergraduate Education took up diversity as one of several issues it is exploring. The Task Force is treating this Advisory Group as a de facto subcommittee.
It is also relevant to note a recent motion of the Faculty Senate:
"The Faculty Senate endorses the concept of a diversity requirement for all schools and colleges on campus, and encourages the Task Force on Strengthening and Extending Undergraduate Education to review the Thornton Proposal as a starting point." (September 10, 2001, meeting, Senate Action 1.2; full minutes at http://www.umd.umich.edu/univ/facultysenate/index.html )
Since defining "multicultural" education is complex and controversial, we begin in Section 2 by laying out a grid of alternative approaches. In Section 3, we ask why the college should even consider diversity education, and in Section 4 examine whether students already take relevant courses. In Sections 5 and 6, we discuss alternative focuses and approaches to diversity education. Section 7 weighs the merits of a voluntary versus mandatory approach and Section 8 considers the merits of a mandatory course or course sequence versus a cafeteria-style approach. Section 9 discusses several specific examples of diversity requirements. Finally, we conclude with a number of recommendations.
Global or National and Broad or Narrow Focus
Diversity education can have a global focus, a national focus, or both. This report separates the issue of American ignorance of the world and its cultures and languages from the issue of diversity experienced in the local community. Hence, we distinguish a global from a national focus, even though we recognize that the two are interrelated. Section 5 discusses the distinction further.
National diversity may be defined more narrowly as "racial"/ethnic diversity, or it may be defined more broadly to include religion, social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, and ability/disability status as well as race and ethnicity. (A glossary in Appendix A discusses the meaning of some of these terms.) Section 5 will note arguments for a narrow and a broad definition.
Alternative Approaches
Education for diversity, often discussed under the rubric of "multicultural education," means different things to different people because people disagree on the basic goals to be accomplished. Table 1 lays out five different approaches identified by Sleeter and Grant (1987) as elaborated by Thornton and McEntee (1998). The Advisory Group extracted from this table a key distinction between awareness-raising and critical approaches. Awareness-raising approaches (such as approach 2 and, to some extent approach 4 in Table 1) aim to reduce stereotypes and increase tolerance through improved awareness, whereas critical approaches (approaches 3 and 5 in Table 1) aim to analyze or challenge social inequities. We have used this distinction throughout this report, and note arguments for each approach in Section 6.
Voluntary versus Mandatory Methods
There are different pedagogical methods, from purely voluntary events to a mandated course sequence. The campus could approach diversity education in a variety of voluntary ways, as it does to a limited extent already. For example, students could be encouraged (but not required) to attend co-curricular activities such as speakers and workshops that tackle diversity issues. If the campus chooses to develop first-year seminars, some seminars might focus on diversity issues, such as the history of the Detroit-Dearborn border.
|
Table 1. How is Multicultural Education Understood and Practiced in the United States? Approach Description
"Attempts
to raise the achievement of students of color mainly through designing
culturally compatible education programs" (Sleeter 1991:11). Easily
collapses into remediation for the purpose of assimilation (Thornton &
McEntee 1998).
Aims
to foster positive feelings (avoiding conflict) and reduce stereotypes and
thus to promote unity and tolerance (Thornton & McEntee 1998).
Programs
such as Women’s Studies or African American Studies explicitly teach about
the history of the group’s oppression.
"Attempts
to redesign classrooms and schools to model an unoppressive, equal society
which is also culturally diverse." (Sleeter 1991:11). Promotes respect
for those different from oneself, social justice, and equity in distribution
of power.
"Forges a coalition
among various oppressed groups as well as members of dominant groups,
teaching directly about political and economic oppression and discrimination,
and preparing … social action skills" (Sleeter 1991:12). From Sleeter and
Grant (1987) and other scholars as elaborated by Thornton and McEntee (1998). |
Discipline-based requirements are voluntary only in the sense that students choose the program that requires them. The English discipline on our campus has established a diversity requirement for its majors, and all students getting an elementary or secondary teaching credential through the School of Education must fulfill an education diversity requirement.
