MCEF Votes in Favor of Diversity Requirement

COURTESY LATINO LEADERSHIP FORUM After a student-led push, the Main Campus Executive Faculty voted in favor of adding a diversity requirement.

After a student-led push, the Main Campus Executive Faculty voted in favor of adding a diversity requirement.

The Main Campus Executive Faculty voted today in favor of adding a diversity requirement to the core curriculum.

“The requirement passed with overwhelming support,” MCEF Chair Ian Gale, a professor of economics, wrote in an email to The Hoya.

Beginning with the Class of 2020, students from all four schools will be required to take two courses cross-listed under the category “Engaging Differences.” An estimated 240 courses will fulfill the requirement, with more accurate numbers to follow once departments finalize their syllabi. Students will not have to take additional courses to fulfill the requirement, which is satisfied through overlay courses.

According to Gale, the members of the MCEF discussed how the requirement would help students develop an understanding of different perspectives.

“The meaning of ‘non-Western perspectives’ was debated at length. Several faculty members and students offered their understanding of the term while others offered alternatives to the wording,” Gale wrote. “The debate was Georgetown at its best.”

The MCEF consists of 57 faculty members and two students, and the proposal needed at least 29 votes to pass. Gale was not able to provide the exact tally of votes at press time.

The requirement will need to be approved by the board of directors before it is instated.

LCAR member Khadija Khan (COL ’17) said that the vote is a victory for many students who have worked towards the approval of the requirement.

“Generations of students have been fighting for this movement. We are a part of history today,” Khan said. “This requirement means so much to so many students’ lives. We’ve been envisioning a better Georgetown for years, and this is a real step towards that vision.”

LCAR member Esther Owolabi (COL ’15) said that the requirement should serve to continue efforts in making Georgetown students more aware about issues related to diversity.

“After years of tireless student activism, I am proud of Georgetown for taking this monumental step to creating a more inclusive and aware community. This is big, but it is only the beginning,” Owolabi said.

Hoya Staff Writer Toby Hung contributed reporting.


Correction: An earlier version of this post stated the requirement would go into effect for the Class of 2019. It will begin with the Class of 2020. Additionally, more than 200 courses meet the overlay requirement, as opposed to the 80 initially cited, and the course category has been renamed “Engaging Differences” earlier in the academic year, as opposed to the name used earlier in the article, “Diversity, Power and Privilege.”

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.


  1. The faculty of this school embarrassed themselves today by passing a feel good but utterly useless requirement that will harm Georgetown for decades to come. Not only only does this increase spending on smaller, less popular majors (what a surprise they voted, it also prevents students from taking classes that they actually want to be in and prevents experimentation. Now it becomes even harder to.become a science student at Georgetown, ensures the SFS will never have a science requirement, and adds another undue burden onto.incoming students. Attracting the best and the brightest will be even harder when they figure out that they will be taking gen eds till senior year and making.g it harder for students to graduate early. The secrecy involved was disgraceful, no one knows what classes are acceptable and no.student who is not in GUSA or is trying very hard to.appear “diverse” or get elected actually wants to take these classes

    • Antwan Robinson says:

      Sorry bro, but this is not a feel good matter. Students have been working on this for 25 years, and since you’ve posted anonymously, you too have limited an open discussion. Also, this is not any more money out of the Univesity’s pocket, these are courses available to every student that most ‘stereotypical Georgetown students’ have avoided, because they can. And this requirement is about being culturally competent, which every future leader of the world should be well versed in. If not in college, how is one supposed to be in that Office meeting not knowing how to engage with their first transgender person? How about this is my first Black person I’ve met because I’m from a mostly white suburb of New Jersey and I don’t know of the microaggressions I’m using? If you’re not culturally competent after college, you’ll be an ignorant world leader unaware of “the others” you’re working for.

