President Myles Brand called the meeting to order at 3:34 on May 5, 1993, in Columbia 150.

The President stated several guidelines for the discussion/debate that would take place on the "Motion to Reconsider." The proponents and the opponents as well as those that were neutral on the issue would be called upon alternately. All speakers would come to the well of the meeting room to use the microphone as loud speakers were set-up outside so that those who could not get into the meeting room would be able to follow the discussion/debate. No person would be allowed to speak longer than 5 minutes--preferably each person would not take the full 5 minutes. The gallery, those behind the bar, was expected to remain quiet and orderly. If a question about qualifications for voting was raised, a list of all eligible voters had been prepared. Ms.

Lorraine Davis, Vice Provost, had the list and would answer the question.

HOTION TO RECONSIDER

The President explained that the person who made the Motion to Reconsider was not present. Ms. Janet Descutner, Dance, had recently undergone surgery. Although she had hoped to be present at this meeting she was not. Thus, the Secretary read the motion:

"I move that the motion on Race, Gender, Multiculturalism (passed on April 7, 1993) be reconsidered by the University Assembly. I voted on the prevailing side and thus I am eligible to move for this reconsideration. 'Janet Descutner "Associate Professor "Department of Dance "School of Music"

The President asked if any person who voted on the prevailing side at the April 7, 1993 meeting would carry the motion for Ms. Descutner. This was done. The President asked for a speaker supporting the motion to speak.

Mr. Glen Love, English, stated that three points had to be made in support of reconsideration.

• 1. More time was needed for debate on the original motion. It was evident from all of the mailings that both sides agreed to this point.
• 2. The financial implications had not been fully addressed.
• 3. The original motion circumvented regular curriculum procedure.

Ms. Caroline Forrell, Law, was recognized and she spoke in opposition to the Motion to Reconsider. Ms. Forrell pointed out that the University Senate, of which she is a member, had discussed/debated the original motion over two meetings. It was a fair and substantial debate. At the end of the second meeting the Senate forwarded the motion to the Assembly with a strong positive endorsement. The Senate did not rubber stamp the motion. The Senate even amended the original motion. The Assembly should reject the Motion to Reconsider and let the vote of April 7, 1993 stand. If the Assembly does not do this then power politics has taken over and we will be "... back to where we were, no more wiser than when we started."

Mr. Davison Soper, Physics and a member of the University Senate, stated that the Senate did debate the motion, but very few non-Senator faculty were present and very few of these took part in the debate. The issues that have created the strong opposition to the original motion came after the Senate vote. An acceptance of the Motion to Reconsider would allow more discussion and debate. The mailings that have been sent out over the past month and half indicate that debate was now necessary.

Mr. John Nicols, History, was recognized as a neutral speaker. Mr. Nicols stated that if the Motion to Reconsider passed, he would introduce the following amendment to the main motion:

The Provost shall appoint a committee to assess the fiscal and pedagogical implications of the new university requirement.

This committee shall consist of seven members. The chairs of the Curriculum and Academic Requirements Committees, representatives (one each) from the Senate Budget Committee, the Task-force on MultiCultural Education, and Academic Advising. The last two members shall come from departments (not otherwise represented on the list above) which will be especially affected by the proposal. All the members of this committee, with the exception of the representative from Academic Advising, shall be drawn from the instructional faculty.

This committee shall report to the university community no later than the end of fall term, 1993.

Mr. Daniel Pope, History, stated that the requirement for Race, Gender and Multi-culturalism was not new--but was enacted by the faculty in the late 1980s and was upheld in 1990. Since the inception of the requirement ample time had passed to see that the requirement is legitimate and that the vote in April was legitimate. Let the original motion stand and bring any amendments through the normal process of starting in the Senate. Do not amend here, now, on the floor of the Assembly.

