According to Arthur Levine and Stephanie Cureton, the authors of When Hope and Fear Collide, Amulticulturalism is a painful subject on college campuses today (p 72).@ The sensitivity of the subject makes it very difficult not only to talk about multiculturalism, but also to take action to promote multiculturalism within colleges and universities. For my paper review I have chosen four papers that address diversity. These papers cover many aspects of diversity, including defining the term, determining the purpose of diversity and questioning whose responsibility it is to see that campuses achieve it.

I would like to begin by tackling the definition of diversity, although definitions of the term are surprisingly rare. I found only one attempt at defining diversity among several readings specifically focusing on the elusive topic. Even in this one case, the author acknowledged his own inability to define the word completely. In the article ASo-Called Experts on Cultural Diversity Need to Be Subjected to Careful Scrutiny,@ Roberto P. Haro claims that the word can have many different meanings. He states:

In recent years, diversity has been a popular topic in journals of higher education and on college and university campuses. With all of the talk about diversity, colleges and universities are trying to find different ways to bring their campus up to par and to create a diverse community. Administrators often turn to so-called experts on diversity to help them achieve this goal. Unfortunately, finding such an expert can be problematic.

The broad scope of the term Adiversity@ causes uncertainty about the topic, and the absence of a precise definition is a major roadblock in the quest to make our campuses diverse. Haro's main argument is that it is difficult to find a true expert on the area of diversity, particularly when so many people today claim such a title. Unfortunately, some people may take advantage of the confusion surrounding the subject of diversity, and then claim expertise with little education or experience behind them.

With all different types or people calling themselves experts, the field of diversity lacks a consistent body of knowledge. College administrators, who are striving for diversity on their campuses, could be pulled in a variety of directions in regards to who is right and what they should or should not be doing to achieve diversity. Something must be done to break this broad topic down into smaller, more specialized areas, where expertise can truly develop.

In the article AEducating for Diversity,@ Reginald Wilson states that it will take nothing less than a complete re-structuring of curriculum before we can even begin striving toward diversity. Wilson believes that institutions need to recognize that they were founded not for the diverse students of today, but rather for the predominately white male students of the past. They were designed with one type of student in mind, with little room for change or growth. Instead of just trying to fix the broken piping we really need to go in and replace the whole system (p 6).

Wilson does not believe that efforts like race-based scholarships and affirmative action are effective. These incentives to bring under-represented students to campus do not address the true and underlying problem. The problem goes far deeper into the campus than just how many under represented students are present on campus (p 7). This problem is the societal problem of racism. Perhaps we should spend less time focusing on the percentage of minority groups, and more time on breaking down racial and cultural stereotypes.

I agree with the author=s primary argument that lack of diversity is perhaps not something that the university can remedy. On the other hand, Wilson is passing the buck and refusing to take responsibility for what is happening on college campuses today. Instead he moves on to the idea of early college intervention programs. Wilson goes on to describe studies where disadvantaged youths are placed in a program where the Abar is raised,@ and the students are able to perform up to that level. Wilson stresses that we must change our view of the potential of our students, and that high expectations will stimulate greater achievement.

This sounds like a great idea in theory, but what about in practice? Does the author truly think that it is even remotely possible to change the attitudes and the teaching style of hundreds of teachers? This would have to start at the kindergarten level to truly make a difference. Under-represented students need to be reassured of the fact that they can perform up to par with the students from majority groups. This is a much larger project than even Wilson thinks. This would have to go so far as to include every child in every grade. Wilson also calls for, ANothing less than a wholesale transformation of the curriculum, not only what is taught, but how it is taught as well (p 8).@ A Awholesale transformation@ is going to be next to impossible. Again, it is a good idea, but it would take the effort of everyone to implement.

All of the authors agree with the fact that there needs to be diversity, but what is the point? In his article AWhy a Diverse Student Body is So Important,@ Neil L. Rudenstine states that the most fundamental rationale for student diversity in higher education is its educational value (p 1). Clearly, all of the authors agree with this, but for whom is this education valuable: the minority students, white students, or professors? Is diversity a type of education that can be valuable for everyone? Clearly there is a certain amount of selectivity when it comes to diversity. It is not like colleges and universities actively recruit Chinese Communists or KKK members. Students are censored when it comes to what kind of diversity they are exposed to.

I would like to propose that perhaps diversity is not just racial, cultural or ethnic, but that it goes much deeper than that. At many women=s college campuses, there are students representing a variety of racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, along with a broad range of life experiences, but there are no men. Surely, however, these colleges claim to embrace diversity. They are leaving out 48% of the world=s population, and undoubtedly men have had different experiences. These experiences could add to the education of these students. Is this considered a diverse environment? In terms of racial and cultural diversity, it is. However, if diversity is viewed in terms of life experiences, then an all-women environment can not represent true diversity.

I look around the room in my classes here at Harvard and I see such a truly diverse group of individuals. I do learn from this diverse group of individuals. They represent so many different points of view and enrich the classroom experience. Our goals are the same, but we have a diversity of views and experiences. I believe we are able to find this environment so enriching because of our common goals. This is Neil Rudenstine=s definition of diversity in action.

Rudenstine argues against the Hopwood opinion that, Athe consideration of race as a factor in the process of admission simply achieves a student body that look different.@

Rudenstine argues that even though race is not a determining factor in the experiences that a person has, we cannot discount the fact that it does have a major impact.

Although race does have a major impact on life experiences, admissions departments can nonetheless create a class of students with diverse experiences and not necessarily diverse skin colors. A large number of factors besides race can contribute as well. For example, the area of the country a student is from can change their outlook on things completely.

