Some Elucidations and an Emendation
~by David Aiken~
 | |
| Detail from Picasso's Guernica |
Last Friday, in
response to the Reorientation plan published by the administration at UCR, I published
on Phrontisterion an editorial comment
entitled “Liberal Arts at University College Roosevelt_RIP.” The public response
was amazing, and voluminous, and frankly entirely unanticipated; I thought I
was just another one of those discontented ‘lone voices’ lamenting in my own
little wilderness, while the funeral cortege of just-another defunct Liberal
Arts and Sciences program wended its way to the local boot hill. But still, some
statements that I made in that editorial need a little further clarification.
This
is a chance to set my record just a little straighter.
§ On the Question
of Foreign Languages at UCR.
In
“Liberal Arts at University College Roosevelt_RIP,” I reported that,
“1) The
Academic Core as a department was dissolved, and the remaining supported Core tracks
are to be dispersed into either the departments of Arts & Humanities or the
Social Sciences.”
and that,
“2) AC
Foreign Language teaching faculty were either given notice of termination
yesterday, or given the possibility of being retained on reduced and temporary
contracts to allow the institution to
get students presently in the language pipeline to the end of their course”
(bold emphasis
mine).
I must amend the
conclusion in 2) as being possibly misleading, not because it is necessarily incorrect,
but because I really do not understand at all why UCR intends on keeping around
one part-time teaching faculty in French, one in Dutch, and a possible TBA in
German. So, to set the record a little straighter here, let me amend my statement
to report simply: UCR no longer intends to encourage the study of Foreign
Languages. Why the institution has chosen, quite arbitrarily, at this
particular time to retain any teaching staff at all in just these particular
languages, will be a story for the future to unfold.
In
“Liberal Arts at University College Roosevelt_RIP,” Phrontisterion made a little more public, information communicated by
UCR administrators to All & Sundry in public meetings last week and in an
institutional document, ‘Towards a Reorientation for University College
Roosevelt’. According to much-touted and very-public statements by UCR
administrators over the course of this process of Reorientation, the decision
to liquidate the UCR Foreign Language requirement was in fact motivated by the
results of an AAC Facebook poll - April
2015 (UCR Curriculum Committee Report, December 5, 2017), conducted by
students, where it became statistically “apparent” to all concerned parties
that a “significant” number of UCR students really did not want a core
requirement in foreign languages. So, according to UCR administrators, it is on
the advice of the UCR student body that Foreign Languages, and indeed the
entire core department, was dismantled. This official institutional position
was confirmed in a recent article from PZC over the weekend: “Het bestuur van
het college heeft de beslissing onder andere genomen op advies van studenten…”
So,
this quite specific attack on Foreign Languages, which bodes poorly for the
well-being of other Liberal Arts subjects at UCR in the near future, obviously has
quite distinct consequences for human resources: “…UCR is dismissing teaching faculty in
Spanish, French, German and Dutch, and perhaps in Academic Writing; and it is
reducing senior faculty in Sociology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Anywhere
from 8-10 teachings colleagues are being shown the door.”
FOR THE RECORD: Here are the results of the AAC Facebook poll - April 2015. 217
students responded to the student poll, a number that corresponds to less than half
of the total student body; 159 were in favor of UCR language requirements, which
includes the 1 who thought the requirement needed a facelift, which is not the
same as not wanting the requirement at all; and 57 were not philosophically
opposed, either to requirements or to foreign languages, but thought the language
requirement was irrelevant. So, 159 = keep; 57 = toss. Call me old-fashioned,
but I fail to see any statistical apparent-ness in this poll that would
indicate that a “significant” number of UCR students are opposed to a foreign
language core requirement.
Total
responses: 217
· 156 (71.84%): The language requirement is fine, but needs
improvement.
· 57 (26.27%): The language requirement is irrelevant and I
shouldn't have to do it at all.
· 3 (1.3%): The language requirement is perfect the way it is, I
see no reason for change.
· 1 (0.46%): The language requirement is really bad and needs a
big revamp.
The
UCR Curriculum Committee that originally took up in 2017 this question of what
to do about the student poll, makes a certain number of suggestions in their
Report, none of which involve faculty reduction or track or department
closures.
