We believe that a more complete airing of constituents'
reactions can result in greater clarity
about what is (and is not) being proposed

Diversity Education Task Force Membership and Processes

Specific questions include:
Question: Why were representatives of the custodial, food, and physical plant unions or workers’ representatives not included in the plan as contributors?
Question: Shouldn’t representatives of neighborhoods or businesses in College Park be consulted as well?
Question: Doesn’t the proposal extend administrative and technical power into domains they should not reach?

As noted on page 3 of the DETF report, the 2018 Joint President/Senate Inclusion and Respect Task Force specifically excluded curriculum recommendations from its purview because this task has been deemed to be the responsibility of a faculty-led task force. As detailed on pages 4-5 of the DETF report, we did solicit broad input from faculty, staff, and students from across campus during the process of generating recommendations.

The DETF did not seek design input from the custodial, food service or physical plant unions, workers’ representatives or College Park neighborhoods and businesses based on an assumption that they would possess limited knowledge of the status of UMD undergraduate diversity education. With regard to UMD employees, we did assume that the Senate’s review and consideration of the full proposal would provide context, relevant knowledge, and an opportunity to offer input prior to a vote.

The DETF proposal was developed as a basis for debate within the University; it has not been forced on the faculty or campus by prior or current administrative leaders. Regarding the General Education provisions: debate about these proposed changes is occurring within the University Senate, which has broad representation across campus, including eight current non-exempt staff members.

Two diverging concerns have been raised in this vein.
Concern: “There is no evidence that there is any need to do more than is now taking place. There are many courses on these issues that are already being offered; there is no need for more courses to be taught on these subjects; no need for changes in the courses being taught on these subjects.”

As noted on page 3 of the report, the DETF was formed in part due to “student demands precipitated by the polarizing 2016 national student election,” with a footnote linking to relevant newspaper coverage of the ProtectUMD Demands. At #9 on that list was “revamping of the diversity and cultural competency General Education requirement.” In the Diamondback account of this concern, Erica Fuentes, then-president of the Political Latinxs for Movement and Action in Society is quoted as saying that, “students still don’t know how to address issues of diversity,” as well as describing students’ concerns that “…it’s not really assumed that you’d be talking about oppression and your privilege and how that plays into your interactions with other.” This sentiment is consistent with numerous student requests of the Provost, the Dean for Undergraduate Studies, and the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee to revisit the General Education diversity requirement.
 Concern: Some faculty are not convinced that the University should listen to students on curricular issues, arguing that this is the domain of the faculty and while students have a lot to teach us, they by definition cannot design the curriculum.

DETF members agree that the curriculum should be the domain of the faculty. Yet, we suggest that there are meaningful differences between listening and responding to students’ broad, long-standing concerns about the General Education diversity curriculum and allowing students to design the curriculum themselves. We did the former; moreover, we considered not just students’ concerns, but also suggestions from faculty across campus, input from staff in the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, USM concerns about students’ need for more robust education in civic engagement, and existing research findings in diversity education. Members of the DETF (nearly all who are UMD faculty members) developed recommendations for curriculum change.

From a DETF member: “I’d … like to express my concerns about comments related to not trusting students to weigh in on curriculum. My entire pedagogy centers on teachers and students as co-learners. I’m not sure I agree with an approach that seems incredibly top-down and exclusionary. This is a key reason why higher education remains out-of-reach for many students of color and economically disadvantaged students.” There is a long history of student advocacy, particularly among minoritized groups, effecting change in university programs and curricula, especially in the establishment of ethnic studies programs.

On page 8 of the DETF report, it states that in engineering, “most major degrees require over 100 credit hours in major area courses.” Given that 120 credit hours are required to earn undergraduate degrees, DETF members reasonably deduced that adding more credit hours to existing General Education requirements would pose a particular burden on these students, who have room for, at most, 6-7 campus-wide elective courses.


Concern: “The next paragraph displays the inner workings of decision making in the committee for the first time openly, and at some lenght [sic], as if the matter of taking up students' time were the signal and most important matter the committee faced… There is no mention of extra burdens being a problem for faculty, who are the main purveyors of the new pedagogy. We faculty, regardless of our prior expertise, let alone our personal experiences or identities, ‘will need additional training.’ I could find no specification of what that would entail in content.”

