Opinion
Diversity Requirement needs to be given a chance to prove itself before we condemn it
By Will Kaback ’20
September 8, 2016
Tags opinion
In the Sept. 1 issue, The Spectator published an article by Charles D. Dunst ’18 titled “Diversity Requirement is antithetical to Hamilton’s promise,” in which he forcefully stated his opposition to Hamilton’s new diversity requirement—that students must take one diversity course in their chosen concentration during their college career.
I took away three main points from this piece. First, Dunst makes the case that the diversity requirement creates a “safe space” for progressive students and professors so that they may learn and teach without fear of being “triggered” by opinions at odds with their own. Second, he contends that the diversity requirement further reduces the opportunity for conservative ideas to be shared in the classroom, as part of a trend Professor of History Robert Paquette refers to as “the scandalous lack of intellectual diversity on campus.” Finally, he asserts the notion that diversity is an inherently liberal concept, and instituting a policy centered around it showcases a bias towards progressivism, all the while negating the college’s promise of an open course curriculum.
It seems to me that by creating such a furore over the terms “triggers” and “safe spaces,” conservatives—just as they have done with “political correctness” and “white privilege”—are actually “triggering” themselves and seeking to create their own safe space from the concepts they are uncomfortable with. This requirement has been instituted to open the platform for conversations on pressing issues of diversity that, for the most part, have been sorely lacking at a historically white institution such as Hamilton. As a fellow liberal, I would ask Dunst to assess the words “safe space” and “trigger warnings” in a less disdainful way.
No one accuses soldiers suffering from combat related PTSD of being “triggered” by everyday occurrences that most of us take for granted. Instead, we understand that they have lived through horrific events and need both understanding and support as they readjust to normal life. The idea of safe spaces and trigger warning is that they extend a helping hand to people who have endured similarly traumatizing events like rape or abuse, enabling them to take the proper precautions for their personal health.
I believe the diversity requirement will actually facilitate difficult conversations by forcing students who would otherwise shy away from the topic to directly confront it. I would invite the conservative students and professors of Hamilton to respectfully and factually voice their viewpoint on topics in this new forum. They should engage with opposing viewpoints, just as others are expected to do, rather than merely complaining about having to do so.
As to the second point, I understand Dunst’s concern that, given the overwhelming trend of liberal-leaning beliefs within higher education, the openness of the diversity requirement will result teaching that is skewed to the left. In his article, “Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?,” Neil Gross of The New York Times quotes a Pew Research Center study that shows that “nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have ‘down the line’ liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally.” With this in mind, it is easy to be afraid that these liberal professors and students are focused merely on propagating their own viewpoint and snuffing out all who oppose it. However, I challenge our readers to consider the quality and fairness of this college’s faculty. I believe we should view the faculty in terms of their remarkable qualifications and expertise in their chosen fields, rather than assuming they will jump at any opportunity to “preach from a pulpit” in the classroom.
Furthermore, we should reserve our judgement on the diversity policy until it has had time to play out. We are just two weeks into the school year—hardly enough time to render a verdict on this fledgling policy. Let us see how it operates in the classrooms before assuming any consequences. As President Whippman repeatedly stressed in his interview with The Spectator, he is committed to listening to both the students and faculty during his time here at the college. Therefore, I encourage students or professors who actually experience problems with the new diversity requirement to use this channel, and the many others that presently exist, if such incidents arise. What we should refrain from is calling it a failure before we have actually seen what it looks like in practice.
My greatest disagreement with Dunst’s article is the persistent assertion that diversity is a “liberal” concept. He claims the diversity requirement shows that the college does not want to “grapple with ideas at odds with progressivism.” What I believe he was insinuating here is that conservatism rejects diversity, as he claims that wanting greater diversity awareness makes one a progressive. However, diversity is not a left or right issue. It is a common goal that all should strive towards, as it encompasses greater equality and representation of minorities, as reflected in the greater population. I hope that most conservatives would agree with this notion.
Regarding Dunst’s argument that the diversity requirement violates an open curriculum, we must keep in mind the mission of the college. Specifically, “prepar[ing] students for lives of meaning, purpose, and active citizenship,” “intellectual growth” and “[learning to] embrace difference.” Yes, the open curriculum is an important fixture at the college but that commitment must be weighted against these overarching goals. The slight decrease in course selection freedom is a small price to pay for a vital and enriching experience that will pay dividends down the road in an increasingly diverse world.
While I understand the perspective Dunst put forth in his article, I find myself in disagreement with nearly all of it. I find no reason to group the new diversity requirement into a larger perceived trend of unnecessary safe spaces and I challenge Dunst on the application of that term. The diversity requirement will allow for new and challenging discussions to be started, so that we all can become more mindful, empathetic world citizens. I have full faith that our school’s excellent faculty will be able to facilitate and inspire discussions on diversity within their classes without allowing bias to hold sway nor minimizing certain viewpoints.
Finally, diversity is not a liberal concept. It is all around us, all the time, in all walks of life. I support the diversity requirement, but will certainly watch how it plays out warily. There are plenty of places it could go awry and some of the dangers Dunst pointed out are not only plausible, but could actually come to fruition. Above all, I think it is most important not to judge the requirement before it has been given a fair chance. We must recognize the many positive benefits it will carry if implemented properly. Let us move forward not in terms of liberal or conservative, but rather as a strong community committed to the kind of equality and civil discourse that can only exist through diversity.