Search News


Browse Archives

News

Next Generation Diversity

October 27, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In the 1980s, many colleges adopted diversity requirements, typically telling students that they had to take at least one course about a non-Western culture or about an American minority group. These requirements frequently set off heated debates, with proponents talking about the need for diversity, and critics shouting about political correctness.

Williams College is in the process of changing such a requirement -- with far more civility than characterized many of those '80s discussions. In the process, faculty members have managed to be quite critical of the old requirement -- while coming up with a new way to require study of a broad range of groups.

The old system at Williams was pretty basic. Students had to take a course about a minority group or a non-Western group. Anything that met that basic criterion could count, and got a "people and cultures" asterisk. "It was a good idea. It grew from nice liberal white guilt," but it stopped being effective some time ago, according to Christopher Waters, a history professor who is overseeing the new system. The requirement was so vague that it didn't have any real meaning, he said. Further, the idea that students needed to study a non-white group to represent difference doesn't make sense when the college has attracted a much larger share of non-white Americans and of international students.

"This requirement was seen as a joke," Waters said. "We were sticking things with the asterisk  without a solid intellectual justification. I think a lot of our international students wondered what on earth this was about, and many of our non-white students viewed it as tokenism. Why would our minority students need to take such a course?" (A series of articles and editorials in The Williams Record, the student newspaper, reflect widespread student frustration with the requirement -- regardless of students' ethnicity or politics.)

So after a year of deliberation, the Williams faculty voted to do away with all the asterisk designations and to instead require that the diversity requirement be about more than some "other" group. The "exploring diversity" courses can't just be about another group or culture, but must "include an explicit and critical self-reflection on and immersion in a culture or people," according to the college's new policy.

Courses could do that in several ways:

  • Through comparative study of cultures and societies.
  • Through curriculums that encourage "empathetic understanding" of diverse groups by "recreating the social, political, cultural, and historical context of a group to imagine why within that context, those beliefs, experiences, and actions of the group have emerged."
  • Through study of "power and privilege."
  • Through "critical theorization" in which students explore the ways scholars analyze cross-cultural interaction.
  • Through "cultural immersion," which could involve study abroad or through foreign language courses that "explicitly engage in the self-conscious awareness of cultural and societal differences, traditions, and customs."

The new approach is at once more demanding (a course can't just be about a group) and much more broad. Courses about gender and sexuality could qualify. Courses about various Western societies could qualify. Courses that are critical of the groups they explore could qualify.

Edward Burger, a professor of mathematics who was chair of the Committee on Education Policy, the faculty body that led discussion of the changes, said that the old system was premised on the idea that Williams students were white. "It identified us. It said, 'we're white guys who are now taking courses to learn about people of other colors.' At its core, that's very racist if you think about it."

Burger said that he is particularly pleased with the way the change shifts the goal away from learning some facts about another group to learning to understand other people's ideas and approach to life. He said, for example, that a course might qualify that explored the antebellum South in which students would learn, among other things, why white farmers might have backed the Confederate cause. "We'd want students to actively engage that mindset -- suppose you were a farmer in Georgia. How would you feel about people in the North telling you about slaves?"

These courses aren't going to focus on agreeing with groups, but understanding them, and that's why it's possible to give an example of a group of ideas (pro-slavery) that students and professors certainly wouldn't endorse, Burger said. He said that the "empathy" component was especially important in light of the way the world is changing.

"When we hear that halfway around the world, people are burning down stores because of cartoons of Muhammad, we need to be able to do more than think that these people are wacky," Burger said. That doesn't mean students need to agree with those views, but they need to have some basis for understanding, he said.

William G. Wagner, dean of the faculty at Williams, said that he thought some of the good that would come from the change would arise from faculty members' explicitly thinking about how their courses would fill the requirement, as opposed to just having the designation added. "Under the new requirement, not only will courses need to include a more self-conscious and rigorous examination of the concept and methods of studying diversity, but faculty teaching the courses will need to demonstrate how they satisfy the objectives of the requirement," he said.

Many of the courses that used to qualify may still qualify, of course, and professors stressed that many of the underlying values that led to the original requirement were still valid.