Finally, a school or college or, conceivably, the entire campus might establish a requirement for all students regardless of major. Students retain a degree of choice with "cafeteria-style" requirements whereas a mandated course or course sequence ensures that all students have the same experience.
A recent survey by the American Association of Colleges and Universities survey of 543 colleges and universities found "a wide array of different models for diversity requirements." However, by far the most common (used by 68 percent of institutions with a requirement), was a "cafeteria" approach in which students are required to take one course among a list of approved diversity courses. Seventeen percent require all students to take a single course with a shared syllabus, while 12 percent have a diversity requirement within one or more major. (Humphreys 2000).
Overview with Examples
In order to discuss alternative focuses, approaches, and methods, we have mapped out a chart (Table 2). Along the left side, we distinguish a national from a global focus and, within each focus, an awareness-raising from a critical approach. The first two columns list voluntary methods, distinguishing ad hoc activities and events from the curricular choices made by individual students. The last three columns list mandatory methods, from discipline-based requirements, to "cafeteria-style" requirements for all students, to mandated courses or course sequences.
Within each box of Table 2, you will find one or two examples—far from an exhaustive list—of specific activities or policies illustrating diversity education as defined by that cell. Some are examples of what already happens at UM-Dearborn and some are examples of hypothetical diversity requirements. For example, students who choose certain majors like International Studies or who enroll on their own initiative in courses like "Immigrants USA" voluntarily raise their awareness of global cultural differences (row 1, column 2). Those who choose certain majors like economics, history, anthropology, or sociology might, but do not necessarily, choose courses that encourage critical analysis of local diversity or the global system (row 2, column 2). The foreign language requirement might be considered a mandatory set of courses that raises students’ awareness of national cultural differences to the extent that students in the lower division courses learn not just communication skills but cultural content (row 3, column 5).
This report will examine in some detail four approaches not yet tried at UM-Dearborn: A mandated course sequence taking a critical approach to national diversity (the Thornton proposal, row 2, column 5), a cafeteria-style awareness-raising approach to race and ethnicity (row 1, column 4), a cafeteria-style critical approach to diversity broadly defined (row 2, column 4), and a cafeteria-style awareness-raising approach to global education (row 3, column 4) that might be adapted for a more critical approach.
Table 2. Issues in Defining Diversity Education, with Examples
|
|
|
Voluntary |
Mandatory |
|||
|
Focus |
Goal |
Ad hoc activities |
Curricular choices |
Discipline-based |
"Cafeteria-style" |
Mandated courses |
|
National Diversity* |
Raising awareness |
Diversity Day (food and music in the ROC) |
Courses chosen as electives or a part of a major such as Immigrants USA; Arabic Lit & Culture … |
English discipline: All majors take one course expanding on "Anglo-American curriculum," such as African-American Lit |
"Ethnic-cultural" requirement (in this report): one from a list of courses such as Immigrants USA; Arabic Lit & Culture |
|
|
Critical analysis |
Sugrue’s Text-in-Community talk on segregation in Detroit |
Courses chosen as electives or a part of a major such as Gender Roles; Sociology of Poverty … |
Multiculturalism in School & Society (required of all students for elementary or secondary certification) |
"Equity" requirement (in this report): one from a list of courses such as Gender Roles; Sociology of Poverty … |
A mandatory specific 2-course sequence: critical analysis of US diversity + field experience (Thornton Proposal, this report) |
|
|
Global Diversity |
Raising awareness |
Middle Eastern Series talk on architecture & Islam |
Courses such as France of Today, Japanese Society & Culture … |
|
"Global" requirement (in this report): one from a list of courses such as France of Today, Japanese Society & Culture … |
Foreign language requirement if 101- & 102-level courses give substantial attention to culture. |
|
Critical analysis |
Teach-ins and talks about Afghanistan |
Course such as America in a Global Society, Politics of Developing Areas … |
|
(Some courses in "global" requirement this report) |
|
|
*National diversity may be defined more
narrowly as "racial"/ethnic diversity, or it may be defined more
broadly to include religion, social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, and
ability/disability status as well as race and ethnicity.
