After almost two years of talk about adding a cultural diversity course requirement to the curriculum, it is time for the University to move beyond discussion.

Last week, the University Faculty Senate announced it will sponsor another forensics session on diversity at its February meeting. The senate will not vote on a cultural diversity proposal until March or April.

Mere discussion at this late date serves only to delay a decision on cultural diversity and brings into question the administration's desire for a diversified curriculum.

Last semester the senate conducted two forensics sessions about the feasibility of a cultural diversity requirement. Students, administrators and faculty members addressed the senate on different aspects of diversity.

Formal proposal presentations were not supposed to be part of the discussion. But members failed to even bring up specific plans for changing the curriculum.

By this time, the senate should be reviewing and voting on proposals about cultural diversity so it can implement any changes as soon as possible. The senate committee for undergraduate instruction could have brought proposals to the meeting floor for debate last week.

Currently two proposals are in question:

-- Requiring students to participate in a three-credit course on diversity.

-- Requiring students to choose one of a list of courses.

If the senate had discussed these proposals last week, it might have been able to take a preliminary vote in February. The extra forensics session will delay the vote to perhaps the last senate meeting of the semester.

In 1988, student protests yielded a demand for mandatory black studies courses. A proposal requiring all students to take a cultural diversity class -- a three-credit course focusing on the culture of a racial, gender, ethnic or international group -- originated in the University Subcommittee on Diversity last year. If administrators are sincere in wanting to diversify the curriculum, they need to act expediently.

The senate can weigh the merits and disadvantages of the two proposals at its February meeting, so the forensics session will be tardy but not in vain. A vote should follow soon afterward. Meetings and discussion seem superficial if they do not promptly yield results.