This class is horrible!!!! The supposed benefit of getting extra credits is NOT worth it!
This class is a lot of reading. The course reader is huge (and yes you HAVE to buy it) and I basically had to spend any "free time" I had reading for this class. The lectures are loosely connected to the readings. Not to mention these lectures are SUPER boring and it is a huge struggle to try to pay attention. I really wanted these lectures to be insightful because the topic of the class is one that interests me, but most of the lecturers just drag on and on.
Professor Ortiz in my opinion is not too great. She is the "main" professor of this class. Her lectures are very opinionated and she rejects anyone who questions her opinions. Also when other professors are lecturing, Ortiz would stand the whole class period and watch the students to make sure they weren't talking (something I found to be very "high school"). The midterm is hard, as you have to basically memorize what professors said in lecture (the slides are not specific enough), and memorize definitions and examples for over 40 terms, just to have 6 terms on the actual test.
Discussion section was the only place I actually got insight on the material we read. Although these sections were interesting, the TAs have way too much power and grade everything (midterm and both essays). If you aren't already an amazing writer you will struggle in this class.
Overall this class is a waste of time and effort. It's not worth the extra units.

For the fall quarter, the course was structured into lectures twice a week with a 2-hour discussion once a week. In lectures, the professors would rotate, and they would lecture on the material relevant to their expertise and areas of research. I personally think that lectures weren't helpful, but I still went because they tracked attendance with clickers. They do post slides online in case you miss something, however. Often times, Professor Ortiz would stand on the side of the lecture room and make sure that nobody was talking, which was pretty funny in my opinion. The unique thing about this cluster (and every cluster) is that discussion attendance and participation made up a significant portion of your grade (25%). Discussions were a seminar-style setting with a TA asking questions and facilitating responses. My TA made us do a presentation on one of the weekly set of readings from the course reader (will be discussed below), which counted for a good portion of our participation grade. The key to getting a good grade is to make sure that your TA likes you (will be discussed below too).

In terms of assignments, we had 2 papers and a midterm exam in the fall, in addition to weekly readings. These readings were out of a quite pricey course reader that you are required to purchase. These readings were often dry and boring, and the corresponding lecture had very little connection to the readings. While I haven't heard of any reading quizzes in discussions, many TA's could determine whether you read or not based on your amount of participation in discussion, which is why it is important to at least have some general idea of what the readings are about. The (week 5) midterm was a vocabulary test where you had to define 6 words from a given list of 40ish words, as well as provide examples from lecture and the course readings. So up to this point, you should be reading and attending lectures to know what is going on. After that, lectures become less important, but you should still be keeping up with your readings in preparation for the winter quarter final (see my review for Ortiz for 20B). The two papers were a literary analysis and an analysis of two historical cartoons. They are pretty straightforward to write, but here is where getting your TA to like you becomes very important. I have heard from my classmates with different TAs that each one grades differently, and often times, harshly. Because of that, I strongly suggest going to TA office hours to seek help and guidance, EVEN IF YOU DON'T NEED IT. This shows to your TA at least that you are taking the initiative to ask for help, even if you don't care. It is important that you and your TA maintain a good relationship because YOUR GRADE IS DETERMINED ENTIRELY BY THE SUBJECTIVITY OF YOUR TA'S GRADING. I had a somewhat harsh TA, but managed to do well because of my persistence, and not much else.
Overall, the class isn't the best class you will take at UCLA, but if you are passionate about the subject or would like to knock out some GE's then it's worth a shot. Nothing is necessarily difficult, but as long as you and your TA are on good terms, then you'll be all set.

This course is garbage. Avoid it at all costs, and don't be swayed into taking it in order to knock out some GE's--your better off taking just taking the regular GE classes. I guess it did teach a bit about some interracial systemic problems in the US, but honestly, it's just too bland. What you do in discussion, what the professors lecture about, and the reading are all different and loosely connected. You don't have to show up to class in order for it to be a contributing factor to your grade.