Ms. Jean Stockard, Sociology, in opposition to the original motion and in support of the Motion to Reconsider spoke to the budget problems. She pointed out that the university was in a deficit now and has carried the deficit forward from previous years. The deficit was now $2.6 million and it is projected to be $2.9 million plus by the end of the fiscal year. The Target of Opportunity funds that the President has stated will be used to hire any new faculty is a fund that does not exist. The cost of the new requirement has been underestimated as it is assured that the courses will all be lower division. This is not true. Some must be upper division because faculty would not want to teach just lower division courses and upper division courses are more expensive than lower division courses. She estimated that the cost at the beginning would be $1 million, and when fully implemented the cost would be $2 million. Thus by 1994 the deficit would be $4 million with this new requirement.

Mr. Matthew Hasek, Student Senator, stated that the debate has gone on for 3 months, the issue should be settled and that to wait for four more years to pass the legislation is intolerable. "Do not shut the door again" he said, and concluded by saying "How long do we ignore the issue before it is solved."

Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, wanted an opportunity to vote on the Nicols amendment. Without accepting the Motion to Reconsider, the members of the Assembly will not be given the opportunity to debate and vote on the Nicols amendment. His amendment proposes proper review and perhaps answers the question of what else we could do with the money that this requirement will cost.

Mr. Michael Hibbard, PPPM and President of the University Senate, reminded the Assembly that the Senate is a good forum for debate and review of amendments and that legislation requires that all curriculum issues come before the Assembly. Thus let the Senate debate the amendments and then forward them to the Assembly.

Ms. Esther Jacobson, Art History, said that she came to support the original motion. That the fears she had had about the motion, and thus her opposition, had been addressed. The original motion will be interpreted, read and applied in such a way that she now supported the original motion; thus she opposed the Motion to Reconsider.

Mr. Steven Chatfield, Dance, said he supports the spirit of the original motion, but what was really needed was a more thorough discussion on group requirements and how the original motion could be brought into the group requirements. This would save money, and give the students a better chance of completing their degrees in four years. The State Board is presently debating the establishment of a credit cap and if the Race, Gender requirements were made a part of the group requirements the student would be able to meet all of the requirements more efficiently. This would help ease the difficulty that some students face in completing their degrees in four years. In conclusion he stated that the approach being used to establish this additional requirement was a piece meal approach to curriculum, and the approach should be in seeing the curriculum as a whole.

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, asked if the amendments that the Senate will entertain at its next meeting be forwarded to the Assembly if the vote on the original motion is sustained by defeating the Notion to Reconsider? The answer from the President was "Yes."

Mr. Robert Proudfoot, International Studies, Folklore and Ethnic Studies, speaking in opposition to the Motion to Reconsider, stated that a big smoke screen had been established by those opposed to the original motion. The issues have been twisted to be a referendum on the President; the financial picture has been distorted, and somehow faculty governance and control of the curriculum has ended. The majority of faculty are not those addressed in the original motion. This majority will control the vote, and indeed in April they did control the vote. It is our job to educate the students at the University of Oregon. The original motion's intention is to help in this educational process, he concluded.

Mr. Alvin Urquhart, Geography, spoke in support of reconsideration and said that his concerns were not being addressed. The original motion was going the wrong direction and many things had to be discussed by the Assembly so that it did not end up with one requirement after another. Students should want to take these courses addressed by the original requirement and not be forced to take them.

Mr. Edwin Coleman II, English, asked what is it that is in the original motion that threatens so many people? Is it cost? Is it anti-Semitism? Is it multi-culturalism? What happens to a dream delayed, he asked, does it explode?

Mr. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics, called for the close of debate. By a show of hands debate was closed.

The Motion to Reconsider was now before the house for a vote. The count of the hands showed a vote of 126 yes and 185 no. The Motion to Reconsider was defeated. Mr. David McDaniels, Physics, rose to challenge the vote. He stated that the total vote of 311 was too small as the attendance at the Assembly meeting in April was about the same size and the vote total was much larger. The President agreed and requested a re-vote. The re-vote was 210 yes and 187 no. The Motion to Reconsider was passed. A point of inquiry was made as to why the vote was so wrong--126 in the first vote and 210 in the second. Ms. Alison Baker, Executive Assistant to the President and the person in charge of totaling the vote, announced that one section of the room was not recorded in the original accounting; thus 84 votes had not been recorded.

