Multicultural Education and University Studies

Abstract

Education for and about diversity still remains a challenging if not daunting task on university campuses throughout the country. Following the national trend, Portland State University introduced a diversity requirement for all students into its distribution general education program in 1992. With the appearance of University Studies 2 years later, this requisite was “rolled over” into the new curriculum and articulated as part of one of its 4 major goals. Defining diversity and actually incorporating it into coursework remains a formidable venture. In the article that follows, 2 faculty who have taught both diversity training and University Studies courses provide some guidelines and examples from their experience.

Introduction

An appreciation of the rich diversity of the human experience is one of the primary goals of the University Studies program. The goal is exemplified in Hilliard’s (1975) statement of expanding cultural perspectives in the classroom:

Every school subject, if taught truthfully and realistically, requires a plural cultural perspective. Science, literature, the behavioral sciences, all must be freed from the monocultural ethnocentric focus that characterizes most standard course work. We can no longer tolerate nor afford to permit a subject area to be called generally “music,” “history,” “psychology,” or “political science,” when it is really a culture-specific music, history, psychology, or political science.

Through interdisciplinary team teaching, teacher-training workshops and seminars, and more specific diversity goals, University Studies courses attempt to globalize course content, diversify course objectives, encourage in-class activities that increase possibilities for difficult dialogues around “multicultural issues,” and endorse community-based learning components that bring students into contact with diverse populations.

Multicultural education is the term within the academic literature that drives this goal. The multiple aims of multicultural education are not always well articulated, let alone agreed upon (Jung, 1993). While the concept is frequently utilized, it often remains abstract and ill-defined. Here we address the University Studies goal regarding the diversity of human experience from two perspectives: first, as designers of course content, and, second, as facilitators of critical thinking. These two strands culminate in a model for the University Studies “multicultural classroom.”

“Culturally responsive teaching” (Wlodkowski & Wlodkowski, 1996) describes the process of teaching with regard to the diversity of students and classroom composition. Only after becoming aware that the way we teach, through choice of course content or teaching style, might compromise the learning of particular cultural groups can we begin to address these issues (Lieberman, 1997).

Constructing Course Content

By omission and/or distortion, educational practitioners have traditionally taught their subjects in ways that failed to meet the goals of multicultural education. Past approaches frequently omitted references to alternative or minority views. Sometimes an approach lacks a multicultural understanding because it distorts the views and experiences of peoples outside the mainstream, most often unintentionally. Only rarely is the truth deliberately misrepresented.

The remedies for these practices are inclusion, comparison, and correction. Inclusion of omitted material is the most straightforward, but inclusion of additional materials as simply a minor voice only further marginalizes. The inclusion of new issues and content requires rethinking the original content, and sometimes what is required is an entirely new formulation of the course.

The inclusion of alternative perspectives allows for a more integrative and reasoned understanding, especially of those perspectives that exemplify and illuminate differing world views. Comparisons treat the construction of knowledge as dynamic and changing. But if the basis for different values remains unexamined and culturally received assumptions continue to be accepted without reasoned thought or argument, comparisons can also create misunderstanding. Comparisons for the sake of coverage may amount to a quota system (e.g., 3 pages of Yoruba praise poetry for every 3 pages of Shakespeare). Comparisons run the risk of privileging one group and reinforcing the dominant paradigm; without purpose or reflection, they are unable to assist students in their own exploration of assumptions about difference and thus fail to generate critical thinking. Instead, comparative models can provide a purposeful dialogue that enhances the understanding of each distinctive perspective and reaches a level of greater awareness by exposure to larger, more comprehensive issues.

Obviously, misrepresentations are always to be corrected. The process of “correcting” knowledge that once may have been presented without questioning its truth or validity can be addressed as part of the ongoing process of helping students to understand that academic knowledge is neither isolated from the social or political context from which it emerged nor completely free from cultural bias. One of the most valuable lessons of diversity education is to provide students with the tools to question the foundations and assumptions of the knowledge and information they receive as cultural givens. An excellent example of this is described by George and Straton elsewhere in this issue.

Multicultural Curricula and Course Objectives

The objectives of University Studies courses vary according to the specific content and goals embraced during the process of curricular development, but our work in diversity training suggests that most, if not all, of the following concerns can be incorporated in measurable ways. These represent the guidelines that give specificity to the University Studies goal of understanding the human experience. ¹

Myths and Stereotypes: University Studies courses provide the opportunity for students and instructors to debunk common myths and stereotypes, including those of race and gender. For example, the examination of popular myths and stereotypes might consider why Africa is characterized as a “dark continent” or why peoples of color are described as “uncivilized.” Such an exploration is founded on basic ideas about what culture is, what a cultural myth is, and how cultural stereotypes are created and maintained. Students should have a knowledge of how and why myths or stereotypes operate, be able to recognize them when they occur, and be able to test or refute their assumptions and claims with evidence.

