Just when it was looking as if the diversity intensive course requirement was going to see the light of day, its proposal hit yet another hindrance Friday afternoon after the results of a faculty vote on the issue surfaced.

Of the 1,200 ballots sent to faculty, 232 voted against the proposal countered by 210 who voted in favor. This sent the proposal back to the chopping block, something Faculty Council Chairwoman Leona Rubin said doesn’t make her happy.

“Extreme disappointment!” was the phrase she used in an email to embody her reaction to the faculty’s vote.

Chancellor Brady Deaton reiterated Rubin’s sentiments in a statement released Friday.

“I was disappointed to learn that the faculty narrowly defeated the addition of a diversity intensive course requirement,” Deaton said in the statement. “However, I remain certain our faculty are as committed as I to supporting diversity on our campus.”

Both Rubin and Deaton agreed that miscommunication might have prompted the faculty’s decisions.

“Some faculty felt it was too generalized and would serve no purpose, others thought it too targeted on ‘social inequalities’ and wanted it more generalized while others feel they already do a good job with diversity in their majors and did not want to add an additional requirement,” Rubin said. “We tried to walk the line and did not succeed.”

This is something the council will keep in mind when crafting the next proposal, she said.

“I think faculty are committed to teaching diversity and a diversity course but have not yet found the correct process,” Rubin said. “We need to find that process and get out and work with the different group opinions.”

The proposal faculty killed wouldn’t require an extra course per se, but rather a course that focused on diversity that could jointly fulfill other requirements. The council compiled at list of more than 160 courses that would satisfy the need.

Rubin said the vote doesn’t necessarily reflect the faculty’s views on diversity.

“When we started creating the list of ‘potential diversity intensive courses’ we were struck by how many there were already and then we were flooded by faculty and departments that wanted their courses included on the list,” she said. “I think the faculty vote was a vote against the proposal, not against the creation of a diversity course.”

Ultimately, however, despite the faculty’s vote, the fight for a diversity course requirement is far from over, Rubin said.

“Oh, no,” she said when asked if this was the end. “We will continue to work on this and develop a revision.”