This paper serves to explore the reality of prejudice and discrimination on a university campus, and figure out what institutional factors are contributing to any lack of inclusion and unwillingness to accept diversity that may exist at UD. Specifically, in an institution that is both inherently proficient in and actively fighting for prejudicial change, I aim to exploit truth from expectation and perception. Is the University of Dayton a paradigm cure for racial divisiveness? Is it effectively changing our ideologies through the discourse it employs? And will it help malleate a generation that will solve this seemingly unshakeable conundrum of racial division?
METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the most accurate reflection of the University’s …show more content…
Conducting my own observations would allow for an additional perspective on classroom interaction, literacy, and discourse. The interviews were conducted with four students, two international students (since this study is being conducted in the United States, anyone who is not from the U.S. will be considered international) and two domestic students, all of which attend the class in observation, Communications 100 (CMM100). My observations were performed clandestinely on two separate occasions consisting of notes on: teacher to student and student to student interactions, delivery of materiel, and use of genre (textbooks, handouts, digital programs, etc.). The interviews were facilitated through a series of prefixed questions including a broad set directed towards both international and domestic students, and two separate sets dedicated to each respective group (see appendix #).
FINDINGS
Based upon observation within my CMM100 classroom, I found there are multiple problems within the University of Dayton’s instructional system; furthermore, these problems I believe are contributing to the ignorance of diversity …show more content…
Likely, but it cannot be the only malefactor to blame. What damages the University of Dayton’s community most is the rampant separation and segregation between races, cultures, and languages within its student body. My observations within COM100 are unlikely to be coincidental with my daily unrecorded observations outside the classroom. From the first day of class, the only two international students were Chinese, and both sat togeher in the back of the room. The three African American students found seats in a similar arrangement to the two Chinese girls, migrated and collective. This observed seating arrangement reflects the overall picture around UD’s campus. Disregarding the occasional exception, while walking around the 388 acres of university owned property, to see groups of mixed color and language is a rarity. Within COMM 100, attempts were made to mix and reassemble the classroom seating arrangements with bi-weekly inter-teaching groups, but the effects were trivial as these randomly assigned groups-of-three only lasted the length of a single hour and twenty-minute class period. Even students who speak fluent English, but have different ethnic backgrounds, migrate to those with similar characteristics, for example the three African-Americans in COM100. There exist students who still conform to this particular way of undiversified association, despite no language barrier present. For the University of Dayton to effectively employ a
METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the most accurate reflection of the University’s …show more content…
Conducting my own observations would allow for an additional perspective on classroom interaction, literacy, and discourse. The interviews were conducted with four students, two international students (since this study is being conducted in the United States, anyone who is not from the U.S. will be considered international) and two domestic students, all of which attend the class in observation, Communications 100 (CMM100). My observations were performed clandestinely on two separate occasions consisting of notes on: teacher to student and student to student interactions, delivery of materiel, and use of genre (textbooks, handouts, digital programs, etc.). The interviews were facilitated through a series of prefixed questions including a broad set directed towards both international and domestic students, and two separate sets dedicated to each respective group (see appendix #).
FINDINGS
Based upon observation within my CMM100 classroom, I found there are multiple problems within the University of Dayton’s instructional system; furthermore, these problems I believe are contributing to the ignorance of diversity …show more content…
Likely, but it cannot be the only malefactor to blame. What damages the University of Dayton’s community most is the rampant separation and segregation between races, cultures, and languages within its student body. My observations within COM100 are unlikely to be coincidental with my daily unrecorded observations outside the classroom. From the first day of class, the only two international students were Chinese, and both sat togeher in the back of the room. The three African American students found seats in a similar arrangement to the two Chinese girls, migrated and collective. This observed seating arrangement reflects the overall picture around UD’s campus. Disregarding the occasional exception, while walking around the 388 acres of university owned property, to see groups of mixed color and language is a rarity. Within COMM 100, attempts were made to mix and reassemble the classroom seating arrangements with bi-weekly inter-teaching groups, but the effects were trivial as these randomly assigned groups-of-three only lasted the length of a single hour and twenty-minute class period. Even students who speak fluent English, but have different ethnic backgrounds, migrate to those with similar characteristics, for example the three African-Americans in COM100. There exist students who still conform to this particular way of undiversified association, despite no language barrier present. For the University of Dayton to effectively employ a