· -more flexibility in language combinations, e.g. take 200
French and 200 German
· -take at least 2 consecutive language courses, don’t have to
reach 200-level
· -explain about exemptions, filing special requests, etc.
· -offer other languages (that are not offered in Dutch high
schools): Arabic, Chinese, Russian,
· etc.
· -offer a Sign language course
· -focus language courses on literature and linguistics, rather
than becoming fluent
-consider
dyslexia and other learning obstacles
Caveat 1: During the public announcements of ‘Towards a Reorientation
for University College Roosevelt’ to the UCR community, which took place on
April 25th, UCR administrators rolled back on their statements
concerning the importance of the AAC
Facebook poll - April 2015 in their decision-making.
Caveat 2: The precise contractual status of some of our UCR Foreign
Language colleagues is unclear at this point. It is clear that the colleagues
from Spanish have been terminated. Other Foreign Language teaching colleagues,
however, who have permanent contracts, were not directly terminated; but it
remains unclear for how long the institution will honor their contracts, which
have been forcibly reduced to 50%, and whether their contracts will remain
permanent or are to be phased out.
§ On the Question
of Prerequisites.
In
“Liberal Arts at University College Roosevelt_RIP,” Phrontisterion drew the obvious conclusion that the key strategy of
the Reorientation was simply “to remove classical Liberal Arts classes as requirements, a shift that guarantees
the attrition of student population for those classes.”
In
the UCR document, ‘Towards a Reorientation for University College Roosevelt’,
one can read under the rubric: More choice for our
students
Another
important step is that our curriculum will confront students with fewer general
graduation requirements; both the language requirement and the 200 level course
‘Writing across the disciplines’ will no longer exist. The measure regarding
the languages is a liberal one: students will still be allowed to take language
courses, both at UCR and off campus. Dutch, French, and German will continue to
be offered at UCR, Spanish will become an off campus option. Students will be
free and indeed supported to take language and culture elements during a
semester abroad and in off campus courses. The academic skills central to the
200 level ACC course ‘Writing across the disciplines’ will be integrated in the
disciplinary tracks. By means of a ‘Writing and Skills center’ UCR will keep
investing in skills teaching and enable more tailor-made solutions to skills
learning for our students.
That UCR
will have fewer graduation requirements implies that there will be more room
for choosing options for our students. Given that UCR has introduced a 15EC
Senior Project, this extra room for adding some self-chosen breadth and depth
to their programs will help students prepare for their Senior Projects and
masters’ programs in greater freedom.
So, reorientation
at UCR was relatively straightforward: simply remove classical Liberal Arts courses
as core requirements. As the
institution is not opposed to requirements in other academic areas, it is plain
that this is not a philosophical attack on required courses as such; just on
some; just on those not deemed (really) academically useful to furthering the
agenda of (obviously useful) sciences and technologies; just on traditional
liberal arts classes. For those who need public media confirmation, there is this
recent article in the PZC: “Ongeveer een derde van het programma bestaat uit
verplichte vakken…”
It
needs to be clearly said that by reducing the number of possible choices for Liberal Arts classes at UCR—no theater classes;
no foreign languages; fewer anthropology courses, for example, there is now obviously
more curricular room for students to spend their time studying subjects more specifically
relevant to them in their science and technology majors, and for them to
dedicate more time to the significant undergraduate student research component (15
ECTS!) that has recently been introduced into the 3-year UCR program.
This
is a textbook illustration of how ‘the bell tolls’ for Liberal Arts and
Sciences programs.
Co-governance. (Reflections
based on COU-UCR Council Rules Regulations 2014)
A
teaching institution that makes Social Justice and Human Rights a hall-mark of
its institutional virtue, should practice carefully and deliberately what it
preaches. The decision-making structure of UCR is defined by the institutional documents
as co-governmental, which is to say that the Administration, the Faculty, the
Students, and the Staff, are all supposed to co-share in decisions that affect
the institution. A noble political ideal indeed—but only in theory, apparently,
at UCR.