In part as a result, the changes have won support from faculty who teach ethnic studies, who also see value in the new approach.

Carmen Whelan, co-chair of Latina/o studies at Williams and an associate professor of history, said she was "very supportive" of the new approach. Many diversity requirements were created in part as a counter to "institutional racism in the curriculum" that resulted in many parts of history and culture being ignored or denigrated, she said. Courses that meet the new requirement will still provide a balance to traditional offerings, she said.

"But I think diversity comes in many forms, and the new initiative here is to really broaden those definitions of diversity," she said. "And in this way, diversity requirements can continue."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Next Generation Diversity

  • reportorial empathy
  • Posted by junglegymn , Prof. at CUNY on October 27, 2006 at 8:05am EDT
  • We all need to learn why proponents talk but critics shout.

  • Dealing with reality
  • Posted by Jonathan cohen on October 27, 2006 at 10:01am EDT
  • There is a wise saying that goes something like this:

    "If you've dug yourself a hole you need a ladder not a shovel."

    The article sounds like there is some recognition that the diversity in the curriculum has brought a lot of baggage with it but the bullet points of what Williams College plans to do suggest they are only digging themselves in deeper.

    The problem stems from how the relevant courses are approached. There is an activist core of faculty that has been pushing faculty to talk about race, ethnicity and gender in their courses. This in itself is a reasonable idea. Unfortunately, the worth of this idea depends on how it is implemented and most schools that agree to do this show very little common sense in realizing what they are dealing with.

    There are three approaches to these kinds of courses.

    1. You can take a scholarly, historic approach talking about the debates that have taken place, doing in readings of various sides in the disputes. With this approach you cover women's suffrage, the debates over slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

    2. You can go for a more psychological approach and open up your classroom to try to get people to explore what they really feel about issues of race and gender. If this is done honestly, it could bring out frank discussions that could be in the long run beneficial but also will result in considerable emotional turmoil along the way.

    3. Finally, you can go the way I suspect most of these programs do which is what I would call the "scripted" approach. The students are made fearful of offending anyone, are taught that any kind of criticism of identity politics is a terrible thing and the worst crime that can be committed is to offend someone's race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, abledness, etc.

    The third approach is the most common and it amounts to little more than an ideological campaign to justify preferences based on gender and race. It is the approach demanded by faculty and staff who are most likely to have attained their jobs from such preferences. The approach is coming from the offices of diversity, the faculty in advocacy departments such as womens and gender studies and from faculty members in other departments whose role is to cover issues of race, gender, ethnic studies, etc.

    Most campuses have managed to create what amounts to a political cult on campus. These staff, faculty and student allies are more concerned about preserving the narrative of pervasive institutional bias against minorities and women than trying to give students an honest education. They inhabit an insular world in which the university is viewed as a hostile environment in which the university must enact rigid speech codes and anti-harassment offices to create safe places for minorities and women.

    Getting back to the article, my point is that university communities have dug themselves a deep hole by constantly giving in to demands made in the name of diversity. We can try to get out by using the "shovel" of more courses on "power relationships" and "understanding the other" or we can use the "ladder" of remembering that we are schools and get back to the business of educating our students rather than indoctrinating them.

  • Critical comments?
  • Posted by David Kane on October 27, 2006 at 10:16am EDT
  • This article would have been a lot more interesting if you had interviewed a critic, or at least one person who isn't employed by Williams.

  • You've GOT to be kidding
  • Posted by Prof. Challenger on October 27, 2006 at 11:16am EDT
  • After laying out very compelling, well-articulted arguments about why the old requirements were silly, condescending, illogical, and self-defeating, the article goes on to describe a "new" system that seems to suffer from the same set of problems...only worse. Rather than taking a meaningful approach to "diversity," the "new" requirements are simply more of the same tired obsession with pigmentation and genitalia.

  • Posted by Prof at Diversity University , What about Diversity of Thought? on October 27, 2006 at 12:21pm EDT
  • The criteria for courses, including “empathetic understanding” and the study of “power and privilege” suggest the same political agenda that has driven this curriculum at Williams and other institutions. Diversity must reflect diverse thinking and ideas, of which the course criteria say nothing at all. I suspect that Prof. Challenger's ideas (see above) would be most unwelcome.

