abolition of U.Wash. Slavic Dept.

Sat Apr 8 18:53:21 UTC 1995

From:   IN%"slavic-uw at u.washington.edu"  7-APR-1995 22:54:46.59
To:     IN%"slavic-uw at u.washington.edu"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:   Slavic Dept. cut (fwd)

Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 19:42:32 -0700
From: PVTON at ttacs1.ttu.edu
Subject: Slavic Dept. cut (fwd)
Sender: slavic-uw at u.washington.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <slavic-uw at u.washington.edu>
Errors-to: kengel at u.washington.edu
Reply-to: slavic-uw at u.washington.edu
Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9504072100.A543234464-0100000 at ttacs.ttu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Originator: slavic-uw at u.washington.edu
Precedence: none

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Waugh <dwaugh at u.washington.edu>
To: reecasf at u.washington.edu
Cc: charlo at u.washington.edu, nan at u.washington.edu, dmiles at u.washington.edu,
    nlardy at u.washington.edu, PVTON at ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Slavic Dept. cut

I am sending this to REECAS faculty, and to the various student groups
for which I have lists (REECAS grad and undergrad, history, polysci,
central asia, geography).  Will someone please forward it to Slavic Dept.
students and to the uw-slavic list.  I am not going to go into the issue
of injustice or rationality here but rather try to summarize the
essential points that came out in my conversation with Associate Dean
Dunn this afternoon.  To the extent that this repeats information you
have already received, I apologize in advance.
        The Slavic Department is being terminated as an independent
administrative entity.  Six positions from the department will be retained
as a unit but placed in some yet-to-be determined new home as part of
something else.  The reason that the new home has not yet been determined
is that the administration felt it could not enter into negotiations on
the matter without tipping its hand as to what it was considering.  So
that matter is still quite open, and presumably Slavic faculty have some
say as to where it might be.  Those six positions include two of the
current Russian literature positions, the two senior lecturers, and the
two Assistant Professors who are East European specialists.  The remaining
faculty will go to other departments--the tenured linguists to
Linguistics, the remaining tenured literature specialists presumably to
Comparative Literature.  Which of the literature professors end up in
which place is up to them and the current Slavic faculty to figure out.
        The goal in the first instance in creating this new sub-department
of six is that there be a place where a range and various levels of
necessary languages (and presumably at least some literature) be taught,
and this did provide a means of keeping the current Assistant Professors,
whose records and promise are valued highly by the administration.  It is
an unusual arrangement, and this "compromise" was not easily arrived at
(the situation that we all consider terrible could have been even
worse--that is, the assistant professor positions could have been
eliminated).  The administration is making the commitment that the
Assistant Professors will be fully eligible to proceed toward tenure in
the same way that they would have if the current departmental structure
had been preserved.  Furthermore, the administration is making the
commitment to preserve at least these six positions in the new
configuration (that is, if any of the six leaves, retires, or whatever,
that slot would be filled).  There is even the possibility that somewhere
down the line, an open position elsewhere could be added to this sub-unit,
but presumably never with the expectation that a fully independent Slavic
Dept. would be re-constituted.
        I raised the issue of whether this new entity really would be able
to cover even the language teaching needs--e.g., at least four years of
Russian with a sufficient number of sections--that is, would it not need
some TAs.  The answer was that indeed TAs would be needed, but it was not
clear how the funding would be found.  We did not discuss the issue of
whether TAs could be found to do the job once the current group of
graduate students leaves.
        The intent seems to be that there will be an undergraduate degree
and probably an M.A., but that there would no longer be a Ph.D.  program
in Slavic literature or linguistics.  I have no idea what those degrees
might be called or really would involve, and the issue of what the
possible curriculum is for students in this new entity is something that
those who would inhabit it will have to determine.  Presumably the faculty
who end up in Linguistics or Comp. Lit. could continue to teach courses in
their area of specialization (assuming those departments consented).  One
option that may be explored is to create a Ph.D. program analogous to the
one that recently was created in Middle East Studies (under the direct
administration of the Grad. School, in that case, not under NEL&C). That
is, this would be a "studies" degree that presumably would be broader
than a literature or linguistics degree but could accomodate people with,
say, a desire to focus in the first instance on language and literature.  I
raised the question of whether such a degree would be viable/marketable;
the response was that there was need to study how the MES one is working
out.
        We discussed issues of the impact on the Title VI grant; I
insisted that there was no way of whitewashing this to pretend we had not
been seriously undercut.  I am writing a letter to Ann Schneider, our
program officer at the Dept. of Education, in which I am going to argue
that we should not be reduced in the remaining two years of the current
grant, because we can still fulfill the promises we made for the projects
for which we have received funding.
        Since the question of a possible home in the Jackson School came
up, I gave my personal opinion that such an arrangement needed to be
explored but that I had no idea whether the Jackson School would accept
it.  I did emphasize that I personally am fed up with administrative
obligations and am definitely not seeking more onerous ones.  I also
indicated, as I have in conversations with some REECAS faculty recently,
that possibly spinning off the REECAS B.A. into the new entity that
emerges from the rubble might make some sense, since it could help
strengthen its identity as a viable program.  In such a scenario,
presumably the current REECAS M.A. would stay where it is.
        Obviously there are many important issues not addressed here.  We
did not go into the question of whether the new arrangement really would
serve the needs of current majors so that they be able to finish their
degrees.  The assumption seems to be that the current faculty would be
around for that to happen, although at the same time, it is clear that a
lot of curriculum is going to have to be dismantled (again, we did not
really get into that issue; Dunn made clear that the Slavists will need
to start working on a plan to resolve some of these issues).  I
assume that if one of the faculty remaining outside of the "rump Slavic"
sub-unit were to leave sooner, there would indeed be no replacement; and
that obviously could create a serious problem, especially for any current
graduate students.
        The issue of when the new alignment would become fully operable
was not adequately addressed, except that they want it to be in place by the
end of the current fiscal year.  One of the unanswered questions here (it
does need to be asked) concerns when students would be able to become
majors in this new entity, and whether any of the pending graduate
applications (if the individuals are applying for an M.A.) can be
accepted.  My guess is that until the new alignment is fixed, the freeze
will still be on.
        It is clear that they expect there may be an appeal, but equally
clear they expect it will not succeed.  Although I do not remember the
exact wording on this part of the exchange, Dunn himself raised the issue
of whether a bailout might happen and indicated he saw no way that would
likely happen.  Whatever their current information from Olympia is, they
consider it is not optimistic; my guess is, as we have suspected all
along, even some largess from there is not going to make them discover
they can save the department.
        I expect to be at my machine much of the weekend and will respond
if you have any questions, or you can try calling me (543-4686).
        Dan Waugh