The
following are foundational documents publicly available on the UCR website: “Council” refers to the UCR Council, the
official co-decision making body of University College Roosevelt, as defined in
the Reglement [sic] of University College Roosevelt,” and “UCR” refers to University College
Roosevelt. So, the UCR Council shares in the following types of institutional
decision-making, per Article 2 of the UCR Council Rules Regulations of 2014:
o Giving, or deciding not to give consent to
the UCR “reglement”, including the “kiesreglement”, the Academic Rules and
Procedures, the UCR strategic plan, the UCR regulations on working conditions
and the UCR policy with respect to specific groups.
o Giving advice on the proposed UCR budget,
student facilities and any other business affecting the prosperity and/or
growth of UCR.
o Giving advice on any other proposal that is
presented by the UCR management whenever applicable.
o Giving, or deciding not to give consent to
the UCR’s academic program quality control system as well as monitoring the
quality of the education offered at UCR.
o Inquiring for clarification or explanation
whenever deemed necessary on the decision making process within the UCR
management.
o Proactively initiating new projects or
proposals that aim to improve UCR in the broadest sense of the word.
o Making itself aware of the interests and
opinions of the students or staff / faculty members it represents whenever
deemed necessary.
o Taking up issues brought up by individuals
whenever deemed appropriate and necessary.
Given this co-governmental structure, which is both clearly
and publicly articulated and which has been validated in the historical
practices of the institution, it is therefore surprising that UCR administrators
have required faculty and student members on the UCR Council to sign
non-disclosure agreements during this process of Reorientation. Compelling members
of democratically structured representational bodies to sign non-disclosure
agreements during a major curricular Reorientation effectively gags faculty and
student representatives, and prohibits them from consulting with and
representing the interests of those whom they are called to represent—the
faculty and the students.
This style of top-down political
manipulation and intimidation is the staple of autocratic governance schemes. But
from a liberal arts education we learn about another model of self-governance,
and we teach this other way to our students. We allow ourselves to be reminded by
a certain Thomas Jefferson of America, that the people need to be educated
precisely “to protect against the corruption of political power into tyranny.”
“The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny],”
suggests Jefferson, “are, to illuminate,
as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to
give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed
thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to
know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to
defeat its purposes” (Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.
FE 2:221, Papers 2:526).
§ Forced
Retirement.
In
“Liberal Arts at University College Roosevelt_RIP,” the statement was made that
“The UCR philosophy program is Humanities based, which is to say broadly
conceived, and this is consistent with a Liberal Arts institutional model. The
UCR philosophy instructor was informed yesterday, publicly, that he will not be
offered the possibility to teach after retirement, but that he will be replaced
by the current dean, a Social Sciences political philosopher.”
UCR
administrators floated this vision as a general idea in an early draft version
of the Strategic Plan:
(D_1, p. 11-12) “Another important field to work on is the
role of UCR at the beginning of academic careers. UCR is a very attractive
place for young scholars and scientists who want to work at the forefront of
undergraduate teaching for some years before applying for more senior positions
at research universities. The latter are more open to teaching careers than
they used to be and profiling UCR as an excellent learning school for junior
staff could benefit both UCR and junior colleagues. In order to create room for
younger colleagues it is important that colleagues who retire but want to
remain active in teaching, will operate as super-subs in their areas of expertise,
but step aside for the new generation to come in, and build a new future for
the college.”
That said, there
was such an instant hue and cry from UCR faculty that this early version (D-1,
February 2017) was entirely edited from the final version of the Strategic Plan
(November 2017)—at least the language, if not the intent. Perhaps it would not
be superfluous to note at this point that the faculty budget lines that have
been selected for the chopping block are from traditional Liberal Arts &
Sciences subjects.
In
an aside a little closer to home: perhaps it is also unnecessary to note that the
academic Dean, a political philosopher by education, chose to announce publicly
the ‘other’ UCR philosopher’s retirement, when in fact the ‘other’ philosopher
has been formally negotiating with both Head of Department and Dean to teach
beyond mandatory retirement. This would reduce the senior teaching faculty in
philosophy at UCR from two, one actual and one potential, to just one—the potential.
Further reading:
·
https://publicdelivery.org/pablo-picasso-guernica/_Detail
of Pablo Picasso – Guernica,
1937, oil painting on canvas, 3.49×7.77m, Museo Reina Sofía, Madrid, Spain