In the broadest sense, liberal education requires some kind of education for diversity:
Acknowledging diversity is consistent with the traditional goal of college and university liberal education. That goal is and always has been, for even the most conservative and traditional professors at the most conservative and traditional institutions, to pose and explore alternatives that change students’ lives. [Bruffee 2002:11]
However, the Advisory Group notes more immediate pressures to consider diversity education in the context of UM-Dearborn’s goals, in the context of the expectations of our accrediting body and peer campuses, and in the context of the world for which we must prepare our students.
Campus Goals for Undergraduate Education
One of UM-Dearborn’s Goals for Undergraduate Education specifically addresses cultural diversity: "Make use of diverse historical, philosophical, and artistic contexts to understand both our own and other cultures." Given the growing complexity of ethnicity and gender in the corporate world one might note as a second relevant goal: "Understand the world of work and develop skills for participation in it." If one takes a critical approach to diversity education, then the Goals centered on critical thinking become relevant as well
Unfortunately, the Graduating Student Survey of 1997, 1998, and 2000 showed that of all nine Goals for Undergraduate Education, graduates found the goal of understanding cultures the least well met (Appendix B). (In 1999, understanding the world of work edged out understanding cultures as least well met.) Moreover, only 51% of the respondents to the Graduating Student Survey of 2000 reported that they were satisfied or well satisfied with "racial harmony" on campus.
The Influence of Accrediting Bodies and Other Universities
We also note the remarks of North Central Association visitors in their last accreditation visit (1993):
"Any significant attention to diversity issues is essentially omitted from the curriculum" (p. 14, in section on College of Arts, Sciences and Letters)
"While efforts have been made to address the diversity issue, the level of success as measured by student recruitment, retention and graduation rates, faculty composition in selected areas, and curricular multiculturalism is limited." (p. 35, in Section III)
"The present general education requirements are entirely Euro-centric." (p.11, in Educational Programs)
These remarks may be interpreted in the context of a nationwide trend. In a survey by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 62 percent of 543 colleges and universities responding to reported that they either have in place a diversity requirement (54 percent) or were in the process of developing one (8 percent). Of those with requirements, 25 percent have had them in place for more than ten years, 45 percent have had them in place for five to ten years, and 30 percent have had the requirements for less than five years. A majority of those schools with requirements (58 percent) require only one course, while the rest require two or more diversity courses (Humphreys 2000).
The same report cited "a national opinion poll of registered voters sponsored by the Ford Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative in the Fall of 1998 [which] found that 68 percent of those polled support ‘requiring students to take at least one cultural and ethnic diversity course in order to graduate.’ An even larger majority (94 percent) agreed that ‘America’s growing diversity makes it more important than ever for all of us to understand people who are different from ourselves.’" (Humphreys 2000).
In 1999, CASL’s ad hoc Committee on Multicultural Commonalities and Differences also investigated diversity requirements at 13 neighboring and other institutions, and found that most of the schools they looked at had a requirement (Table 3). Appendix C contains excerpts from some of these requirements.
