JMU needs diversity of perspectives first

Breeze Reader's View

Since I arrived in the United States, there have been many issues that have intrigued me; however, my overriding concern as far as the JMU community has been with the lack of intellectual exchange. My colleagues have blamed this on the lack of diversity on campus. But, being a minority student myself, I do not think that the lack of diversity, per se, is the issue. In the United States, the word diversity is almost always correlated with color; it has become such an overused and overly discussed issue that people no longer realize what the term denotes. Unlike most of my peers at JMU, I have always maintained that cultural diversity is not as important as diversity of opinion.

Being a spectator to the great American social milieu, I have noticed that for all of the differences minority groups in the United States proport to highlight, when it comes to intellectual matters, culture does not play as much of a role as the individual’s own perspective on subjects. This undeniably might be, but is not necessarily, a function of their cultural background. For instance, I was born and brought up in India — I don’t necessarily relate to the Indians who have been brought up in America. I view them as Americans; they are no different as far as perspective is concerned from their white, Hispanic or black counterparts who come from the same socioeconomic strata.

To really address the issue of diversity, the academic and intellectual environment should be developed to bring out individual perspectives rather than highlight group perspectives. This leads me to the second and most important issue that I wish to address — the overall intellectual climate of JMU.

JMU is a community divided into two very distinct fiefdoms; the first is that of the faculty, the second is that of the students. The classroom is analogous to a tedious tribal council, where certain academic rituals are carried out after which the two parties retire to their own sanctuaries.

For four years, this tedious process continues until the students are provided with a diploma that serves as evidence of their participation while the faculty returns to its normal schedule. Therefore, the only prospect of growth for the two feifdoms lies within the confines of their intellectual boundaries. These boundaries, as I understand, are grade-point average for students and research/tenure for professors. Both of these I agree are important from a practical point of view; however, if we really sit down to contemplate the true essence of an education, then we will discover that these boundaries are only superficial.

I came to the United States for an education, not in the classroom, but from the experience. I could have learned accounting or international affairs back in India and graduated with the same level of expertise; what attracted me to the United States was its liberal arts education. I had heard from my friends who already were studying in other colleges in the United States about the open intellectual climate that exists in American universities.

My friends would recount experiences where they would go out with professors to coffee shops and discuss philosophical subjects. I was absolutely taken aback by from this notion of intellectual glasnost and made up my mind to apply to a liberal arts college in America. Alas, when I arrived here, my romantic fantasies of intellectual nirvana were destroyed by the drudgery of academic work, compounded by the fact that most of the time my opinions on everything stuck out like a sore thumb from the others. Most of my fellow classmates were from the same area and because of the lack of a platform for intellectual exchange, their views seemed more or less homogeneous.

Despite these constraints, I decided not to be deterred and set out to seek interaction with my professors. I am glad I did, because some of the most insightful perspectives on subjects I have been exposed to were a direct result of these discussions.

The question now arises as to how to reconcile these differences. I feel that the solution to the problem is more practical than philosophical. Starting from the grassroots, I believe that the first step the university should take to facilitate a healthier intellectual environment is to dilute the physical boundaries that are in place. For example, having a common dining time once or twice a week where students and professors could interact would greatly facilitate this process. I am always baffled as to how expertly the professors managed to eat lunch without being seen or heard. Perhaps there is an underground chamber in the hallowed portals of Wilson Hall where all the professors dine in order to avoid the "pestilence" that is the JMU students. I would not be surprised if there is an alternate Taylor Down Under where the faculty relaxes. My point is that the existence of parallel universes is not conducive to intellectual growth of both parties. I feel that these fiefdoms should join hands to form a community that can give those poseurs in Charlottesville a run for their money.

Arjun Sharmais a senior accounting major.