|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHEN we started teaching at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, a regional comprehensive university of about nine thousand students, the two of us joined the separate departments of English and foreign languages. While located on different hallways of the same building, they were distinct units with vastly different governance structures. English was large, with some thirty-five faculty members (and lecturers) and a well-developed committee structure; foreign languages, however, had around ten faculty members (and lecturers) and no standing committees. While some faculty members from the two departments knew one another, the acquaintances were often social or based on common college or university committee membership.
Then came the talk of department mergers, not from within but from the outside. A memo dated 30 September 1993, from the dean of letters and sciences and directed to all chairs and coordinators in the college, proposed “college reorganization” and included the merger of foreign languages with philosophy and religious studies as part of the restructuring. The motivation appeared to be budgetary—the memo stated that “this proposed structure will eliminate the need for chairs of small departments with minors and will generate an additional 2.25 FTEs.” Or, as stated under the heading “Assumptions” in the same document, “Departments with minors only will be merged into other related departments.” At this time the whole University of Wisconsin system was under pressure to trim budgets and streamline administrative assignments.
Needless to say, this memo came as a great shock to all the foreign language faculty members. While we were a small department compared with English or history, we otherwise did not seem to fit the description of the units subject to merger. We did, after all, have majors as well as minors in French, German, and Spanish, and faculty members felt that their discipline was quite distinct from philosophy and religious studies. The chair of foreign languages responded to the dean concerning this memo and another that had questioned the viability of French and German as majors, stressing the importance of foreign language study and the unique characteristics of the department.
On 27 October the chair of foreign languages received a new memo from the dean, who stated:
It appears that you take issue with the merger of Foreign Languages with Philosophy and Religious Studies. You also have a problem with the recommendation made to phase out German and French. While we can debate whether it is appropriate to merger the above units, it is clear that student enrollment in German and French is dangerously low […]. By the way, if the merger would take place tomorrow and you had no choice, what unit would you like to be merged with?
The motivation for the merger now seemed to have shifted to protecting the underenrolled French and German majors; or, at least, that protection was given as a benefit that might be derived from the merger.
On 3 November the dean circulated a new memo to chairs and coordinators in the college, consisting only of a new reorganization configuration. It was now proposed that French, German, and Spanish join English to form the Department of Modern Languages and Literature. According to this same document, our erstwhile merger partner, philosophy and religious studies, would be divided, with philosophy joining the Department of Political Science, and religious studies merging with history to form the Department of History and Religious Studies.
In spite of strong opposition from both English and foreign languages, the dean, on 11 December, wrote two different memos to the respective chairs, finalizing the merger plan. Only three tenured faculty members in English voted in favor of the proposed merger; one from foreign languages supported the idea but probably did not vote in favor of it in a public meeting. In less than three months, the structure and future of our home departments had changed radically. The proposed merger was to take effect the following July.
Very quickly, it became clear that the cultures of the two departments varied significantly. Foreign languages was quite hierarchical, with much power vested in the chair; English was egalitarian, committee-oriented, and accustomed to operating by consensus. In an attempt to anticipate issues and problems that might arise and to establish a structure within which we could function, the dean asked the chair of English to select six people to serve on a transition committee. She chose three faculty members from English who had voted in favor of merger and one from each foreign language who seemed most able to work together and least averse to change. The committee was chaired by a former chair of English, a senior person with a strong interest in translation and comparative literature. The committee was charged with the following tasks: to determine the internal structure of the new department, to determine the representation of the new department on outside committees, and to anticipate needs and directions of the new department. The committee met weekly to discuss these issues and draft a constitution for the new department. During that process, the committee met with the dean and the two chairs, as well as with certain faculty members in foreign languages who asked to address the committee with their concerns. The committee identified a number of potential trouble spots and was able to resolve some of them. These concerns included the need for a uniform system of assigning merit, the need for comparable items on the student evaluation form, the reassignment of the foreign language chair's duties and the subsequent need for a foreign language coordinator, the issue of assessment as it applies to foreign languages and English, the library allocation, the redistribution of duties between the two administrative assistants, the moribund state of the foreign language lab, and the need for someone to take initiative and responsibility for technology.
Did we have additional unanticipated problems? Yes. From the outset, the merger and name change led to discussions of our identity or loss thereof. It was decided that the new name should be the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, with Literatures plural to emphasize that we taught not only distinct languages but also works of unique and varied literary traditions. Subsequent to these initial discussions, we dropped Modern from the title in recognition that we teach the Bible as literature, classical mythology, and Chinese, all of which have traditions dating back to antiquity. For the most part, the university community has been unable to visualize this distinction and put it into practice; we continue to receive mail addressed to both former individual unit names, our first joint name (with and without pluralization), and our current name (both with and without pluralization).
In conversations among the department's members, some still find themselves stuck using the old names, perhaps because they wish to refer more clearly to their discipline or perhaps, in the case of English, because foreign languages may be seen by some simply as a minor add-on to the once stand-alone English department. In practice, the merger has meant more changes for those coming from foreign languages. And perhaps some people have never accepted and internalized the reorganization.