The Need to Prepare Students
Finally, students need to be prepared as citizens and workers in a diverse—and inequitable—society. Metro Detroit has the most highly segregated black and white neighborhoods in the United States (Farley et al. 2000; Schmitt 2001). Access to education still varies widely by "racial" lines, with 10.9% of Hispanics, 15.4% of blacks, but 25.9% of whites having spent four or more years in college (Bureau of the Census 2000). Metro Detroit is also ethnically diverse; for example, 16% of the city of Dearborn is Arab-American (Farley et al. 2000). As documented by UM-Dearborn’s Pluralism Project, this area is the site of remarkable religious diversity, with about 200 different religions and sects represented (Claude Jacobs, personal communication). As for social class, most Americans claim to belong to the middle class. Yet the United States actually has the second most uneven distribution of income among the 46 most developed nations; the richest quintile of our population earns almost 9 times as much as the poorest quintile, and 14.1% of our population falls below the UN-defined poverty line (UNDP 2000: 172). Women have made great strides, but have not achieved gender equity. As of 1999, women’s earnings averaged 72.2% of men’s earnings (U.S. Dept. of Labor 2000). Among full-time workers, the average women with a college school degree earns about as much as the average man with a high school degree (Thornborrow & Sheldon 1995). U.S. undergraduates tend to be naïve about gender discrepancies (Stone & McKee 2000). Meanwhile, violence against gays and lesbians is still treated as normal rather than deviant, notably among straight college students (Franklin 2000; Green et al. 1998).
Table 3. Requirements at Neighboring and Other Institutions
|
Central Michigan |
2 requirements: "Global Cultures" and "Racism and Cultural Diversity in the U.S." |
|
Eastern Michigan |
"Cross-cultural or International Studies" |
|
Michigan State |
No diversity requirement |
|
Oakland |
"Ethnic Diversity" |
|
UM-AA, LS&A |
"Race and Ethnicity" |
|
UM-Flint |
"Area Options" including foreign languages and Western and non-Western courses as alternatives |
|
Wayne State |
"Civilizations & Societies" (includes Western and non-Western courses) |
|
U Minnesota-Morris |
Two courses from two of these areas: Human Diversity, People and the Environment, International Perspective, Ethical and Civic Responsibility |
|
Indiana-South Bend |
"World Culture" |
|
Wisconsin-LaCrosse |
2 requirements: Minority Cultures or Multiracial Women’s Studies and International and Multicultural Studies |
|
Missouri-Columbia |
No diversity requirement |
|
Washington State |
"Intercultural Studies" |
The need to learn how to handle oneself in a diverse community begins long before graduation. Although UM-Dearborn continues to seek to improve campus climate, students find themselves faced with gender issues, persistent if underground ethnic and racial tensions, and instances of homophobia (Agenda for Women 2000; Report of the Diversity Assessment Committee 1996).
Meanwhile, students need to be prepared for an international workplace even if they spend their entire careers in Metro Detroit. Globalization is a reality, both in terms of "the compression of the world" and in terms of "the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" (Robertson 1992: 9). Even for those who do not travel, interaction with immigrants here in this country has increased as the foreign-born now make up 9% of the population (Ferraro 2002:10). Yet Americans remain notoriously ignorant of geography and languages (Ferraro 2002: 9-15). We liked to believe, at least until September 11, that mainstream U.S. culture now dominates the globe, but in fact "globalization is not the story of cultural homogenization" (Appadurai 1997:11; compare Watson 1997).
A five-year study of UM-Dearborn alumni shows that our graduates rate as fairly important the goal of "Getting along with people from various cultures, races, backgrounds, etc." (3.52 on a 4-point scale; see Appendix D). Yet this goal was among those where alumni saw the greatest gap between its importance and UM-Dearborn’s impact on the goal. Incidentally, it may concern faculty, especially in light of September 11, that alumni rated "Understanding international issues (political, economic, etc.)" as almost the least important of 19 goals.
The Advisory Group’s own survey of a small sample of current students (n=87) confirmed a widely held opinion that students need diversity education. Two-thirds of the students in our sample, which we acknowledge is not perfectly representative of the student body, felt that there should be a requirement of some kind. It was particularly interesting to note that students in our sample who are taking or have taken the diversity course required by the School of Education are overwhelmingly in favor of a requirement. See Appendix E for a sample of the students’ comments.
