Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Spring 2013 Dean's Memo
The Needs Attention project and this site have remained in hibernation while the new dean was being selected and the humanities-wide external review was being conducted. However, we believe that it is time to begin using this space for the dissemination of information. The new dean, professor Georges Van Den Abbeele, has sent out a spring memo on the situation of the humanities and how he plans to move ahead. While we remain optimistic, some of the language of the memo concerns us. Specifically, he is still using the language of "workload inequalities in the School." "Workload inequalities" has been used in the past to emphasize students as pure numbers (majors-to-faculty and student-credit-hours-per-faculty) over quality, cutting-edge teaching and research in the humanities. Let's hope that Dean Van Den Abbeele will not forget the latter in repositioning the school for maximum success down the bottom line.
The other major concern is the lack of any student input, undergraduate or graduate, in the ad-hoc committee. We might want to consider asking for student representatives, because who else besides students have a vested interest in maintaining quality education over quantity?
The other major concern is the lack of any student input, undergraduate or graduate, in the ad-hoc committee. We might want to consider asking for student representatives, because who else besides students have a vested interest in maintaining quality education over quantity?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Two Birds With One Stone Or How UCI Managed to Dumb Down Students and Become a Threat to National Security
A year passed by and the foreign language requirement got cut in half.
Later, the Humanities faced a large budget shortfall. In order to save the faculty and the school, the Dean of Humanities proposed, among other drastic measures, that the foreign language requirement be shortened or cut (just like it was proposed the previous year), although it is still unclear how this would save the Humanities any money. The logic behind this, was the infamous "Needs Attention" memo, predicting a grim future for the Humanities at UCI.
Today, UCI's requirements in categories VI, VII, and VIII (Foreign Language Other than English, Multicultural Studies, and International/Global Issues, respectively), have been reduced to a single course per category (See UCI General Catalog Page 56), while categories II and V (Science and Technology and Quantitative, Symbolic, and Computational Reasoning) still stand at three courses minimum requirement for all undergraduates.
With this overhaul, the University of California, Irvine has managed to accomplish only three things: dumb its student population down, increase their health risks, and contributed to heightened threats to national security.
How exactly have these results come about?
The New York Times reports that according to two separate studies performed in 2004 and 2009, researchers have found out that bilingualism is a fundamental strategy for problem solving that not only increases brain function but helps people to live healthier lives:
"Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset."Surely, a single course in foreign language is not enough to develop "proficiency" in it.
Moreover, a recent meeting from the Council on Foreign Relations which included former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and New York's former school teacher's Chancellor, Joel I. Klein, announced that threats to national security are heightened when there is an inadequate (or poor) emphasis on foreign language learning at schools. Albeit, the focus of the Council's meeting was prompting the creation of a more adequate "human capital" pool for a "volunteer army", the fact that even the military is recognizing the need for more and better language learning and teaching only emphasizes the real and immediate consequences that poor decisions by other types of capitalists like UCIs decision makers have on the future of America.
Yes we are becoming dumber, less healthy, and we are letting our poor military down... (read the sarcasm on the last point). But at what gain?
How much money has the School of Humanities really saved in all of this? How long can it sustain itself by making equally worthless decisions that will, no doubt, end up creating a vicious cycle in which there will be less students taking foreign language, thus needing less T.A.s to teach the courses, thus needing less Faculty to teach graduate courses, thus needing less of everything over and over again?
This is a race to the bottom that all of us will lose.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The EVC's Measures of Qualities Memo
School of Humanities Departments Veto Language Requirements
Departments are now free to decide what their language requirement will be since school wide requirements have been stopped.
English majors will still have to take another language (good, b/c English is 40% of total enrollment in Humanities, they total 900 majors).
The Departments of Art History, Philosophy, Visual studies, Film and Media will all reject language requirements.
History is still undecided about the language requirement as of last faculty meeting on 1/11.
Spanish is expected to lose 10% of enrollment in undergrad courses as a result of these Humanities departments' decision to do away with the requirement.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Notes: "On last Friday"
On Friday, February 3rd, a group of us went to KUCI hoping to have our voice included on Countdown UCI’s radio interview with Chancellor Drake. We weren’t invited, but we had heard that the host, Dmitriy, was someone who does not shy away from conflict and controversy. The chancellor is making an active effort to address student concerns and the student body, we thought. The chancellor is willing to have a conversation. The radio show that invited him had a reputation for controversy. Perfect, we thought, a perfect opportunity to address the administration, to ask some hard-hitting questions and to get some honest answers.
Of course, things did not go perfectly. We showed up a bit late, after the chancellor was already in the booth. So instead, we asked to be let in. We asked to speak to the station manager. We asked if we could send a single representative to the interview. We asked and asked, and we were met with apathy, avoidance and aggression on the part of the staff. It’s not their fault—we understand—but at that moment KUCI, a student organization dedicated solely to sweet tunes and free speech, suddenly became, for us, an inaccessible fortress. We were thrown into confusion.
Can we actually see the chancellor? Should we try to open a window? Who is the station manager? Is the booth sound-proof? What are the rules and guidelines here? Some of us, bored, simply started shouting and chanting at anything and everything. Some of us, yes, climbed on the roof. Some of us tried calling the station. How could we get their attention? How could we ask to have our voices heard?
KUCI is an amazing station. Furthermore, that Chancellor Drake was willing to face student concerns in a public forum signaled, to us, an openness on the part of administration that we found surprisingly refreshing. Perhaps the years of loud protest and student agitation had finally convinced the administration that we had serious concerns about the future of our school. Perhaps we would be return to our model plan of shared governance, of a democratic institution. Perhaps this time Drake would not wave vaguely, look away quickly, and run off immediately as he had the last time I said, “Hello, chancellor.”
Of course, by this time we had realized that we were not going to get into the station. We realized that we were simply harassing students and staff, only making them angry and making us feel frustrated. So, waiting by the front door for the chancellor to finish, we decided to settle down to listen to the interview, taking notes and forming questions. For us, his responses during the interview generated more questions than answers. We planned to meet him on the way out, when we could ask him our questions and voice our concerns. Perhaps we could ask him for further opportunities to continue a dialogue.
Now, let me take a minute to describe who we were. There were less than twenty of us. We had more signs than we had bodies to hold them. And those of us who were there—let’s be honest—are not large, intimidating people. There were two or three tall-ish men, but for the most part, we’re a group of short and scrawny people. Add that to the fact that most of us grew up constantly reading books to the detriment of our social skills, and you have a small group of awkward UCI students with handmade signs. We’re not a threatening group and, honestly, we’re not too articulate under pressure. One of our biggest concerns was that Chancellor Drake would be able to immediately answer our questions with charm and charisma. After all, Chancellor Drake’s job is to present our institution in the most favorable light possible. You could even call him a politician. But regardless, Drake is paid—and is paid well—for his public speaking skills. We assumed that we would be rhetorically outclassed. But we were willing to make fools of ourselves nonetheless.
So you can imagine our surprise and confusion when Chancellor Drake did not leave through the front door, avoiding us as a group of students with legitimate concerns worth addressing. Rather, he chose to sneak out by a circuitous route through the weeds and dirt, into the ratty alley between the trailers to get to his BMW less than 15 feet from where we were. It was at this point that we realized that Chancellor Drake was not interested in serious dialogue: sneaking out like a naughty student playing hooky indicated to us that he was unprepared to answer our questions. We knew then that the interview was not a sincere attempt at real dialogue, but more bullshit PR. We knew then that he was afraid of us, and this baffled us and worried us because we consistently feel minor and ineffective, insignificant and unheard. But they had called out four or five police cars to escort the chancellor! The administration is apparently afraid of a handful of unorganized student activists. Though we felt as though we were just a group of friends with homemade signs, they clearly saw us as a serious threat for reasons unclear to us. And with Chancellor Drake trying to sneak away, we did what any frustrated, shocked and confused group of concerned students would do: we chased after him, asking questions.
The rest, if you watch the videos, was a funny little mess that proves just how much the administration instinctively avoids student concerns, and proves just how utterly insincere our chancellor is.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Comparative Literature's Official Response to "Needs Attention" Designation
TO:
Vicki Ruiz, Dean, School of Humanities
James Steintrager, Acting Dean, School of Humanities
Michael Gottfredson, EVC/Provost
RE: Department of Comparative Literature Response to “Needs Attention” Designation
The department understands that severe budget cuts require aggressive measures, and the focus on undergraduate enrollment makes sense, especially where the aim is to attract new students rather than to redistribute the existing population. Comparative Literature programs nationally and historically have been small, but we are directing our curricular and teaching energies toward increasing enrollments, and in fact have been doing so diligently over the past several years as we discuss below. We need to begin our response by clarifying the record on which the current assessment was based.
