Photo by Angelina Bambina/iStock
It’s almost graduation, and seniors will soon dot campus in caps and gowns. Thanks to the BU Hub, all seniors, regardless of school or major, have a certain core of general education experiences and knowledge in common. At some point in their undergraduate years, each had to “identify and apply major concepts used in the natural sciences to explain and quantify the workings of the physical world” (Scientific Inquiry 1). Changing Wheel Bearings
Each also had to “craft responsible, considered, and well-structured written arguments, using media and modes of expression appropriate to the situation” (First-Year Writing Seminar; Writing Intensive Course).
The beauty of the Hub is in its breadth, exposing all students to important learning experiences: an English major has to take that unit in Scientific Inquiry; engineers have to learn to write effectively. These, and all other learning outcomes in the Hub, are key components of a BU education. As faculty, we applaud the work of the General Education Committee in formalizing these expectations.
But what is missing is an explicit focus on antiracism. Defined by BU Diversity & Inclusion as “the active and conscious effort to work against the multi-dimensional aspects of racism,” antiracism should be woven into every BU undergrad’s studies.
The Hub has a “Diversity, Civic Engagement, and Global Citizenship” capacity, a logical home for an antiracist Hub unit. But the three Hub units there—The Individual in Community, Global Citizenship and Intercultural Literacy, and Ethical Reasoning—refer to race sparingly, mentioning it only as one of several options in a single learning outcome. The framing language there also mentions race, but in a dated, “multicultural” way, referencing the past rather than the future and centering “BU’s founders,” while continuing the practice of othering BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, people of color] students. Overall, the Hub stays in the white university’s comfort zone, starkly avoiding the direct antiracist language of BU’s own Center for Antiracist Research (“Our Mission: To build an antiracist society that ensures racial equity and social justice”).
The problem here is the flipside of the advantage of the Hub itself: if a concept, or “capacity,” is present in the Hub, we know that students will graduate having at least been exposed to direct instruction and in-depth engagement with it at least once. Conversely, if something is not present in the Hub, though some students may encounter it in their studies, others graduate without any exposure whatsoever.
Some faculty might object that they don’t have the expertise to teach antiracist courses in their discipline, but there are resources on campus to help. Initially, few departments offered classes that met the Writing Intensive Course Hub unit, for example. But, just this spring, MA 301: Writing in Mathematics, and CS 115: Academic Writing in Computer Science, were first taught, giving students the option of completing that Writing Intensive Course unit in departments that previously had not offered it. Departments aren’t on their own: the CAS Writing Program Writing in the Disciplines team offers collaborative, interdisciplinary programs to faculty seeking support. Similarly, the Center for Antiracist Research and its interdisciplinary partnerships would be excellent resources.
Perhaps aware of their missing component, the BU Hub recently unveiled the Hub Pathway in Social & Racial Justice highlighting courses that do offer students the opportunity “to articulate and critically examine their own beliefs and opinions on such topics as human diversity, identity, race and antiracism, class, gender, sexuality, intersectionality, power, and social equity and inclusion, among others.” Here, students may discover AA 112: “Black Power in the Classroom,” or BI 510: “Institutional Racism in Health and Science,” and more.
The Pathway is a good start, but BU students are eager for a more committed approach. If we truly want all students to graduate as “reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world,” an antiracist Hub unit is imperative. The time is now: during last year’s initial Hub assessment, faculty across BU voiced support for an antiracist addition.
What would such a Hub unit look like? Ask us, and our colleagues who comprise the initial interdisciplinary cohort of fellows in the Designing Antiracist Curricula Fellowship Program. We have been led ably by Phillipe Copeland, clinical associate professor, School of Social Work; Priya Garg, associate dean, office of medical education, BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine; Jean Otsuki, associate director of the Center for Teaching & Learning; and Megan Segoshi, manager of faculty diversity initiatives, BU Diversity & Inclusion. Together, we spent the past eight months learning and making changes to our own teaching. We know that an antiracist curriculum means emphasizing the importance of teams of researchers above lone genius models of inquiry, learning and acknowledging the history of race and harmful policies across disciplines, and reframing the story of academic fields to center contributors that have been overlooked or forgotten. Let’s take this step toward transforming BU’s undergraduate education.
Christina Michaud, associate director of English language learning in the College of Arts & Sciences Writing Program, can be reached at cmichaud@bu.edu. Ashley Davis, a clinical associate professor at the School of Social Work, can be reached at davisash@bu.edu. Alexandra Dobie, an instructor of medicine at the Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, can be reached at aldobie@bu.edu. Melisa Osborne, a research assistant professor of bioinformatics and biology at the College of Arts & Sciences, can be reached at melosbor@bu.edu.
“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John O’Rourke at orourkej@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.
POV: Where’s Antiracism in the BU Hub?
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.
As an alumni, I’d see more minorities interviewed for leadership positions such as deans and even the University President position. It’d be great to show to the student body and staff that minorities can make it here at Boston University. We can be an exemplar In minority leadership.
The authors are correct to highlight that “the beauty” of the Hub is in its breadth. If so, then why narrow the Hub further than it already is by imposing a dominant intellectual framework upon both faculty and students?
The problem isn’t antiracism per se. Antiracism is a legitimate intellectual framework for interpreting and critiquing the world around us, and for identifying policies and practices for bettering society. A university, by definition, could legitimately study antiracism, offer courses in antiracism, and perhaps even provide opportunities for minoring or majoring in antiracism.
