EDITORIAL: Why cut diversity
When the Higher Learning Commission released a comprehensive evaluation report of the University of South Dakota in April 2011 during its reaccreditation process, serious concerns were voiced over USD’s attention to diversity on campus.
Showing minor progress since the last HLC visit, the 2011 evaluation recommended a progress report on diversity to be completed by June 2014 that addresses how the university has acted to incorporate more minorities and international students and staff at USD.
Yet, in two years time USD officials have proceeded to either cut or subjugate programs steeped in curriculum that exposes USD students to a “broader scope of diversity,” as recommended in the report.
For one, the native studies program at USD is hanging on by a thread, as the department consists of one professor, low enrollment and a lack of respect on campus. Last week, Volante columnist Jackie Hendry wrote that as a native studies’ major, she feels duped by the university’s ability to advertise the program as “uniquely superior” and its inability to actually provide support for the department and its students.
As Hendry said, the Lakota Language Education Action Program is rumored to be dissolving because of low enrollment. Students within USD’s Arabic language program are getting a firsthand taste of what it feels like to have their program ripped out from under them. With little notice and zero discussion with university officials, Arabic was cut, and with it, the ability of students to learn not just a foreign language, but to appreciate a culture not normally associated with South Dakota.
Arabic, which was the only language left at USD that the U.S. State Department considers a critical language, was not just a language-intensive class. It also allowed students to meet native speakers and learn from class trips they made to certain communities in Sioux Falls. Whether it was attending a prayer session or conversing with fellow customers at a Middle Eastern eatery, these students were embracing the very nature of “inclusive excellence” USD has so eagerly coined as their go-to term when it comes to diversity on campus.
It is regressive of the university to ignore and eliminate programs that allow this campus — the flagship university of South Dakota — to incorporate a broader scope of diversity for all students to experience.
It is understandable that USD has to evaluate cost and enrollment level when trying to stay within the limit of offered classes each year, but it seems ridiculous to cut classes actually worthwhile to a student’s future while keeping around others that are mind-numbing excuses for an easy A. First-year experience classes, anyone?
Enough with the reliance on ambiguous terminology and slow-moving subcommittees to boost diversity. Why doesn’t USD start by actually protecting and marketing the programs already offered on campus that could attract more minority and international students and offer a welcomed education on other cultures?
While cliché, actions speak louder than words, and it is about time USD applied this concept in its own pursuit of “inclusive excellence” in Vermillion.