Several “Needs Attention” SOH departments have pointed out inconsistencies in the metrics of the recent review: their application and interpretation. Our department’s numbers also need to be reconsidered for reasons specific to our program. The Department of Comparative Literature has the good fortune to serve as the academic home for a number of prestigious faculty who have been brought to UCI to head high profile research units. David Goldberg, for example, leads the system-wide Humanities Research Institute. Ngugi wa Thiong’o was hired in 2002 to direct the International Center for Writing and Translation. And Nasrin Rahimieh came to UCI in 2006 to head the new Samuel Jordan Center of Persian Studies and Culture. The department also includes a Distinguished Professor (Gabrielle Schwab), the editor of Postmodern Culture (Eyal Amiran), and the Campus Writing Coordinator from 2001-07 (Susan Jarratt). In the case of each of these faculty members, a special assignment has meant a reduced teaching load so that, in a department of 11/12 members, almost half devote considerable time to administrative obligations. Goldberg, for example, has no teaching responsibilities (though he teaches a graduate seminar on occasion). Others have reduced course loads through contractual arrangements.
These faculty and their centers bring considerable notice, millions of dollars in external funding, and intellectual vibrancy to the School. That Comparative Literature has been the department of choice for such dynamic faculty and programs is very much to our credit. We find, however, that a metrical calculation of student credit hours that does not take into account these special arrangements misrepresents the department’s labor. The chart on p. 2 of the Nov. 15th memo lists Comp Lit’s filled faculty FTE at 11.75. If administrative assignments had been taken into account, this figure would be closer to 9. A recalculation on this basis puts our Total Majors per Filled FTE closer to 10, rather than the 6.61 listed on the memo, and would adjust the SCH per FTE accordingly.
Any statistical profile is a snapshot of a program in process. From our inception in 2004 as a stand-alone department, Comparative Literature has been very active in building our undergraduate program and has increased our majors since then (currently 42). Early on, we negotiated with English to establish courses that would serve as electives for their majors and have been offering these on a regular basis. In 2006 and again in 2010-11, we revised our curriculum so as to create three tracks for majors based on our knowledge of the interests and career paths for students in the Humanities: World Literature (for future teachers), Comparative Literature (for students headed to graduate school), and Cultural Studies (for students with broad interdisciplinary aims).
Over the past few years, Comparative Literature has been working closely with the Associate Deans of Undergraduate Education in the School to respond to the need for larger enrollment courses. We’ve created appealing topics, participated in cross-disciplinary teaching opportunities (FIP and Hum Core), and cross-listed our courses with high-enrollment departments (e.g., English, History, and Film and Media Studies). Judging that cultural studies and world literature may be two areas of wide appeal, we’ve created new lower-division, Gen Ed courses to tap interests of students across campus. This quarter (Winter 2012) CL 10 (GE IV and VIII), Comics and Superheroes (Amiran), enrolled 97 students. (Requests for the course approached 200, but we were restricted to an enrollment of 97 by the room size.) CL 10 (GE IV and VIII), Masterpieces of World Literature, will be taught by Jane O. Newman in fall 2012. The department has submitted a Letter of Intent to develop this course as an online offering to UC and Non-UC students under the Wave II UCOP initiative.
Higher enrollment courses in recent years have included the following:
FIP: Consciousness (Terada), 2009-10, 71 students FIP: Persuasion and Social Change (Jarratt; Newman), 2009-10, 66 students FIP: Consciousness (Amiran), 2011-12, 72 students CL 141, Golden Age Comics (Amiran), spring 2010, 52 students CL 100A, African Literature (Ngugi), fall 2010, 67 students CL 105, Comparative Multiculturalism (Schlichter), fall 2010, 63 students CL 102, Melodrama (Terada), winter 2011, 57 students CL 160, Latin American Film (Johnson), spring 2011, 60 students CL 160, Hong Kong/Chinese Cinema (Abbas), fall 2011, 78 students Humanities Core Course, Declarations in Dialogue (Jarratt), winter quarters, 2010-13, approx. 900 students
Comparative Literature has been actively building its capacity to offer undergraduates a rigorous education in critical cultural competencies—a kind of education that will prepare them to be active global citizens in a diverse world. We value highly the pedagogies that enable students to learn to speak and write powerfully in multiple languages, to interpret complex cultural messages and act thoughtfully in a world filled with ethical dilemmas. The multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-literate education we offer in Comparative Literature prepares students for advanced study in humanities, law, and other fields, and improves student employability. While we are participating whole-heartedly in the campus-wide effort to overcome the dire economic challenges we face, the department of Comparative Literature does not want to lose sight of the indispensable intellectual and pedagogical contributions of a humanistic education for 21st-century global citizens.
In the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, UCI students found humanities courses more satisfying than courses in any other school. Results for students in Comparative Literature courses were also very positive in UCUES data. Future assessments should take such data into account. A small department does not have the resources to conduct the kind of study that would answer the question we often hear posed: why do students select one major over another? An investment in such a study campus-wide would put any future assessment of quality and decisions about resource allocation on a more solid footing. In the mean time, the department of Comparative Literature is polling its majors to see how they found out about CL and what they value in this program. We are reaching out to community college students who take courses in world literature and related subjects, forging connections with faculty teaching those courses. We are paying attention to our program at every level and welcome the opportunity to communicate about our efforts and successes.
Finally, we wish to address the question of restructuring departments in the SOH. The APG expresses an interest in the SOH reducing the number of small independent units in Humanities (p. 3). Does the UCI School of Humanities have an inordinate number of small units? To approach this question comparatively, we investigated the organization of humanities at other UC system campuses. We report the following: UCLA Humanities Division = 23 units, UC Berkeley = 17 units, UC Davis = 15 majors and programs; UCI = 15 departments. It seems, on comparison with other UC campuses, that Humanities at UCI does not have an excessive number of small units. Despite this evidence, Comp Lit is willing to entertain the prospect of joining forces with other units. Any such restructuring must be grounded in shared intellectual and disciplinary aims. We are currently engaged in conversation with other units about the intellectual grounds of possible collaborations.
Comparative Literature Expresses Solidarity with E.S.C.A.P.E.
TO: Dean, School of Humanities
January 31, 2012
On January 27, 2012, E.S.C.A.P.E, a coalition of UCI undergraduate ethnic students, with support from several other ethnic studies groups at UCI, responded to the UCI administration “Needs Attention” memo (“‘Needs Attention’ Memo and The State of Ethnic Studies at UCI,”). The Department of Comparative Literature calls on UCI to respect and respond to this document, and to take it as a starting point for a meaningful engagement with the interdisciplinary departments and programs at UCI.
The administration memo to which E.S.C.A.P.E responds listed several units in the School of Humanities that the administration considers “need attention”: African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Women's Studies, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Literatures, the Chicano/ Latino Studies Department in the School of Social Sciences, and the now-reorganized Department of European Languages and Studies. The “Needs Attention” memo criticizes the "low enrollments and low student-faculty ratios" in these programs and implies that their nature, existence, and level of support are being reconsidered.
In its response E.S.C.A.P.E writes, “we feel that this is an attack on studies that are crucial to the development of critical consciousness among students and the UCI community.” The signatories single out “the meaningful impact these units offer students in areas of critical thinking, identity and cultural competency, understanding historical legacies and struggles . . . and the futures of our diverse communities.” They argue against evaluating the performance of units based on their size, rather than on their intellectual and pedagogical achievements, and call on the administration and the Academic Planning Group to work with the units and students to increase enrollments.
The E.S.C.A.P.E response continues a history of student involvement in curricular reform at UCI. Significant curricular changes safeguarding or advancing interdisciplinary and critical studies have often been driven by students at moments of systemic crisis such as we are facing today. The African American Studies Department at UCI was created after student activism on behalf of underrepresented populations and fields of study in 1989, when UCI had a total of five black faculty on campus (less than 1% of the faculty). Stephanie Lopez, a member of Associated Graduate Students then, said: “They’ve got to start opening doors today, or we’re going to kick the doors down tomorrow” ("More Minority Students, Faculty Urged at UCI," Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1989). Asian-American students went on a 35-day hunger strike to establish the Department of Asian-American Studies in 1993 ("UCI Needs an Asian-American Program," May 24, 1993). Today’s student efforts represent a source of creative energy and will strengthen the units and the university. We call on the administration to continue support at UCI for cutting-edge interdisciplinary work that benefits the entire campus, and to respond with constructive engagement so that a time of crisis is not made an excuse to reverse decades of curricular and intellectual progress at UCI.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Response to "Needs Attention" Memo from Asian American Studies
December 6, 2011
This memo serves as the Department of Asian American Studies’s response to the memo from the APG and EVC/P that you forwarded to Humanities chairs and directors via email on November 15, 2011. It also serves as an addendum to the memo that I sent to you on November 9, 2011. Imbedded in this response are comments related to the Ph.D. Program in Culture and Theory.
