The decision to make the U.S. Anti-Black Racism (ABR) course a degree requirement at the University of Connecticut is being reconsidered to determine its legality.
Various committees and members of the senate are involved in this consideration, including the Common Curriculum Committee (CCC+) and the Senate Executive Committee (SEC).
Jamie Kleinman, chair of the CCC+, responded to an email interview with The Daily Campus, writing, “at this current moment we don’t know if this will continue to be a degree requirement as it was originally passed.” She added that “one option we are currently exploring is adding the ABR course to our TOI3 courses.”
She further gave The Daily Campus a summary of the course’s history, though she acknowledged that she herself was not involved in the vote to make ABR a requirement.
The course was first offered electronically in Fall 2021 as a pop-up course. Following the suggestion of students who “felt that the ABR course was a great learning experience and wanted all undergraduate students to take it,” the senate formed an ad hoc committee which eventually approved of a plan to integrate this course as a degree requirement.
As per the Office of the Provost webpage, pop-up courses are provided in response to its communal or national importance, taken by “faculty, staff and students.” The transition from pop-up to degree requirement was approved in 2023 as part of a social justice requirement, though it was not yet in effect.
Dr. Robert Day, chair of the SEC, explained the difficulty in requiring the course. Questions were raised about the ABR course’s legality in relation to the “Dear Colleague Letter” interpretation of diversity laws.
According to the Department of Education, the “Dear Colleague Letter” was distributed to “educational institutions receiving federal funds” in order to clarify the definitions of “nondiscrimination” that will be used in the future. The letter claims that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives “frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not.”
Day emphasized that, while he could not speak directly about its legality, the ABR course requirement is being reconsidered under the possibility that it could be interpreted as illegal. He also mentioned that these questions are additional factors in the already difficult process of changing degree requirements.
Day and Kleinman both attest that committees such as the SEC and CCC+ are working together to create a proposal to the senate regarding the ABR course.
Day said this process may lead to one of three conclusions: First, the ABR course may not be required. Day said he believes that this is an unlikely outcome due to the support of the ABR course in the past.
Second, the committees may instead propose that multiple popular pop-up courses, rather than ABR alone, should be promoted, allowing choice between them. While Day did not expand on which courses he specifically referred to, Anne D’Alleva, the outgoing provost, wrote in 2023 about “Why the Jews? Confronting Antisemitism” and “Confronting Anti-Asian Racism” as related pop-up courses, though this was before the Topic of Inquiry system.
Third, Day noted the possibility that the senate would be satisfied with designating the ABR course alongside other pop-up courses in TOI3 as one-credit courses, since the proposal requiring the ABR course was voted on before the new common curriculum system was launched.
“[…]Maybe they would’ve thought about this differently if they had known how much stronger we’re already going in directions like this with respect to our TOIs,” said Day.
Day emphasized that the course’s content itself is not at risk of being changed, stating that “it’s whether it would be required of all students or not … the content would only change in the direction that experts in the area say we can improve the course.”
Both Day and Kleinman emphasized that not many conclusions have yet been drawn about the ultimate direction of the ABR course. The decision will be influenced by the committees, the vote of the senate and the federal interpretation of diversity.