<p>Prof. Tim Burke has posted two really interesting college-related blog entries recently:</p>
<p>a) The first is on the subject of "diversity requirements" in the curriculum. He argues against the need for these...or any other curriculum requirments in a good liberal arts college:</p>
<p>b) The second is a hot-button item at Swarthmore this week, the annual Coming Out Week chalkings. Based on the number of student editorials in the paper, the campus seems a little fired up. Burke chimes in with his usual well-reasoned, intellectually challenging comments:</p>
<p>The diversity or "nonwestern" requirements at some universities are really a joke, as someone in an office decides what is culturally relevant. So anywhere in Europe, including Russia or Turkey is not considered "nonwestern" at one university but as soon as you enter Africa or parts of Asia the requirement is covered. So Japan is considered "nonwestern" enough to study, but nowhere in the former USSR is, regardless of its location. I believe that administrators are only making themselves feel better by these types of canned requirements. What is Swarthmore's requirement?</p>
<p>As to the explicit drawings on campus, I think they are ill-conceived because they do not seem to be enhancing respect for the gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual/undecided sexual culture and any of its positive points politically and culturally. Instead, as one blogger implied, it only serves to stereotype these groups as mainly interested in wanton, promiscuous and/or group sex. That really acts against them politically, as I think that many gays want full marriage rights, and displaying themselves as only promiscuous wanton sexual beings acts against these movements by lending credence to some people's theories that they want sex only, so why give them marriage rights? To me, it is just plain offensive to have these chalkings, and I think they try to make it coincide with Discovery Weekend. Very disrespectful of the visitors, and probably acts against the gay/lesbian, etc groups both politically and individually, if they care. Probably just late adolescent immaturity at its best or worst.</p>
<p>I have followed this (chalking) debate very closely, reading all the items in the Phoenix last week, as well as the remarkably civil LJ discussion. I really appreciated Tim Burke's post--especially the last paragraph, which I don't think anyone has commented on yet.
Trying to explain the debate to my husband, who hasn't yet had a chance to sit down and read it all--his initial comment was that it sounded as if many of the chalkings could be considered "hostile work environment...etc." and could be construed as harassment. Someone, either in the Phoenix or on LJ made the exact same observation (off to re-read).</p>
<p>From what I can tell, Burke is correct. A student entering college in the 21st century at Swarthmore would have to be work very hard to avoid learning about other cultures and perspectives and it would be unusual for a 21st century student to want to work so hard to avoid it.</p>
<p>The university to which I am referring has a lot of diversity and likewise, I think that it would be hard to avoid knowing about other cultures. </p>
<p>The other ironic thing about their "nonwestern" requirement is that language classes are exculded from the requirement. So a student can become fluent in a "nonwestern" language such as Korean or Japanese for the language requirement, but that doesn't fulfill the "nonwestern" requirement. Instead, they have to take a course in English about the culture, so this could be the "western" perspective about the "nonwestern" culture.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am sure that there are administrators getting paid lots of money to try to culturally manipulate the student body.</p>
<p>"First, the content of the chalkings themselves has become more graphic and confrontational over the years. 1986 was marked by rainbow smiley faces and "I like dykes", but 1995 saw "Have you kissed a **** today?" and "Queers eat out here." 2006 greeted us with diagrams of vaginas, "Your tour guide is queer," and the statement "Anal sex is for everyone." </p>
<p>The increasingly confrontational chalkings have appeared as overt homophobia at Swarthmore has diminished. While chalkings started as spontaneous and deeply subversive acts (consider the 1986 "graffiti"), frequently in direct response to anti-gay vandalism or violence on campus, over the past five years, the chalkings appear have become something of a yearly ritual. The conversations surrounding them have also become more ritualized over the years." (Above is quoted rom Lauren Stokes' comprehensive summary about the chalkings). </p>
<p>It is a good point that the chalkings have become more graphic as acceptance of the issues has become more widespread. Any possibility that the chalkers are just trying for more reactions and so have to "up the anty?"</p>
<p>Also, if they have free speech, unlimited, who's to say that their detractors don't have as much right to respond with their opinions? And how about people who hose down the offensive chalkings, which happened this year? Do they have a right to NOT want to be offended? I must say, I would probably be in the hosing camp, as I just wouldn't want to see porno when I walk to breakfast, and would be willing to take the consequences. Although I seem to recall that porno is protected under free speech, is open porno protected, esp when minors may be touring on campus, or when an adult just DOESN'T want to see it, whether thry are parents or employees? Any lawyers know the answer to this question?</p>