'Brooke Aldrich considers herself open-minded and accepting of all kinds of people.

But the University of Delaware freshman said statements made in a recent diversity training session on her floor of Russell Hall tried to make her believe she was a racist.

"I personally have no problem with anyone of any background, race, sexual identity, or any religion," said the 18-year-old Hockessin resident, who is majoring in animal science. "I accept people for who they are as people. But coming out of the group sessions makes you feel as if I was in some way a racist, just by the color of my skin. It was like, 'Because you've never been oppressed, you're part of the problem.' "

UD's residence-hall educational program came under fire this week ... The program, which is about 4 years old, includes one-on-one meetings between students and resident assistants as well as group sessions, where a wide range of topics including race relations and sexual identity are discussed.

The training is important to help students understand those who are different from them, said Justin Blair, an 18-year-old sophomore from New Castle.

... Greg Lukianoff, an attorney and president of FIRE, says the programs are an unconstitutional attempt to change student beliefs and actions with psychological "treatment."

"The University of Delaware's residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important. Instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own."

Lukianoff and others objected to mandatory attendance at the sessions, to the way students felt coerced to agree with certain viewpoints, and to the rejection of debate on the issues.



... Michael Gilbert, vice president for student life, said the program was misrepresented by FIRE and that some objections were based on statements taken out of context from an August training session for resident assistants. But Gilbert also acknowledged that some approaches used by staff members were "missteps" and some language -- including references to student response to "treatment" -- could be misunderstood. [Student response to treatment. Quelle 1984.]



...Students were applauded whenever they identified with a certain group...


[O]ther exercises made many students feel uncomfortable. In one ...students were asked if they approved of such things as affirmative action or gay marriage. If they did, they would join students on one side of the room. If they didn't, they would join students on the other side of the room. They were not permitted to explain their reasons or to answer "I don't know," she said.

"We had a strong urge to debate back and forth, tell each other why we chose this and sort out each other's views," [one student] said. "But at the end, we were told the exercise was designed so that we could not have debate, that a lot of times in life you don't have the opportunity to express your opinion. There was a lot of pent-up tension from that."

[Students interviewed] said they were told the meetings were mandatory....


[Critics] pointed to written materials for the staff training session, including a definition of "racist" as applying to "all white people ... living in the United States."'