Historical Consciousness: Course content can also provide a sense of historical time, place, process, and the chronology of relevant events. The understanding that knowledge and culture are social and historical constructs can be achieved by examining topics within their specific historical framework and by emphasizing their dynamic character in a particular place through time. The approach should strive for worldwide coverage so that students achieve an understanding of global interconnections, as well as geographical and regional differences. Similar objectives can be achieved, for example, by addressing the history of African American issues and the Constitution or American Civil War, or the history of capitalism and the European colonization of Africa, South Asia, or South America.

Inclusivity and Human Values: The inclusion of different voices and perspectives has been mentioned earlier. It is as important to provide the analytical tools to deal with new or conflicting material as it is to present the multicultural content itself. Students need to gain an awareness of the value and meaning of differences (including those based on racial identity, ethnicity, gender, ability, age, sexual orientation, and culture); be able to identify omissions, distortions, and lies; and be able to seek remedies to reconstruct their own knowledge and values. They should understand the multiple ways in which a particular reality affects different individuals, be able to construct arguments within a framework of measured assumptions, be able to support their claims with evidence, and be capable of understanding how their arguments allow them to reach judgments.

Diversity, Pedagogy, and Multicultural Education: Two Cases

Specific examples may help clarify these guidelines. Both come from Freshman Inquiry. In the course entitled Embracing Einstein’s Universe, ² which addressed Einstein’s life, career, scientific theories, diversity, and his involvement in World War II, students learned where Einstein chose to live and why; they were thus introduced to his perspectives on different societies. ³ As students delved into Einstein’s personal life, they read excerpts of his writings about religion, education, Zionism, anti-Semitism, feminism, science, philosophy, and diversity. Studying Einstein’s scientific theories involved students in learning about Newton, Galileo, Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley and also required them to investigate contributions made by scientists from other parts of the world. When studying Einstein and World War II, students learned about anti-Semitism, Germany’s denunciation of his theories, his role in the United States’s actions in the war, and about other world conflicts that have been based on the elimination of a “people” because of religious, physical, or political differences. Students heard from guest presenters who were survivors of World War II and Jews who had immigrated to the United States during and after the war. Students also heard from individuals who had fled from other countries (e.g., Nicaragua, Vietnam, and Russia).

In addition, Einstein’s life experiences in relation to education, science, and politics were used as the basis for the study of intercultural communication. The Einstein springboard was effective for introducing the subject of intercultural communication. Einstein, a subject that at the beginning of the year had seemed so distantly related to the students’ personal lives, truly emerged as “culturally responsive teaching.”

In reflecting on their feelings about the subjects covered in class, students frequently noted how often something from Einstein’s life was similar to something in their own, and how their views regarding their own interpersonal communication changed because of the information introduced in the course. In addition, they commented on how they became critical of the content presented in other courses and how there was often a “lack of diversity” or how they felt marginalized in those courses.

A second freshman course, Ways of Knowing Home, examined disciplinary and cultural perspectives across the themes of culture and identity, technology and environment, and issues of change and society. Students were invited to explore and share their own notions, experiences, and assumptions about home, family, culture, race, and gender. The course provided opportunities for making connections between the known and familiar place called home and other cultural and world experiences while presenting students with the conceptual tools with which to expand both their individual bases of knowing and their awareness of the processes of knowledge construction.

For example, participation in the opening celebration and rituals at a community exhibition of African art provided the context for exploring material culture from another part of the world. Students were required to reflect upon and communicate their experience in a letter to a friend or family member at home. Readings by Richard Rodriguez and Buchi Emecheta offered differing textual and cultural perspectives. The CD-ROM “Material World” provided access to an interactive dialogue with homes around the world. Photographs of families posed with their material possessions in front of homes from Texas to China presented a visual record of diversity, in which students could explore their own stereotypes and assumptions about material culture in a framework of analysis and critical thinking.

Group projects and class presentations required further competent intercultural communication in the context of projects on neighborhood associations, homelessness, and domestic violence, as well as the graphic design of a model house. Student dialogue journals encouraged constant reflection and critical thinking. In written evaluations, students recorded their personal transformation from their personal knowledge of a subject (“home”), about which they thought they knew everything, to their active engagement in a more open and culturally responsive learning community, where students continually expanded their own and others’ diverse ways of knowing.

Teaching as Facilitator of Critical Thinking

How material was presented to both of these classes was critical in achieving the overall goal of “multicultural education.” Without opportunities to discuss and critically analyze in a setting that encourages difference of thought and opinion, such presentations may simply be “repacking or discussing past dogmas” (Wlodkowski & Wlodkowski, 1996). The more students are given opportunities to relate their own lives to the subject of the course, the more likely they will feel community with other class members while understanding and respecting their differences. If opportunities are provided for students to voice their ideas for curricular revision (Hooks, 1994), they are much more likely to become actively engaged with the instructor in the diversity of course content and classroom experience.