The Motion to revise the Race, Gender, and non-European Requirement was now on the floor.

Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, was recognized to introduce an amendment to the motion. He moved to amend Section 2 of the motion to delete the words "African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and/or Latinos/Chicanos" and in their place substitute the words minority groups in the U. S. A. And to delete the words "people of color" and to replace these words with minority groups in the U. S.

Mr. Sanders stated that his amendment would be far better because it was more inclusive. The original wording was race specific and for some reason left out Jews. Although Mr. Sanders favors the motion he said that if it was more inclusive it would be stronger. The Jews, for thousands of years, have been the victim of prosecution, prejudice and genocide and it is not logical that they should be excluded from the list of minorities in the requirement.

Mr. Jacob Beck, Psychology, agreed that the requirement should be inclusive and the aim of the requirement should be to bring about a just society. Ms. Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs, Sociology, asked Mr. Sanders if the intention of his amendment was to include all minorities--disabled, gay-lesbian, etc. Mr. Sanders replied that it was not, and Ms. Gwartney-Gibbs then asked if the amendment would be more clear if it stated "racial/ethnic minority groups" each time the words "minority groups" is used in the amendment? Mr. Sanders said that would make the amendment clear. President Brand asked if the Assembly would object to the clarification and no objection was heard. The amendment now includes the words "racial/ethnic" prior to two times that "minority groups" is used in the amendment.

Ms. Sumi Cho, Political Science, found the amendment ironic. The majority Americans have amnesia, they have forgotten their history of racial exclusion. The black American, by leading the drive toward Civil Rights, has opened the door for all other minorities to get into the mainstream of society, regardless of who that minority might be. Discrimination and racial harassment are everyday experiences for racial minorities and the original motion's intention is to educate and awaken students to the history of discrimination in America, she concluded.

Mr. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics, moved to close debate and the Assembly by a show of hands agreed to do so. The amendment was now on the floor and the Assembly voted in favor of the amendment by a vote of 196 yes and 129 no. 6

The entire motion, now amended, reads:

"Motion to revise the Race, Gender and non-European Requirement"

"It is incumbent upon the University of Oregon to respond to the changing demographic and political realities of the U. S. and the world as we shape a curriculum for the 21st century. To begin this process, the Multicultural Curriculum Committee requests that the University Assembly approve the following changes in the Race, Gender, and non-European Requirement. These changes will be effective for all undergraduates entering the University of Oregon beginning in the academic year lg94-l995 unless the committee responsible for implementation of the requirement, upon evaluation of available courses, requests an additional one year extension to ensure sufficient course availability for the meaningful implementation of the revised requirement.

"The current requirement calls for one course that addresses either race, gender, or non-European subject matter.

• "1. We move that the requirement be increased to two (2) courses to be chosen from a list of courses to be approved by a Senateappointed seven (7) member standing committee which will review and recommend to the Committee on the Curriculum approval of existing and new classes for the requirement. The standing committee will review all courses which currently fulfill the requirement as well as new courses which are to be considered to fulfill the requirement. The standing committee will review approved courses periodically, minimally every two years. The standing committee shall be composed of the Director of Women's Studies (or appointee), the Director of Ethnic Studies (or appointee), the Director of International Studies (or appointee), one student appointed by the ASUO President and Student Senate, and three faculty members appointed by the University Senate. A member of the Committee on the Curriculum will be appointed to the standing committee as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
• "2. One of the two courses will focus on contemporary race relations in the U. S.; or the historical roots of contemporary race relations in the U. S., specifically linking the historical matters to contemporary issues; or it will address in depth the social, economic, political, cultural, and/or psychological conditions of, and/or the artistic, musical, oral or written expressions of racial/ethnic minority groups in the U. S. A. In addition, courses that examine the theoretical conceptualization of race as a biological, historical, and cultural category, and that include material about racial/ethnic minority groups in the U. S. can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirements.
• "3. The second course will foster a student's understanding of diversity by focusing on how gender, race, ethnicity and/or class shape experience or identity, relations among social qroups, or the creative expressions of women, peoples of color, ethnic minorities, andJor non-European cultures. These courses may be taught in a wide variety of disciplines and can explore either non-European or European societies. Since the primary pedagogical goal of this requirement is to enable students to better understand diversity as it is manifested within and characterizes our society in its global context, the committee shall encourage courses that provide students with conceptual tools and substantive material to facilitate these understandings.

