When Florida International sought to impose demographic restrictions on course enrollment--limiting access to a certain Spanish course to "Hispanic bilinguals educated in the U.S....whose mother tongue is Spanish," "U.S. Hispanic bilinguals," and "U.S. Hispanic Bilinguals Only"--FIRE informed the school that it was in patent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, not to mention numerous federal and state regulations. All it took, back in the fall of 2001, was a letter from FIRE to get Florida International to back down. The school apologized, reworded its course descriptions so as to make them non-discriminatory, and carried on. It was just another day at the office for FIRE, a slam dunk kind of case that swiftly and cleanly set an obvious wrong right.

Students at the University of Colorado at Boulder have lately been subjected to a similarly noxious set of enrollment restrictions. A Friday section of the popular course "School and Society"--which is required for all education majors, and which also satisfies the university's "culture and gender diversity" course requirement--was restricted to non-white students and first-generation white college students.

Administrators at Boulder created the exclusive section in response to complaints from minority students that in mixed-race versions of the course they were being singled out as representatives of their race. "Very often, their class would turn to them whenever an issue of race was discussed," said the dean of the School of Education. "They'd be asked if they agreed with a certain perspective or to defend a certain position. They'd be put on the spot in ways that made it feel like a hostile environment."

Teachers who pigeonhole minority students in this way--or who allow other students to do that--are definitely engaging in destructive pedagogy, and should expect complaints. But the proper response is not segregation.

This point, too, is being made by minority students at Boulder.Three CU students got themselves a lawyer and threatened to sue if the school did not change its policy immediately. Their argument was that the racial division effected by the school's misguided attempt to accommodate minority students who feel targeted in mixed-race courses is itself discriminatory. Antonia Gaona, a senior of Hispanic descent, explained: "I'm frustrated with programs like this because they force students to identify themselves on the basis of race .... It's like the university feels it needs to coddle minority students and have us work with students who only look like us, and that's not how the real world works."

The threat of a lawsuit, combined with unpleasant publicity, has worked. UC Boulder announced yesterday that it would no longer impose demographic restrictions on course enrollment.

As a teacher, when I have one minority student in a classroom, I usually try to provide other viewpoints that other minorities have argued publicly (Alan Keyes says, Al Sharpton argues, Richard Rodriguez says...) etc. etc.. If I do this when presenting the terms of the question (in other words as part of the set-up) it takes the pressure of the student. Some students have said they appreciated it, nobody has said it bothered them. Fortunately, in my current job, this is not so much a problem as it has been in other places I have taught.

I don't see what the big deal is with the enrollment restrictions based on linguistic background. When I was taking advanced (i.e. beyond the 101-202 sequence) spanish courses as an undergrad, several of my classes were restricted to non-native speakers of spanish for the purpose of keeping a "safe space" for us anglo-hablantes to improve oral communication skills. Other classes weren't restricted to native speakers but probably should have been, since their content relied on a deep cultural understanding that was not made clear by the course description or number.

gb, "Hispanic bilinguals educated in the U.S....whose mother tongue is Spanish," "U.S. Hispanic bilinguals," and "U.S. Hispanic Bilinguals Only" are citizenship- and racial/ethnic discrimination as well as on the basis of linguisitic experience. FIU is a state school in Miami that is historically heavily Hispanic: this appears to be equal parts keeping out international students (regardless of linguistic background) and keeping out non-Hispanic US citizens, for a host of patronage/nepotism/coruption, etc., reasons associated with Miami. Regardless, that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clauses of both the federal and state constitutions on multiple grounds should be fairly readily apparent.

"Regardless, that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clauses of both the federal and state constitutions on multiple grounds should be fairly readily apparent."

Actually, no. This is not the case. Equal protection requires that: 1) an effectively equal opportunity is not provided--offering an alternative course would circumvent this problem; and, 2) that there is no just reason for the policy--the argument that the course would be fundamentally different if open to all parties would probably stand. This is not to say that the policy is necessarily in the best taste.