We wish to address and correct the deep factual and narrative inaccuracies in the memo, which include the following:
• We challenge the claim that our Department has “very low” undergraduate enrollment, since by memo’s own measure, our SCH for 2009-10 are in excess of 1209, not far from the “exceptional” number Classics enjoyed during this same period. On the contrary, the ten-year record shows that Asian American Studies has held consistently high enrollments, and that this high rate of enrollment has “not changed much over the years.”
• Asian American Studies, as well as the other targeted interdisciplinary programs, have and continue to serve the Ph.D. program in Culture and Theory at every level. Asian American Studies faculty have taught in the Program’s Core series, and have individually mentored Culture and Theory students, whether serving on qualifying committees, dissertation committees or directed readings. The assertion that faculty participation from the IDPs is “significantly less than anticipated” is patently false; one even wonders the how “significant participation” is measured.
• Enrollments in Culture and Theory have remain relatively low because block funding has remained low. That said, Culture and Theory admissions rate is more selective than many other graduate programs in the School. The claim that neither the IDPs nor Culture and Theory are NRC-ranked—faulty a ranking system as it is—and thus constitute a liability is specious; it is not the fault of the programs that the NRC does not recognize this graduate program, but the all-too- narrow and fallacious scope of the NRC itself: do not criticize the object under scrunity when lens scrutinizing is flawed to begin with.
• The claims that “not one [member of the IDP] has served as director and few have taught core or elective courses” for Culture and Theory are also false. Inderpal Grewal, formerly a core member of Women’s Studies (and now at Yale), was the Program’s first Director; Arlene Keizer, who served as Director from 2009-11 is a core member in African American Studies, and Jim Lee, Chair of Asian American Studies, is its current Director. Glen Mimura, also a former Director, was until very recently an active affiliate of Asian American Studies (formerly Core), and even served on a search committee for the Department’s recent hire.
• We contend that the overemphasis, even obsession, with one metric of “excellence” or “coherence” (i.e. the NRC rankings), prevents our colleagues across campus to see how the members of Asian American Studies demonstrate visible “quality” and “excellence.” The following constitute but do not exhaust other criteria for evaluating quality and excellence: Linda Vo is an elected Board Member of the Association for Asian American Studies and is an Advisory Board Member of the Journal of Asian American Studies and Co-Chairs the American Studies Association-Japanese Association for American Studies Project Advisory Committee. She has also been recognized as one of “25 to Watch” emerging great academics in Diverse magazine. Claire Kim is co-chair of the Committee on the Status of Asian Pacific Americans of the American Political Science Association, serves as Associate Editor of American Quarterly, the journal of the American Studies Association, and sits on the Editorial Board of Kalfou, a comparative ethnic studies journal headed by George Lipsitz of UCSB. Dorothy Fujita-Rony has sat on the boards of the Filipino American National Historical Society and Labor and Working Class History Association. James Lee continues as an editor of the Heath Anthology of American Literature. Christine Balance has won over $17,000 of extramural grant money; Claire Kim received an $8000 grant from the UC Center for New Racial Studies just last year.
• We do not understand why the otherwise inaccurate statement that Asian American Studies and other IDPs have “trouble attracting and retaining chairs/directors” is at all a measure of quality, excellence, or productivity, and we would invite then the APG and EVC/P to apply this same principle to the local cultures of other academic units.
• The memo makes liberal use of the phrases “measures of quality and productivity” and yet is at pains to apply these so-called measures vaguely, unevenly, and inconsistently. To wit: Classics is lauded as enjoying “clarity of purpose and focus” and an “exceptional number of SCH” to “outweigh the relatively low number of students [majors?] compared to the number of faculty.” But by this measure, Asian American Studies falls into this category as well: our SCH matches that of Classics, and our curriculum demonstrates the interdisciplinary breadth that mirrors the national and international field of Asian American Studies. Even a cursory glance at our course offerings and major requirements shows that our program’s curriculum is consistent with Asian American Studies programs around the nation.
• Programmatic coherence is touted a number of times as so-called evidence of a given unit’s quality and/or excellence. But the criteria by which “coherence” is determined is never made clear: what does the memo mean by coherence? Methodological? Disciplinary? Ideological? And if any of these, isn’t such coherence worth challenging and debating lest it turn into calcified, ahistorical, untested “knowledge?” Moreover, we challenge this notion that coherence is an intrinsic academic or scholarly virtue worth upholding. Is not an engagement with a diversity of ideas, approaches, objects of study, indeed an interrogation of the very contours of knowledge a measure of quality that is at least equal to if not more worthy of evaluation than coherence? Is singular approach truly better than multiplicity?
• On diversity: we are curious as to why the IDPs are targeted and bearing the brunt of this question of “[reassessing] the role of these units in our broader effort to leverage diminishing State resources,” given that (1) Asian American Studies exists at UCLA, UC Davis, and UCSB and enjoy autonomous teaching programs at UC Berkeley, UCSD, and UC Riverside; no other UC has focused so obsessively on “reassessing” on the backs of these IDPs; and (2) UCI is, along with UC Riverside, the most racial and ethnically diverse campus in the UCs. We question why it is that the most diverse units in the most diverse School on campus occupy half of those deemed “needing attention” and wonder what implicit or explicit message this sends to UCI’s stated commitment to diversity at all levels of campus life. Indeed, the very description of the School of Humanities in the General Catalogue highlights the IDPs as programs that “cut across disciplinary boundaries.” Does this targeting of Asian American Studies and the other IDPs constitute a reaction against both diversity and a return to disciplinary retrenchment? If so, then the memo is more an ideological document than one of true “policy,” but one that carries the weight of policy.
It has not escaped our attention that this memo targets the very academic units that contribute most to the stated academic goal of “[providing] students with a foundation on which to continue developing their intellectual, aesthetic, and moral capacities” (General Catalogue). A crucial dimension of this foundation is the absolute necessity in the twenty-first century to cultivate cultural competencies in multiple communities in the US and beyond. This memo serves to erode and potentially eliminate wholescale the deep legacies of knowledge and struggle that are the basis and constitutive of Asian American Studies and the other IDPs. In essence, we are being told that for some reason, under the aegis of something called “quality” or “excellence,” the stories and knowledges derived from Asian American Studies are just not excellent enough and worth studying. We find this a deeply disturbing and indeed intellectually, morally, and aeshetically bankrupt way through which to cultivate this foundation for our students, which this memo was ostensibly supposed to represent. With the call to reassess the role of the IDPs and other units deemed needing attention, this memo in essence asserts without substantiation a qualitatively different mission of the university. We wonder if this new mission of the university is one truly worth pursuing, whether in times of growth or contraction.
The ADVANCE Equity Representative for the School of Humanities Responds to the "Needs Attention" Memo
Dean Vicki Ruiz
c/o Acting Dean James Steintrager
School of Humanities
University of California Irvine
Date: January 14, 2012 Re: Departments Designated as “Needs Attention” in Fall 2011 APG-EVC/P Memo CC: Doug Haynes, Frances Leslie
Dear Dean Ruiz and Acting Dean Steintrager:
I am writing in my capacity as ADVANCE Equity Representative for the School of Humanities regarding the November 2011 APG and EVC/P Memo on the university budget, which designated several departments within the School of Humanities as “Needs Attention.” As Dean Ruiz addressed in the Town Hall Meeting of December 9, 2011, this categorization was given to department units whose quality and/or productivity fell short of expectations and requirements, especially with regards to Student Credit Hours (SCHs), number of majors, and overall rating by the NRC. Departments which have been designated “Needs Attention” have been alerted to the likelihood that significant programmatic and structural changes by their units may be requested and, in the meantime, they are not eligible for new FTEs.
I write to express my particular concern that all of UC Irvine’s Inter-disciplinary Programs on gender, race, and ethnicity were designated as “Needs Attention” and therefore face uncertain futures. In the School of Humanities, Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, and Asian-American Studies were designated as “Needs Attention” along with four language departments. In Social Science, Chicano Studies was designated “Needs Attention.” From a diversity and equity standpoint, this is very worrisome. The curriculum and scholarly mission of the IDPs are especially designed to address issues of difference, inequality, and oppression along lines of gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. The faculty members of the IDPs are disproportionally women, under-represented minorities, and other people of color, as are the students who take classes in IDPs or become majors in these fields. Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Asian-American Studies, and Chicano Studies are also programs where some of the most exciting new talent at UC Irvine has been hired in the last decade (indeed, the last five years). The classes offered by these units are explicitly intended to promote and deepen students’ understanding of “diversity” and satisfy the university’s general education requirements that have similar goals. As Interdisciplinary Programs, each of these units has developed innovative curriculum which speak directly to the on-going transformations in the Humanities and Social Sciences towards more transnational and cross-disciplinary paradigms. Although these are certainly difficult financial times for the University of California and all departments can be expected to make changes in response to the crisis, I find it alarming that the IDPs are being placed on de facto probation with such uniformity. This is not a time to rollback the university’s commitment to cutting-edge research and teaching on diversity and equity.
