Letters to the Editor | Students value choice, not requirements

On January 16, 1919, the United States ratified the eighteenth amendment and one year later, prohibition went into effect. This was possibly the greatest example of the legislation of morality in U.S. history, and has widely been considered a bad move. Andrew Block’s advocacy of a required course on social power dynamics (“Social power dynamics course should be required,” published on 3.31.06) is a similar case of imposing a moral prerogative upon an at least somewhat reticent group, and is held in similar esteem by yours truly.

Before I enter into the thick of the debate, I will attempt to summarize what Block has written: courses on social power dynamics often either go ignored or are unknown because students favor “traditional” classes. Block views it as a problem that students aren’t taking classes that concern “race and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class or another category of social power.” He writes that “students have voiced strong support for the idea.” He concludes that a required course on social power “would open up opportunities for education and civic engagement that many students seek, but cannot otherwise find within the status quo.”

I very much doubt that with the controversy surrounding MICA, the presence and power of such groups as ASA, BSU, ASU, Asian Quilt, CSA, CBS, Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, MEChA, Poder Latino, QCVC, SASA, SAU and the VJU that any student is unaware of the importance of multiculturalism. Anyone who has looked through a course catalog is probably aware of pertinent courses. I would also argue that it’s unavoidable to go through Vassar without taking a course dealing with social issues of this sort. Block presumes that to be aware of society’s powers and oppressions, participation in a class is necessary. I’m not so sure if I agree; I feel like any consistent participation in the above groups is bound to inform someone on social issues far more than sleeping through a class freshman year.

It is not a problem if a student attempts to avoid the courses normally associated with social power dynamics, as I believe that each student has the ability and right to decide what she or he believes to be the most important avenue of study. Who’s to say what is required and what is not? Who’s to decide what the central issues, those that are absolutely critical to a liberal education are? I believe that it’s a bit presumptuous to argue that the social issues facing college students today are of any greater importance than those economic, environmental, artistic, philosophical, religious, sociological or psychological issues.

The critical difference between the already required courses and those proposed by Block is simple: mathematics and language courses are focused on developing a skill, which would largely be taught exactly the same at any college within the U.S.; multiculturalism can only be taught as a perspective, as it is a cohesive way of looking at society and the world, and its viewpoints would depend entirely upon the teacher. I don’t believe it is possible to present an entirely unbiased view on the topics that such a course would deal with. Even if we were to accept the argument that such a class would develop critical thinking, I don’t see why it could not be gained in another class.

Social power dynamics and multiculturalism are topics to be dealt with sensitively and with the utmost care for they are of incredible importance. Although I agree that a course regarding these topics would bring about opportunities for education and civic engagement, I can find no compelling argument that the students who would seek these opportunities out would not be introduced to the subjects otherwise. It does not matter how many students clamor for a required course on these topics. If we begin to allow students to dictate other student’s educations, we will wind up with one major: the Vassar major. For many of us, this is the first time in our lives that we are largely able to choose our own education; a unique privilege offered to Vassar students. Choice is a lovely thing, and in this case the argument against it is not powerful enough to persuade me to constrain it.

—Joe Rozek ’08