Looking over the draft, what I notice is the scientific aspect of this is overlooked, namely that “race” is a social construct, not a biological one.
To start with, it should be emphasized that all of us have evolved from Homo sapiens ancestors who lived in Africa and had dark skin. Henry Louis Gates did a PBS special on this a couple of years back that might make a good point of departure. Also David Reich’s book “who we are and how we got here” provides a good scientific perspective on ethnicity and how deeply intermixed we all are genetically.
Begin with emphasizing the lack of scientific basis for the entire concept of race and depart from there.
I have read the draft reports on the anti-racism initiative and listened to the Senate discussion.
Reduce the coercive aspects of these proposals. The coercion seems intentional in both proposals. This aspect produces negative reactions and is, or should be, unnecessary.
I have read the draft reports on the anti-racism initiative and listened to the Senate discussion.
Reduce the coercive aspects of these proposals. The coercion seems intentional in both proposals. This aspect produces negative reactions and is, or should be, unnecessary.
Have the college curriculum committees review the course proposal (Working Group S). The Faculty Senate has little experience with course approvals while college curriculum and educational policy committees do this routinely. They are in the best position to strengthen the proposal and you should gain more faculty support by soliciting such input.
Allow for other courses to be used for educating students about racism and related issues. There can’t be only one right way to do this. Insisting on having or accepting only one course undercuts other courses that have been or could be developed for this purpose. The proposed course is worth trying, but it is complex in its design. I would like to know that it is successful before making it the only option. If there are several options, we would be less dependent on this course being successful for all students. Also, allowing for several options makes this proposal less coercive.
A bit of history: The reason there are no courses required by the university (First-Year Writing is required by colleges, not by the university) is that President Andrew D. White wanted it this way. Allowing students the freedom to choose their academic program was one of White’s significant innovations for American higher education. He borrowed the elective system from the University of Berlin and when introduced at Cornell it became known as the Cornell Idea. By 1884, all American universities adopted the elective approach. At Cornell course requirements were attached to specific degrees, which turned into colleges. This is behind the Cornell tradition of having colleges determine the educational program for their students. I recommend that your committee respect this tradition. It is likely to produce a better accepted outcome.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/19/higher_ed_approaches_the_antiracism_training_abyss_145442.html?fbclid=IwAR2tmXkZuVdbm6hLijyBUyyoR8yqcj95rNZvezdLVbuTRvM5VZv0mY-Nihk
Looking over the draft, what I notice is the scientific aspect of this is overlooked, namely that “race” is a social construct, not a biological one.
To start with, it should be emphasized that all of us have evolved from Homo sapiens ancestors who lived in Africa and had dark skin. Henry Louis Gates did a PBS special on this a couple of years back that might make a good point of departure. Also David Reich’s book “who we are and how we got here” provides a good scientific perspective on ethnicity and how deeply intermixed we all are genetically.
Begin with emphasizing the lack of scientific basis for the entire concept of race and depart from there.
I have read the draft reports on the anti-racism initiative and listened to the Senate discussion.
Reduce the coercive aspects of these proposals. The coercion seems intentional in both proposals. This aspect produces negative reactions and is, or should be, unnecessary.
I have read the draft reports on the anti-racism initiative and listened to the Senate discussion.
Reduce the coercive aspects of these proposals. The coercion seems intentional in both proposals. This aspect produces negative reactions and is, or should be, unnecessary.
Have the college curriculum committees review the course proposal (Working Group S). The Faculty Senate has little experience with course approvals while college curriculum and educational policy committees do this routinely. They are in the best position to strengthen the proposal and you should gain more faculty support by soliciting such input.
Allow for other courses to be used for educating students about racism and related issues. There can’t be only one right way to do this. Insisting on having or accepting only one course undercuts other courses that have been or could be developed for this purpose. The proposed course is worth trying, but it is complex in its design. I would like to know that it is successful before making it the only option. If there are several options, we would be less dependent on this course being successful for all students. Also, allowing for several options makes this proposal less coercive.
A bit of history: The reason there are no courses required by the university (First-Year Writing is required by colleges, not by the university) is that President Andrew D. White wanted it this way. Allowing students the freedom to choose their academic program was one of White’s significant innovations for American higher education. He borrowed the elective system from the University of Berlin and when introduced at Cornell it became known as the Cornell Idea. By 1884, all American universities adopted the elective approach. At Cornell course requirements were attached to specific degrees, which turned into colleges. This is behind the Cornell tradition of having colleges determine the educational program for their students. I recommend that your committee respect this tradition. It is likely to produce a better accepted outcome.