      • Antwan, I’m on a chat forum and I don’t hold the position of Race Leader on the cabinet. My input, and from what it looks like, the input of the majority of students on campus, was not solicited on this matter and I don’t recall any open student forums for this requirement. All there was this year was a misleading petition that I’m pretty sure a lot of people have buyer’s remorse about and an article written the day of the vote. And there is a reason why students don’t take these courses: Because no one wants to. They serve no real purpose outside of the confines of this zone and probably don’t even do that very well. As I’m sure we will hear many times, you cannot force people to learn about diversity and to be diverse and in any case I’m pretty sure most students here will be able to handle themselves in the real world better than people protesting about micro-aggressions. In fact, I can’t say I would learn anything in these requirements about micro-aggressions or transgenderism or anything else because the course listings and nothing else about this movement have been made public.

        • Antwan Robinson says:

          My friend, whoever you are posting anonymously, why don’t you stop repressing what you don’t want to hear? There’s inequality in this world wherever you may end up. And as an educated person, you need not walk blind through it. There have been at least 5 events on campus in which there’s been both discussion for and against a diversity requirement,as well as open forums on how this will effect students with respect to requirements period. I didn’t give you title of any leader on any type of issue. I simply stated that we as Hoyas must know about one another. One of the biggest premises of Georgetown is to educate the entire person as well as becoming men and women for OTHERS. And it’s clear that you don’t want to be recognized by being anonymous, but if you’re a Hoya,and a future leader, you’ve proven that you have no competency on my previous examples. They are the type of people that you will meet in the future, and you have them here right now. The ideal that Georgetown has placed as a tenant is Pluralism in Action, and that ideal hasn’t been met simply on the premise that if we accept more students of color, LGBTQIA, people of lower SES, we would come together and sing cumbaya hasn’t been true. Pluralism in Action starts by equipping Hoyas with the necessary language, and skills to sit down in the Jesuit ideal and reflect on how we’re showing up as people to reflect on our own identities.

          • Clarification says:

            >I didn’t give you title of any leader on any type of issue.

            The student you responded to was referring to the fact that you are the Undersecretary for Race Affairs, according to the GUSA website.

            Aside from that, I have yet to hear how an academic classroom environment is the right approach to fostering a sense of “pluralism in action.”

          • Antwan Robinson says:

            Clarification person, you would not have known that fact, if you weren’t in fact from GUSA, so I’m assuming you’re in opposition and are in fact part of GUSA and chose not to participate in training on 4/26.

          • Antwan, the fact that you are the US for Race Affairs is public knowledge available to everyone:


      • It’s laughable to suggest that any class can teach students “how to engage with their first transgender person” or Black person (and yes, those of us from the suburbs still know how to interact with a Black person…). You don’t learn those things by being sat down in a classroom and lectured to, or by writing a couple of papers and taking a final. You learn those things from organic interpersonal interactions, whether on your freshman floor or in clubs and student groups.

        And your suggestion that this kind of education can only happen in college is pretty elitist, don’t you think?

      • You are going to be deeply disappointed if you think that forcing people to sit through a class that they don’t want to take is going to teach them “how to interact with Black people,” something that many of us from the suburbs (btw far more Americans live in suburbs than cities) learned how to do perfectly well, thank you very much.

        • Antwan Robinson says:

          Again, you all are posting anonymously, and are really constricting who I am interacting with. It’s extremely annoying arguing with nameless peers! Also, I’m from the suburbs as well, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t raised in the same sexist, racist, hetero-normative American society that you were, person. And yes, that’s my official title in this administration, however, if you believe that I am pigeonholed into ONE social identity, please x person, take a nap. So you wanna know how we do foster this? Dang, I love those Jesuits. The Jesuit ideal of “Contemplation in Action,” where we actually sit down as Hoyas and REFLECT on our own identities and how in turn that affects out interactions with others fosters the Jesuit ideal of “Pluralism in Action.” Pluralism is the act of identities being present and in unison; I believe that’s called coexisting. The point here is to turn an ideal into an actual reality.

