EDITORIAL
Assembly should
reject flawed plan
The University Assembly will moot today to hear new
arguments concerning the recently revised race, gender
and non-European studies requirement. Hopefully this
time rational thought will prevail over the politically
driven, emotional voices who clamored for the passing
of the flawed revised curriculum.
Shortly after the requirement was passed, the Emerald
wrote an editorial about the requirement’s shortcomings
and suggested the reouirement bo reconsidered. Hope
fully the assembly will take our advice.
Tho flaw with the original plan is that it allowed stu
dents to take one class to meet the requirement. The pur
pose of a multicultural curriculum is to educate students
about the broad world in which they live. That means
not only learning about other cultures outside of tho
United States, but learning about other cultures inside of
the United States.
Today's society requires knowledge of race and gender
relations in this country. And as others have already
pointed out. one class just doesn’t cut it. particularly
when that one class comes from an overbroad selection
of classes.
Students demanded the requirement be refined and
more narrowly focused to require study of race and gen
der in the United States. The ad hoc Multicultural Cur
riculum Committee was created solely for this purpose,
and it failed. Rather than creating a revised requirement
that is narrowly focused (and perhaps even educational),
the commitleo simply doubled the number of pointless
classes studonts musi take from ono to two.
Tho committoo should not have dilutod the first of the
proposed two requirements by allowing students to
study ethnic art, music or writing to learn about race
relations. That’s what the second requirement is for.
The committee’s ignorance of its purpose is obvious in
its commentary that appears on this page today where
it says, "(The revised requirement) simply calls for two
courses ... rather than one course." That is not what stu
donts wanted. The commentary goes on to claim the first
required course would address "contemporary race rela
tions in the United States." No. it doesn’t.
Like we said in our earlier editorial, changing the class
title of "Problems in Chineso Art” to "Problems in Chi
nese Art in America” does absolutely nothing to oducate
students about Chinese race relations in the United
States. Chinese pottery has never experienced, and thus
cannot discuss, tho problems faced by Chineso-Amori
cans.
In today's commentary, the committee writes. "No one
on our committee suggests that tho revised requirement
should not be modified." If that's so, then why is it being
put before tho assembly for a vote? The committee is
making a mockery of the assembly and the democratic
process by putting forward and advocating passage of a
requirement that it knows to be defective.
Tho University Assembly should reject the revision
and send the committee back with instruction to do its
job this time.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon Daly Emerald « pebfcshad dairy Monday through Friday during the school
ya*r and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer By the Oregon Oatly E mar aid
PuOkshmg Co bv a! in* Urwerarty ol Oregon Eugene, Oagon
the Emerald operale* erdapendentty ol Hr# Itmversity with ottces at Su«e 300 ol the
Ero Memory Oroon and ■» a memoer ol the Associated Pres*
the Emere*) .» privet* property The untawrui remove or use o' papers is prosecutaete
By use
News Editor
Editorial Editor
Or aphid Editor
Entertainment Editor
Editor: Pel Malach
Jake Berg Sports Editor
Mad>n Etsher Editorial Editor
Jed Paslay Supplements Editor
Freya Horn Night Editor
Dave Charbonnaau
Rivers Janssen
Cane, Anderson
Jake Berg
Associate Editors: Tammy Baley Student Government Act,vrlres. Oaralyn Ttappe.
Commatvf> Co*een Poht^. Uglier Educahon Adm«sPatron
News Suit Chester Anon, Man Bender JuNm Brown. Sarah Oartr. Meg OedcSph, Amy
Oevenpod Jen Esvson Amends Ferrue Anthony Forney. Beth Hege Twesa Munttmger
trsa Maui Rebecca Merr.il. Steve Mans. Katy Moaner T.ftn. Mueller. Tnsta Noel. E«*n
Shaw Ei<k Student**. Mahon Senior Randy Thwben Mchai* Thompson Agu«*r. Amy
Van Tuyt. t odd W'lvams. Clayton vee
General Manager: Judy Ran* Production Manager Morale Ross
Advertising: tom leech Sums Manage> Shawn Be'ven Or.c* Manager Jane Irola
Teresa isatwee Ph-tp Johnson li, Chris Kanott, Jeremy Meson. Van V OTJryan II. CWfcan
Oh lirkjhara Tru«. Ang* Wmdhwm
Classified Becky Merchant. Manager Barry lagan Sharon Sauve
Distribution: Brandon Anderson Kkc* Mannneig. Graham Sampson
Business: Kathy Carbone Supervise* Judy CortnoSy
Production lny«J dth.ie ProdUiHv, CcxwSna/or Knstme Granger Dee McCobB. Stacy
MtcheA. Jennder Roland. Jerwler South
Newsroom ... 344-3511 01 splay Advertising-344-3712
Business Office.. 344-5512 Classified Advertising—.>44-43*3
1t*6U«-2S<
Kl(y«rrt6*£!
t swd.
S1QPS Ufcfc
K»6UT
i ,
T*kCRe
AgSou/TUV
tio (XMJT Abort IT
IT 1T0R Ki6«T TrttKE
ye<, MA'wrt
\
U4t WA< i >
TC.K.