  • Posted by no nonsense on October 27, 2006 at 1:35pm EDT
  • It comes as no surprise that Williams, like virtually all other campuses, approaches the topic of diversity by figuring out how to pigeonhole it into courses, as if any one or even two courses could achieve that worthy goal. This, of course, is just as naive as thinking that by requiring a writing course or even two, or designating some courses as W--writing intensive-will be sufficient to teach students good writing.

    The notion that any one course is a solution to complex "higher" education (no matter how such a course gets reconfigured) is an indication of either the arrogance and/or ignorance of college faculty understanding of teaching and learning.

    So here we have a year of the Williams College faculty devoted to rearranging the proverbial deck chairs --tinker with one or a few courses that we know is absolutely guaranteed to do little more then temporarily tamp down the current political and cultural debate on that campus. Did the faculty agree to actually assess whether or not students become more capable of dealing with diversity in any number of important ways?

    Did anyone ask what in the entire Williams experience will need to occur-- broadly, deeply, integratively, transpanently, cumulatively-- to garner the diversity outcomes so cherished to which the faculty has devoted so much time and energy albeit naively and myopically? I suspect someone did raise that issue only to find that all the other single course requirements left no room for asking whether or not the whole was going to be greater than the sum of its separate parts.

  • Education Abroad
  • Posted by Ameet Doshi , Librarian on October 27, 2006 at 3:46pm EDT
  • Education abroad, when facilitated in a scholarly, engaging and structured manner, offers tremendous opportunities for expanding understanding and cultural tolerance.

    Indeed, many undergraduate seniors I've spoken with, when looking back on their collegiate experience, recognize the value of having studied in another culture. Sadly, many other students regret not having done so.

    Colleges and universities across the nation should increase the support and resources necessary to properly facilitate education abroad for more students. In doing so, these students will come away with the palpable, direct contact that is difficult to recreate in the classroom.

  • Posted by Bernard Cooperman , Professor at University of Maryland, College Park on October 28, 2006 at 9:20pm EDT
  • True, diversity requirements were often motivated by (or at least administered according to) tokenist liberal sentiments. But they were also an attempt to justify the abandonment of an essential but unrealizable goal of humanist education: gaining mastery and deep familiarity with the language, beliefs, history and culture of another society. In the bad old days of the "canon" it was assumed that many of the students knew Latin and Greek well enough to read in the original. In the bad old days of "language requirements" every student was expected to devote at least two full years to actually learning to use an ancient or modern tongue other than English. In the bad old days before "Orientalism" awakened our sensitivities, western scholars actually learned classical Arabic, medieval Persian poetry, Turkish and Urdu and contributed to the world's scholarly heritage. Our universities, dedicated as they are to mass education and informed as they are by models of knowledge drawn from social scientific paradigms, found all of these courses too arcane, too difficult, too un-sexy and replaced them with survey courses that gave no more than a vague sense of foreign cultures. Of course we need a substantive commitment to diversity -- but that would require a wholesale restructuring of our curricula that no university can afford and no college marketing brochure could sell to students.

  • pantheon of boys
  • Posted by Violet at Mid-Western Private U on October 28, 2006 at 10:05pm EDT
  • With the exception of Ameet, this comment column reads like a transcript of a conversation at the old boys' club, which meets regularly in the boardroom, cabinet office, vice presidents' council, tenure committee, search committee, financial aid office, admissions office, campus police office, or faculty lunch room, somewhere near you.

    Thanks to Scott for the article.
    Violet

  • Is It Me??
  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 29, 2006 at 4:40am EST
  • Why aren't we studying other cultures and beliefs simply because doing so makes us truly educated and able to function in a global society? Why do we need an academic or political "excuse" for trying to learn to understand one another? Shouldn't we want to learn about those we share the planet with because.....wonder of wonders.....it makes for more peaceful, equitable living? Maybe I'm missing something here.....

  • Posted by Larry on October 30, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • kgotthardt, What does “global society” mean? And why should I care? There probably isn’t a single American that doesn’t have some interaction with foreigners, and foreign products and cultures abound in the US.