          • Antwan Robinson says:

            Also, I didn’t say that the only place that these can happen is college. I’m saying that “American Apartheid” exists, check out that book on Amazon. But the sparknotes version basically explains that racial relations, in particular are very stagnant because of the homogeneity of how America is segregated both by the social identities of socio-economic strata and race. How many people from your local high school shared your same race? How about socioeconomic status? What about cis-gendered? Do you believe that that experience is representative of the world you’re about to go out into? Google cis-gendered too, yay! privileged people get to thrive in their own ignorance. Anyway, point in case, college, in particularly Georgetown is a great opportunity for us to elicit, and exploit this type of education to create an actually inclusive environment, one that is embedded into the nature of the Jesuit values, got it, anon?

          • Also Class of 2016 says:

            > Also, I’m from the suburbs as well, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t raised in the same sexist, racist, hetero-normative American society that you were, person.

            What are you talking about? Are you saying that American society as a whole is all of those bad things (so I guess you’re an international student?), or just that the guy you responded to was raised in such an area? I don’t know where you’re from and neither of us know where he’s from, but there’s no need to make assumptions or to chastise people for where they happened to be born.

  2. I think the problem with this, as stated above, is that there really are too many core requirements as it is. There’s no way to land an internship in the first two years of college if it depends on applying what you learn in class because the first two years of college is about taking intro level courses on subject irrelevant to the skill set needed for a job. Sure, these things might be worth discussing, but not worth adding an entire year of coursework for every student. Rather it should be incorporated into some of these core requirements that we’re already taking as it is. The discussion about switching to a four-course semester is completely off the table now because there won’t be any room in our four year plans with this new requirement. Idealism versus practicality at its best

  3. The inmates have seized control of the asylum. Normally I am inclined to believe students in their arguments against the neighbors, but if the same people who believe in this nonsense also are the people talking to the neighbors, I can see why the neighbors want to walk off the university

  4. another student says:

    Georgetown is focused on cultivating the entire individual so it passes requirements that it believes will do so. If you want to just focus on becoming a doctor, lawyer, or some other professional then there are plenty of schools that primarily focus on that. Georgetown is about building individuals, not just careers. I agree that it’s just a “feel good” thing for now but it’s better than nothing.

  5. Student who knows what they're talking about says:

    To all of you who think this is a bad idea because, “there really are too many core requirements as is” please do your research. The requirement does not ask for students to take an extra class, but rather requires that one of the other classes they enroll in also fulfills this requirement. For example, students could use their HALC, history, or theology course to fulfill the requirement and grow up to be the practical STEM or business they (or possibly their parents want them) to be without any less trouble than they would have now.

    Regardless, the purpose of this requirement is not to liven up smaller majors or cut down on students’ choices, but rather to open their eyes to perspectives that they have been conditioned to not pay attention to. For a school of the white, privileged, and wealthy we have a responsibility to understand perspectives that are all to often seen as “the other”. The amount of ignorance and insensitivity I have seen on this campus is astonishing, and I don’t think we can truly say that Georgetown is truly educating the whole person if it does not ask students to step out of their comfort zone and listen to people of diverse and marginalized backgrounds.

    Furthermore, this is hardly unprecedented. The majority of Georgetown’s peer schools have similar requirements and have had them for decades, so it’s embarrassing that a school that prides itself on its “diversity” as much as Georgetown has taken so long to enact this.

    • Yeah no. The very nature of a requirement inherently means that it is limiting and requires extra classes. Just because they are cross listed doesn’t mean a whole lot, as I’m willing to bet substantial sums of money that courses like “existentialism” and such are not cross-;listed. As a result, we will see a crowding out effect for those courses that fill other requirements, such as random Theology and Philosophy courses that are cross listed, and everyone else who doesn’t get into these select few will be forced to take new classes.

      Next, our peer institutions don’t waste their time with pointless things like this. 2 Ivy League schools have somewhat similar requirements, both of which are not taken seriously by their student bodies, and neither UPenn nor Dartmouth have as extensive a core curriculum as Georgetown does.

      Finally, as someone who is neither white nor wealthy, I have seen large displays of ignorance on this campus as well. While I would argue most of that ignorance has been shown in the idiotic protests against that cartoon that was supporting Chris and Meredith, the truth is that you cannot force people to try and be more diverse and you cannot teach diversity, you have to experience it. Forcing people to be in classes they don’t want to take, which serve 0 purposes toward their goals, and which are seen as detriments to learning help no one.

