Goal 4

Outcome 1: Analyze current and historical international issues and aspects of global culture.

The first outcome of the diversity goal is centered on a basic level of understanding of international history and culture. This is a more knowledge-based outcome rather than an action-based outcome, though action was also involved in the artifact I chose to represent it. In HON 264: Thinking Outside the Box, I was challenged with the task of researching a religion other than my own and attending a worship service for that religion. I chose to research Judaism, which proved to be a challenge since the nearest formal worship center is six hours away. I did manage to find a website where I could stream a Jewish worship service, but the most interesting thing I took with me from this experience was the research itself. As a Christian, I already have an interest in Judaism, because it is the parent religion to Christianity. In a way, researching Judaism was a lot like doing genealogical research. I found a great deal of similarities between the two religions, but it is in the differences where I feel I grew in my own faith. Ultimately, that is the single most effective way to demonstrate the first outcome of diversity. By learning about a different way of life from my own, I wound up experiencing personal growth, and I came away from this paper with a deeper appreciation for something I was initially unfamiliar with. The pursuit of knowledge of diverse perspectives often shows us where our own is lacking.

Outcome 4: Appraise issues from multiple viewpoints.

The fourth and final outcome of this goal deals with looking at a singular issue from multiple viewpoints. To demonstrate this outcome, I chose to draw from my final paper from HON 351: Integrity and the Examined Life. In this paper, I was tasked with defending the integrity of three different figures, the first a businessman, the second a fictional businessman, and the third a social justice figure from the civil rights movement. This artifact showcases this outcome by my use of different arguments to come to the same conclusion for three different figures. Ultimately, what I had to do was find my own definition for integrity, then prove that each of those three figures fit within that definition by analyzing their actions. All three involved sacrificing personal comfort or gain in exchange for a higher ideal, and not just once, but repeatedly and consistently. The difference in perspective lies in the actions and circumstances I had to draw from to make the argument of integrity for each of the three figures.