"The University Assembly requests that the University administration commit sufficient resources to support additional classes over the next two years to provide the array of options necessary for the implementation of this requirement."

Mr. David Jacobs, Political Science, rose to make a procedural motion. Mr. Jacobs moved to have the vote on the motion taken by secret ballot. Mr. John Bonine, Law, objected to the consideration of this procedural motion as, he claimed, a secret ballot was against the law in the State of Oregon because the Minutes of a particular meeting must have recorded...

ORS 192.650 (1) (c) "The results of all votes and, except for public bodies consisting of more than 25 members unless requested by a member of that body, the vote of each member by name." in any public governing body in establishing policy. The University Assembly qualifies as a public governing body...

ORS 192.610 (3) "Governing body" means the members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration."

Mr. Peter Swan, Law and Legal Advisor to the President, agreed with Mr. Bonine, but Mr. Swan added that it was his opinion that a mail ballot, which required the voter to sign her/his name to the ballot would not be illegal.

Mr. Chapin Clark, Law and Parliamentarian for this meeting, pointed out that the University Assembly did not have any provision in its by-laws that would allow for a mail ballot, although the Assembly has used mail ballots in the past. Since the University Assembly does not have a by-law on the subject, the Assembly bylaws allow for reference to Robert's Rules of Order when the Assembly does not have a particular by-law. However, Robert's refers directly back to the established by-laws of the governing body for any specific rule on mail ballots. Thus, Mr. Clark concluded the Assembly does not have a rule that allows for a mail ballot. If the Assembly wanted to establish such a rule, without meeting the requirement of the 10 day notice rule for all motions, it would take a vote of two-thirds of those members of the Assembly present to suspend the rule and allow for the introduction of such a motion.

A motion to suspend the rules was made by Mr. Jacobs. The motion to suspend failed.

President Brand asked if any more amendments to the main motion, as amended, were waiting to be made. Several individuals stated that they had amendments. The President called upon each one to present their amendment.

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, to amend l. in the motion:

The committee is charged to negotiate directly with departments, programs and individual faculty to identify suitable courses and to encourage development of suitable components in other courses relating to to the aims of the requirement. The committee shall also refine the statement of the requirement in light of the findings through the above negotiations. The course list shall be reviewed by the University Committee on the Curriculum, the University Senate, and submitted to the University Assembly for approval.

Mr. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics, proposed the following amendment to delete section 1 and replace that section with the following:

1. We move that the requirement be kept at one (1) course to be chosen in the following manner: (a) Any faculty member of an academic department can propose a relevant course to her/his department, argue its relevance there, and receive departmental approval. (b) Any course approved by an academic department as satisfying the Race/Gender requirement will be forwarded by a the approving department to the University Committee on the Curriculum, where it must follow the established procedure for deliberation and approval of new or revised curriculum. (c) The process of course approval from then on will follow the normal procedures for any curricular changes at this University.