  • Regarding the rationale for and description of faculty development efforts, please see page 7 of the DETF report: findings from the ASHE report indicate that “faculty members need ongoing development in how to create and ensure culturally inclusive classroom environments.“ In the next paragraph, the DETF report states that, “The BOR workgroup recognized challenges associated with implementing civic engagement initiatives that match those associated with implementing diversity education initiatives, noting for example that the ‘complexities of managing difficult conversations in and out of classrooms’ necessitates greater support for professional development of faculty members (pp. 20-21).”
  • Given a formal, university-wide expectation that faculty members will not only be engaged in lifelong learning within their disciplines but also open to new instructional pedagogies, the DETF considered faculty development connected to this proposal to be an opportunity rather than an added burden. We certainly observed this with the pandemic-induced move to online teaching, which prompted some faculty members to experiment with new and potentially more effective ways to deliver instruction.
  • Because adoption of task force recommendations is uncertain, plans for faculty development are preliminary and will need to be adapted depending on what the Senate decides. We can share a draft plan that identifies specific knowledge and skills to be developed and outlines an overall approach.

Changes in the Structure of the Required Diversity Courses
(from 2 UPS or 1 UPS/1CC course to 1 USRI/1 NDSE course)

  • Students benefit from their university experiences by developing different aspects of their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Historically, universities have emphasized the development of cognitive and intellectual skills; yet, they have also traditionally offered and supported the development of behavioral skill (e.g., oral communication, music, theatre, dance). Insisting that behaviorally oriented courses are not appropriate as part of an academic curriculum overlooks those important traditional contributions and limits our ability to adapt the curriculum to meet students’ and societal needs. A 2017 survey found that large majorities of both postsecondary instructors and workforce supervisors rated students’ behavioral skills as important for their success.

  • Research into the topic of learning styles suggests that students differ in their preference for and reliance on different ways of learning (for example, see Assessing experiential learning styles, 2013, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 23, 44-52). Behaviorally oriented courses provide an alternative entry point for students whose learning styles lean more toward either concrete learning or active experimentation than they do abstract conceptualization. Developing the university curriculum to make it accessible to a broader range of students seems, on balance, a worthwhile goal.

First, it is important to note that the proposed change from UPS to USRI courses would not reduce the range of diversity issues addressed in required courses. Courses approved for USRI could focus on any dimensions of diversity the instructor wished; instructors would be required only to incorporate a robust, meaningful discussion of racism as part of the course. For guidance on what constitutes “meaningful,” please see the draft rubric for USRI courses. The NDSE courses do not include any required focus on racism.

That said, the proposed General Education changes in diversity requirements would admittedly lower the required number of cognitively oriented USRI courses by one. The provision for a course to be coded as both USRI and NDSE would permit some flexibility in this area. The proposal for the requirement of 1 USRI + 1 NDSE course responds to concerns from two important constituent groups:
  • The USM Board of Regents, who advocated for improved campus-wide instruction on skills needed for effective civic engagement. They have deep concerns about our national inability to work for constructive societal change despite political differences.
  • Undergraduate students, who have pressed repeatedly for more direct instruction in “how to address issues of diversity.” DETF members remain concerned that adding, rather than substituting, required diversity coursework disproportionately affects students in high-credit degree programs and others who have a limit on the number of available credits, due to being transfers or changing majors.

Inclusion of a Required Learning Outcome on Racism in the new USRI courses

Question: Isn’t this learning outcome inappropriately based on a divisive ideological position that emphasizes conflict, encourages despair, and promotes a stance contrary to the goals of civic engagement and responsibility?

No. Some people may experience discomfort while having discussions about racism, however, that does not invalidate the individual and societal benefits that accrue from unearthing and examining these tensions. Moreover, members of the DETF concluded that avoiding discussions of racism leads to more violent conflict, greater despair, and attenuated civic engagement, given abundant empirical evidence that it exists and irreparably harms large numbers of people. In light of the prevalence of racism in our world, we sought to address the concern that students can graduate from UMD without ever having had a meaningful conversation about it in a class, as many currently do.

Concern: There is a case to be made that racism does not always intersect with other forms of power and oppression … The report suggests that scholars should now resolve this issue in one particular manner evident in this report. I am among those who will not do so and will see this language as an infringement both on academic freedom and on the autonomy of scholarship. It is not the place of the Administration to mandate a particular interpretation of this issue.

