The University of Delaware is considering a revival of its controversial residence life program, confirming Accuracy in Academia’s suspicions that President Patrick Harker’s halt to the program was a result of the media coverage rather than remorse over the curriculum content.
Indeed, President Harker argued in his letter to the community that he was upset “that the actual purpose [of the program] is not being fulfilled,” but that he still promotes residence life programs which “support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.”
President Harker later referred the issue to the Faculty Senate for review.
In March, the Student Life Committee of the Faculty Senate recommended some key changes for reissued program. According to the Wilmington News-Journal, these include:
• “Use the term ‘Residence Life program’ instead of ‘curriculum’;”
• “Make it clear that participation in all Residence Life programs is voluntary;”
• “Revise learning outcomes, goals, and implementation related to Residence Life, while continuing to provide learning opportunities related to study habits, personal development, citizenship, community, sustainability, and diversity.” (emphasis added);
• The “opportunity” for annual reviews by the Faculty Senate.
Faculty Senate President Alan Fox, a Philosophy professor at UD, explained to AIA what the emphasis on “citizenship” activities meant. “By citizenship I mean those activities which stress strategies for living in complex societies, programs centered around presidential campaigns and the need to participate in the mechanisms of democracy, etc. A full list will be available once the program is posted on the web for senators to examine, which should be soon,” he writes.
He also explained the timetable surrounding the program’s relaunch. “I believe the proposal will be finalized on Monday [April 21] and then will come to the executive committee of the senate before coming to the senate in May,” he writes. This proposal, if approved, will take effect in the Fall semester of 2009.
In the previous program, students were expected to demonstrate progress toward inculcating liberal values, which the National Association of Scholars describes as focused on “radical environmentalism, an attempt to stigmatize traditional moral sentiments, foregrounding questions of sexual orientation, efforts to promote deep distrust of American society, promotion of identity politics, and an aggressive focus on racial grievance.”
For example, in the third “one-on-one” meeting with the Residence Assistant (RA), students were supposed to “develop an action plan for learning about social identity [that] they are least comfortable with [sic].” In other words, a student uncomfortable with homosexuality would likely have been assigned a project on the Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transsexual (LGBT) community.
University officials argue that the switch to a “voluntary” program will prevent these egregious abuses. “There are several important difference, including the fact that no one will be forced to participate and no notes will be taken or ratings applied,” wrote Fox in an April letter to the Wilmington News-Journal. He added, “The programs also are emphasizing citizenship and strategies for living together, rather than focusing narrowly on diversity and gender.”
Others remain more skeptical. A scathing editorial in the News-Journal criticized the University for reissuing a program without repudiating its ideological assumptions. “The Faculty Senate carved out a bigger role for itself if the ill-crafted program is revived. But the faculty’s weasel-worded recommendations didn’t repudiate the program that ruined many students’ freshman experience,” the author writes.
The writer quotes a UD student as saying “It’s basically going to be the same crap, different people.”
Responding to these concerns, Professor Fox told AIA that “I challenge those people to find the flaws in the new program. If any exist, we will fix them.” He writes, “But I believe that all of the original concerns have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed, and that the discussion that will take place on the proposed program will be open and frank before the Senate votes to approve or disapprove it.”
A less reported fact of the program is that, despite the public opposition, the residence life program was highly successful at what it was designed to do—change opinions. According to a mid-semester review, in which 623 of 720 Russell students responded, the “treatment” program provided more openness toward (eg, students responding “open” or “more open” after exposure to the “treatment”). The results show dramatic changes in openness in several areas:
• sexual orientation (68%)
• race (70%)
• gender (68%)
• religion (69%)
• ability (68%)
Onlookers should not be so surprised that a program with such a successful record at promoting “tolerance” and “openness” is still championed by the University of Delaware faculty.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.