Ms. Sandra Morgen, Sociology and a member of the committee that drew up the original motion, submitted the following two motions:

1. We move that the requirement be increased to two (2) course at a minimum level of three credits each** to be chosen from a list of courses to be reviewed by a Senateappointed seven (7) member standing committee which will recommend to the University Committee on the Curriculum approval of existing and new classes for the requirement. **Clarification language suggested by the Office of the Registrar.

2. In Section two, on the first course, after the phrase "can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirement," add the following. Also, given the striking parallels between racism in the U. S. and other forms of bigotry, such as anti-Semitism and ant`-Arab sentiment, comparative discussions of the various ideas and expressions of group hatred are encouraged. n

In addition, Ms. Morgen stated that she would submit an amendment to return Section 2. to its original wording by eliminating the amendment that removed the words "African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and/or Latinos/Chicanos."

The President requested that any more amendments were to be submitted to the Secretary so that the University Senate could work on the Amendments at its next regularly scheduled meeting-Wednesday, May 12, 1993. The Senate shall not be able to vote on the amendments, but that body will be able to review and prepare the amendments for presentation to the University Assembly at it next meeting, the President concluded. The Assembly will meet on June 2, lg93 and the motion to revise the Race, Gender, and nonEuropean Requirement will be the first item on the agenda.

Mr. Marshall Sauceda, Multicultural Affairs, stated that he voted on the prevailing side on the motion to amend and he has requested that a Motion to Reconsider be placed on the agenda for the June 2, l9s3 meeting of the Assembly.

ADJOURN

The meeting of the Assembly adjourned by a vote of the Assembly, with the motion on the floor. The time of adjournment was 5:35 p.m. Keith Richard, Secretary

AMENDMENT TO THE RACE, ETC. MOTION The Committee is charged to negotiate directly with departments, programs and individual faculty tO identify suitable courses and to encourage development of suitable components in other courses relanng to the aims of the requirement. The committee shall olso refine the statement of the requirement in light of thefindings through the above negotiatfons. Ihe course list shall be reviewed by the University Comminee on the Curriculum, the Vniversity Senate, and submined to the University Assembly for approval.

I am concerned that we do not make a third failed attempt to provide education on issues of population diversity, ethnicity and gender.

The proposal as it now stands is flawed in that it does not guarantee a dialogue between those reviewing the courses and those teaching the courses. Therein lie the seeds of failure.

This amendment proposes no delay in preparation nor implementation. It sets the committee on the course that is normally followed in any major change of the University requirements. The committee is charged to do the thorough preparation of reviewing courses AND consulting with departments, programs and faculty about the suitability of the courses. The process also encourages cooperative discussions with faculty about how components related to the requirement might be added to other existing courses to broaden the availability of suitable courses with which students might meet the requirement. One possible approach i5 to ensure that the accomplishments of members of minority populations are included in courses of various subjects.

Once the committee has a thoroughly documented proposal (including a precise list of available suitable courses and a refined statement of the definition) it will be ready for approval and implementation. The success of the proposal should be directly related to the care in preparation. There is no reason it could not be ready and presented to the Assembly at the time of the next Curriculum Committee report (January 1994) or the one following at the latest.

CAVEATS:

1. The committee must recognize that the requirement is aimed at education about minority populations, not punishing the pink people. It should not focus just on minority population misery but highlight their accomplishments.

2. Change the group requirements to include these courses wherever their subject matter is appropriate (i.e. suitable 400-level courses should not be banned from group satisfaction just because they are 400-level courses). Paul Simonds

I move to amend the recently-passed requirement for a course on contemporary race relations in the U.S. to read as follows (words struck through are to be omitted, words in bold type are to be added):

2. One of the two courses will focus on contemporary race relations in the U.S.; or the historical roots of contemporary race relations in the U.S., specifically linking the historical matters to contemporary issues; or it will address in depth the social, economic, political, cultural, and/or psychological conditions of, and/or the artistic, musical, oral or written expressions of Amer~a~s, .lsi~z Amer~cans, Nati;'e ~mericans and/~r L~tinos/Chicanos minority groups in the U.S.A. In addition, courses that examine the theoretical conceptualization of race as a biological, historical, and cultural category, and that include material about people--of color minority groups in the U.S. can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirements.

