UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Race or Ethnicity Requirement

Effective for students entering the College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LS&A) in Fall 1991, each student must take, as part of graduation requirements, one course that addresses issues arising from racial or ethnic intolerance. A course that satisfies the diversity requirement may also be used, where appropriate, to satisfy a distribution or concentration requirement.

I. REQUIRED CONTENT

All courses satisfying the diversity requirement must provide discussion, consistent with disciplinary approaches, of:

1. the meaning of race, ethnicity, and racism;

2. racial and ethnic intolerance and resulting inequality as it occurs in the United States or elsewhere;

3. comparisons of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, social class, or gender.

II. REQUIRED FOCUS

Every course satisfying the diversity requirement must devote substantial but not necessarily exclusive attention to the required content. Courses may meet this requirement by various means consistent with disciplines or fields of study and faculty members from all departments are urged to think creatively about how their field might contribute to the requirement.

Although it is hoped that many of these courses will focus on the United States, it is not required that they do so. Courses that deal with these issues in other societies, or that study them comparatively, may also meet the requirement.

III. CERTIFICATION OF COURSES

The Curriculum Committee of the College will determine which courses meet the requirement. The process leading to this determination will be as follows:

Faculty members wishing to offer a course that satisfies the diversity requirement will apply to the College Curriculum Committee by submitting a syllabus and a one- to two-page explanation of how the course intends to fulfill the requirement.

IV. FACILITATION OF NEW COURSES

The Curriculum Committee will annually collect and make available to interested faculty the syllabi from all courses approved for the program.

V. REVIEW OF REQUIREMENT

After this requirement has been in operation for two years the Dean will appoint a committee to review all aspects of it.

Report of the Committee to Review the ROE Requirement and the UC 299 Board

March, 1995

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE ROE REQUIREMENT AND UC 299 BOARD:

David Schoem, Chair
Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education

Elizabeth Anderson
Department of Philosophy

Ruth Behar
Department of Anthropology
Program in Women's Studies

Deborah Faye Carter
Staff for the Committee

Sarah Deitch
Undergraduate Student

Donald Deskins
Department of Sociology

Chalmers Knight
Office of Student Academic Affairs

Thomas Major
Undergraduate Student (Winter '94)

Alejandra Marchevsky
Graduate Student

Leilani Nishime
Graduate Student (Fall '94)

Abigail Stewart
Program in Women's Studies
Department of Psychology

Stephen Sumida
Department of English Language and Literature
Program in American Culture

Mpatanishi Tayari
Undergraduate Student (Fall '94)

Stephen Tablo
Department of Philosophy

INTRODUCTION

When the Race or Ethnicity (ROE) requirement was approved by the Literature, Science and the Arts (LS&A) faculty and when the UC 299 Board was established, it was mandated that each be reviewed beginning academic year 1993-94. The ROE mandate states "After this equirement has been in operation for two years, the Dean will appoint a committee to review all aspects of it." The UC 299 Board mandate states "At the end of a three-year period, the LS&A Executive Committee will decide whether the Board should be continued or discontinued and, in the event of continuation, whether the Board, its powers, and its responsibilities should be modified in any way."

At the direction of Dean Edie N. Goldenberg, Michael Martin, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education, appointed a single committee to conduct both reviews. Dean Martin presented the Committee with an expansive ten-point charge to guide its work. The Committee began its work in January, 1994 and continued its deliberations through the Fall term, 1994.

The Committee made steady progress thinking through the difficult issues posed by the charge. Meeting weekly, the Committee reviewed documents describing the discussions prior and subsequent to the approval of the ROE requirement. It reviewed the course approval process and met with representatives from Checkpoint, CRISP, the LSA Dean's Office, and members from past ROE Subcommittees of the Curriculum Committee. It heard from faculty who have taught ROE courses, from those who have taught UC 299, and from those who have served on the UC 299 Board. It met with LSA Academic Advisors to learn what they heard from students about the requirement. It reviewed the 1993 LSA Student Government ROE survey and met with representatives of LSA Student Government. It also met with students living in Bursley Hall, leaders of organizations representing students of color, and students, TAs and faculty from Anthropology 101. It met with the Vice Provost for Academic and Multicultural Affairs, the Director of CRLT, and with those knowledgeable about and/or responsible for instructional support for other requirements and other undergraduate initiatives. It presents here a set of recommendations that are comprehensive in scope but which are intended to provide sufficient detail to give direction to policy and implementation.

The report first presents the full charge to the review committee and then follows with the committee's response to each of the ten points of the charge. It then presents its recommendations, first without discussion, to provide a quick reference for the reader. It then follows with an extended discussion of each recommendation. The report concludes with a discussion of the resource implications of its recommendations. The addenda provide background information pertaining to the ROE requirement and the UC 299 Board.

RESPONSES TO THE CHARGE TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. Review the menu of courses that has been available to students to meet the ROE requirement. Have sufficient numbers of spaces been vailable for students to plan their schedules rationally? Has the distribution of courses over various divisions within the College been satisfactory? Are there any enrollment patterns that might suggest that certain types of courses have received a more favorable response from students than other types?

