Daily Bruin
UCLA

“Proposed GE diversity requirement is only a Band-Aid approach”

When I think of the proposed “Community and Conflict in the Modern World” General Education requirement, three things immediately come to mind: the superficiality of General Education courses, cultural hostility on campus and the need to focus on racial sensitivity outside the classroom.

To remedy the first would require an idealistic overhaul of both high school and college curricula.
As for the second point, alleviation of hostility against underrepresented students cannot be achieved in one General Education requirement.

According to appeals made by two underrepresented groups in a resolution condemning hate crimes at UCLA, cultural hostility exists because of a lack of understanding among different groups on campus; and an academic requirement focused on diversity could facilitate understanding and acceptance of different cultures.

But achieving a more tolerant student environment can be done more efficiently and directly through empowerment and encouragement of student groups dedicated solely to topics such as cultural difference.

The proposed requirement amounts to a redesign of the undergraduate curriculum only in name. Courses that could fulfill the potential General Education requirement include those already taught in departments such as anthropology and Chicana and Chicano studies. And many of these courses — Introduction to Chicana/Chicano Studies: History and Culture, for instance — already count for General Education requirements under different headings.

One General Education course may expose students to a few memorized key terms and broad, surface concepts. Actual engagement with the community encourages students to seek perspectives deeper below the surface, to learn tolerance as citizens rather than as students.

A General Education course may reaffirm what some already know about tolerance, and it will go in one ear and out the other for those who have already solidified their narrow views regarding cultural hostility.

— Ani Torossian, April 16 issue

Daily Emerald
University of Oregon

“What if my great-great-grandkids found my Facebook?”

I’ve always loved history and, in particular, have always been fascinated with genealogy — the study of family lineages and history. I love learning about the everyday lives of my ancestors and trying to figure out what they were like.

Did I get my weird sense of humor from some long-lost aunt or uncle? Where does my overwhelming — some say intimidating — beauty and humility come from? Certainly not my ugly-as-hell parents. Sometimes I wish Facebook had been around back in the olden days so I could get a sense of what my forefathers and mothers were really like.

But the other day I realized — with more than a trace of panic — that I am somebody’s ancestor. And I have a Facebook. And Twitter. And Pinterest. And email. And a YouTube account. And a blog. And a year’s worth of these columns.

If, in a 100 years, the Internet is still around (and who knows if it will be? It’s only been in existence for fewer than 20 years) will our offspring and our offspring’s offspring have access to all our online identities? With Facebook’s new timeline feature, will they be able to track the path of our whole life, like some sort of digital diary? It got me thinking about the kind of digital archive I’m going to leave for my future offspring. I post some pretty stupid stuff on Twitter. And I don’t mean stupid like “Wow, that’s going to keep you from getting a job,” but just plain stupid stuff. Take this gem, for example: “Trying to incorporate the term ‘ruffians’ more into everyday conversation.”

Right now I’m a bit too overwhelmed to decide what I want to do with my online identities. And who knows, Facebook may blow up tomorrow and I won’t have to worry about any of this. But in the event that it doesn’t, perhaps I should jazz up my profiles a little bit, so as to appear more interesting to future genealogists. Maybe I’ll fake a couple of marriages or something, just to mess with their heads.

Whatever happens, this revelation certainly has gotten me thinking about my online identity. And it’s made me more determined than ever that videos of a certain 21st birthday can never be allowed on the Internet. Ever.

— McKenna Brown, April 12 issue