The purpose of this motion is to change the race-specific language of the legislation to race-inclusive language.

J.T. Sanders

"Motion to revise the Race, Gender and non-European Requirement"

"It is incumbent upon the University of Oregon to respond to the changing demographic and political realities of the U. S. and the world as we shape a curriculum for the 21st century. To begin this process, the Multicultural Curriculum Committee requests that the University Assembly approve the following changes in the Race, Gender, and non-European Requirement. These changes will be effective for all undergraduates entering the University of Oregon beginning in the academic year 1994-1995 unless the committee responsible for implementation of the requirement, upon evaluation of available courses, requests an additional one year extension to ensure sufficient course availability for the meaningful implementation of the revised requirement.

"The current requirement calls for one course that addresses either race, gender, or non-European subject matter.

"1. We move that the requirement be increased to two (2) courses to be chosen from a list of courses to be approved by a Senateappointed seven (7) member standing committee which will review and recommend to the Committee on the Curriculum approval of existing and new classes for the requirement. The standing committee will review all courses which currently fulfill the requirement as well as new courses which are to be considered to fulfill the requirement. The standing committee will review approved courses periodically, minimally every two years. The standing committee shall be composed of the Director of Women's Studies tor appointee), the Director of Ethnic Studies (or appointee), the Director of International Studies (or appointee), one student appointed by the ASUO President and Student Senate, and three faculty members appointed by the University Senate. A member of the Committee on the Curriculum will be appointed to the standing committee as an ex-officio, non-voting member.

"2. One of the two courses will focus on contemporary race relations in the U. S.; or the historical roots of contemporary race relations in the U. S., specifically linking the historical matters to contemporary issues; or it will address in depth the social, economic, political, cultural, and/or psychological conditions of, and/or the artistic, musical, oral or written expressions of African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and/or Latinos/Chicanos. In addition, courses that examine the theoretical conceptualization of race as a biological, historical, and cultural category, and that include material about people of color in the U. S. can be counted towards fulfillment of the requirements.

"3. The second course will foster a student's understanding of diversity by focusing on how gender, race, ethnicity and/or class shape experience or identity, relations among social groups, or the creative expressions of women, peoples of color, ethnic minorities, and/or non-European cultures. These courses may be taught in a wide variety of disciplines and can explore either non-European or European societies. Since the primary pedagogical goal of this requirement is to enable students to better understand diversity as it is manifested within and characterizes our society in its global context, the committee shall encourage courses that provide students with conceptual tools and substantive material to facilitate these understandings.

"The University Assembly requests that the University administration commit sufficient resources to support additional classes over the next two years to provide the array of options necessary for the implementation of this requirement."

On April 7th the University Assembly voted 175 to 155 to amend the current race, gender and non-European requirement. For those of us on the Multicultural Curriculum Committee (MCC) there was no exhilaration over a "victory" but instead relief that after a three month long debate, which has been characterized as the most contentious since the Vietnam War era, the campus had finally resolved this issue. That debate, punctuated by accusations of faculty intimidation, anti-Semitism, and "political correctness" poisoned the atmosphere of the campus. Nonetheless the assembly met, the vote was taken, and it appeared that the faculty had spoken. Colleagues who indicated their opposition to the revised requirement informed us that they nonetheless accepted the assembly vote and offered to work toward the effective implementation of the new requirement. It was our understanding that the MCC would disband and that the entire faculty could return to its primary research and instruction mission secure in the knowledge that the appropriate faculty committees? including the Senate-appointed Standing Committee proposed in the motion, would cooperate with the provost and the deans in the upcoming year to put in place the necessary mechanisms for implementation.

