Foes Debate Ethnic Studies

Students from opposite sides on the debate over the creation of an ethnic studies department at Harvard discussed its merits before an audience of about 50 students last night.

Julie Suk '97, the former managing editor of Perspective, spoke in favor of having a separate department and called the creation of an ethnic studies department "a creative institutional response to a need that wasn't being fulfilled."

Suk also said the faculty's current offerings are unsatisfactory.

"It may be a very good idea that we should pursue ethnic studies within existing departments, but that hasn't happened," Suk said. "If we have to create a separate department to make ethnic studies a priority, that that's what we'll do".

However, the two speakers opposed to an ethnic studies department, Douglas M. Gordon '97, former president of the Salient, and Charles A. Goodman '97 expressed their reservations about the academic validity of creating such a program.

The proposed department, composed of different fields such as Latino studies and Asian-American studies, covers too broad and diverse a spectrum, Goodman said.

"The deep dark secret of ethnic studies is that it doesn't have a unified subject matter," Goodman said.

However, Suk argued that ethnic studies is united in the study of race and ethnicity within society.

"Both of these points miss a fun- damental theme, that ethnic studies is trying to understand the concept of race and ethnicity," she said.

But creating an ethnic studies department would only marginalize the subject matter that it seeks to promote, Goodman said.

"Ethnic studies could plausibly be described as an academic ghetto," he said.

Gordon said that one way of promoting ethnic studies and encouraging students to take such classes would be to offer ethnic studies courses within larger departments such as English or History.

"The best way to ensure that people like me who wouldn't think of concentrating in Latino studies take classes in Latino studies is to include it in a larger department," he said.

Goodman and Gordon also said they believe that an ethnic studies department would offer a skewed political perspective.

"It's a political movement masquerading as a discipline," Goodman said.

"I don't think you can have an ethnic studies department that represents different views on ethnic studies," Gordon said. "I've noticed a surprising homogeneity of views, a pre-ponderance of people on the left side of the spectrum."

Marina C. Santini '98, the current managing editor of Perspective, who spoke in favor of ethnic studies, noted the success of the African American studies department.

"It has had the effect of increasing debate in other disciplines while strengthening it's own department," Santini said.

She also criticized the quality of the current curriculum available to students who are interested in pursuing ethnic studies.

The debate was sponsored by the Ethnic Studies Action Committee, a student organization that aims to convince the Harvard faculty to create an ethnic studies department.

Many audience members said they felt having such a forum with speakers from both sides was very valuable.

"There's very little dialogue between opponents and proponents of ethnic studies, and we don't get to see on what points we actually agree on and disagree on," said Sandy S. Chung '98

But creating an ethnic studies department would only marginalize the subject matter that it seeks to promote, Goodman said.

"Ethnic studies could plausibly be described as an academic ghetto," he said.

Gordon said that one way of promoting ethnic studies and encouraging students to take such classes would be to offer ethnic studies courses within larger departments such as English or History.

"The best way to ensure that people like me who wouldn't think of concentrating in Latino studies take classes in Latino studies is to include it in a larger department," he said.

Goodman and Gordon also said they believe that an ethnic studies department would offer a skewed political perspective.

"It's a political movement masquerading as a discipline," Goodman said.

"I don't think you can have an ethnic studies department that represents different views on ethnic studies," Gordon said. "I've noticed a surprising homogeneity of views, a pre-ponderance of people on the left side of the spectrum."

Marina C. Santini '98, the current managing editor of Perspective, who spoke in favor of ethnic studies, noted the success of the African American studies department.

"It has had the effect of increasing debate in other disciplines while strengthening it's own department," Santini said.

She also criticized the quality of the current curriculum available to students who are interested in pursuing ethnic studies.

The debate was sponsored by the Ethnic Studies Action Committee, a student organization that aims to convince the Harvard faculty to create an ethnic studies department.

Many audience members said they felt having such a forum with speakers from both sides was very valuable.

"There's very little dialogue between opponents and proponents of ethnic studies, and we don't get to see on what points we actually agree on and disagree on," said Sandy S. Chung '98