    • Sure they CAN use those slots to fulfill this requirement, but what if they don’t WANT to? Georgetown is billed as a place where you can pursue a variety of interests or “take that fun class,” but the organizers of this campaign just can’t abide by people wanting to take a different approach to their education, so they went over students’ heads to force this requirement upon them.

      And miss me with the snide remarks about “their parents want.” Again, we see that you cannot possibly imagine for a second that anybody would actually have different interests and passions than you do, so you feel the need to force them into your field.

    • Agree generally with what’s already been said, but just an additional note:

      You call yourself “Student who knows what they’re talking about.” Please get off your high horse of superiority over your fellow students. We don’t have to have written the proposal itself to understand diversity and have informed, reasonable opinions about encouraging an understanding of and culture of diversity on campus. Students don’t disagree with stepping out of comfort zones; we disagree with forcing it as a course requirement that has a grade and professor biases associated with it, among other problems. Additionally, your fellow students aren’t dumber or less moral than you; they have real concerns and your haughtiness to engaging belies an unwillingness to face conflicting opinions. Perhaps you should get out of your comfort zone?

      And we don’t have these opinions as white privileged people. I have this opinion as a minority racially and definitely socioeconomically.

  6. While I understand that there might be a need for people to open up to different perspectives and cultures, this also limits them in choosing courses (HIST, THEO, what have you) that also fulfill this requirement and pidgeon holes them into taking whatever core class fulfills that requirement, instead of branching out and learning something new or interesting. I have several who took a class on the Italian Renaissance to fulfill a HIST requirement, a class none of them would have otherwise taken, that they enjoyed and would probably not be considered a part of this diversity requirement.

    Furthermore, the core classes, even for the SFS which does not as of yet have a “hard science” requirement, do tend to be somewhat burdensome. For instance, the NHS students have a ridiculous amount of lab work and core classes added to their schedules, crippling their chance to take any electives that might be meaningful for them. College students find themselves forced into taking a math classes that the vast majority, who haven’t been mathematically inclined going in the first place, will forget within a year and certainly by the time they graduate. MSB students perhaps are the most career oriented, but even then they have theology requirements which tend to be ignored; one MSB student in a theology class was willing to pay someone to write an essay in “the B range” because it wouldn’t matter for her anyways and just gets in the way of her actual major. I leave out my own school to prevent any accusations of bias, but the requirement to take four economics courses is certainly criticized by SFSers who do not intend to pursue an International Political Economy or International Economics major, and even those students confirm that the intro level classes are relatively useless and worlds apart from the more realistic and interesting, higher level economics courses offered.

    Long story short, by enforcing these core requirements, we are requiring somewhat watered down courses that, by covering a wide base, end up covering nothing at all and that prevent students from more serious scholarship. This diversity requirement doesn’t add much to the problem, but further limits the options of students who do not have as much room to experiment with course selections already and essentially makes them tailor their class selection away from other courses that may have been outside their comfort zone, which, for many, defeats the very purpose of the program. The idea of widening students’ perspectives and understanding of diversity and power dynamics is incredibly important; the new requirement is just not a good way of implementing that.

    • Generally agree with your sentiments (the idea that there will have to be a list of “diversity” classes is ludicrous, everything teaches something interesting that relates to diversity), but just two corrections:

      1) “Furthermore, the core classes, even for the SFS which does not as of yet have a “hard science” requirement, do tend to be somewhat burdensome.”

      I (as required) had hard science courses as a STIA major, but that proved useful because my studies require me to understand the science, and I’m of the belief there shouldn’t be a hard science req unless you’re going into a science-related field

      2) One MSB student in a theology class was willing to pay someone to write an essay in “the B range” because it wouldn’t matter for her anyways and just gets in the way of her actual major.