Ortiz is tied with Goemann for the most boring lecturer in this cluster. She has no sense of what to do, and kinda rambles on, always sounding unsure of herself. Oh, and your entire grade is in the hands of your TA, and most (including whom I had) are pretty much garbage. The textbook they make you buy is literally worthless and I swear to you, NOBODY did the reading after like week 2; reading so dense and boring it seemed like the TA's didn't even like it. This course thinks that you should/will dedicate all your time to just this cluster and its teachings.

This cluster was a mixed bag. For first quarter (fall 2016), the professors were Vilma Ortiz, Jean-Paul Deguzman, Mishuana Goeman, and Robin Kelley. Deguzman had really interesting and engaging lectures, and the most interesting readings. Kelley's lectures were sometimes too much information, but interesting, and readings were interesting. Ortiz's lectures were more broad, and her readings were less engaging. Goeman's lectures were the most disorganized; she often would not get even halfway through her lecture slides, and she focused too much on her personal history, rather than a broad history. Her readings were also always really long. The first quarter is two papers and a midterm, all graded by your TA, so if they're not good you might not get a good grade. Discussion participation is a huge part of your grade, again, decided by your TA. Overall, this portion of the class was interesting, but a bad TA made me really dislike it.

Selling Bad Indians for $10. Text **********. Cheaper than amazon plus I'll deliver.

This class is really interesting and overall I really enjoyed it. It "debunks" a lot of the information that you learn about US History in high school regarding race (Slavery, Japanese Internment, etc.) and also talks about modern cases of racism. It really opened my eyes to struggles that other ethnicities face (I am half white and half Mexican so learning more about Asian, Pacific Islander, Muslim, African-American, and Native-American cultures were new for me). This class is cool because it's like you are taking a multitude of ethnic studies classes in one class because you really examine almost all ethnicities in this class. I think it was a great class for me to take for my introduction to UCLA.
The reading can be super intensive at times, it's not crazy, but basically every time you go to class a different professor will speak and depending on who is speaking that is how long the reading will be (Goeman and Kelley typically had longer readings). The lectures are usually very intriguing and most of the professors are pretty funny and engaging.
There is a midterm that involves identifying key vocabulary with the readings and two essays over the fall quarter part of the class. The grading is entirely based on the TAs so make sure that you have a good relationship with your TA and go to their office hours for help with the essays. There is no final, the final is at the end of the winter quarter portion of the class and is cumulative (involving information from both fall and winter quarter).

Overall, this class is very interesting and is pretty straightforward. However, your grade basically lies in the hands of your TA. With that said, never, ever, ever, ever take William Rosales as your TA. He is dry, condescending, unhelpful, belittling, and completely unreasonable. If you want a more comprehensive review on his teaching style, click on this link. http://onision.xyz/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=618

Your grade relies solely on your TA, and two essays. Both essays seem pretty basic and easy, but your TA can possibly be a hard grader like mine who gave me a B for both essays even after even going to the writing center. There is a lotto reading and the course reader is 75, that is not worth it, they are just articles randomly chosen, but they are needed for class. Good luck. Professor Ortiz was the most monotone of the four professors teaching, she is in charge and she knows it, therefore her lectures you must pay attention to.

This class definitely taught me a lot about our history, from a fresh point of view. It can be a lot of (unnecessary) reading at times, but the workload is definitely manageable. Overall, I would only suggest taking this class if you're truly passionate about the subject at hand. AKA don't take this class for an easy A.

Course Reader for sale: text **********

Although the other reviewers seem to discourage future students from taking this course, I found this class extremely enlightening and liberating. If taken seriously, students can gain consciousness over themselves and the world we live in because the provides the tools and resources necessary to understand the immense role race plays in society. Although this course consists of heavy reading, I've been able to refer to and reuse many of the articles we read.

I also had the great TA Sharon Chon for all three quarters, making my experience with the course that much better. I truly believe that this course helped me to be a better student, writer, and critical thinker and I would HIGHLY recommend this course to anyone looking to satisfy a bunch of GEs.