• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

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.