We were wrong. Within days of the assembly vote various objections in the form of open letters, memos, statements to the university faculty began to circulate. While some of them raised salient points, generally they caUed the decision of the assembly unacceptable and demanded that the new requirement be rescinded. Some charged that debate was prematurely ended, others said that University President Myles Brand, as presider of the assembly, showed blatant favoritism to the supporters of the requirement. Still others charged that the process itself was "flawed" presumably meaning that no objective vote could be taken in such a contentious atmosphere. The AAUP in its April newsletter accused the administration of arrogantly manipulating voting privileges. "Forgetting only to exploit the bodies in the Pioneer Cemetery, President Brand packed the meeting...t' so we are told by that newsletter which then went on to charge without any substantiation that "ineligible temporary faculty members" were aUowed to vote.

In the face of such charges and the continuing acrimony they reflect, it is not surprising that a number of motions to "modify" the newly passed requirement are to be proposed at the next opportunity, either at the university assembly on May 5th or at the next University Senate meeting and that such parliamentary maneuvers may continue weU into next year. We address our coUeagues throughout the campus: WHEN WILL TlIIS END? When will we stop the spurious charges and the circuitous maneuverings to undermine confidence in a resolutio which was passed by both the University Senate and University Assembly?

Given the most recent accusations and aUegations, we need to recaU both what the revision proposes and why it was put forward. It simply caUs for two courses to meet the race, gender and non-European requirement rather than one course. To paraphrase the requirement, one course addresses contemporary race relations in the U.S., the theoretical conceptualization of race, or the experiences and expressions of one or more of the foUowing groups--African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans or Latinos. The other course focuses specifically on how gender, race, class7 and ethnicity have impact within or across societies, that is, within the United States and throughout the world.

Forty-five existing courses were identified as meeting the race segment of the requirement and 188 current fit under the race, gender, ethnicity and international issues segment. But we have always urged that more courses be developed, and that existing courses be modified both to reduce the overaU expense to the university and because we feel numerous faculty should be involved in presenting information on gender, race, ethnicity and international issues. Our students would benefit from a biologist's analysis of race as a scientific concept, an economist's examination of gender issues in the workplace, or a linguist's evaluation of African or Native American languages as a construct of social identity.

Our committee has been accused of "turf building," of engineering a requirement to fiU Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies classes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The courses the MCC has identified as fulfilling the requirement are not concentrated primarily in Women's Studies or Ethnic Studies. They are located in 27 departments in five of the eight schools of the University. Seven~-five percent of the courses we propose for the race requirement are outside Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies. There are few race and gender requirements across the nation that incorporate more faculty, more courses, and more diverse perspectives than what we propose here. This is not, as some would have us believe an attempt to indoctr~nate students. The courses we recornmended would wiU be taught by professors of every political persuasion from numerous disciplines. Given the number of courses and faculty involved, any attempt to impose "group think" or "political correctness" is bound to fail. If the university is the marketplace of ideas where views and values can be openly expressed and debated without fear of censure, then why is there such vehement opposition to the discussion of these issues? Why are those who claim to abhor censorship so adamantly committed to use all their available resources to censure this discussion?

We also want to address the charge that concems about anti-Semitism have been excluded from consideration. Let us clarify a number of points. First the requirement in no way excludes courses on anti-Semitism or on Jews as members of ethnic and religious minorities in the U.S. and in the world. Such courses fit squarely within our second course requirement. Moreover, courses that explore the historical and political construction of race and racism might well include extensive discussion of anti-Semitism and exam~nation of the relationship between racism and anti-Semitism. As we have said repeatedly we did not include courses on anti-Semitism on our list of courses to fulfill the requirement because they do not exist in our current curriculum.