When assessing the need for action and the possible impact of any change in curriculum, it is important to know whether students are already studying diversity issues on their own initiative or in the context of their particular majors. Therefore, the Advisory Group commissioned a study from Institutional Research. We wanted to know how many of our students had taken relevant courses by the time they graduated. As a sample, we chose the entire population of students who graduated during the academic year 1999-2000. Recent graduating classes have resembled each other closely, IR advises us, so that this population may be taken as fairly typical.
To conduct the study, we had to imagine what courses on a student’s transcript might have been relevant. Rather than producing a single list of courses, we tested three different models. Two focus mainly on national diversity. One was a "tolerance" model that defined diversity broadly and took a critical approach. In some ways it resembles the "equity" model we will discuss below. Another nationally focused model was the "cross-cultural" model, which was limited to "racial"/ethnic diversity limited to ethnic and national cultures that takes a "human relations" approach (see below). The third model, a "global" model, listed courses focusing on other nations and regions. See Appendix F for details on the study, Appendix G for the lists of courses, and Appendix H for the findings.
As measured by this study, 65% of UMD majors (60% of CASL majors) graduated without taking any of the 31 courses listed on our "ethnic-cultural" list; 56% of UMD majors (44% of CASL majors) graduated without taking any of the 39 courses listed on our "equity" list; 73% of UMD majors (62% of CASL majors) graduated without taking any of the 46 courses listed on our "global" model (Table 4).
Admittedly, these rates will vary depending on how broadly one defines diversity education and on the corresponding length of the list of courses. Thus if one combines our two models that focus on local diversity, the "diversity" and "cross-cultural" models, one finds that a somewhat smaller group of majors did not take any relevant course. If one combines all three of our models, including cross-national as well as cross-cultural, ethnic, class, gender and other diversity, one finds that 46% of our graduates (33% of CASL students) took no relevant course (Table 5).
|
|
Rates varied significantly across the schools and colleges. One reason is that the School of Education requires almost all of its students to take Exploratory Studies 410, Multiculturalism in School and Society, which we considered a "diversity" course and a "cross-cultural" course. The pressures of other curriculum requirements and students’ own preferences, as reflected by major, also seem to play a role. The variation across CASL departments seems to confirm the relevance of a student’s choice of major (Table 6).
In summary, this study suggests that a third of CASL students and a majority of UM-Dearborn students are not electing any sort of diversity course on their own. The exceptions to this rule are the Social Sciences and Humanities Departments and the School of Education
|
National versus Global Focus
The Advisory Group recognizes that a national and a global focus overlap to some degree. For example, both national and global diversity education might call for skills in inter-cultural communication (per the human relations approach 2 in Table 1). Both might require an understanding of the unequal distribution of power, privilege and wealth (per approaches 4 and 5 in Table 1). Moreover, since ethnic diversity in the United States results in part from immigration, an understanding of immigrants’ original national cultures and of world economic and political conditions that drive immigration can contribute to an understanding of local ethnic variation.
However, many of the advisory group members feel that addressing local and global issues require rather different curricula. There is very little overlap between the lists of courses we developed to approximate nationally focused diversity requirements (the "ethnic-cultural" and "equity" models) and the list we developed to approximate a global requirement (see Appendix G).
The question then becomes, do CASL students need diversity education focused on the national or on the global? If they need both, should we propose two distinct requirements? On the one hand, our Transcript Study suggests that more UMD students lack even minimal exposure to global issues than to national diversity issues in their coursework. On the other hand, at least some Advisory Group members argue that the more compelling and urgent need is for students to learn how to be citizens in their own diverse community and nation.
Narrowly versus Broadly Defined Diversity
A global focus usually implies a focus on cross-national differences (although in the process of comparing countries or analyzing the world system one may examine ethnicity, social class, gender and other diversity issues from country to country).