      I think that has less to do with the class and more to do with the MSB student and MSB culture in general…

  7. This is awful, I respected taking theology classes, even the philosophy requirements, it was a bit much but a solid amount to get the “well rounded” aspect I expected to be given. But by adding another Gen Ed requirement you are HARMING students that are on the science professional career path that want have to not only take their own major requirements but also the science classes and lab work as well. No respect these students, basically the school is saying if you want to go to Med School, Dental School, PA school, PT school, Pharmacy School, do it somewhere else. What a way to turn off great prospective students who want to pursue these career paths at this university.

    Sure this might sound great to the students who take idealistic majors in the SFS or in the college and have much room for more electives. Waking up from a great Georgetown Day and seeing this news was a huge disappointment. I expected better from the Hoya Saxa.

  8. Not Another Sudent! says:

    Y’all who are honestly complaining about this are just salty over nothing. Like, what, you gotta take two classes that will also count for other requirements anyway? Take a history class that’s not about Europe and some literature or government course that talks about black people and you’re set – you can finish this by the end of your Freshman year and not be slowed down at all. As if you were going to do anything better with those slots.

    • The complaint is that it will force people to choose between (A) using their core classes on diversity-approved courses that they might not be interested in and might not double-count towards their major/minor (B) using elective course slots for diversity-approved courses instead of electives they want to take. That’s not “nothing.”

      Also what on Earth gives you the power to make that assumption that people weren’t “going to do anything better with those slots”?

    • Young Alum says:

      Saying “as if you were going to do anything better with those slots” reveals that you don’t consider any field/subject worthy of inquiry besides your own incredibly narrow niche. News flash: it’s not a bad thing that the entire world doesn’t think the way you do, want to focus on the same thing you do, take the same classes you do, etc

      • Not Another Sudent! says:

        I hardly expect anyone to take the same classes as I do, or to take classes that interest me specifically (I’ve tended to shoot for classes about languages and film, myself), but in my time at Georgetown I have met more people who have cynically tried to pass through their gen-eds as effortlessly and thoughtlessly as possible than people who cared to craft them to fit their interests as closely as possible. This kind of complaint assumes a very optimistic take on how the average college student engages with required coursework.

    • Class of 2016 says:

      >As if you were going to do anything better with those slots.

      I don’t know about you, but I’m paying thousands of dollars that I can barely afford for the privilege of taking classes here. To the extent that it’s possible, I’d like to explore areas of interest that I can’t learn about from just reading Wikipedia articles (and especially not Tumblr posts) at home. When you take away my freedom to choose two of those courses, yes it is frustrating and yes I was actually going to do better things with those slots.

      And on the flip side, if you think it’s so easy to fulfill and it just requires taking slightly different courses, what happened to the justification that this is supposed to make me “engage with diverse perspectives” and “immerse myself in pluralism”? A generic non-Western history course and “a government course that talks about black people” don’t sound like they’re going to do much.

      • Not Another Sudent! says:

        I suppose the latter half of your comment is a valid enough criticism. It is absolutely an easy requirement to fulfill (I’m sure there are many already-popular courses that will count for it), but for many people who will view this requirement as a serious burden, you’re probably right, two random courses they’re not going to take seriously anyway are hardly going to do anyone any good. However, if Georgetown wants to take seriously its mission of Cura Personalis, teaching people to engage with unfamiliar perspectives is an important part of that, and this is a way to go about doing that. I suppose we’ll see whether or not it’s effective as time goes on.

  9. Niko Kostas says:

    How much do you want to bet that even requiring two courses on this garbage will not stop the race-baiting agitators from continuing to act like victims?

    • Niko, this sounds like a great question for you to bring up in your new MANDATORY diversity class. It desperately seems like you need this class. Enjoy.

      • You seem pretty giddy about forcing your views on other people

      • Niko Kostas says:

        haha I graduated years ago, when the school had crazy policies like actually teaching Geography in Map, not allowing students to disrupt invited speakers, and allowing folks to earn a degree without taking classes on how to feel guilty for being white. It’s very telling that this requirement was imposed without an actual open forum for students. The school is becoming increasingly hostile to kids who just want to get an education and a degree to prepare them for the real world and I mention this to anyone I know who considers applying.

  10. How ridiculous. “Diversity, power, and privilege”? You already know from the name alone that this class is going to be heavily pushing one particular political point of view. The people approving of this class don’t want dialogue, they want their left wing perspective to be required teaching.

