First I would like to thank Jackie Taylor, Judy
Titzel, Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson, Alison Cochrane
and Andy Nash for their comments and suggestions.

I would also like to respond to some important issues
that you raised and confirmed the political, cultural,
and social dimensions that make diversity such a
difficult issue to approach.

1) MARKETING AND EDUCATION:

I do not think that marketing and education can use
similar strategies.  Varshna you wrote "I came across
an advertisement in a master's degree in marketing
focusing on Latin American markets.  It begs the
question , why isn't it offensive to understand
consumerism from a racial, ethnic, or gender
perspective? Perhaps a discussion about how other
professions are adapting  will allow teachers to learn
about tolerance, respect and acceptance without
getting on the pulpit".  Maybe not, Varshna.

Marketing strategies allow organizations to increase
sales and engage customers.  Marketing success equals
bigger profits.  Marketing main interest is to make
money out of potential customers.  Could this be the
reason why beer advertisements might present a notion
of masculinity among certain groups while demeaning
women and portraying them as mere sexual objects?
To me this begs the question "What is the role of
education?  We want to engage our students.  But, are
we selling what we teach as any other commodity?
Must the value of knowledge be translated first and
foremost into money?

2)HIDDEN AGENDAS AND CULTURAL CAPITAL:

You raised a very interesting issue, Varshna.  Your
ESL students from Central America and South America
"were already very sensitive to the politics of a
Euro-centric popular culture and not so hidden
pressure to assimilate".  I agree with you completely.
 The question, though, is how they assimilate.  Alison
Cochrane and Andy Nash raise this issue.  Alison
states that she does not want her students to feel
that they are not part of the United States.  Instead
of saying "What we do here..." she prefers "what
people do in the United States".  Andy states that the
American culture is not monolithic, and this has to be
taken in account when norms are discussed.  The word
norm to me is crucial to understand the politics of
education.

3)WHO DETERMINES THE NORMS?

According to Bordieu, norms are determined by the
elite to preserve the status quo.  Maybe, there is
truth to this concept.  Policy makers and those who
work for them set standards in education.  Throughout
the country kids have to take tests that imply that
they have had equal access and opportunity to learn
the information demanded from them.  So, yes, kids
will assimilate.  But, the results in standarized
testing will divide them by ethnicity, class and
gender.   This will have an impact on their self
esteem, the significance they give to education, their
possibilities to pursue a college education, and
certainly their potential to have a satisfactory job
and a rewarding salary.   (See, "The Influence of
Cultural Capital on Twenty First Century Secondary
School Literature Curricula" in the Electronic Journal
of Sociology, 2005, by Hunter Brimi.)

4)CAN WE THINK OF A CONCEPT OF DIVERSITY THAT CONTAINS
AT ITS HEART RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY?

Maybe we can and we should.   Varshna you mentioned
that using housing and the legal aspects that frame it
could be a good start.  I think this is a great idea. 
Also, access to health services could be a starting
point.  Research from the Harvard School of Public
Health present the following information:
"Some 12 percent of 23 million of U.S. adults are
estimated to have skills in the lowest level in the
Health Adult Literacy Studies performance tests...an
additional 7 percent or 13.4 million are not able to
perform even simple health literacy task (below level
1).  Those performing below level 1 are evenly divided
between U.S. born and foreign born adults".
(See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/research.html

QUESTIONS THAT TARGET DIVERSITY IN THE CLASSROOM:

a) Why don't we have a universal health system?

b) How do you feel when you go to a public hospital?

c) What kind of access do you have to health services?

d) Do you feel respected?

e) Could there be a correlation between treatment,
class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation?
ERIC Clearinghouse has a wonderful hands on activity
that makes students sensitive to their own prejudices.

f) How does it feel when someone does not treat you
well?  Maybe those "people" (whatever your students'
prejudice might be) feel the same?

g) Is everything a commodity?  Why, or why not?

My experience is that the discussion can be raised by
the instructor, but reflection has to be a common work
with students.  Usually "the pulpit" ends up failing
to make them sensitive.  They could easily question
why you are trying to change their notions.

Thank you again for your responses.  I will look at
the materials posted by Jackie Taylor on behalf of 
Judy Titzel.  I think I have a lot of preparation
ahead of me, if I want to work with colleagues on this
issue.

Sincerely,
Nadia Quiroz-Colby