  • First and foremost: the presence of required learning outcomes for University-designated courses does not infringe on any faculty member’s freedoms regarding the content or courses they wish to teach. Faculty members always retain the freedom to offer and teach their courses as they see fit within parameters established by their departments or colleges. General Education courses meet University-level goals, not necessarily those of a particular department. Faculty members who seek approval for any category in General Education must design their courses to meet a designated set of learning outcomes that are shared across the university.
  • The proposed learning outcome does not mandate an intersectional perspective; if instructors seeking approval for courses that include a focus on racism wished to use different theoretical approaches or lenses, they would be welcome to do so. If the course were primarily focused on other dimensions of diversity (e.g., gender), the faculty member might find it beneficial to use an intersectional approach, but this is not mandated in the language of the learning outcome (Analyze racism as a form of historical and systemic discrimination in the US or internationally that MAY intersect with other forms of power and oppression).

Concern: faculty attending the General Education listening sessions raised concerns that the USRI required learning outcome focused only on anti-Black racism in recent history. This would prevent many valuable courses from qualifying for the USRI designation.
  • Question from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: Doesn’t the diversity task force’s effort narrow the educational focus to issues of racism directed against Black and Latinx communities? Won’t we be undercutting the ability of everyone who is not Black or Latinx to participate in a credible and inoffensive manner in this important endeavor? Won’t instructors be forced to teach a legacy that is not rightfully theirs to claim?
  • Question from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: The task force feedback forums raised recurring concerns about a focus upon race and the current situation as a focus in titles and wording in GenEd categories, and asked for wider consideration of inclusion (e.g., gender, disability, religion, financial, historical cases). Recent changes retain a focus on race but included a possibility of an “intersectional” approach. Is there a way to be more inclusive without diluting a strong statement on race? Is the current wording addressing issues arising from violent attacks on Asian individuals?
  • Comment: I worry that the focus solely on what Americans mean by racism. Over the course of human history, many groups have been treated unfairly as "others" in the societies in which they live, and it does the students a lot of good intellectually and in other ways to learn about prejudice in other times and other places and against a whole range of groups. I teach many courses which deal with the issue of how an ethnic (or religio-ethnic) minority copes with prejudice and how the larger societies (in Europe and America) view this minority group. It would be offensive, I think, to exclude these (and lots of other courses taught in History, Classics, and many other departments) from the new requirement.
  • Comment: “Anyone with the slightest familiarity with world history knows that ‘racism’ exists around the world in conflicts and offers a bewildering array of fine distinctions little known to Americans. One thinks of conflicts between Hindus and Moslem, between different states within Africa, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the civil war in Syria, the Hutu-Tutsi conflict, the Sunni-Shia conflict, and the issue of antisemitism. The causes of these conflicts are complex and are not reducible to the intersectional slogan about power and oppression that this report would mandate.”
These questions appear to be rooted either in a misreading or a misinterpretation of the proposed required USRI learning outcome, the precise wording of which is: Analyze racism as a form of historical and systemic discrimination in the US or internationally that may intersect with other forms of power and oppression. As indicated by this language, courses would not be limited to racism targeting Black or Latino/Latina communities, nor would they be required to cover solely American racism in the current era. The proposed learning outcome explicitly includes both international and historical perspectives.

Moreover, the proposed racism learning outcome does NOT mandate that courses approved for USRI cover racism to the exclusion of other dimensions of diversity; rather, it requires that racism be meaningfully included in discussions about other dimensions of diversity if those are the focus of the course—e.g., gender, religion, LBGTQIA, ability and disability issues, and others. For more information about what would be regarded as “meaningful” discussion, please see the proposed learning outcome assessment rubric for USRI.

All faculty members (and students) have a race that can offer a basis for meaningful classroom discussions. No UMD instructors have been or will be “forced to teach a legacy that is not rightfully theirs.” For more information on the types and extent of faculty training being considered, please see details of the draft faculty development proposals.

The current wording of the proposed USRI learning outcome on race and racism does not refer to or insist on coverage of members of any specific race. Thus, courses that address racism targeting individuals of Asian origin would be relevant to this proposed General Education category.

The key driver here is pedagogical effectiveness: education researchers suggest that generic discussions of “diversity” introduce and handle this concept in ways that make it unnecessarily abstract for many college students (and, truthfully, for most people). To illustrate, consider a classroom discussion in which diversity is framed as “myriad differences.” What do fundamental problems like “being marginalized” reflect when, for example, one person is pondering diversity as left-handedness, another is thinking about non-Christian religions, and a third is contemplating racial minorities? Because these individuals’ comments and questions rely on vastly different referents, such discussions tend to obscure and confuse. Likewise, the current General Education requirement enables students to choose different diversity dimensions, resulting in a piecemeal understanding of core problems. Concentrating on a common diversity dimension in at least one course grounds these discussions in specifics that create a solid foundation and facilitate subsequent comprehension.