    This tells me that Georgetown has become more concerned about feel good, biased indoctrination rather than being a place for serious and mature perspectives on the world. I can tell you it is embarrassing to see Georgetown become a laughing stock in the media in the past year, with speakers being protested by know nothing activists and articles being written WELCOMING being mugged. But now it seems the administration has bought into it (or has been bullied into it). Neither bode well for the school’s image, which will now be that of another garden variety left wing enclave.

  11. While I don’t think anyone is against appreciating other viewpoints, these courses are going to be taught all through the lens of one very specific political ideology. I highly doubt any of the courses will focus on the PRIVILEGE of all of us who were lucky enough not have been among the thousands of the unborn who die each year or the POWER of religion to change lives and inspire. This requirement flies in the face of the importance of having a DIVERSITY of political viewpoints on campus. Slowly but surely, it becomes even more difficult to be a social conservative on a college campus.

    • Perspectives says:

      Actually, these are EXACTLY the kinds of conversations that will be happening in a classroom. I took a class that debated abortion one day and it was one of the most enlightening conversations of my college experience. While I am pro-choice, I appreciated the opportunity to hear a different perspective. That’s what the requirement is all about. The requirement will create a space in the classroom for (yes uncomfortable and challenging) but necessary conversations about a variety of topics.
      I think it’s also unfair to assume that all faculty share the same political ideologies.

    • Not Another Sudent! says:

      Georgetown already requires its students to take a minimum of two Theology courses, pretty much all of which will speak very highly of the power of religion to change lives and inspire. I don’t understand where that particular gripe comes from.

  12. concerned scientist says:

    If the requirement weren’t asking students to take extra classes or restricting the classes they take for other requirements – which many of you are arguing on here – there would be no need for adding the requirement in the first place, and we’d already be getting the “diversity education” we apparently need so badly. By arguing that we really do need this, either you’re saying that it *will* limit people’s course choices or, in the case that students already take these courses, that teaching diversity in a classroom just doesn’t work – and apparently your solution is to force it some more?

    A lot of you are also confused as to how majoring in a science works here at Georgetown. Science majors are already exempted from the College’s social science requirement because they have more major requirements, many of which are labs, take at least 4 hours out of the day, and still only count for 2 credits. On top of that, most of the science courses are only offered at one time during the semester. This means that science students already have a limited range of schedule choices for their Gen Eds, on top of a more strenuous (major) course load, which makes it harder to find courses that fulfill non-major requirements. Adding the diversity requirement, under the stipulation that courses can be cross-listed, still makes it harder for science majors to complete it – besides the lucky few who make it into courses which fulfill other requirements, science majors will end up needing to take social science courses they didn’t have to take. If Georgetown wants to strengthen their science department (which they do), then they’re shooting themselves in the foot by adding this.

    • a response says:

      Hi concerned scientist, this proposal has been years in the making, and science majors were certainly considered when thinking about implementation. Over the next year as the requirement is unveiled, more research and litmus tests will be conducted to ensure that all Hoyas can fulfill this requirement and graduate on time within their desired major. As it stands, all students can fulfill this requirement, regardless of school or major.

      To your point: “in the case that students already take these courses, that teaching diversity in a classroom just doesn’t work” — it’s actually the opposite. Students who have engaged in these classes already see the added benefit to their Georgetown experience and want to ensure that all Hoyas have the chance to think critically about these issues in an academic setting.

    • Not Another Sudent! says:

      You’re claiming two different things here. It absolutely does not require you to take extra classes, nor does it “restrict” the classes you take for other requirements in any meaningful way. If you’re in the College, you have to take, what, sixteen gen-ed courses, usually? That number doesn’t go up with this new requirement, unless you forget about it until your senior year or something. Furthermore, given the very broad language of the requirement itself, I can only assume that there will be classes that fulfill this requirement in all kinds of departments so it’s not as if you’re pushed into using a given gen-ed slot for a given course. Like everyone assumes that under this requirement you’ll be forced to take like a psych class about racism or something, when it’s more likely that you’ll be able to go for a class on Buddhism (already everyone’s favorite blow-off religion class) to complete it. If the necessity and usefulness of the requirement are being overstated, then the people complaining about how it’s an unreasonable burden are just as bad.