Of course, the APG Memo did not indicate that units with “Needs Attention” status would necessarily be dissolved or folded into other units (and Dean Ruiz helpfully reminded the faculty at the Town Hall Meeting that any such changes would require a Senate vote). Nonetheless, the very designation of the IDPs as problem units and the associated freeze on faculty recruitment places these units in a very disadvantageous (i.e. unequal) position vis-à-vis other departments in the School and the Campus. The hiring freeze seems especially unfair given that most of the IDPs already service large numbers of students with very small numbers of faculty. Indeed, the Asian American Studies Department and Women’s Studies Department have among the highest student enrollments (SCHs) in the School and much higher enrollments than traditional, large departments such as History that have been deemed “excellent” and permitted to recruit new FTE. More importantly, the reality that all ethnic studies and gender studies programs at UC Irvine have been deemed problematic has a terrible impact on faculty and student morale. It sends a strong message--- intentional or not--- that the scholarly and curricular focus of the IDPs on race and gender no longer has the full support of the administration.
As I know you are aware, each of the IDPs is submitting a formal response to the APG memo that addresses what they see as inaccurate and unfair assessments of their programs as well as numerous factual inaccuracies. There is particular concern that the IDPs have been evaluated largely on the number of majors (as distinct from student enrollments) and that the considerable scholarly achievements of faculty (including outstanding intermural funding and publication awards) have not been recognized by reliance on the NRC data. I write this letter to express my concern about the situation and my hope that as conversations continue with the EVC, the School of Humanities will strongly support its IDP units. If I can be of further assistance on this matter, I hope that you will call on me.
Yours Sincerely,
Heidi Tinsman
ADVANCE Equity Representative School of Humanities
Date: January 14, 2012 Re: Departments Designated as “Needs Attention” in Fall 2011 APG-EVC/P Memo CC: Doug Haynes, Frances Leslie
Dear Dean Ruiz and Acting Dean Steintrager:
I am writing in my capacity as ADVANCE Equity Representative for the School of Humanities regarding the November 2011 APG and EVC/P Memo on the university budget, which designated several departments within the School of Humanities as “Needs Attention.” As Dean Ruiz addressed in the Town Hall Meeting of December 9, 2011, this categorization was given to department units whose quality and/or productivity fell short of expectations and requirements, especially with regards to Student Credit Hours (SCHs), number of majors, and overall rating by the NRC. Departments which have been designated “Needs Attention” have been alerted to the likelihood that significant programmatic and structural changes by their units may be requested and, in the meantime, they are not eligible for new FTEs.
I write to express my particular concern that all of UC Irvine’s Inter-disciplinary Programs on gender, race, and ethnicity were designated as “Needs Attention” and therefore face uncertain futures. In the School of Humanities, Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, and Asian-American Studies were designated as “Needs Attention” along with four language departments. In Social Science, Chicano Studies was designated “Needs Attention.” From a diversity and equity standpoint, this is very worrisome. The curriculum and scholarly mission of the IDPs are especially designed to address issues of difference, inequality, and oppression along lines of gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. The faculty members of the IDPs are disproportionally women, under-represented minorities, and other people of color, as are the students who take classes in IDPs or become majors in these fields. Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Asian-American Studies, and Chicano Studies are also programs where some of the most exciting new talent at UC Irvine has been hired in the last decade (indeed, the last five years). The classes offered by these units are explicitly intended to promote and deepen students’ understanding of “diversity” and satisfy the university’s general education requirements that have similar goals. As Interdisciplinary Programs, each of these units has developed innovative curriculum which speak directly to the on-going transformations in the Humanities and Social Sciences towards more transnational and cross-disciplinary paradigms. Although these are certainly difficult financial times for the University of California and all departments can be expected to make changes in response to the crisis, I find it alarming that the IDPs are being placed on de facto probation with such uniformity. This is not a time to rollback the university’s commitment to cutting-edge research and teaching on diversity and equity.
Of course, the APG Memo did not indicate that units with “Needs Attention” status would necessarily be dissolved or folded into other units (and Dean Ruiz helpfully reminded the faculty at the Town Hall Meeting that any such changes would require a Senate vote). Nonetheless, the very designation of the IDPs as problem units and the associated freeze on faculty recruitment places these units in a very disadvantageous (i.e. unequal) position vis-à-vis other departments in the School and the Campus. The hiring freeze seems especially unfair given that most of the IDPs already service large numbers of students with very small numbers of faculty. Indeed, the Asian American Studies Department and Women’s Studies Department have among the highest student enrollments (SCHs) in the School and much higher enrollments than traditional, large departments such as History that have been deemed “excellent” and permitted to recruit new FTE. More importantly, the reality that all ethnic studies and gender studies programs at UC Irvine have been deemed problematic has a terrible impact on faculty and student morale. It sends a strong message--- intentional or not--- that the scholarly and curricular focus of the IDPs on race and gender no longer has the full support of the administration.
As I know you are aware, each of the IDPs is submitting a formal response to the APG memo that addresses what they see as inaccurate and unfair assessments of their programs as well as numerous factual inaccuracies. There is particular concern that the IDPs have been evaluated largely on the number of majors (as distinct from student enrollments) and that the considerable scholarly achievements of faculty (including outstanding intermural funding and publication awards) have not been recognized by reliance on the NRC data. I write this letter to express my concern about the situation and my hope that as conversations continue with the EVC, the School of Humanities will strongly support its IDP units. If I can be of further assistance on this matter, I hope that you will call on me.
Yours Sincerely,
Heidi Tinsman
ADVANCE Equity Representative School of Humanities
Response from Women's Studies Regarding "Needs Attention" Memo
MEMORANDUM
To: Vicki Ruiz, Dean of the School of Humanities
From: Jennifer Terry, Chair of the Department of Women’s Studies
Date: December 7, 2011
Re: Addendum to Budget Reduction Memo in Response to APG and EVC/P memo
This memo is the response by the Department of Women’s Studies to the memo sent to chairs and directors in the School of Humanities via email on November 15, 2011. Herein we address and correct several of the notable inaccuracies in that memo.
• Operating under the instructions we have repeatedly received from the upper-administration, we have concentrated on student credit hours, and in this category, our enrollments are comparable to or better than other units of the same size or larger than ours. We were never given a directive that we should concentrate specifically on increasing our number of majors nor any target number that would be deemed optimal for our number of FTEs. Of course, our goal has always been to increase our majors. We revised our curriculum in 2005 for that very reason. Because we have been told explicitly by the dean and by the EVC/P that student credit hours would be the measure of unit productivity, we have spent much energy over the past decade offering our large lecture courses that fulfill General Education requirements. That said, as of Spring 2011, we had twenty-eight students majoring in Women’s Studies, up from nineteen in Fall 2009. This increase occurred during a time when the department had sustained the loss of 2 of our 8 total FTE faculty, a 25% reduction. We have not been given the opportunity to replace these positions. However, with only 5 FTE ladder faculty members and 1 FTE Lecturer, we have steadily increased our majors and continue to do so.
• We challenge the claim that Women’s Studies has “very low” undergraduate enrollment, since by the memo’s own measure, our undergraduate SCH taught by just 6.0 FTE faculty members exceed that of other units that are not on the “Needs Attention” list. The most recent data available (2009-2010) indicate our SCH were 5,441. In terms of faculty-to-student ratios, the AGP/EVC/P report only points to major numbers for English, History, and Film and Media Studies, not to SCH. The memo should have compared the faculty-to-student SCH of these units to those of Women’s Studies. We are confident that our SCH are comparable or better. Over the past ten years, Women’s Studies has had consistently strong enrollments overall.
• We contest the statement that Women’s Studies and the other IDPs have “trouble attracting and retaining chairs/directors.” Senior members of our department have willingly and effectively chaired the department each time a term comes up. Since the memo uses this false assertion in a discussion about the measure of quality, excellence, and productivity, we request that this point be redacted for the sake of accuracy.
• The memo speaks of “measures of quality and productivity” without clarity about how these measures are defined and applied. For example, Classics is appraised as having “clarity of purpose and focus” and an “exceptional number of SCH” to “outweigh the relatively low number of students [i.e. majors?] compared to the number of faculty.” By this measure, Women’s Studies should be lauded for its accomplishments, rather than relegated to a status of lacking coherence. As stated above, our SCH have been consistently robust for many years and our Department has been recognized nationally and internationally for its interdisciplinary breadth and cutting-edge curriculum focusing on transnational feminist studies.
