From galya@u.washington.edu Wed Mar 1 10:52:36 PST 1995 >From galya@u.washington.edu Wed Mar 1 10:52:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from carson-oms1.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA00909; Wed, 1 Mar 95 10:52:35 -0800 Received: from carson.u.washington.edu by carson-oms1.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA02620; Wed, 1 Mar 95 10:52:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:52:34 -0800 (PST) From: Galya Diment To: slavic-uw@u.washington.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: A Statement for the Open Hearing In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I was at the hearing for Systematic Musicology. They did not endorse the cut but they did not endorse the continuation of the program either, they chose to remain neutral. Your other question is a good one -- I fully expect all the committees to recommend continuation of programs, and then it will be back to square one which will make the whole exercise rather meaningless since Simpson may still decide to cut all the programs or most of them. That is why, in my opinion, keeping the pressure on the administration is so important even in the presence of a favorable review. GD On Wed, 1 Mar 1995 kikkoman@u.washington.edu wrote: > I recently spoke with one of the members of the review committee for > Systematic Musicology, who told me that they recommended the department > NOT be eliminated. For some reason, The Daily printed the exact > opposite, and its editors have ignored repeated requests by both the > review committee and the department to retract the false statements that > were made. I don't know what kind of game The Daily is playing, but > three out of three departments now have been given favorable reports by > their review committees, and my question is: if the committees are going > to recommend that none of the endangered departments be cut, then what is > their purpose? > > Keoki K. Young > .