Rudenstine too, calls for a conscious effort towards change, and recognizes that the situation of today is a product of centuries worth of discrimination and non-acting on the university=s part. Rudenstine defends the use of race as a factor in the admissions process as a way of alleviating racial tension and increasing diversity. Rudenstine states in his article:

Rudenstine seems to suggest that race or ethnicity is an asset or talent, like playing football or being on the debate team. However, it is an asset or talent that those who are not minorities were never given the opportunity to take advantage of. What about those students who do not get that opportunity? Rudenstine seems to be suggesting that being a minority student is an asset in itself. There are under-represented students who are privileged enough to attend prestigious high schools and be allotted significantly more opportunities than some white students. Will these privileged under-represented students still be adding to the college experience of other students? Is it just from their skin color that the learning experience arises?

In the article ALearning to Live With Diversity,@ by Mary Kalantzis and William Cope, another view of diversity comes to light. Diversity is presented as a global issue, and not just one of race relations on the campus. These authors see a necessity to bring diversity into the classroom not only for the good of the individual student, but also for the good of the world economy (p. B3).

In the classroom, Kalantzis and Cope see a problem with the use of a particularism approach, which emphasizes the special history of specific groups. They feel that because particularism is based on the history of a particular group, it can often raise bad feelings about how a group has been mistreated in the past. These bad feelings can overshadow the true goal of diversity, which is to encourage groups to, Amake connections with the mainstream curricula. (p B3).@

Kalantzis and Cope agree with the efforts made by multi-cultural studies departments, but they think that these classes need to be viewed more broadly, and given more time to be accepted. We cannot expect instant results. Obviously this would have to happen on a level that the colleges and universities are perhaps incapable of reaching.

I agree with their idea of how classes on particular multi-cultural subjects can help bring up bad feelings. However, I see fault with multi-cultural classes because they minister to such a small specialized group of students, as opposed to appealing to the entire campus community. Who enrolls in women=s studies courses? Mostly women. The same goes for Asian studies and African American studies classes. Sure, there are sometimes men or whites in these classes, but mostly it is the students to whom the subject matter applies. How does this help raise awareness of a particular culture when the only students who are enrolling in the courses are the students who are already part of the culture? It does empower those who are enrolled in the classes, but it seems more like preaching to the choir.

Kalantzis and Cope take the unique view of diversity as more of a necessity for those who want to participate in a global economy. They claim that globalization of markets for capital, labor and commodities allow everyday life to become more fragmented into subcultures, tastes and styles. Kalantzis and Cope see diversity as necessary to see how fragmented groups fit together into one global economy. This would enable students to eventually succeed as part of the global economy (p B3).

Is it the globalization of markets that allow for this fragmentation? I am not sure if that is the case. I think this fragmentation could just be people looking for a history. American culture increasingly emphasizes the individual, and with that comes the need for individuality. People can find themselves, or people like themselves in a cultural group, or personal history. This would mean that people are moving towards diversity. In this movement, people need to keep their eyes open to what is going on around them, as opposed to just their particular situation. Even if Kalantzis and Cope=s explanation for fragmentation is wrong, their ideas still make sense. I believe it is human nature to want to see where oneself as an individual fits into the big picture.

Kalantzis and Cope call for the study of the global. They believe in order to have true diversity we need to study how different cultures and groups work together as whole. They state that if we understand how each culture fits together, we will be more likely to understand each role in the global play. They suggest that instead of requiring students to take one or two ethnic studies classes, perhaps colleges and universities could require students to take classes that tackle the ideas of social institutions, such as government, education, and corporations, in relation to diversity. Also, they could be asked to consider the ideas of how different races or ethnic groups relate not only to their own lives, but also to the lives of others (p B3).

I agree with this idea, and I think it is a new approach to diversity. The idea is still in the area of changing the curriculum, but it is unique in that it teaches the student diversity on a global level. It helps the student to see where they fit in the picture. The weakness of this approach is that it necessitates the difficult decision of whose version of the global economy should be used. If we use the model from the United States, will we show the underpaid workers making sneakers for Nike and Adidas, or will we just use the sugar coated version? This model is potentially just as capable of bringing up bad feelings as any other class on a particular group. If a true picture is painted, however, it could bring to light not only the discrimination that is taking place, but it could also illustrate potential for change. Change would be made in students being more socially aware and empowered. Students would be able to take this empowerment as a common goal, therefore bringing them together and working towards something positive.

Overall, Kalantzis and Cope feel that one should not shrug off the classes that have dealt with particularism. Rather, we should embrace them, because they are hopefully the first steps in the creation of a new academic specialization and development of new paradigms (p B3). These classes will serve as the foundation on which this new curriculum will be built.

There are a variety of opinions being expressed about diversity today, and I have only touched on the few dealing not only with the importance of diversity, but also the potential curriculum changes that can be made to help with this controversial issue. We first need to take the time to agree upon the definition and utility of diversity. Also, we cannot allow our quest for diversity to overshadow the ultimate goal of education. We need to keep in mind that the purpose of diversity is not just to fill a classroom with students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The purpose of diversity is to create a classroom of students who are all willing to learn from and teach one another.

Curriculum changes should be implemented, but I believe it will be through the education of future teachers that we will begin to see diversity thoroughly tackled on our campuses. We also have to look at what is going to benefit our students most in the workplace. Kalantzis and Cope are right when they say that we are part of a global economy, and we should keep that in mind when we are tackling these issues. We are teaching life skills. Rudenstine states that we have Athe most inclusive system of higher education ever achieved.@ Yes, it is the most inclusive so far, but we can do better. We have to do better.