• The memo makes reference to the NRC ratings as a key measure of “excellence” and “coherence.” We contend that the NRC ratings are narrow as is the memo’s reliance on them. This narrowness obscures – indeed makes invisible – the many contributions of our faculty to multiple disciplines and to innovative interdisciplinary scholarship nationally and internationally. Moreover, it prevents our colleagues from across the campus to see how members of the Women’s Studies department demonstrate “quality” and “excellence” by serving on the editorial boards of nationally and internationally acclaimed journals, serving as officers of professional organizations, and publishing in top university presses and journals. Over the past decade, our faculty members have been awarded large sums of extramural funding (for example, Jennifer Terry received a collaborative grant from the National Science Foundation for $640,000 in 2006-2008).
• The memo erroneously remarks that Women’s Studies and the other IDPs “do not have PhD programs,” remarkably overlooking the fact that, from its inception, all Women’s Studies faculty members have served as core faculty in the Culture and Theory PhD program. It then goes on to speak rather dismissively about the Culture and Theory PhD by erroneously asserting that the program was “supposed to provide access to graduate students for faculty in these [IDP] programs, but that does not seem to have worked.” This statement is patently false: our faculty members have taught seminars, conducted directed readings, and provided academic advising and dissertation supervision to Culture and Theory students. Each chair of Women’s Studies has served on the Executive Committee of the program and been integrally involved in curriculum development, admissions, and recruitment. In addition, we employ Culture and Theory students as TAs for our large undergraduate courses, providing them an opportunity to learn to teach in interdisciplinary classrooms with innovative tools suitable to learning in the 21st century. The key reason why the Culture and Theory program lost its initial momentum was the suspension of admissions during the third year of its very existence, a decision that was made by the then-director on the grounds that the Graduate Division would not commit funds to support a small cohort of new students. Putting a program on a starvation diet and then blaming it for not thriving is disingenuous to say the least. The Culture and Theory program is intellectually vital and viable. It has suffered from a lack of resources, not from a lack of faculty commitment. We request that the APG and EVC/P redact its memo in light of these facts.
• Our long-standing and vital Graduate Feminist Emphasis is mentioned in passing in the memo only to relegate it to a trivial status, given that it is not intelligible within the narrow grid recognized by the NRC. The GFE provides a coherent program of study for graduate students from other departments, who receive specialized training in feminist epistemology, methodology, and pedagogy. GFE students benefit from teaching experience in Women’s Studies courses, joining a vibrant interdisciplinary research community, and they are qualified for a wider range of job positions upon graduation than their peers in their home departments. Since its implementation in 1994, the GFE has been awarded to 112 PhD students from programs around the campus. Many of its recipients have gone on to acquire tenure-track positions in departments seeking expertise in women’s studies, gender studies, and feminist studies. We ask that the APG and EVC/P rectify this oversight.
• On the subject of programmatic coherence, as invoked in the memo to be a sign of quality and/or excellence, we question how “coherence” is being defined and measured. Our curriculum is carefully crafted and our courses are designed to meet the goals explicitly stated in our department’s mission statement, which itself incorporates much of what the University has stated to be its goals. Our expertise in feminist transnational studies has established our predominance, and we enjoy the reputation of being among the best departments of women’s studies in the country. Our last external review appraised the department for its stellar quality, stating, “UCI has put together an impressive ensemble of faculty and classes to produce a unique and highly promising, interdisciplinary course of study at the graduate as well as undergraduate level in Women’s Studies. The quality, rigor, and potential of the program are beyond question.”
• We question why Women’s Studies and the other IDPs that enhance the diversity of the University are being singled out to bear the burden of this question of “[reassessing] the role of these units in our broader effort to leverage diminishing State resources.” Women’s Studies exists at every other UC campus that offers undergraduate education, and yet no other UC campus has focused so heavily on “reassessing” resources by targeting Women’s Studies or other interdisciplinary programs such as African American Studies and Asian American Studies – programs that fulfill the mission of the UC to provide an intellectual foundation for living in a diverse world. Over the past few years, Women’s Studies and each of the IDPs have been proactive in carefully trimming our already small budgets. Three years ago, Women’s Studies consolidated our staff with Comparative Literature and German and we were held up as a model of efficiency for doing so. We teach large numbers of students from all across the campus. We regularly host research colloquia with invited participants from other UC campuses and beyond, and we do so on a bare-bones budget. In the current need for a cost-benefit analysis of academic performance, we therefore question why the APG and EVC/P are targeting units that clearly have been doing so much with so few resources. Our vital contributions to the University and, indeed, to the larger contexts of California, the United States, and the rapidly diversifying world should be respected, not targeted for reduction.
We offer these data and clarifications so that the APG and EVC/P may rectify unfounded claims upon which our department was assessed and placed in the “needs attention’ category. We request a re-evaluation of our standing on the basis of the accurate and up-to-date data included in this memo. Although the APG/EVC/P memorandum did not include instructions detailing the precise format of the appeal process, we submit this memo to you as the first step in such an appeal.
To: Vicki Ruiz, Dean of the School of Humanities
From: Jennifer Terry, Chair of the Department of Women’s Studies
Date: December 7, 2011
Re: Addendum to Budget Reduction Memo in Response to APG and EVC/P memo
This memo is the response by the Department of Women’s Studies to the memo sent to chairs and directors in the School of Humanities via email on November 15, 2011. Herein we address and correct several of the notable inaccuracies in that memo.
• Operating under the instructions we have repeatedly received from the upper-administration, we have concentrated on student credit hours, and in this category, our enrollments are comparable to or better than other units of the same size or larger than ours. We were never given a directive that we should concentrate specifically on increasing our number of majors nor any target number that would be deemed optimal for our number of FTEs. Of course, our goal has always been to increase our majors. We revised our curriculum in 2005 for that very reason. Because we have been told explicitly by the dean and by the EVC/P that student credit hours would be the measure of unit productivity, we have spent much energy over the past decade offering our large lecture courses that fulfill General Education requirements. That said, as of Spring 2011, we had twenty-eight students majoring in Women’s Studies, up from nineteen in Fall 2009. This increase occurred during a time when the department had sustained the loss of 2 of our 8 total FTE faculty, a 25% reduction. We have not been given the opportunity to replace these positions. However, with only 5 FTE ladder faculty members and 1 FTE Lecturer, we have steadily increased our majors and continue to do so.
• We challenge the claim that Women’s Studies has “very low” undergraduate enrollment, since by the memo’s own measure, our undergraduate SCH taught by just 6.0 FTE faculty members exceed that of other units that are not on the “Needs Attention” list. The most recent data available (2009-2010) indicate our SCH were 5,441. In terms of faculty-to-student ratios, the AGP/EVC/P report only points to major numbers for English, History, and Film and Media Studies, not to SCH. The memo should have compared the faculty-to-student SCH of these units to those of Women’s Studies. We are confident that our SCH are comparable or better. Over the past ten years, Women’s Studies has had consistently strong enrollments overall.
• We contest the statement that Women’s Studies and the other IDPs have “trouble attracting and retaining chairs/directors.” Senior members of our department have willingly and effectively chaired the department each time a term comes up. Since the memo uses this false assertion in a discussion about the measure of quality, excellence, and productivity, we request that this point be redacted for the sake of accuracy.
• The memo speaks of “measures of quality and productivity” without clarity about how these measures are defined and applied. For example, Classics is appraised as having “clarity of purpose and focus” and an “exceptional number of SCH” to “outweigh the relatively low number of students [i.e. majors?] compared to the number of faculty.” By this measure, Women’s Studies should be lauded for its accomplishments, rather than relegated to a status of lacking coherence. As stated above, our SCH have been consistently robust for many years and our Department has been recognized nationally and internationally for its interdisciplinary breadth and cutting-edge curriculum focusing on transnational feminist studies.
• The memo makes reference to the NRC ratings as a key measure of “excellence” and “coherence.” We contend that the NRC ratings are narrow as is the memo’s reliance on them. This narrowness obscures – indeed makes invisible – the many contributions of our faculty to multiple disciplines and to innovative interdisciplinary scholarship nationally and internationally. Moreover, it prevents our colleagues from across the campus to see how members of the Women’s Studies department demonstrate “quality” and “excellence” by serving on the editorial boards of nationally and internationally acclaimed journals, serving as officers of professional organizations, and publishing in top university presses and journals. Over the past decade, our faculty members have been awarded large sums of extramural funding (for example, Jennifer Terry received a collaborative grant from the National Science Foundation for $640,000 in 2006-2008).