However, among those who focus on the United States,
Some educators address only race and ethnicity (e.g., Bennett, 1986; Gay, 1983), some address race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., Baptiste and Baptiste, 1979), some focus on race, ethnicity, and language (e.g., Hernandez, 1989), and some address multiple forms of oppression, including race, ethnicity, language, gender, social class, and disability (e.g., Banks and Banks, 1989; Gollnick and Chinn, 1986; Grant, 1977; Sleeter and Grant, 1988). [Sleeter 1991: 10]
As Sleeter goes on to explain, some scholars argue for limiting the focus to race and ethnicity (as LS&A’s Race and Ethnicity requirement does in Ann Arbor) because "multicultural education’s assault on racism will be weakened considerably if it is also attempting to deal simultaneously with additional forms of discrimination" (1991:17). Others argue that diversity education should be more inclusive because "all people are members simultaneously of at least one racial group, ethnic group, language community, gender group, social-class group, and other groups based on age, religion, and so forth" (Sleeter 1991:17) Moreover, differences exist and oppression has been experienced on the bases of all those ways of categorizing people.
As noted, awareness-raising approaches to diversity education aim to increase tolerance through improved awareness. In contrast, critical approaches question the assumption that "if exposed to enough information, individuals will eventually ‘see the light’ and change" (Thornton & McNee 1998:148). Critical approaches aim to analyze or challenge social inequities.
The distinction between increased awareness and a critique of inequities can be applied to education focused on global as well as on national diversity. One can design a global curriculum that emphasizes the understanding of other national cultures, as do many of our modern language courses, or one can design a curriculum that offers a critical analysis of the distribution of wealth and power in the world, as do certain of our courses in economics, political science, and history.
Some faculty members would argue for awareness-raising on the grounds that it represents a more positive, less divisive approach. Some characterize a critical approach as "political." Other faculty members would argue for a critical approach on the grounds that it addresses the realities of unequal power or resources that lie behind many kinds of diversity. They would say that not to acknowledge those realities is a position no less "political" than to discuss them.
In this section, we attempt to present as fully and fairly as possible arguments both for and against voluntary and mandatory methods of addressing diversity education.
Argument for Voluntary Methods
Although the Goals for the Undergraduate Experience state that "Undergraduate education at UM-D is designed specifically to aid students in learning to … make use of diverse historical, philosophical, and artistic contexts to understand both their own and other cultures," what that "aid" might be is up to the faculty to determine. As noted in Section 2 of this report, we might aid students through voluntary co-curricular events or by allowing them to choose diversity courses on their own initiative.
The liberal arts and sciences curriculum is designed to meet two competing goals: To require, through the distribution requirements, the student to take a broad range of courses whereby the student acquires a base of knowledge leading to a range of opportunities; to permit the student to customize a program of study to focus on particular interests in support of specific life goals. Implicit in any system of distribution requirements is the notion that the faculty knows best regarding what students should generally study as part of a liberal arts and sciences education. Implicit in the customized program is the notion that students are adults who should make their own decisions about what to learn. The question we face now is: Does another requirement improve the education of our students enough that it merits the decrease in the freedom of choice the student suffers?
It is important to allow students choice whenever possible. Some students may use their freedom of choice unwisely but most don’t. In fact, it is hard not to be impressed with what students do in the context of a liberal arts and sciences degree. In theory, students learn better when they choose to learn. In fact, resentment over a requirement could become a barrier to learning about diversity. Similarly, faculty prefer to teach to students who "want to be there."
Moreover, many faculty see no educational need for a diversity requirement. There is no broad based dissatisfaction as evidenced by faculty discussion at College meetings. It is a reasonable conjecture that many faculty teach on diversity already in their courses and that most students have had exposure to other cultures in contexts not identified by our Transcript Study. The current system seems to serve the students well based on the lack of vocal student complaints and the success of our graduates.
On the contrary, some faculty express concerns about mandatory methods. A diversity requirement would result in unpredictable shifts in enrollment patterns. It might affect some departments disproportionately and adversely in terms of use of faculty resources. A requirement would also place an additional burden on students who already find it difficult to graduate in four years, even if diversity courses could "double-count" to satisfy other distribution requirements simultaneously.
