This portion of the statement discusses the need for students to learn the history of other cultures and societies in order to be understanding of people from different backgrounds. Furthermore the statement goes on to express the requirement for students to question the "conditioned nature- of their own beliefs about the world. The two authors, Anzaldua and Rodriguez, would have profoundly differing feelings on the subject of academic discourse, because of their very different feelings concerning assimilation. .
Since Anzaldua contests mandatory English education for Chicanos, she would not be accepting of the university's requirement for all students at UCI to be taught to write formal essays using academic voice and think utilizing "academic discourse-. Anzaldua would argue that this requirement would negatively transform student's personal identities; however she uses English as well as academic voice in her own essay. She would find the requirement to be both objectionable and oppressive, because of her negative mind-set about being forced into learning English in her passage. Anzaldua states in her essay, "Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity "I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself- (320). In this quote Anzaldua explains that her ethnic identity and her linguistic identity go together as one. This makes her feel that her language makes up an extensive part of her personal identity. She also explains that she can't feel pride in herself unless she feels pride in her language. She believes that being forced to learn English in America is wrong, and alters part of your personal identity, just as learning academic voice through academic discourse could alter student's personal identities. According to the Academic Senate Statement they want an, "awakening and awareness of the conditioned nature of [our] own assumptions about the world- (1).