NOTE: although the proposed learning outcome requires students to participate in discussions about race and racism, it does not limit their choices about which diversity courses to take. Courses approved under the proposed new requirements may focus on any dimension of diversity (e.g., gender, disability, religion); the learning outcome would require only that they include meaningful discussions of racism in the context of those other diversity dimensions. In this way, we seek to:
  1. minimize the backlash that would result from mandating study of a single diversity topic, and
  2. improve students’ comprehension of diversity by grounding a portion of those courses in a common, specific dimension.

Many considerations led to the selection of racism as required content in the USRI learning outcome. One significant reason is historical: beyond the determinative role of race in this country’s founding and evolution (e.g., colonization and westward expansion; the Constitution and legal system; many wars, the economic system), race has been a key factor in the history of the University (which used race to bar student admissions for 95 years) and the state of Maryland (which, despite not seceding from the Union, failed to free enslaved people for nearly 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation—and then only by 375 of 59,973 votes cast). Relatedly, a second issue is that existing human and civil rights laws, which offer diversity-based legal protections, were either modeled on or benefitted from the struggle for racial parity. In some respects, activists for other causes have relied on organizing templates and legal frameworks developed to further racial justice. A third factor is geographical: UMD is a predominantly White institution that has an often-tense relationship with inhabitants of the majority Black and Latino/Latina county in which it is located. Fourth, current events including high-profile murders (e.g., LT Richard Collins; George Floyd; Breonna Taylor; Asian and Asian American women in Atlanta; Pittsburgh synagogue attendees), pandemic health outcomes, the Capitol riot, and voter suppression initiatives, have spotlighted the pervasive, ongoing impact of race in American society. In March 2021, FBI Director Christopher Wray labeled violent white supremacist groups as a “persistent, evolving threat.” A fifth reason is that talking about race is especially difficult on a predominantly White campus; as Dr. Carlton Green explained in a recent Senate Educational Affairs Committee meeting, the word “diversity” has become synonymous with “race” in the minds of many college students. To the extent that General Education courses cover “diversity” without digging into more difficult conversations about race, they do UMD students a disservice.

Concern from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: I am concerned that the university is heading down a path where it is abandoning the core/evergreen principle that diversity (equity and inclusion for all people of every category under the sun) is the foundation of what is right and moral … in favor of chasing after whatever form of discrimination and injustice is presently getting the most attention in the news.

  • Requiring some discussion of racism in one 3-credit General Education course—particularly in the context of ongoing University prohibitions of discrimination based on other diversity dimensions and its efforts to eradicate other forms of hate/bias incidents—does not damage or undermine those larger efforts. This learning outcome does not mandate that approved courses must focus only on racism; instead, it requires some discussion of race and racism in courses focused on other dimensions of diversity (e.g., gender, LGBTQ, religion, age, etc.).
  • There are sound pedagogical reasons to spotlight race and racism in at least one undergraduate course. Diversity education researchers propose that generic discussions of diversity may be too abstract for first- and second-year college students, who still rely heavily on mental models that categorize things as “right/wrong” or “good/bad.” By focusing on concrete instances of diversity such as race, undergraduate students can become better equipped to comprehend important nuances that can pave the way to improved understanding of other dimensions of diversity. Moreover, as Dr. Carlton Green (from the Office for Diversity and Inclusion) indicated in discussions with the Educational Affairs Committee, (1) racial issues are the most common and difficult ones in which the Office of Diversity and Inclusion regularly intervenes on campus, and (2) the term “diversity” has become a euphemism for race.
  • There are significant philosophical reasons to spotlight race and racism that supersede any current “trendiness” of race as a rationale for incorporating it into one class in the General Education curriculum. Specifically, race was a formative issue in the Constitution and founding of the U.S., a primary driver of the U.S. Civil War, a galvanizing force underlying many civil and human rights initiatives around the world, and there is a serious, ongoing national security threat posed by white supremacy groups. The approaches and gains achieved by women, LGBTQ individuals, religious minorities, and people with disabilities are indelibly connected to and influenced by social movements based on race. Likewise, race is a significant factor in the history of this University and the state; moreover, UMD is held in low esteem by significant percentages of the Prince George’s County population, largely based on its perceived institutional racism.