VC MPJUNl
M** 11
COMMENTARY
Pass requirement a second time
By Sandra Morgen and
Qumtard Taylor
n April 7. the University
Assembly voted 175-155
to amend the current
race, gender and non-European
requirement.
For supporters, there was no
exhilaration over a “victory."
but rather relief that after a
three-month debate, which has
been characterized as the most
contentious since the Vietnam
War era. the campus had finally
resolved the issue That debate,
punctuated by accusations of
faculty intimidation, anti-Semi
tism and "political correctness"
poisoned the atmosphere of the
campus.
Nonetheless, the assembly
met. the vote was taken, and it
appeared the faculty had spo
ken. Colleagues who indicated
their opposition to the revised
requirement informed us they
still accepted the assembly vote
and offered to work toward
effective implementation of the
new requirement.
We were wrong. Within days
of the assembly vote, various
objections in the form of open
letters, memos and statements to
the University faculty began to
circulate. While some of them
raised salient points, generally
they called the decision of the
assembly unacceptable and
demanded that the new require
ment be rescinded.
It is not surprising that a num
ber of motions to "modify" the
newly passed requirement are to
be proposed at the next opportu
nity. either at the University
Assembly today or at the next
University Senate meeting Such
parliamentary maneuvers may
continue well into next year.
We need to recall what the
revision proposed and why it
was put forward. It simply calls
for two courses to meet the race,
gender and non-European
requirement rather than one
course.
The first course addresses
contemporary race relations in
the United States; the theoretical
conceptualization of race or the
experiences and expressions of
one or more of the following
groups; African-Americans.
Asian-Americans. Native Amer
icans or Chicano/Latinos.
The other course focuses
specifically on how gender,
race, class and ethnicity have an
impact within or across soci
eties Thai is, within the United
Stales and throughout the
world
The 18H classes suggested to
date for the requirement are
located in 27 departments in
five of the eight schools at the
University. Seventy-five percent
of the courses we propose for
the race requirement are outside
women's studies and ethnic
studies.
But we have always urged that
more courses be developed and
that existing courses be modi
fied both to reduce the overall
expense to the University
because we feel numerous facul
ty. including biologists, linguists
and economists should be
involved in addressing these
issues.
This is not, as some would
have us believe, an attempt to
indoctrinate students.
If the University is the mar
ketplace of ideas in which views
and values can be openly
expressed and debated without
fear of censure, then why is
there such vehement opposition
to the discussion of these issues?
Why are those who claim to
abhor censorship so adamantly
committed to use all of their
available resources to censor
this discussion?
We also want to address the
charge that discussions of anti
Semitism have been excluded
from consideration. The require
ment in no way excludes cours
es on anti-Semitism or on lews
as members of ethnic and reli
gious minorities in the United
States and in the world. Such
courses fit squarely within our
second course requirement.
Moreover. courses that
explore the historical and polit
ical construction of race and
racism might well include
extensive discussion of anti
Semitism and examination of
the relationship between racism
and anti-Semitism. As we have
said repeatedly, we did not
include courses on anti-Semi
tism on our list of courses to ful
fill the requirement because
they do not exist in our current
curriculum.
Unfortunately, some on this
campus have explicitly or
through innuendo charged our
committee with anti-Semitism.
The charge is particularly irre
sponsible because it has now
assumed an alarming life of its
own. generating a set of fears
and apprehensions that do not
reflect the reality of our campus
community.
The University ethnic studies
program established the first
course on this campus, and one
of the few in the nation, that
analyzes tensions between
African-American and )ewish
communities. It is jointly taught
by a Jewish instructor and an
African-American professor
who is member of the Multicul
tural Curriculum Committee.
Finally, there is the charge
that "the process was flawed."
Some contend the debate within
the University Senate was trun
cated even though the matter
took two Senate sessions in Feb
ruary and March. Both bodies
voted by an overwhelming
majority (which included both
opponents and proponents of
the revised requirement) to end
debate at 5 p.m.
The time allocated to actual
debate was brief, stemming pri
marily from various parliamen
tary maneuvers, preventing both
proponents and opponents from
speaking to the motion. The fact
that at least 310 faculty mem
bers cast their votes when
assembly meetings typically
generate one-fifth that number
of participants attests to the
democratic nature of the vote.
No one on our committee sug
gests that the revised require
ment should not be modified.
But we fear that much of what is
occurring is not an attempt to
seek clarity and find ways to lis
ten to those who did not have
the opportunity to speak at the
University Assembly. What is
taking place is a shrewdly
manipulative campaign to
declare the newly enacted
requirement a failure and
remove it long before the first
student has enrolled in a class
and before any instructor has
generated a new course syllabus.
What we are witnessing is a
cynical, calculated attempt to
nullify the decisions of the Uni
versity Senate and Assembly,
and by extension, the ability of
the University faculty to democ
ratically decide curricular mat
ters. If that maneuver succeeds,
the University will have lost far
more than a race, gender and
non-European requirement.
Sandra Morgan and Quintard
Taylor ore members of the Mul
ticultural Curriculum Commit
tee.