BTW, are "first-person perspectives" still being elicited from students? Is this Oprah/group therapy or a classroom? I think that referencing those such as Keyes/Sharpton/Rodriguez is a great way to maintain rigor in the classroom and keep the level of argument on an equal footing.

As for the case of foreign languages, plenty of foreign language departments root out those who are native speakers of a language and prevent them from taking courses in said foreign language to fulfill requirements. It is absurd that a German exchange student, for example, would take German 101. Weeding him out at the departmental level saves the professor grief and prevents abuse or neglect by the professor.

Also, based on my experience taking high school Spanish with a smattering of native speakers, I know that my needs were quite different from theirs. Most frequently, native speakers had great pronunciation and oral abilities, but their grammar and spelling were weak. They often spent more time unlearning what they thought was correct (as a result of a lifetime of colloquial communication) than simply /learning/. For my part, I wish I could speak as comfortably as they did, but I certainly wrote better and performed better on exams. During the second semester we were separated for labs and oral sessions and all went better than before.

When I went to college I experienced no such problem in French. Only one person in my class spoke French at home, and she had to struggle with unlearning poor grammar and learning how to write (we do love French orthography!). To this day, my accent has not topped hers, though.

Didier, are you disputing that state (rather than federal) discrimination on the basis of citizenship is generally subject to strict scrutiny? What possible compelling governmental interest could FIU have in discriminating between native Spanish-speakers who are US citizens and those who aren't?

Or what about between "Hispanic" and "non-Hispanic" native Spanish speakers for that matter, which certainly looks to be a racial/ethnic categorization that would appear to exclude, for example, the large Japanese and Italian immigrant populations of Peru and Argentina, respectively.

Dave J: OK, maybe I was too generous toward FIU's case. When I read "Hispanic" I take the term as a cultural/ethnic designation, not a racial one. As I read it, a Chinese (by race) Mexican (by birth) is "Hispanic." In such a case (and in my opinion), separation in the classroom holds if the couse matter warrants it. On equal protection grounds, heightened scrutiny would not apply to FIU /unless/ points 1 & 2 (mentioned above) were proven.

As Erin lays out the case, there is nothing LEGALLY discriminatory about FIU's practice. Saying an act is "in patent violation of the 14th" does not make it so. Sure, they changed their policy in response to FIRE's letter, but an admission of guilt that does not make. Cost/benefit analysis in this case would suggest that changing the policy is the better choice, even though FIU could probably defend (and have a court uphold) their position.

As for the Colorado case, I think the school's actions were foolish, but the argument there is altogether different.

On another note, and equal protection concerns notwithstanding, what do the readers here think about the women's colleges remaining so? Is such separation socially warranted in the US? How should women's colleges justify allowing a woman to enroll as a woman and then remain enrolled following gender re-identification? Should "sex" or "gender" be the criterion that permits one to enroll in a woman's college?

Women are more insecure and need a safer environment, free from male threat, competition, and interest.
Just as it's okay to have all black colleges and schools, it's also okay to have all women colleges and schools.
Likewise, there are colleges in the US that accept only Japanese nationals.
It would definitely be wong to have all white or all male colleges, however. That would be discriminatory.

"...it's also okay to have all women colleges and schools."

Not public schools. I was a senior at Mississippi University for Women when the US Supreme Court decided the school had to admit men, back in 1982.

(Why a man would want "Mississippi University for Women" on his diploma is beyond me.)

Private schools should be able to do as they please.

Rene: I am reading your comment as though it were written with tounge firmly planted in cheek. C'est correct?

Laura: I agree on the point that private schools should be allowed to run themselves as single-sex institutions; however, the larger question remains: "are they necessary?" If my reading of Rene's post is correct, women's college's send a message about women that their very students and faculty aim/purport to debunk.

Also, should the criterion for admission be sex or gender? How is this different from national origin? It is important to recognize that neither or these attributes are considered one of the student's merits, since birthplace and gender are games of chance.

Are they necessary? I don't know. Why not give people the choice, though, if they want them? Let the market decide. Every school doesn't have to be exactly like every other school.