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 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.