The Committee heard from students, academic advisors, and Checkpoint staff alike that there are sufficient spaces available for students in ROE courses. There should be no concern in this regard. Over 125 courses have been approved, including many more distinct sections of "topics"
courses. In academic year 1994-95, 7,363 student spaces were available in ROE courses offered; in academic year 1993-94, 7,761 student paces were available in ROE courses offered.

Regarding distribution of courses over various divisions of the College, the committee found the following information:

1) In academic year 1993-94, Anthropology, History and Sociology accounted for about 60% of all ROE courses.

2) In Fall '93, sixty-seven percent of ROE courses were offered for social science distribution credit and twenty-five percent for humanities distribution credit; in Winter '94, fifty-two percent of ROE courses were offered for social science distribution credit, thirty-one percent for humanities distribution credit and three percent for natural science distribution credit.

3) In academic year 1993-94, the majority of ROE courses were 100 or 200-level courses, although during Winter Term, 44% of the courses offered for ROE credit were at the 300 or 400-level.

The Committee has heard from students and staff that there is inadequate educational information provided to first year students about the requirement. Academic advisors and student orientation leaders are apparently themselves not adequately informed about the requirement except to make students aware that it must be fulfilled. The Committee believes that this form of advising may be one of the reasons that many students seek to "get the requirements out of the way" rather than approaching it as an educational opportunity with over 125 courses from which to hoose.

Finally, the Committee heard from faculty and students alike that small enrollment classes in which discussion is encouraged are the preferred format for studying about ROE content.

2. Review the efficiency of the processes of soliciting, approving and monitoring ROE courses. Has the ROE Subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee served as an efficient mechanism for administering the ROE requirement? What is the best way to solicit new ROE courses? Should there be particular emphasis on having more large introductory courses meet the ROE criteria? Is LSA Checkpoint the appropriate office to collect and maintain the term-by-term list of courses approved to meet the ROE requirement? Are the resources of LSA Checkpoint adequate for the task?

Since the faculty first approved the requirement, the solicitation and approval processes have been reviewed, modified and thereby improved by the LS&A Curriculum Committee. Subsequently, the ROE solicitation process has produced a sizable number of courses. However, the Committee feels that the process can be improved even further, and recommends a new solicitation form and more outreach to faculty who are currently offering courses which are likely to gain ROE approval.

To date there has been no "monitoring" of ROE courses. The Committee does recommend a "re-certification" process every five years which is discussed
in greater detail in the section on discussion of recommendations, later
in the report.

This Committee also recommends that departments be encouraged to consider proposing appropriate introductory courses for "generic" ROE approval, without regard to the instructor. While the Committee wishes to place greater emphasis on small seminar-type classes rather than large lecture-type, it does recommend that the College give serious consideration to the ROE focus of large introductory courses when departments seek funding support for course revisions. It urges that this requirement be more fully integrated with other undergraduate initiatives.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In response to its charge, the review committee has identified various ways in the report to improve the overall educational quality of this faculty-approved requirement. In order to minimize duplication of effort and to minimize costs, the Committee has attempted to incorporate many of its recommendations within existing university frameworks and units which support coursework and instructional improvement, such as the First Year Seminar Program, LS&A departments and programs, and CRLT. It is noted that the Committee's recommendations for curricular and instructional support in the areas of race, racism, and ethnicity coincide with university-wide priorities emanating from the Michigan mandate and reiterated by the President and by the Vice Provost for Academic and Affairs so that some supportive partnerships might be explored. In cases in which some effort has been lacking or could be consolidated or improved upon, the Committee has recommended its elimination, as in the case of the UC299 course. Importantly, many of these recommendations for instructional support include a capped, competitive process in order to
insure educational excellence and fiscal responsibility. Finally, as the Committee has reviewed the budgetary implications of its recommendations, it finds that they fall well within the range of existing support for other College requirements and undergraduate initiatives.

1. Support for "Race, Racism, and Ethnicity" Courses

- "Linked" first year seminars: fold into first year seminar offerings.

- Upper level "399": recommendation to locate within an academic department is not anticipated to require additional resources for the College.

2. Support for Course Development and Instruction

- Supplement CRLT Faculty Development Funds: it is estimated that current funding would permit about three awards annually for R&E curriculum projects through CRLT. The Committee recommends that additional funds be made available to support deserving applications in the event that there is strong interest from faculty for course development support.

- Mini-grants to faculty: faculty can apply for up to $1K per year.

- Grants to departments and/or faculty "groups": competitive proposals will be encouraged and considered through the undergraduate initiative budget.

- Faculty Seminar: incremental cost for faculty stipends.

- TA Training: for an estimated 80-100 TAs/year in coordination with departmental training and CRLT's Multicultural Teaching Services.

- Workshops and Speakers: in coordination with CRLT.

3. Support for Smaller-Size Discussion Sections

- Set maximum enrollment for R&E First Year Seminars at 18 students.

- Reduce section size of lecture/section courses; provide supplementary TA budget for non-sectioned courses; allow more frequent discussions sections/reduced number of lectures. These requests will be by petition only, on a competitive basis, with capped funding.

- Consider special instructional requests.

4. Support for the R&E Instructional Board

- Adequate staff support will be needed to support the numerous responsibilities identified for the Board. Incremental costs necessary.