About a year or two ago, Fresno State’s academic senate debated whether or not to eliminate the Multicultural/International requirement for students taking upper division general education.
Many different arguments were made for both sides of the issue. Many thought yet another general education requirement for upper division students was unnecessary, a view many still hold today. Some thought to do away with a requirement that promoted the idea of diversity was an attack on diversity itself, and proponents of this particular view were extremely vocal about retaining the requirement.
However, in the face of further budget cuts (however many semesters and rounds of budget cuts later), it’s important to look at ways of cutting costs that reflect the preferences and needs of Fresno State’s students. While a lot of graduation requirements set by the chancellor’s office are out of our campus’s administration’s hands, our professors and administrators need to do what they can to tailor the general education curriculum to what we students need. I propose looking at changing it up a little bit. Instead of eliminating the M/I requirement, let’s take it outside the classroom and into life outside the rigors of academia.
I’m not advocating a suppression of diversity. If I wanted to escape diversity, I would’ve left town to go to school. Fresno State reflects the diversity of the Central Valley, I still think it’s important for the school to require the students to engage in some kind of diverse experience. Why not take diversity outside the classroom and get real-world experience in it? If you’re a white-bred suburban kid (like me), why not go out and do community service in a poverty-stricken neighborhood of Fresno?
If you’re Hispanic, why not get involved in one of the Asian American clubs on campus? If you grew up going to church in Fresno’s beautiful Armenian Catholic cathedral downtown, why not join some kind of Muslim club on campus to get a feel for something different?
Mixing up student’s ethnic and cultural experiences isn’t something you can do in a classroom. While some classes are full of chatty students who have no problem discussing the differences between religions in the classroom, experiencing diversity, not talking about it, is the way to go.
Anonymous • Apr 7, 2011 at 9:57 am
Maddie Shannon, lack of history causes you to have bad taste regarding Armenians trying to “get a feel” for Islam. Armenia was the first Christian Nation in 301 AD. They have long been persecuted for their beliefs. Enough said silly girl.
Anonymous • Apr 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Thank goodness for Proposition 209, or students would have more “diversity” shoved down their throats at Fresno State as well as at every other CSU campus – and at the UCs as well.
Anonymous • Apr 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Thank goodness for Proposition 209, or students would have more “diversity” shoved down their throats at Fresno State as well as at every other CSU campus – and at the UCs as well.
Philosotroll • Apr 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Yes, because as we all know, the problem with Affirmative Action was that it made college campuses more diverse. It wasn’t that it coerced campus administrators into compromising admissions standards to ensure stable funding.
I support Prop 209 as much as your average white, male, registered independent in central California. But encouraging diversity is a good thing, and it’s good that there are administrators at CSUF who take steps to encourage students to come to an understanding of ethnic, religious and economic diversity at more than just some superficial level.
Anonymous • Apr 8, 2011 at 2:48 am
Affirmative action is fine; in fact, it still exists.
Prop. 209 did not outlaw affirmative action, it outlawed racial preferences, which is what many affirmative action programs had been downgraded to.
Philosotroll • Apr 11, 2011 at 8:42 am
Actually, it outlawed any consideration of race, gender or ethnicity for public institutions and scholarships. That, as far as I know, is what affirmative action is: “consideration of race, gender or ethnicity.” If your point is that it’s still permissible in the private sector, that’s a fair point, and I’m totally with you.
But that’s not what it seemed like you were asserting. It seemed like you were asserting that advocacy for Prop 209 was predicated on an opposition to diversity. It wasn’t. It was about the advocacy for admissions standards based strictly on relevant criteria (which prohibits the consideration of race, gender or ethnicity; which prohibits affirmative action).
Diversity is a good thing, and I don’t mind that the University encourages it. The issue is that they should not compromise admissions standards (or merit-based funding practices) to do so.