The Daily Cardinal recently reported that a roundtable dinner will be held by the Associated Students of Madison Diversity Committee to entertain the possibility of reforming the mandatory ethnic studies requirement.
I’ve long thought that the ethnic studies requirement is inherently flawed.
The requirement is inefficient because it creates too much demand for ethnic studies classes with no efficient way of allocating seats to those most interested. That is, people who are legitimately interested in a subject like American Jazz—and who would have taken the course even if the ethnic studies requirement didn’t exist—have no leg up on people who are taking it just to fulfill the requirement. Enrollment simply goes to the person holding more credits. Sometimes this is the person with a genuine interest. But just as often the class goes to the student who simply views it as less boring than the other requirement-fulfilling classes. This problem is compounded by the tendency of the most interesting ethnic studies courses to offer a quite limited number of seats.
The other inherent flaw is that something as nebulous as cultural sensitivity is not easily taught in a class. Besides, those who are open to being culturally sensitive probably already are, or they will become so by themselves. It’s exceedingly difficult in a town like Madison to leave your home without encountering people from dozens of different ethnic groups. Aren’t these experiences just as valuable as any academic treatment? Aren’t these experiences more real?
Conversely, people who resent being forced to take a class about a culture or ethnic group they don’t care about likely won’t have their minds opened. Rather, they could become even more disdainful of the subject.
To be clear, I’m glad our university has such a robust offering of ethnic studies courses. I simply object to the university placing ethnic studies on a pedestal. Why not music, which teaches us to appreciate complex aesthetic beauty? Why not calculus, which teaches us to recognize otherwise hidden relationships between mathematical ideas? Why not political science, which teaches that our American experiment is only one of a multitude of legitimate ways to organize a society?
Wisely, the university doesn’t mandate that students take any of those classes. Rather, they count toward the respective breadth requirements of humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences. With regards to these core graduation requirements, the university respects students enough to decide whether they want to learn English or communications, botany or astronomy, international relations or linguistics. So why is a course labeled ethnic studies inherently more important than a French class or a creative writing class?
I recommend removing the ethnic studies requirement and simply labeling the courses as humanities or social science credits. Due to the fact that at least 12 credits of each humanities and social science are needed for graduation, this ensures ethnic studies courses will still have reasonable demand. I submit that existential worries on the behalf of the courses’ parent departments were the main factor in the original creation of the ethnic studies requirement. But because demand will be slackened, the most enthusiastic students will find less competition for the few spots in the most exciting ethnic studies classes. Further, removing the protected status of ethnic studies courses will force them to compete for students with other humanities and social science offerings, hopefully fostering more innovate courses.
All this being said, the ethnic studies requirement is so ingrained into the core curriculum here at the university that its complete removal seems unlikely. Instead, it’s been suggested by the ASM Diversity Committee that the requirement be further strengthened so that the course must be taken within the first two years at Madison. This is a bad idea that—due to the finite nature of the day—could potentially disrupt the schedules of thousands of students. It’s hard enough already to schedule all of the classes one wants or needs to take. Imposing an arbitrary timeline on graduation requirements further confuses the process.
So if we are going to keep the ethnic studies requirement, let’s be smart about it.
To start, all language courses past a certain threshold should count as ethnic studies. Because really, what is better preparation for learning about another ethnic group than learning their native language? Learning a foreign language displays a desire for worldliness that the university would be foolish not to recognize. I propose that all language classes past the fourth semester—the bachelor of arts degree requirement—should qualify.
Secondly, most English literature classes should count. Why doesn’t Shakespeare count? Is our culture that close to that of the Elizabethan era? By the same logic, why doesn’t Russian literature count?
The fact that these courses are ignored lends credence to the thought that the ethnic studies requirement only exists to protect ethnic studies departments that otherwise would have little demand.
This leads to the question: Does the ethnic studies requirement really exist for the benefit of students? I urge the ASM Diversity Committee to think deeply about what is best for the students ASM represents and to pare back the overreach of the ethnic studies requirement.
What do you think of fulfilling your ethnic studies requirement? Have you been able to take the classes you’ve wanted to take? Do you think your knowledge of a foreign language fulfills this academic requirement? Tell us your thoughts! Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com and visit dailycardinal.com for more content!
