![[ OPINIONS ]](/images/fall97/opinionsf97.gif)
Arizona Daily Wildcat November 12, 1997
A superficial requirement which promotes intolerance
![[Picture]](05_5_i.gif)
|
Rachel Alexander
|
The proponents of a gender/ethnic studies requirement say their goal is to educate students about the roles in history and culture underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and women have had. This is to promote diversity and exposure to other cultures. However, this requirement only allows a choice from a few select groups of people. Instead of promoting diversity, this promotes intolerance and feuds resentment among students, who represent a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Why should a class on Irish Revolution (Humanities 454) be included, but not a class on the Spanish Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478 until 1834, and millions were tortured and burned at the stake.
Why aren't there any Eastern European or Slavic classes listed? The ethnic strife in Bosnia-Herzegovina has been around since the 14th century, so why can't one choose a class on these peoples? Likewise, why aren't there any courses listed on the millions of people Stalin slaughtered this century?
Also noticeably missing are other groups in society which have been historically discriminated against. Why not include handicapped studies? Homeless studies? Cannibal studies? What is the criteria for choosing which groups are included and which aren't?
This is only partial diversity.
"Gender studies" is a misnomer, because the classes only focus on women. Women make up 51 percent of the population, so obviously their inclusion is not for lack of numbers. In my American History class, as is prevalent in most college classes today, we sufficiently covered the roles women played. I remember reading a book, The Yellow Wallpaper, which detailed the process of a woman going crazy because she was expected to do nothing. Women have been drastically restricted and discouraged from achievement in society for thousands of years. It's unfortunate, but why should we have to study the fact that they haven't contributed hardly anything notable to civilization? This century is the first to be different. Why don't we spend more time in the present, working for the future? How about a class on women rocket scientists? I guess that would be called engineering.
Another reason why this requirement does not create tolerance is because forcing something down someone's throat does not make him like it. Forcing a racist person to take a course about a class of people which he does not like will not change his mind. You could not make me take a class on Communism and expect me to change my mind. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that such classes combat racism and sexism.
The solution is to allow students a CHOICE as to which group they would like to study, and allow them to CHOOSE if they would like to take the class.
Rachel Alexander is a second year law student.
