Inconsistencies in the culture requirement

On Feb. 26, I approvingly read the Daily's news story about the creation of a faculty-student committee designed to overhaul the language of the culture requirement. Half a dozen years ago, I engaged in quite a bit of dialogue with professors regarding these provisions. As the new committee goes forward, I urge it to rectify a few basic inconsistencies in the current rule to most effectively guide the wonderful students who attend Tufts University.

The current wording of the requirement states the culture may not be "native to the student." I am fairly certain that enforcement of this rule historically failed to regularly occur. I suggest the committee strike the language entirely due to its application being a slippery slope fraught with dangerous decisions and implications.

Primarily, the rule does not state what "non-native" means. Does it indicate that an African-American student cannot take a class in African-American subculture? If so, the color of one's skin serves as a horrible basis for such a distinction. An African-American student growing up in a predominantly African-American neighborhood experiences "African-American culture" very differently than another African-American student raised in a Caucasian neighborhood like Grosse Pointe, Michigan. If the latter student wishes to learn more about the African-American culture, the aim is the very goal this provision seeks to serve. Culture and racial self-identity are not necessarily congruent concepts.

How would the determining body handle a student that grew up in a neighborhood that was extremely diverse in American subculture? Would it deny each represented culture as native or make an assessment based on census data? The gray areas are abundant.

Tufts would serve its students better to trust their judgment as to what is foreign to them. The committee could avoid administrative waste and discriminatory application of a hard-to-define rule by striking it entirely and instead including a recommendation that students study outside their current cultural comfort zones.

The culture option's design intends to impact students like me: horrible with linguistics but eager to learn in general. Students that speak a language other than English do not have this requirement, nor do students engaged in the upper-levels of foreign language study. Instead, the requirement allows linguistically challenged students to grow in a different way -- one these students are far more likely to carry forward with them into life: appreciation and understanding of culture. It is a marvelous requirement.

However, in pressing this goal, the current rule contains its other great flaw: the denial of the various Anglo cultures. While Anglo culture roots itself into American evolution, certain students may gain enormous insight from studying Anglo societies. I studied abroad in Australia and the accompanying learning underlined the vast differences in politics, societal outlook, and history between the two nations. While the two countries share a language, only an ignorant academician could state that Americans typically understand the culture enjoyed by the citizens of Australia. There are far more Mexican immigrants living in America and contributing to its cultures than Australians.

Studying Australian politics, sociology, and geology offers no less a cultural study to the average American than studying those same subjects for Mexico, France, or several other non-English speaking countries allowed under the rule. Magnification of this argument occurs when one considers the subculture options available to students.

I fulfilled my requirement through the African-American subculture option, taking Professor James Glaser's "Southern Politics course" and the two African-American history courses taught by Professor Gerald Gill. The courses were among the best I took at Tufts. Each class I would recommend to current students regardless of the existence of a culture requirement.

However, I learned more about concepts and subjects that were foreign to my knowledge in Australia than I ever did in those courses. I believe both sets of classes offer significant value. The committee should keep the subculture option, and stop the obstruction to Anglo cultures -- which reflects a misleading ideology that Tufts students all come to the institution as engrained with the same British cultural identity as the nation's forefathers.

Thankfully, I studied more about Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Adolf Hitler in high school than I did Margaret Thatcher or Queen Victoria. I came to Tufts with more knowledge of this nation's troublesome persecution of minority cultures than I did how Australia evolved as a vibrant nation out of its infancy as a penal colony. I studied them both, I will continue to learn more throughout life, and I encourage all to embrace their educations.

The current rule's inconsistencies are apparent, easy to fix, and in need of reform. This alumnus is more than willing to take time out of his schedule to help make these changes. They are a long time coming.

I commend the Tufts faculty for working to address these issues. I pray that agendas of departments do not interfere with the candid discussion. While changes to requirements impact class demand and departmental funding, the overall goal of creating a meaningful requirement that furthers student knowledge is the most important objective.

Treat the various cultures with equality and open minds. This rule should bend over backwards for students wishing to learn more about other cultures. Let's make it happen.

Doug Burns is a 2000 Tufts graduate and a legal intern at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and former Daily columnist