• The memo erroneously remarks that Women’s Studies and the other IDPs “do not have PhD programs,” remarkably overlooking the fact that, from its inception, all Women’s Studies faculty members have served as core faculty in the Culture and Theory PhD program. It then goes on to speak rather dismissively about the Culture and Theory PhD by erroneously asserting that the program was “supposed to provide access to graduate students for faculty in these [IDP] programs, but that does not seem to have worked.” This statement is patently false: our faculty members have taught seminars, conducted directed readings, and provided academic advising and dissertation supervision to Culture and Theory students. Each chair of Women’s Studies has served on the Executive Committee of the program and been integrally involved in curriculum development, admissions, and recruitment. In addition, we employ Culture and Theory students as TAs for our large undergraduate courses, providing them an opportunity to learn to teach in interdisciplinary classrooms with innovative tools suitable to learning in the 21st century. The key reason why the Culture and Theory program lost its initial momentum was the suspension of admissions during the third year of its very existence, a decision that was made by the then-director on the grounds that the Graduate Division would not commit funds to support a small cohort of new students. Putting a program on a starvation diet and then blaming it for not thriving is disingenuous to say the least. The Culture and Theory program is intellectually vital and viable. It has suffered from a lack of resources, not from a lack of faculty commitment. We request that the APG and EVC/P redact its memo in light of these facts.
• Our long-standing and vital Graduate Feminist Emphasis is mentioned in passing in the memo only to relegate it to a trivial status, given that it is not intelligible within the narrow grid recognized by the NRC. The GFE provides a coherent program of study for graduate students from other departments, who receive specialized training in feminist epistemology, methodology, and pedagogy. GFE students benefit from teaching experience in Women’s Studies courses, joining a vibrant interdisciplinary research community, and they are qualified for a wider range of job positions upon graduation than their peers in their home departments. Since its implementation in 1994, the GFE has been awarded to 112 PhD students from programs around the campus. Many of its recipients have gone on to acquire tenure-track positions in departments seeking expertise in women’s studies, gender studies, and feminist studies. We ask that the APG and EVC/P rectify this oversight.
• On the subject of programmatic coherence, as invoked in the memo to be a sign of quality and/or excellence, we question how “coherence” is being defined and measured. Our curriculum is carefully crafted and our courses are designed to meet the goals explicitly stated in our department’s mission statement, which itself incorporates much of what the University has stated to be its goals. Our expertise in feminist transnational studies has established our predominance, and we enjoy the reputation of being among the best departments of women’s studies in the country. Our last external review appraised the department for its stellar quality, stating, “UCI has put together an impressive ensemble of faculty and classes to produce a unique and highly promising, interdisciplinary course of study at the graduate as well as undergraduate level in Women’s Studies. The quality, rigor, and potential of the program are beyond question.”
• We question why Women’s Studies and the other IDPs that enhance the diversity of the University are being singled out to bear the burden of this question of “[reassessing] the role of these units in our broader effort to leverage diminishing State resources.” Women’s Studies exists at every other UC campus that offers undergraduate education, and yet no other UC campus has focused so heavily on “reassessing” resources by targeting Women’s Studies or other interdisciplinary programs such as African American Studies and Asian American Studies – programs that fulfill the mission of the UC to provide an intellectual foundation for living in a diverse world. Over the past few years, Women’s Studies and each of the IDPs have been proactive in carefully trimming our already small budgets. Three years ago, Women’s Studies consolidated our staff with Comparative Literature and German and we were held up as a model of efficiency for doing so. We teach large numbers of students from all across the campus. We regularly host research colloquia with invited participants from other UC campuses and beyond, and we do so on a bare-bones budget. In the current need for a cost-benefit analysis of academic performance, we therefore question why the APG and EVC/P are targeting units that clearly have been doing so much with so few resources. Our vital contributions to the University and, indeed, to the larger contexts of California, the United States, and the rapidly diversifying world should be respected, not targeted for reduction.
We offer these data and clarifications so that the APG and EVC/P may rectify unfounded claims upon which our department was assessed and placed in the “needs attention’ category. We request a re-evaluation of our standing on the basis of the accurate and up-to-date data included in this memo. Although the APG/EVC/P memorandum did not include instructions detailing the precise format of the appeal process, we submit this memo to you as the first step in such an appeal.
Reading Guide for the “Needs Attention” Memo
(Via We Are UCI)
A memo titled General Comments on Units Designated “Needs Attention”was sent to Humanities chairs and directors. The following is a very well articulated analysis of the memo, written by one of our brilliant UCI grad students.
You can access the “Needs Attention” memo here:
http://ucleaks.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/documentzero.pdf (Note: I do not know who put this up. I don’t know how long this link will be good.)
The following is a “Reading Guide” I drafted for this memo. The acronyms are explained.
Hello,
My name is Tetsuro Namba and I am a graduate student in the Comparative Literature program here at UCI. I am passing around the “Needs Attention” memo because I believe that everyone who has an interest in the humanities should be aware of the situation we are facing. We all know that the state of California continuously cuts its support for the UC’s. But these budget cuts are not distributed equally; some parts of the university suffer more than others. The School of Humanities (SOH) is facing a 4.8% reduction in its budget; this comes out to $1.3 million. On top of this cut, there is still a $500,000 budget cut shortfall from last year. So the SOH must, altogether, cut $1.8 million by next year. Bear in mind that on 11/28, the UC regents met and approved of salary raises for lawyers, managers and administrators, including a 9.9% raise for UCI’s vice chancellor of planning and budget, Meredith Michaels. We are looking at an institution that finds nothing wrong with giving a raise to someone in charge of budgets, while at the same time cutting those very budgets.
However, what is most distressing about this memo is not the amount of money being cut, but how these budget cuts are being used by the administration to actively reshape the humanities at UCI. These sorts of budget decisions are made by the office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (the EVC/P). Over the past year, the EVC/P assessed every department according to a variety of factors, with each department given points that ultimately designate it as either “Protect,” “Maintain,” or “Needs Attention.” “Needs Attention” here means having your budget cut. In other words, it’s not an affectionate attention. It’s a punitive attention. So far, the departments and programs that have been deemed “Needs Attention” are: African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Literature, French & Italian, German, and Women’s Studies.
The “Needs Attention” memo attached was sent out by the EVC/P in order to explain how they have made these assessments. The assessment is based heavily on numerical factors used to determine the “productivity” of departments. Two important factors used are the majors-to-faculty ratio (“Total Majors per FTE”) and the number of students actually taught by faculty in classrooms. This latter is referred to on the document as the “SCH(PHD)/Filled FTE,” which stands for Student Credit Hours (Payroll Home Department) per Filled Full Time Equivalent. “Student Credit Hours” is the unit of measurement used to calculate students in classrooms. “Full Time Equivalent” is the unit of measurement used to designate faculty members (awkwardly labeled so it can encompass joint appointments). So a “Total Majors per Filled FTE” number represents how many majors there are, on average, for every faculty member within that department. So, the school average of 15.3:1 Total Majors per Filled FTE means that for every professor at UCI there are 15.3 students. These numbers are important as departments and programs are being urged by administration to teach as many students as they can, both in classes and as majors in the field.
As students, we should be concerned that “productivity” is measured numerically in this way. Departments are being encouraged to have more students per professor. The administration wants faculty members to teach large numbers of students so that it can process as many students as it can for the fewest instructors. But a higher student to faculty ratio means that every student gets less attention and energy from our mentors and teachers. It is in our interest—in the interest of the quality of our education—to have lower student to faculty ratios. While we have many interests in common with the administration and the school in general, our interests don’t always coincide. Here we are directly at odds: we want the best quality education for our dollar, they want to cut costs as much as they can.
However, this purely numerical calculation is not the only factor in the assessment of departments. Compare, for instance, the “productivity” of the East Asian Literature and Languages (EALL) department with History (bottom of p. 2). History is a unit that is “Protected,” while EALL is one that “Needs Attention.” The reasoning for this discrepancy is noted on p. 3-4. EALL is seen by the EVC/P as a department whose “focus” is hard to determine—not surprisingly, since it covers Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. These are fields that look to places and histories with radically different pasts and particularities (interestingly, not unlike the History department). The other reasons why EALL is a unit that “Needs Attention” is that it is very small, and that, furthermore, the School of Humanities is not interested in EALL. This latter point is very interesting, as EALL is a very popular department. The Korean language classes, for instance, are always full. From a purely numerical standpoint, there isn’t really a reason to cut the budget of EALL and not cut history as well. Instead, EALL is being cut because money has to be cut somewhere, and it simply doesn’t fit the image the administrators have of the humanities.
In other words, if you look beyond the numerical analysis, a specific image of the humanities emerges in this memo, and this image is based on a limited understanding of the values of humanistic research. For instance, small departments and programs that are interested in interdisciplinary work suffer disproportionately. This is particularly alarming for those students who are interested in less traditional programs or more obscure fields. It is very telling to glance over which programs have been deemed the least “productive” (the table on p. 4)—all are associated with minority groups and are programs with histories of struggles for recognition and inclusion, even at Irvine. Our Asian American Studies program, for instance, was formed only after students here went on a concerted campaign and hunger strike. We cannot assume that it is by mere coincidence that a program that had to fight for its right to exist in the first place has been targeted for budget reductions that threaten its very existence and viability. Of course, it would not be accurate to call the EVC/P assessment racist or sexist. It is simply conservativist, with perhaps a hint of xenophobia.