Faculty members, ourselves included, have strong disciplinary identities. We need to acknowledge that, while trying to forge interdisciplinary allegiances. The tendency to think in disciplinary terms has been highly developed in us and won't disappear overnight, nor should it. Still, our disciplinary identities make it difficult, sometimes, for us to think as part of a large, “integrated” department; factionalism is always a danger. Faculty members worry that the minority foreign language voice could get lost, and that's a real concern. Still, experience has proved that votes typically don't divide along disciplinary lines. Though our meetings are sometimes long, we do manage to arrive at consensus.
And we continue to wrestle daily with pragmatic concerns, some anticipated, some not. The merger did solve a budget problem, but as a result the foreign language coordinator still doesn't have sufficient released time, given the scope of his duties. Another issue that looms large for any department is personnel: hiring, reappointment, dealing with problems. This area has prompted a number of questions and concerns. Should each search committee include representation of both foreign languages and English? Given that no tenured faculty member in foreign languages has volunteered to serve on the personnel committee, how can we fairly evaluate tenure-track faculty members teaching in French and Spanish? And the size of the department also creates some problems. In establishing an agenda for department meetings, should the shared items and those relating directly to foreign languages be placed first, with those exclusively bearing on English left to the end, making it possible (even easy and expected) that the foreign language faculty members could leave at that point? Is foreign language business getting accomplished? if not, how can we address that?
On the positive side, many faculty members feel that they are now part of a larger supportive intellectual community. As one faculty member in Spanish put it, “I now feel respected, if not totally understood.” For her, being part of a large, visible department has legitimized the study of languages, and she has found shared interests with those in the new larger department where before she felt isolated. Ironically, size and diversity may help to foster a sense of shared research interests. Cultural studies and postcolonial theory inform the research agendas of a number of faculty members in English and Spanish, for example, and presentations at department colloquiums have drawn the participation of faculty members from both foreign languages and English. Likewise, linguistics, creative writing, composition theory, and translation are areas of shared interest that have created a different set of linkages between faculty members of the former departments. Our hybridity has also enriched the hiring process. In searching for someone to teach postcolonial theory and literature in English, for example, a junior member of the Spanish faculty educated the other members of the search committee by providing a bibliography and photocopied articles. Her efforts were largely responsible for our success in hiring our first choice candidate.
With regard to curriculum, the merger has led to greater sharing of ideas and experiences. When we proposed internship courses for each of the foreign languages, faculty members in English, who had already gone down that road, shared their insight and suggestions. Likewise, when setting more stringent standards for the approval of independent studies, the past practices and experiences of both English and foreign languages helped inform the decision-making process and shape the policy. The merger has also facilitated our offering beginning-level Chinese. Were it not for a native Chinese tenure-track professor of English, who teaches one Chinese course as part of his load, we would probably not be able to staff such a class. In general, many feel that foreign language issues, be they curriculum or a language requirement, have been legitimized since they now come from a larger, more visible department.
Outside academe, socializing between English and foreign language faculty members has now increased. Colleagues who encounter one another on a regular if not a daily basis see others more fully, and not just as familiar faces or names in timetables and on office doors.
Is the current department a stronger department than its two component parts were formerly? By and large, we think the answer is yes. Is this strength due to the merger? Yes and no. The major additional factor that has strengthened the department is the recruitment of excellent junior faculty members. In the first year of the new department, faculty members from both foreign languages and English shared their expertise on a search committee to identify someone to teach English as a second language to international students and to develop a certification program in conjunction with the College of Education. Because this energetic junior faculty member understands the correspondence between second language instruction in English and foreign language pedagogy, she and the search committee have helped us to see our connectedness, to begin to make sense of the merger experience. Since that time, we have received permission to fill seven vacancies left by retirements with tenure-track appointments: five in English, one in French, and one in Spanish. In fact, we have used the precedent for converting academic staff lecturers to tenure-track status, which was firmly established in English, to argue for such a change in status for one of the lecturers in Spanish. So in terms of staffing, we have not lost any ground; it could even be argued that we are in a stronger position. In our case, “restructuring” has not been a euphemism for downsizing; alliances have shifted, but the takeover has been friendly.
The authors are, respectively, Assistant Professor of Spanish and Associate Professor of English in the Department of Languages and Literatures at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. This article is based on their presentation at the 1997 MLA convention in Toronto, Ontario.
Ross, Howard. “Proposed College Reorganization.” Memo to chairs and coordinators, Univ. of Wisconsin, Whitewater. 30 Sept. 1993.
———. “Proposed Structure.” Memo to chairs and coordinators, Univ. of Wisconsin, Whitewater. 3 Nov. 1993.
———. “Reorganization.” Memo to Karl Merz, Univ. of Wisconsin, Whitewater. 27 Oct. 1993.
———. “Reorganization.” Memo to Karl Merz, Univ. of Wisconsin, Whitewater. 11 Dec. 1993.
———. “Reorganization.” Memo to David Stoneman, Univ. of Wisconsin, Whitewater. 11 Dec. 1993.
© 1999 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
