From galya@u.washington.edu Fri Jan 20 14:57:27 PST 1995 >From galya@u.washington.edu Fri Jan 20 14:57:27 1995 Return-Path: Received: from carson-oms1.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA14840; Fri, 20 Jan 95 14:57:27 -0800 Received: from carson.u.washington.edu by carson-oms1.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA29111; Fri, 20 Jan 95 14:57:24 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: Galya Diment To: Leslie Eliason Cc: REECAS FACULTY , slavic-uw@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Slavic In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Leslie, Slavic and Communications are actually sharings information and talking to each other. I went to their public hearing on Wedn. and addressed their review committee publicly challenging the legitimacy of the whole process for ALL the departments involved. I am not suggesting that humanities versus sciences is the only issue involved. You are absolutely right: the choices were random and arbitrary, not clearly formulated or thought through. It also points out, most likely, to total incompetence on behalf of the administration. I am therefore opposed to the WHOLE process and will not be satisfied even if our particular department is somehow saved while others are not. There should be a loud outcry on this campus about the way things are done, and, unfortunately, as you are suggesting, it is yet to materialize. All that, however, does not exclude the assault on non-self-supporting humanities which I am afraid will be the way of the future (and in some places already is the obvious way of the present). G. On Fri, 20 Jan 1995, Leslie Eliason wrote: > > Dear Galya, > > In my humble opinion, it isn't as simple as you suggest. If it were > because Slavic is a humanities department and relatively small (which > most administrators read as inherently inefficient and "expensive"), then > several other units would have been offered up as well (e.g., my former > department, Scandinavian L&L). > > Each unit was told something different, although ambiguous. Ed Bassett, > for example, was told that the School of Communications was thought to be > "too professionally oriented" to fit within the College. But when they > brought Ed here seven years ago, that's exactly what they told him they > wanted him to do -- make the school more professional. Applied Math was > told that it was too interdisciplinary (which just a few years ago was > supposed to be encouraged through an initiative launched by then Provost > Wilkening). > > The best we can say is that whatever twisted logic brought precisely > these four units onto the chopping block was not driven by any coherent > (however misguided) reasoning, except perhaps some tactical or strategic > concerns which are political enough for the College Council, the Dean of > the College, the Provost, and the President to want to keep strictly > under wraps. We can marvel at their ability to keep it from leaking > out. This suggests that perhaps it is either too ridiculous or that there > really wasn't any defensible reasoning behind the choices at all. (My > bet is on the latter.) > > What the faculty across campus ought to be up in arms about is that such > momentous decisions are taken in such a fashion. Why, if sacrifice is > necessary, isn't it appropriate to make the decision process as > transparent and thus legitimate as possible? Those in unaffected units > are heaving a sigh of relief and thus don't want to reopen the issue. > Those in affected units are each adopting their own strategies. I have > been struck by this, sitting on the Graduate School Council. I would > have thought that the four "targeted" units might have adopted a common > front, at least to some extent, to challenge the overall process. It > might not be too late. > > Leslie > > > On Fri, 20 Jan 1995, Galya Diment wrote: > > > In a recent response to a letter of concern about the possible > > elimination of the Slavic Department (sent by e-mail by Mary Ellen > > Fischer of Skidmore College), Arther Ferrill, Special Assistant to the > > President, suggested to her that "one of the reasons there are so few > > [Slavic] programs around the country is that they are very expensive." > > Anyone who knows the kind of salaries we get and the kind of support our > > students get (three TAships for the whole department) will immediately > > realize that this is not the issue. The issue is: we are not SCIENCES. > > What is thus at stake here is not the question of whether this or that > > particular department is worthy of being retained but whether HUMANITIES > > and ARTS in general deserve being protected. The university is obviously > > redefining its mission. As President Gerberding told everyone in Kane > > Hall last month, there are "core" programs (mostly sciences and probably > > English since this is after all the language of the country) and then > > there are dispensable others which do not bring in money (i.e. one > > Microbiology Lab is worth scores of us, no doubt). > > > > If that is the case, how about some honesty in discussing this new > > re-direction of this university so that other programs likely to be > > targeted for possible elimination next year or a year after that can, > > unlike us, actually participate in this debate PRIOR to the "Invitation > > to a Beheading," as Vladimir Nabokov would say. > > > > Galya Diment/Associate Professor, Slavic L & L > > > .