Unfortunately some on this campus have explicitly or through innuendo charged our committee with anti-Semitism. The charge is particularly irresponsible because it has now assumed an alarming a life of its own, generating a set of fears and apprehensions which do not reflect the reality of our campus community. We believe the charge stems from the false premise that Black Studies\Ethnic Studies programs throughout the nation are centers for virulent hatred against the Jewish community. That charge has specifically been leveled at Leonard Jeffries, a now notorious Black Studies Professor at CUNY, and Louis FaTrakhan, a Nation of Islam minister, both of whom have publicly made anti-Semitic remarks. There are those on this campus who would ascribe the beliefs of Jeffries and Farrakhan to every professor in Ethnic or Black Studies. And they would be wrong. Henry Louis Gates, the Chair of African American Studies at Harvard, in a New York Times editorial last summer took to task Jeffries and Farrakhan for espousing anti-Semitism. He was soon joined by Cornel West, Chair of African American Studies at Princeton. The editorial and the ensuing debate among African American Studies professors illustrates there is no unanimity among black scholars behind anti-Semitism. Moreover, the UO Ethnic Studies Program established the first course on this campus, and one of the few in the nation, that analyzes tensions between African American and Jewish communities. It is jointly taught by a Jewish instructor and an African American professor who is a member of the MCC. We agree that anti-Semitism is not being addressed on this campus. Yet those who claim to be most concerned seemed determined to destroy the requirement that can best provide a coherent focus on the issue.

Finally there is the charge that "the process was flawed." The term itself is open to various interpretations. Some argue that it was corrupted with President Brand's appointment of administrators and students to the Multicultural Curriculum Committee last Spring. Others contend that the debate within the University Senate was truncated even though the matter took two Senate sessions in February and March. Here it was the supporters of the revised requirement who claimed that they were unfairly treated and denied the opportunity to speak against a motion to amend the size of the Standing Committee. The March 10th Senate meeting ended with their not addressing the motion because earlier the vast majority of the Senate had voted to end debate at 5:00 p.m.

The University Assembly likewise voted by an overwhelming majority (which included both opponents and proponents of the revised requirement) to end debate at 5:00 p.m. Unfortunately a host of motions were not allowed including a procedural motion from the MCC to determine the specific minimum of credits for the courses. The time allocated to actual debate was brief, preventing both proponents and opponents from speaking to the motion. But that brevity stemmed from the various parliamentary maneuvers and their required votes which took time, and from the obvious surprise of the assembly officers that at least 330 faculty had arrived that day to cast their ballots when assembly meetings typically generate one fifth that number of participants. To argue that the process was flawed because large numbers of faculty, including those on both sides of the debate, came out to vote their consciences, and in doing so, slowed the mechanism for determining the outcome, seems akin to arguing that a particular election result should be invalidated because far more people than expected turned up at the polls.

Those concerned with the process of deliberation, debate and decision-making in the University Senate and Assembly ought to introduce legislation to amend that process for future debates, but that issue is entirely separate from the merits of the resolution which was passed on April 7th. There will be before the assembly on May 5th a "motion to reconsider" the resolution. It will be decided by a majority vote of the assembly. But if we opportunistically attempt to use that motion to change the process of determining weighty issues while we simultaneously debate those issues, we run the risk of undermining confidence in, and the credibility of the only university-wide decision-making procedure currently in place.

No one on our committee suggests that the revised requirement is without need of some modification. Language concerning the minimum number of credits should be added and the question of courses on religion and religious minorities should be clarified. Those are legitimate concerns that can and should be addressed through the normal amending process. But we fear that much of what is occurrmg is not an attempt to seek clarity, and to find ways to listen to those who did not have the oppornmity to speak at the University Assembly. What is taking place is a shrewdly manipulative campaign to declare the newly enacted requirement a failure and remove it long before the first student has enrolled in a class and before any instructor has generated a new course syllabus. What we are witnessing is a cynical, calculated attempt to nullify the decisions of the University Senate and Assembly, and by extension, the ability of the university faculty to democratically decide curricular matters. If that manoeuver succeeds the university will have lost far more than a race, gender and non-European requirement.

From Sandra Morgen and Quintard Taylor on behalf of the Multicultural Curriculum Comminee