Finally, there is the question of values expressed by the curriculum. Some faculty have expressed considerations or misgivings about a possible requirement on national diversity, particularly if it is a mandated course or course sequence. They fear that such a course would promote a particular doctrine of how issues in these areas must be thought about, or that political ideology may play an undue role. They also fear that that multiculturalism promotes treating all cultures as having the same value, or devalues American or even dismisses American or Western culture.
Argument for Mandatory Methods (a Diversity Requirement)
Earlier sections of this report demonstrate the importance of diversity education. If the faculty agrees that diversity education is important, it will need to make it mandatory to ensure that the desired goal is met. If it is an important value for our campus, then all students must participate in it.
In a voluntary system, the students already
thinking critically about diversity issues would be those most likely to attend
such optional activities. Those who could most benefit would be left out.
Voluntary programs often "preach to the choir." Indeed, the
Transcript Study suggests that students tend to take what is mandated.
Moreover, many of our students are busy, even harried, with work and family
responsibilities. For example, among seniors graduating in 2000, 56% worked 20
hours or more a week and 19% worked 40 hours or more (Graduating Student Survey
2000). Voluntary co-curricular events will attract few busy students.
The fear of student resentment, founded or unfounded, is no reason to avoid a requirement. The faculty does require courses in several other areaseven though some students resent these requirements and even though they may learn less well because of their resistance. We do so because we judge that we know better than the students what they need to learn. As for students who "don’t want to be there," most faculty find some unwilling students in some of their courses and hence address issues of motivation as well as content. In the case of a diversity requirement, however, it might be possible to minimize this problem. For example, in the case of a mandated course or course sequence, only willing faculty would be recruited to teach the diversity curriculum. In the case of a cafeteria-style requirement, faculty might opt to offer their course or section or to keep it off the list by submitting or withholding their syllabus from consideration for the approved list of courses.
Although College faculty are not unanimous about the need for a requirement, there is in fact dissatisfaction among many faculty with the status quo, as evidenced by the recent Faculty Senate resolution cited above. We note also that in 2000 the Agenda for Women committee, which included 8 faculty members, 2 students and 1 alumna among its 17 members, recommended "Required coursework on diversity, including gender diversity, for students as part of their general education."
On the question of student need, it is possible that faculty address diversity issues in courses not identified by the Transcript Study, but the 81 different courses included in the study represent a significant portion of our curriculum. Although students have not demonstrated for a diversity requirement, the Graduating Senior Surveys and the Alumni Survey cited earlier suggest greater dissatisfaction with education for diversity and with campus racial climate than with most other elements of the UM-Dearborn experience. In addition, the surveys of other campuses cited above suggests that UM-Dearborn graduates are currently at a disadvantage in terms of their preparation for a diverse society and workplace when compared to graduates from Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wayne State, Oakland, Eastern Michigan, and the majority of U.S. four-year institutions.
Concerns about enrollment shifts are understandable. However, the Transcript Study suggests that more than half of CASL students already take a diversity course and almost 40% take a global course, so that the impact of a cafeteria-style requirement would not be severe as some anticipate.
Concern about the burden on students is also well founded. Some mandatory approaches can be arranged to allow "double-counting" so that students do not necessarily face an extra burden. In fact, "double-counting" is practiced in Ann Arbor and was recommended by the CASL Curriculum Committee in its December 1999 report. However, it is precisely because our students are burdened by course requirements, not to mention work and family responsibilities, that something as important as diversity education cannot be left for them to address in their "leisure" hours.
We recognize that a diversity requirement represents a value judgment, as does every distribution requirement. However, we think the value of preparing students to be better citizens and workers in a diverse nation and world is widely held and important to the faculty. Moreover, to choose not to include diversity in general education is just as "political" a choice as to include it, for every value judgment and every decision about policy is "political."
Having a mandatory requirement ensures that all students will get minimal exposure to the diversity of people who make up our community or our world. The potential benefits to the campus community and the community at large outweigh any argument