Concern from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: I also believe that this “who’s in, who’s out” approach to selecting and naming individual minority groups on whom our diversity education programs will focus is further proof … that these new general education proposals create a hierarchy of historically and systemically discriminated against populations, pitting one against the other rather than bringing everyone together.

  • This argument presumes that education is a zero-sum game in which learning about race as one dimension of diversity precludes or drowns out learning about other diversity dimensions. The enhanced comprehension of diversity issues (e.g., power, marginalization, identity) achieved by using the common lens of race can increase interest in and build stronger foundations for learning about other dimensions of diversity. There is abundant evidence of synergistic effects across many areas of education (see How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, a 2000 report by National Academies Press).
  • To evaluate the plausibility of this harm (i.e., creating a hierarchy of marginalized populations), consider the impact of a single undergraduate course within the larger educational context. Under this DETF General Education proposal, students would take one course—3 credit hours of the 120 (2.5%) needed for degree completion—on a diversity topic of their own choosing. That course would include a substantive (not necessarily exclusive) discussion of racism. It would be taught on a campus that delivers a comprehensive TerrapinSTRONG program for onboarding students to campus; provides regular workshops, scholarly talks, and training to students, faculty, and staff on many diversity topics; vocally supports and endorses the value of diversity; and enacts and enforces policies, guidelines, and rules prohibiting discrimination and hate-bias behavior. Other DETF recommendations, which are being adopted voluntarily across campus, include additional discipline-relevant diversity instruction within all undergraduate major degree programs. Given this fuller educational context, the likelihood that this General Education learning outcome would itself increase marginalization of non-racial identity groups seems limited. That said, if this General Education recommendation were approved and implemented and if subsequent evidence emerged that this informal hierarchy were taking hold, there are numerous avenues during students’ campus experiences to detect and redress this problem.

Concern from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: In one of the slides for their listening session, the Diversity Education Task Force cited some interesting statistics [about the racial composition of Prince George’s County versus that of the University]…. these statistics [ignore the broader areas from which the University recruits faculty and students and thus seem] skewed to support a predetermined conclusion: that race needs to be the primary focus of our diversity efforts. Instead, let's use statistics that compare apples to apples.

    The rationale for proposing a required diversity learning outcome on racism is multifaceted—it was based on a combination of historical, legal, societal, and pressing current and national problems (as noted in answers to other FAQ). One major consideration is our geographical context: the University as a predominantly White institution has had persistent tensions with the majority Black and Latino/Latina population in Prince George’s County. Disparities in the racial compositions of the University and Prince George’s County contribute to these tensions. For example, interviews with campus constituents indicated that county residents are keenly aware that White students, staff, and faculty often do not patronize local stores or restaurants. At no point did we state or imply that the University’s recruitment goals (whether local or national) provide a numerical justification for including a racism learning outcome.

Concern from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: African-Americans account for roughly 12% of our nation’s population, which is right in line, demographically, with our student body’s ratio. Certainly, representation among our African-American faculty is unacceptably half of what it should be according to these numbers. Compare this, though, with the statistics for people with disabilities. 26% of Americans have a disability, yet the disabled population makes up only 11% of students in higher education and only 4% of its faculty. The gap in representation for disabled Americans is far more pronounced, but the Diversity Education Task Force completely ignores this minority population, in favor of a focus on race.

    As noted throughout our responses to these FAQs, the rationale for proposing a required racism learning outcome is multifaceted. It was rooted in a carefully considered combination of historical, legal, societal, issues and urgent local and national problems. At no time has the DETF proposed or argued that the choice of diversity dimensions on which to focus this learning outcome is or should be justified numerically, based on proportional representation of various groups. (If the decision were solely numerical, then women, who comprise 50.8% of the U.S. population, would be the most appropriate focus of this learning outcome.)

Question from the Senate’s Educational Affairs Committee Google doc: Is there evidence at UMD to suggest what types bias events occur most frequently, thus, what are the major areas students are impacted? (bias incidence rate)

    According to data collected by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion from its Bias Incident Support Services report, there were 69 reports received and 42 incidents logged from July 1, 2019-July 1, 2020. Of the motivations reported (note that some incidents involved more than one motivation) the breakdown was as follows: race/color 45.8%, sexual orientation 19.3%, national origin 10.8%, citizenship 8.4%, gender/sex 7.2%, religion 7.2%, and disability 1.2%. The data can be found at https://diversity.umd.edu/docs/annual-reports/umd-odi-biss-by-the-numbers-2019-2020.pdf