In short, the entire assessment and budget reduction process set a dangerous precedent. What we are witnessing is how the humanities at UCI are being institutionally forced into a more traditional and intellectually conservative position. In fact, this entire memo evidences an aggressive will to ignorance. Take, for example, the paragraph at the bottom of page 1, where the memo acknowledges that its form of numerical accounting unfairly disadvantages interdisciplinary programs, yet they do not bother to try to change their method of assessment to account for it. It seems that if the EVC/P does not understand what your department or program does, then it will not take measures to understand it or assess it fairly, and your department will suffer. In other words, the failings of the assessor are assumed to be failings on the part of the assessed. Though this assessment attempts to appear objective and numerical, the comparison between History and EALL shows that these sorts of funding decisions can be and often are made on other grounds. They are made with certain assumptions about what is or is not legitimate humanistic research. This latter question is, of course, one that will always haunt the humanities, but it is a question that should be addressed by the students and faculty of the humanities, not by administrators.
The older, more established departments, such as English, History, Classics and Philosophy, have long traditions, and these traditions do protect them from the more severe budget cuts—for the moment. The question for these protected departments is: how long will it be before the administration decides that it doesn’t understand why people study novels at all? Or obscure historical minutia? Or minor points of logical deduction? In other words, the conservativist demand that this kind of assessment puts on the humanities is antithetical to humanistic research, if not academic research in general. Through these sorts of “productivity” assessments and budget reductions, the administration is taking a very active role in shaping the future of the humanities at UCI. And this is a trend that should trouble all of us.
If you are reading this letter, you are invited to a meeting Thursday of Week One of Winter Quarter at 6PM in HH 105. We will then decide on how best to respond to this situation and what viable courses of action are available to us. Any student of any year or program, graduate or undergraduate, is invited.
Please pass along this memo, this reading guide, and this invitation.
In solidarity,
Tets
Comparative Literature Graduate Student, 4th year
This document was drafted 11/25 – 11/29, 2011. It has benefited from clarifying feedback and information from multiple sources. But any errors or misunderstandings are mine. TN
A memo titled General Comments on Units Designated “Needs Attention”was sent to Humanities chairs and directors. The following is a very well articulated analysis of the memo, written by one of our brilliant UCI grad students.
You can access the “Needs Attention” memo here:
http://ucleaks.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/documentzero.pdf (Note: I do not know who put this up. I don’t know how long this link will be good.)
The following is a “Reading Guide” I drafted for this memo. The acronyms are explained.
Hello,
My name is Tetsuro Namba and I am a graduate student in the Comparative Literature program here at UCI. I am passing around the “Needs Attention” memo because I believe that everyone who has an interest in the humanities should be aware of the situation we are facing. We all know that the state of California continuously cuts its support for the UC’s. But these budget cuts are not distributed equally; some parts of the university suffer more than others. The School of Humanities (SOH) is facing a 4.8% reduction in its budget; this comes out to $1.3 million. On top of this cut, there is still a $500,000 budget cut shortfall from last year. So the SOH must, altogether, cut $1.8 million by next year. Bear in mind that on 11/28, the UC regents met and approved of salary raises for lawyers, managers and administrators, including a 9.9% raise for UCI’s vice chancellor of planning and budget, Meredith Michaels. We are looking at an institution that finds nothing wrong with giving a raise to someone in charge of budgets, while at the same time cutting those very budgets.
However, what is most distressing about this memo is not the amount of money being cut, but how these budget cuts are being used by the administration to actively reshape the humanities at UCI. These sorts of budget decisions are made by the office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (the EVC/P). Over the past year, the EVC/P assessed every department according to a variety of factors, with each department given points that ultimately designate it as either “Protect,” “Maintain,” or “Needs Attention.” “Needs Attention” here means having your budget cut. In other words, it’s not an affectionate attention. It’s a punitive attention. So far, the departments and programs that have been deemed “Needs Attention” are: African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Literature, French & Italian, German, and Women’s Studies.
The “Needs Attention” memo attached was sent out by the EVC/P in order to explain how they have made these assessments. The assessment is based heavily on numerical factors used to determine the “productivity” of departments. Two important factors used are the majors-to-faculty ratio (“Total Majors per FTE”) and the number of students actually taught by faculty in classrooms. This latter is referred to on the document as the “SCH(PHD)/Filled FTE,” which stands for Student Credit Hours (Payroll Home Department) per Filled Full Time Equivalent. “Student Credit Hours” is the unit of measurement used to calculate students in classrooms. “Full Time Equivalent” is the unit of measurement used to designate faculty members (awkwardly labeled so it can encompass joint appointments). So a “Total Majors per Filled FTE” number represents how many majors there are, on average, for every faculty member within that department. So, the school average of 15.3:1 Total Majors per Filled FTE means that for every professor at UCI there are 15.3 students. These numbers are important as departments and programs are being urged by administration to teach as many students as they can, both in classes and as majors in the field.
As students, we should be concerned that “productivity” is measured numerically in this way. Departments are being encouraged to have more students per professor. The administration wants faculty members to teach large numbers of students so that it can process as many students as it can for the fewest instructors. But a higher student to faculty ratio means that every student gets less attention and energy from our mentors and teachers. It is in our interest—in the interest of the quality of our education—to have lower student to faculty ratios. While we have many interests in common with the administration and the school in general, our interests don’t always coincide. Here we are directly at odds: we want the best quality education for our dollar, they want to cut costs as much as they can.
However, this purely numerical calculation is not the only factor in the assessment of departments. Compare, for instance, the “productivity” of the East Asian Literature and Languages (EALL) department with History (bottom of p. 2). History is a unit that is “Protected,” while EALL is one that “Needs Attention.” The reasoning for this discrepancy is noted on p. 3-4. EALL is seen by the EVC/P as a department whose “focus” is hard to determine—not surprisingly, since it covers Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. These are fields that look to places and histories with radically different pasts and particularities (interestingly, not unlike the History department). The other reasons why EALL is a unit that “Needs Attention” is that it is very small, and that, furthermore, the School of Humanities is not interested in EALL. This latter point is very interesting, as EALL is a very popular department. The Korean language classes, for instance, are always full. From a purely numerical standpoint, there isn’t really a reason to cut the budget of EALL and not cut history as well. Instead, EALL is being cut because money has to be cut somewhere, and it simply doesn’t fit the image the administrators have of the humanities.
In other words, if you look beyond the numerical analysis, a specific image of the humanities emerges in this memo, and this image is based on a limited understanding of the values of humanistic research. For instance, small departments and programs that are interested in interdisciplinary work suffer disproportionately. This is particularly alarming for those students who are interested in less traditional programs or more obscure fields. It is very telling to glance over which programs have been deemed the least “productive” (the table on p. 4)—all are associated with minority groups and are programs with histories of struggles for recognition and inclusion, even at Irvine. Our Asian American Studies program, for instance, was formed only after students here went on a concerted campaign and hunger strike. We cannot assume that it is by mere coincidence that a program that had to fight for its right to exist in the first place has been targeted for budget reductions that threaten its very existence and viability. Of course, it would not be accurate to call the EVC/P assessment racist or sexist. It is simply conservativist, with perhaps a hint of xenophobia.
In short, the entire assessment and budget reduction process set a dangerous precedent. What we are witnessing is how the humanities at UCI are being institutionally forced into a more traditional and intellectually conservative position. In fact, this entire memo evidences an aggressive will to ignorance. Take, for example, the paragraph at the bottom of page 1, where the memo acknowledges that its form of numerical accounting unfairly disadvantages interdisciplinary programs, yet they do not bother to try to change their method of assessment to account for it. It seems that if the EVC/P does not understand what your department or program does, then it will not take measures to understand it or assess it fairly, and your department will suffer. In other words, the failings of the assessor are assumed to be failings on the part of the assessed. Though this assessment attempts to appear objective and numerical, the comparison between History and EALL shows that these sorts of funding decisions can be and often are made on other grounds. They are made with certain assumptions about what is or is not legitimate humanistic research. This latter question is, of course, one that will always haunt the humanities, but it is a question that should be addressed by the students and faculty of the humanities, not by administrators.
The older, more established departments, such as English, History, Classics and Philosophy, have long traditions, and these traditions do protect them from the more severe budget cuts—for the moment. The question for these protected departments is: how long will it be before the administration decides that it doesn’t understand why people study novels at all? Or obscure historical minutia? Or minor points of logical deduction? In other words, the conservativist demand that this kind of assessment puts on the humanities is antithetical to humanistic research, if not academic research in general. Through these sorts of “productivity” assessments and budget reductions, the administration is taking a very active role in shaping the future of the humanities at UCI. And this is a trend that should trouble all of us.
