Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, February 2012

 Charge: Could the teaching and assessing of diversity be organized in a better way?

The committee examined several alternatives. We recommend alternative III.

I. Diversity as a graduation requirement (WSU, UVU, U of U)
Currently, three credit hours of diversity are required for graduation. At WSU, there are 79 courses which can fulfill this requirement. Twenty of those also fulfill General Education requirements in a breadth area.

Advantages: There is a great variety of courses available.

Disadvantages: Even though there are 79 courses, between 70 and 75% of the students enrolled in these courses are enrolled in the 20 “double-dipping” courses. The other quarter are enrolled in mostly upper-division courses which are almost always program requirements. Some of these courses have the “double-dipping” courses as a pre-requisite. The true number of students “double-dipping” is therefore likely to be much higher. To assess about 60 courses for diversity when very few students are actually taking them for that purpose does not appear to be a wise use of the many man/woman-hours in reviewing and assessing.

Faculty oversight of diversity is lacking. Since the introduction of the requirement, there has not been any review. Only new courses are reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee. During that time, many courses shifted focus due to changes in faculty etc. Transfer courses are currently evaluated by the Registrar to see if they are equivalent to a course on our list or have diversity content.

Transfer students are affected more by a graduation requirement than students who start out at WSU.  Programs that are in danger of exceeding the 126 credit-hour-limit laid down by the Utah Board of Regents have crafted their suggested course sequences and their advising documents to make sure that students combine their general education and diversity requirements. Transfer students often enter a program at a later stage and then have to take an extra class to fulfill the diversity requirement.

Another point of friction for transfer students is the agreement in the USHE system that an associate degree completes the general education of a student and will be accepted as such by the other institutions. At some institutions, a separate diversity requirement either does not exist or is embedded in the general education canon. Most of the students transferring from those institutions with an AA or AS are not aware that there is a separate graduation requirement and do not plan to take anything other than their program requirements. This has led to some very unhappy students and parents.

II. Abolishing the requirement altogether.  (USU, SUU)
Advantages: This would be easy to do and require no further effort on the part of anyone. The assumption would be that the curriculum as currently taught contains many courses in a variety of disciplines that address the many aspects of diversity. Our catalog states on p. 40 under General Education Requirements: “The exposure to diverse fields of study enables students to make intellectually honest and ethical decisions that reflect a knowledge of and respect for diverse people, ideas, and cultures.” New learning outcomes for General Education courses in the Humanities and Creative Arts require awareness of different cultures.

This alternative would save labor for faculty advisors and administrators. It would reduce the possibility of misadvising and no student would ever have to take an extra class. 

Disadvantages:  There are currently no data to evaluate the state of diversity in the General           Education program. The vast majority of students fulfill their diversity requirement in the Social Sciences. However, the current learning outcomes do not mention diversity specifically.

The committee could see this alternative as a viable option in the future. The newly established area committees for the core and breadth areas are currently gathering data and artifacts for assessment for our upcoming accreditation. Their reports down the road will give a clearer picture and may also lead to a change in learning outcomes.

III. Embedding the diversity requirement into the body of general education. (SLCC)
 (Recommended)
The current diversity courses in the General Education program will be marked with a (DV) after the course title. Every student will be required to take one of these within his/her breadth requirements. New diversity courses will also have to be general education courses. The other 59 courses will lose their diversity designation. The catalog will state that the minimum requirement for general education is 35 credit hours and that the diversity requirement does not require the student to take an extra course.

Disadvantages: Smaller selection of courses. Possible minor effect on enrollment in the 59 other courses that would lose their diversity designation.

Advantages: Such a system would reflect what is currently happening. The current twenty courses, with the exception of the Honors courses, are fairly evenly split between Arts and Humanities on the one side and Social Science on the other. According to enrollment data from the Registrar, however, of students currently enrolled in these courses, nine out of eleven take a social science class. Within this body again there is significant concentration in a few courses.

The emphasis and value we place on diversity will be visible and clear. All students will be taking at least one course, and maybe more, that has diversity specifically in its learning outcomes, whereas alternative II does not guarantee that. There will be no less exposure to diversity than in the current system, but it will not require an extra course. Although 59 courses will lose their diversity designation, they will of course continue to address many aspects of diversity, as will many other courses in the curriculum which did not apply for the designation. We are limiting only the number of courses we will officially assess and evaluate, not the availability or the value of diversity in our courses.

While this alternative will not reduce the need for evaluating transfer courses, their number will be greatly reduced. There will be faculty oversight in a variety of ways. The recently established area committees will be instrumental in evaluating and assessing learning outcomes, gathering artifacts, etc., for diversity. That will amount to significantly more faculty involvement than there is now. New diversity courses will also have to be general education courses and thus be part of the regular review process. Faculty Senate recently passed a rubric to evaluate new and existing courses for diversity, so a method for that assessment is in place.

There will be greater transparency for all students of what they need to graduate. All requirements will be in one place.  Students with an associate degree from other USHE institutions will have completed their General Education requirements. There will be no surprise at the end requiring a potential tuition expenditure for an extra three credit hours.

WSU will be in better compliance with the Regents’ policy document R470 which states: “3.1.3. Develop Personal and Social Responsibility: Including civil knowledge and engagement – local and global, intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action, foundations and skills for lifelong learning. These categories of General Education development must be demonstrated though active involvement with diverse communities and real-world challenges.” That statement makes it very clear that diversity needs to be addressed within the General Education body and not outside of it.

 WSU will be able to demonstrate to its accreditation body that it is efficient and organized in assessing all its requirements, that it is cognizant of faculty hours and transparency, and concerned about equitable treatment of all students.

This alternative will be helpful to some programs which for accreditation reasons struggle to stay within the 126 credit hours. Although most of their students do not take an extra class to fulfill their diversity requirement, the program is supposed to count those hours in its overall total.

The committee acknowledges that there are many faculty members on campus who are very experienced in and deeply committed to diversity. If this model were to be accepted, we would like to encourage them to become involved in the established area committees for each breadth area of General Education and thereby ensure the continued strength of diversity at WSU.

The timetable for implementing this change will be up to Faculty Senate. Since it would be to the advantage of the student body, we recommend this be done as soon as deadlines permit.