[Untitled]

The university is a logical locus for discussionof the role race has played in our society. Perhaps noAmerican institution is more committed to free andopen dialogue than the university. Higher educationcan thus provide a context for the recognition ofissues as well as a forum for the resolution ofinitiatives. To date, however, university attempts atdiversity training have often imbued recipients withself-consciousness, usurping the unity implicit in theword `university' and evoking an even greater tendencytoward separatism. The university's traditional questfor truth has been subverted by a subtle and pervasivesense that some views are more correct than others,that openness is dangerous, and that some issues mighteven be taboo. At best, such an approach to diversityleads to a fragile stalemate among self-containedenclaves. By championing President Clinton's call fora dialogue on race, the university can restore itselfas an institution that puts honesty above all else.Not only is there a resonant rationale for theuniversity's central responsibility in this debate,but there is also a pedagogical means by which itsrole can be realized. This paper proposes a model forethnic dialogue relevant to either a text-based orissues-based class. Borrowing from pedagogy developedin professional schools, we believe that the tenets ofthe `case method' can create a climate conducive tothe substantive scrutiny of race, ethnicity, andprejudice in general. We argue that this dialogueshould not be a mere add-on to college life, butintegrated into existing curricula in the socialsciences, literature, and history. Heated debate canthen occur without anger, and race/ethnicity can bediscussed without fear of recrimination.Paradoxically, the very expression of ethnicity may bethe catalyst that eventually moves multiculturalismtoward interculturalism – where differences are nolonger articulated, measurable or even discernible.