If you are reading this letter, you are invited to a meeting Thursday of Week One of Winter Quarter at 6PM in HH 105. We will then decide on how best to respond to this situation and what viable courses of action are available to us. Any student of any year or program, graduate or undergraduate, is invited.
Please pass along this memo, this reading guide, and this invitation.
In solidarity,
Tets
Comparative Literature Graduate Student, 4th year
This document was drafted 11/25 – 11/29, 2011. It has benefited from clarifying feedback and information from multiple sources. But any errors or misunderstandings are mine. TN
Administration Appoints Controversial Humanities Dean Search Committee
(Via UC Rebel Radio)
We have just received some information about the Humanities Crisis at the University of California, Irvine. Since we last published the documents in which several departments were identified as "need[ing] attention" by the current Dean of Humanities, Vicki L. Ruiz, it seems like she has announced her resignation from the post.
Moreover, it now looks like the committee in charge of overseeing the hiring of the new Dean is made in great part from those departments that were "protected" under the new budget guidelines, and not from the "needs attention" list. In fact, the search committee that's been announced includes only one faculty member from the "Needs Attention" departments: Prof.Nasrin Rahimieh. Several of the rest are not from the School of Humanities at all, but from science and other schools.
Below is the letter sent out to the School of Humanities Members:
________________________________
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to announce the formation of a search committee charged with assisting us in appointing a Dean of the School of Humanities.
A national search will be conducted to identify the most qualified candidates for this position. Interested UCI faculty are highly encouraged to apply.
The committee will evaluate nominees and make recommendations based on the suitability of candidates. The committee is chaired by Steven Topik, Professor, Department of History.
Additional committee members include:
Jonathan Alexander, Professor and Campus Writing Coordinator, Department of English
Samantha Cohen, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English
Susan Egan, Assistant Dean, School of Social Ecology
Christopher Hughes, Professor and Chair, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Kenneth Janda, Dean, School of Physical Sciences
Anthony Kubiak, Associate Professor, Department of Drama
Julia Lupton, Professor, Department of English
William Maurer, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, Department of Anthropology
Glen Mimura, Professor and Associate Dean for Graduate Study, Department of Film and Media Studies
Deanna Nunez, Director of Administrative Operations, Bren School of ICS
Maria Pantelia, Professor and Director, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Department of Classics
Nasrin Rahimieh, Professor and Director, Center for Persian Studies and Culture, Department of Comparative Literature
Jacobo Sefami, Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Cecile Whiting, Professor and Chair, Department of Art History
We are soliciting your assistance in the recruitment of our future dean, and request that you submit any suggestions, applications, and/or nominations to:
Professor Steven Topik Chair, School of Humanities Dean Search Committee
C/O JiWon Kim, 509 Aldrich Hall, Zot Code 1000 or Email Address: jiwon@uci.edu
We welcome your participation and look forward to the search committee's assistance in concluding a successful search for this important position.
Chancellor Michael Drake and Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost Michael Gottfredson
We have just received some information about the Humanities Crisis at the University of California, Irvine. Since we last published the documents in which several departments were identified as "need[ing] attention" by the current Dean of Humanities, Vicki L. Ruiz, it seems like she has announced her resignation from the post.
Moreover, it now looks like the committee in charge of overseeing the hiring of the new Dean is made in great part from those departments that were "protected" under the new budget guidelines, and not from the "needs attention" list. In fact, the search committee that's been announced includes only one faculty member from the "Needs Attention" departments: Prof.Nasrin Rahimieh. Several of the rest are not from the School of Humanities at all, but from science and other schools.
Below is the letter sent out to the School of Humanities Members:
________________________________
Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to announce the formation of a search committee charged with assisting us in appointing a Dean of the School of Humanities.
A national search will be conducted to identify the most qualified candidates for this position. Interested UCI faculty are highly encouraged to apply.
The committee will evaluate nominees and make recommendations based on the suitability of candidates. The committee is chaired by Steven Topik, Professor, Department of History.
Additional committee members include:
Jonathan Alexander, Professor and Campus Writing Coordinator, Department of English
Samantha Cohen, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English
Susan Egan, Assistant Dean, School of Social Ecology
Christopher Hughes, Professor and Chair, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
Kenneth Janda, Dean, School of Physical Sciences
Anthony Kubiak, Associate Professor, Department of Drama
Julia Lupton, Professor, Department of English
William Maurer, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, Department of Anthropology
Glen Mimura, Professor and Associate Dean for Graduate Study, Department of Film and Media Studies
Deanna Nunez, Director of Administrative Operations, Bren School of ICS
Maria Pantelia, Professor and Director, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Department of Classics
Nasrin Rahimieh, Professor and Director, Center for Persian Studies and Culture, Department of Comparative Literature
Jacobo Sefami, Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Cecile Whiting, Professor and Chair, Department of Art History
We are soliciting your assistance in the recruitment of our future dean, and request that you submit any suggestions, applications, and/or nominations to:
Professor Steven Topik Chair, School of Humanities Dean Search Committee
C/O JiWon Kim, 509 Aldrich Hall, Zot Code 1000 or Email Address: jiwon@uci.edu
We welcome your participation and look forward to the search committee's assistance in concluding a successful search for this important position.
Chancellor Michael Drake and Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost Michael Gottfredson
The State of the Department of Chicano Latino Studies: a response to the APG report
Preamble
The Department of Chicano Latino Studies derives its mission from stated objectives of the University of California system which read: “Diversity should be integral to the University’s achievement of excellence. Diversity can enhance the ability of the University to accomplish its academic mission.” The University of California system further commits itself to “remove barriers to recruitment, retention and advancement… of historically excluded populations who are currently underrepresented.”
In keeping with these University of California long-term goals, and as stated in our 2006-2016 Strategic Plan, the Chicano Latino Studies Department core mission is to apply an interdisciplinary scholarly approach to the study of issues and challenges facing the fastest growing minority group in the United States, and one historically understudied: Latinos. Evidence of our success in this role is amply available in faculty members’ scholarly contributions and the academic achievement of our undergraduate majors and affiliated graduate students.
Our curriculum seeks to provide knowledge, critical understanding and appreciation of the language, history, culture, literature, sociology, anthropology, politics, social ecology, health, medicine, and creative accomplishments (art, dance, drama, film, music) in Chicano/Latino communities. Our faculty concentrates in the areas of migration, the historical understanding of cultural experiences of Latino populations, and issues of inequality and access to opportunities within U.S. society—the three areas we situated under the rubric of Migration, Memory and Access in our 2006-2016 Strategic Plan. Last year the Department of Chicano Latino Studies: Dean’s Summary & Departmental Narrative-2011 provides ample evidence as to the excellence, high productivity and national recognition of our faculty members in those areas.
Beyond our areas of research and teaching concentration, the DCLS is strategically located as a social science research group focused on issues for which UCI has a regional advantage. Southern California is a living interactive laboratory of cultural exchanges. Latinos comprise over a third of the population of the state of California, and an even larger percentage in Southern California, making them a critical area of inquiry for the UC system. The DCLS focus on Latinos is consistent with UC Irvine’s commitment to interdisciplinary study and the education of students to function productively in a multi-cultural and multi-racial society and world.
The Chicano Latino Studies Department is also committed to increasing the number of Latino students that enter and graduate from UCI. We are actively involved in outreach to local communities, and co-curricular and mentoring support for current students. Chicano Latino Studies seeks to increase the matriculation, persistence and graduate rates of Latino students and prepare them for leadership roles in a global society.
The present role of the DCLS aligns with UC system diversity values and goals, supporting its academic mission. Through our interdisciplinary faculty and curriculum, the DCLS is integrated into the academic work of the School and the University. The excellence of our faculty is well-documented in publications, grants received, honors and awards. Evidence of the DCLS outstanding teaching can be found in the academic achievements of our undergraduate majors and affiliated graduate students. The DCLS is also integrated into outreach, recruitment and mentoring of under-represented students. The demographic trends of the region and rising cohorts of potential Chicano-Latino undergraduate students attest to the future prospects of our department.
The DCLS faculty is extremely distressed by the absence of any reference to diversity goals in the APG report’s evaluation. The report also lacks any discussion or assessment of student persistence and graduation rates.
The DCLS faculty believes that, at this time of financial stress, it is supremely important to take a long term look at the future of UC Irvine, beyond short-term challenges, and that broad rather than narrow gauges of productivity be utilized. In short, what kind of University do we want to have? This is something that must be addressed by the APG and the University. We believe that the terms of the discussion engaged by the APG need to be changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)