The best path to a welcoming climate?

Twenty students waited patiently outside of a School of Arts and Sciences faculty meeting on Thursday with the hope that their two-year campaign for a U.S. cultural analysis requirement would not come to a quick and sudden end.

A last-minute motion to consider the requirement will surely spark and enliven what has recently been a dormant public debate, but it also begs one to consider where this started in the first place.

The effort began in the fall of 2003, when Darcy Richie, chairwoman of the United Minorities Coalition, and Julia Lee, chairwoman of the Asian-Pacific Student Association, founded the Student Movement for Change to address Penn's so-called "unsettling racial climate." According to the original mission statement, the movement aimed "to create a sense of belonging for all Penn students, especially for communities of color."

SMC was an organization transcendent of its minority coalition affiliations, which grew out of frustration with what Lee describes in an e-mail as the "historical repetition of the same battles" and the administration's "constant runaround."

Its tactics were bold and confrontational, although Lee and Richie prefer the phrase "brutally honest."

SMC had demands, and the best flyering job I have encountered on this campus ensured every student knew those demands: improved minority retention and recruitment, expanded ethnic studies programs, increased resources for cultural centers and a restructured Department of Public Safety in light of a highly publicized racial profiling incident. Individually, the goals were unremarkable and long advocated by various groups on campus. But, as a strong united front, they were extraordinary.

When presented with the demands, then-President Judith Rodin was outraged -- according to SMC notes, she told group members the action was "shocking and insulting." President Rodin and then-Provost Robert Barchi even ran a 1,400 word guest column in The Daily Pennsylvanian defending their 10-year record on diversity and expressing their disappointment in SMC's efforts.

However, once the initial shock of their actions passed -- and probably thanks to it -- SMC made real progress, drawing the support of numerous faculty and staff at the University. In one instance of their success, the organization spurred the creation of the Diversity Outreach Advisory Board in the Admissions office.

Just as importantly, however, SMC drew opposition, providing fertile ground for meaningful discussion to break out all over campus. As Richie articulates, "Those 'demands' opened conversations that otherwise might not have happened."

By February 2004, a new, sharpened focus emerged -- the four demands were replaced by a curricular proposal: the American Cultural Analysis Requirement, which was later renamed the United States Cultural Analysis Requirement.

The initial aim, as explained in an editorial by two SMC members, was to require one course concerned with the "examination and reflection of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and/or class in American society." SMC lobbied for its inclusion throughout the curriculum debate last year, and, although the organization technically no longer exists, its specter lingers over the continued efforts to include U.S. cultural analysis in the curriculum.

USCAR was not unprecedented -- several public and private universities have similar requirements -- but, in examining SMC's initial motivations, improving the Penn experience for minority students, one wonders if USCAR was really the best path down which to go. Will requiring students to take a course relating to the experience of U.S. minorities materially improve the so-called "unsettling racial climate" on Penn's campus that sparked this effort?

Richie points out that "we could never understand each other if we don't learn about each other's experience, perspective and history." Theoretically, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement and the desire to encourage a deeper understanding of the cultures within this country.

Unfortunately, I don't think a requirement will achieve that end, and I highly doubt that it will improve the tolerance of this campus -- a course cannot make our students better citizens. In compelling such a choice within our curriculum, the requirement will likely spark resentment among those who need it most.

I wonder what would have been the fate of SMC had USCAR not embodied their efforts. Would Penn be a more welcoming place for minorities? Perhaps there would be more than two students at meetings of the Diversity Outreach Advisory Board. Perhaps there would be a more concerted effort addressing issues of minority retention. Perhaps the initial campus discussions of racial climate that SMC sparked would have continued a little bit longer.

As the debate over USCAR once again reopens, I hope that it also spurs conversation about the proposal's original intents and means to reach those admirable goals. Because I don't think this requirement will suffice.

Shannon Jensen is a senior real estate, business and public policy and urban studies major from Annapolis, Md. Above Board appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.