IN THE last year, there have been several instances in which the University has been publicly shamed on the issue of diversity. It has become evident that despite the leaps and bounds that the University has made on the issue of race and diversity, there is still much room for improvement.
One initiative that is being considered is a diversity training course that administrators have discussed making mandatory for University students. This program has not yet been finalized, which is all the more reason why students should raise serious concerns about the mandatory aspect of the program now, before the project moves forward anymore. Although the pursuit of progress is necessary and noble, other principles must not be sacrificed in this pursuit. Two of these principles are academic liberty and freedom of thought. In view of preserving these tenets, the imposition of a coercive mandatory diversity training program would be both impractical and immoral.
Concerning whether or not the imposition of mandatory diversity training is moral at a public university, one must view the method of mandatory training objectively. It is easy for many to accept a system of forced training to try to instill values such as tolerance and sensitivity, but the practice of using authority to shape public opinion opens a dangerous door. For example, some may argue that in the wake of Sept. 11, the United States has a new need for national solidarity to help resist terrorist threats. In order to pursue this objective, should the University require its students to take a course in patriotism or nationalism? As we can see, it is easy to demand that students should be "trained" in something that we find desirable, but it is hard to decide how far is too far to go in creating what the majority of people consider to be a necessary ideological unity. As the U.S. Supreme Court declared in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943:
"As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing."
Some have argued that the University has a right to have certain expectations for its students. However, existing expectations such as those embodied by the honor system are based upon behavioral standards, not upon thoughts or controversial ideologies. The University can inform its students that it expects them to not lie, cheat or steal, because these are basic standards of conduct for a community. They are not expected modes of thinking on complex issues such as those included in the topic of diversity. When the University begins intruding into the realm of ideology, it approaches a slippery slope.
Many have also compared mandatory diversity training to mandatory course area requirements. Despite this easy comparison, a mandatory diversity training program is of a completely different character than these existing requirements. While area requirements contain a large element of choice and exist to round off a liberal education with broad, topical classes, mandatory diversity training would be a more narrowly-pointed, ideologically driven mandate covering controversial subject matter.
Others have argued that mandatory training will not be a forced indoctrination, but rather will provide a neutral presentation of facts to educate those who otherwise would remain apathetic. However, because diversity-related views are so fluid, multi-faceted and controversial, it would be difficult if not impossible to create a diversity training program that is truly viewpoint neutral. In addition, involving coercive requirements in these areas threatens to stifle voluntary debate. The administration, by forcing a program on students, further suffocates the potential for dialogue by creating resentment and negative attitudes among unwilling and uninterested participants. This is worse than inaction. This is counterproductive.
In a free society, there is a responsibility to engage apathetic people's interests in controversial issues without resorting to coercion. Students must discuss the issues of race and diversity freely. It is one thing to engage ideas with a peer or professor in an open setting where all views can be expressed fairly by their strongest advocates. It is another thing to have a cold, impersonal exercise backed by the University's authority train you on controversial topics. Values such as tolerance and respect gain genuine value in the crucible of public discourse. They are cheapened when they must be forced upon a captive audience.
While the University is engaged in a noble endeavor to bring about harmony on Grounds, the particular method of mandatory training raises alarm. The issue comes down to this: Should the administration train its students in what it expects of them ideologically, or should matters of opinion be left to be decided by free debate? The future of liberal education hangs in the balance.
(Nathan Royster is the executive director of the Individual Rights Coalition. He is a third-year student in the College of Arts and Sciences.)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | 14 hours agoPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
YOUNIS: Muslim students deserve a better Ramadan on Grounds
By Ayat Younis | YesterdayRamadan at the University should not be a time in which students must choose between academic success and religious observance.