  13. It’s well-known in certain circles on campus that the people organizing the campaign deliberately chose not to have “too much publicity” or “too much student input” as a way to streamline the process.

    • I wasn’t involved in the planning, but I distinctly remember seeing at least 3 townhalls about this requirement, put on by GUSA and the student campaign. Also, all MCEF meeting notes are public, so all the meeting notes are accessible to you, if you feel like the process was so “shady”

  14. Honestly, I don’t think it’s even remotely debatable that an understanding of “Diversity, Power and Privilege” is critical to being a well-rounded, mature, and critically thinking person. Given how many existing courses would meet this requirement, I don’t think it’s going to pose much of an inconvenience to anyone’s schedule. It might pose an inconvenience to people’s preconceived notions, though (which is kinda the point).

    One comes to college to have one’s beliefs challenged, shaped, and sharpened. A mature thinker is always accepting new evidence and knowledge, challenging their own beliefs, and thereby arriving at a deeper understanding. That is the goal – not indoctrination, but deeper and better reasoning. This requirement is a small but valuable means to that end.

    • “One comes to college to have one’s beliefs challenged” unless, of course, this process proves to be too “unsafe” and “triggering,” in which case you come to college to be coddled and reassured that there’s no need to consider any other beliefs.

      • I can’t speak for others, but personally, I do not support attempts to suppress speech or arguments on such grounds. In my experience, very few people either require or want this sort of emotional shielding – it’s a very difficult way to go through life, since ‘the real world’ outside the college gates is not liable to be so obliging.

        Besides, triggering doesn’t usually work this way; people are much more likely to be triggered by things (whether normally innocuous or potentially sensitive) that remind them or something else (e.g. cars backfiring sounding like gunshots, bells or chimes sounding like ambulance sirens, scenes of destruction) than by oral or written arguments with which they disagree.

        Taking coursework on diversity, power, and privilege would also be beneficial for those who lean to the left of the political spectrum whose understandings of those topics are simplistic and immature. Again, the point is to develop one’s critical thinking skills.

        • Maybe triggering doesn’t work that way IDEALLY. But the recent protests at the What’s Right/Wrong With Feminism event showed us how a certain segment of students use these concepts. “Trigger Warning: Anti-Feminist”; quite literally a warning to people that they might be triggered by different ideas.

          Also, not to toss aside your experience, but I feel like quite a lot of people want this kind of shielding. How else do you explain the freakout over speakers that “create unsafe spaces” or the editorial in this very paper saying that we should stop scrutinizing people’s claims in the name of not upsetting them?

  15. We already have enough liberal arts classes to take in the MSB, adding 2 more classes just means we can’t take the ones that actually matter (finance, accounting, management, etc.). News flash for all the social justice warriors – business school students are here to get a jobs, not ponder ‘differences’ and try to remedy the world’s social problems.

  16. So this push for diversity of views means that conservative political positions are now going to get equal and fair treatment at Georgetown? Nah.

  17. An Alumnus says:

    This is EXACTLY why I do not donate to Georgetown. This has nothing to do with bettering the university or the student body. It is a waste of money/resources and time in order to cater to a singular point of view.

    The only way individuals will truly learn of the value of diversity is through the real world. Forcing a requirement in an academic bubble will only further divide.

    For shame, Georgetown.

  18. What are the actual courses on the list. Long thread without actually seeing what we are asking the students to do-how much of a burden is it and impact on the students +/-

    • A student says:

      The proposed course list was kept secret between the people behind the campaign and the university – students were not allowed to know the details of the proposal, and it’s not even clear that the university knows exactly what was decided in this vote. For one thing, supposedly more than 280 courses would count, but this article now says 240. By the time it’s implemented, maybe that number will shrink further.

  19. Pingback: SBA set to hear resolution on campus diversity issues | Georgetown Law Weekly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>