The problem is that the authors privilege antiracism in an assumed, unquestioned manner without acknowledging competing frameworks that also grapple seriously with race and racism, that feature accomplished scholars critiquing antiracism as a construct, and that likewise seek human flourishing in a broken society. A fleeting nod to an apparently passe multiculturalism is all we get. The authors’ position is an understandable one to take. After all, in a Manichaean world, who wouldn’t want to be an antiracist? But such a position can be one of intellectual hubris with a dash of moral superiority. The unintended consequence of this curricular mandate would result in a Hub that is less general and liberal, and instead more parochial and illiberal. The situation is akin to a Catholic college requiring their students to enroll in a church theology course or an evangelical Christian college requiring their students to attend chapel services. Unquestioningly favoring one framework over another would ultimately establish methodological and ideological boundaries, chill discussion, silence debate, and generate fear of cancelation to any who would foolishly deviate from the institution’s established orthodoxy. This would be the antithesis of a university’s mission.
A significant limitation of the Hub is that it is already subdivided into too many units that sit like a Byzantian maze upon students’ pathway through their general education. The situation can be so complicated that some students struggle in their final year to Tetris their way to the one course with the perfect combination of Hub units that would allow them to graduate on time. Double majors, study abroad, and other curricular pursuits are impeded. At the same time, the Hub can be so diffused across a major that it’s almost indistinguishable from it. An Anthropology major, for instance, could potentially satisfy all but two Hub units in their major. The trouble is that the installation of Hub units perpetuated turf battles among faculty, with each discipline trying to get their foot in the door. More and more units were added, and the original capacities (which is what BU faculty officially voted for) were pushed into the background while particular areas or units were pulled into the limelight. Inevitably, there’s a ceiling on the number of units that can be required in the Hub lest students not be able to graduate in four years and so anytime a unit’s area is included, another unit’s area must necessarily be excluded. Adding yet another required Hub unit, be it in antiracism or another area, would only perpetuate this conundrum.
A Hub 2.0 is necessary and unavoidable, but the general capacities themselves (perhaps revised with more explicit language about race and the experiences of minoritized identities) and the careful curation of signature pathways (such as social & racial justice) are the way forward to a genuine general education.
Or we could let people talk courses towards their major. Most faculty and students agree the hub is a disaster
I want to thank Professors Michaud, Davis, Dobie, and Osborne for their work in the Antiracist Curricula Fellowship Program, and the insights they bring to this POV piece in BU Today. I agree whole heartedly that a reworking of the BU Hub to ensure specific antiracist literacy be purposely included. I also agree that the time for this Hub unit inclusion is now. Given the many scholars and resources available at BU (with many mentioned in this POV piece), I see no reason a thoughtful and purposeful discussion leading to the addition of a specific antiracist Hub requirement cannot be undertaken and completed soon. I agree that this addition to the Hub is essential to ensuring BU undergraduates are not only competent participants in our interconnected world, but also active advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion in that world.
This is a great idea! It is clear that BU needs to do something to address the pervasive racism in traditional education. The requirement for Racial justice courses at BU’s MSW program was a boon to me and my fellow alums.
On the issue of anti-racism efforts at BU, readers may want to take a look at these two items from the Daily Free Press:
https://dailyfreepress.com/2023/03/31/bu-professor-denied-tenure-sues-university-for-discrimination/#:~:text=Professor%20Rodrigo%20Lopes%20de%20Barros,his%20application% 20for%20tenure%20without
If Professor Lopes de Barros wins his case currently before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, all of BU’s efforts in the area of antiracism and DEI (including our much-touted Center for Antiracist Research) will end up looking hollow indeed (if not outright hypocritical…)
As a current attendee with a history of changing majors and minors, my honest experiences with HUB have been more of a dread and deadweight toward my degree’s fulfillment. Although I managed to fulfill my degree requirements and plan to graduate a semester early, the biggest roadblock in this journey has been HUB.
I understand the importance of general education and the intention behind the program to produce well-rounded students and hope for them to enter society with a holistic knowledge base of the world around them. However, in practice, the HUB often feels like a mismatched collection of courses, varying drastically in scheduling, class format, and teaching philosophy by department and college. For many students, including myself, these variations often lead to a feeling of inconsistency and incoherence in our educational journey. While some classes have been insightful and engaging, many others felt forced upon us and out of sync with our primary areas of study. As a result, the learning experience becomes shallow, where we take away little to nothing because the engagement factor is lost amidst the discordance.
This brings me to the topic at hand: the proposed antiracist HUB unit. On paper, this idea sounds commendable. Integrating antiracism into the core curriculum is undoubtedly an essential step in addressing systemic issues within our educational structure and fostering a more inclusive environment for all students. However, my concerns lie in the execution. Given my experiences with the current HUB system, I can’t help but wonder how effectively this new unit will be in truly engaging students and instilling in them the principles and values of antiracism.
For this antiracist Hub unit to be successful, it should not just be another box to check off in the long list of graduation requirements. It needs to be a course, or a series of courses, that is thoughtfully designed to capture students’ attention, challenge their preconceived notions, and make them genuinely embody the antiracist ideologies. Otherwise, it risks becoming another superficial requirement that students take merely for the sake of compliance, missing out on its profound importance.
To this end, I urge the University and the authors of this article to deeply consider the implementation of this antiracist unit. Collaboration with student bodies, regular feedback mechanisms, and consistent updates based on evolving needs should be at the forefront of its design. Let’s not merely add another layer to the existing system but strive to refine and elevate the entire HUB experience, ensuring it truly prepares students to become reflective, resourceful individuals ready to lead in our interconnected world.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Boston University’s Alumni Magazine
Clutch Releaser Pioneering Research from Boston University