Information about Int'l Congress of Slavists

[George Fowler]

Greetings!
     Much as I hate to support "authority" in any case (and I am NOT a
member of the American Committee of Slavists), I have to chime in on this
litany of complaints about the inadequacy of information about the
International Congress of Slavists. I would like to point out that
information was probably adequate this time, and CERTAINLY *better* than
the previous time! Michael Flier sent out a letter to Slavic programs in
mid-December, 1994 (as I recall; this could be inexact). Our department at
Indiana got it, and the chair circulated it to everyone. I summarized the
procedures in the Calendar of events in the 1994 AATSEEL abstract book
which every linguist who attended AATSEEL in St. Louis should have gotten a
copy of, and was then pleasantly surprised to find that the exact mailing
of three pages or so with full details was reproduced in its entirety in
the December 1994 AATSEEL Newsletter. It's listed on the cover, in bold
print, and it occupies pp. 18-20 of the issue.
     A web page and other possible avenues of publicity would obviously be
helpful; and it could be that the mailing list for the call for papers
could be expanded. But according to the update sent out to people who
proposed papers, which I saw today, no less than 84 people applied (for 50
spots; not bad odds, really). So the information was available.
     As to the issue of qualifications, first raised in this forum by Frank
Gladney, there is at least a partial case to be made on behalf of
standards. I don't think requirement (1) is objectionable (Ph.D. in hand by
January 1, 1996). That's the date that abstracts are due (selection is
primarily, if not exclusively, based upon abstracts), so this is more
liberal than I remember in the past, when I think the Ph.D.-in-hand
deadline was before the time of declaring one's intention to submit an
abstract. After all, this is a once-every-five-years event, and it makes
some sense to restrict it to somewhat more established scholars, at least
with a dissertation under their belts. After all, what is a dissertation
for? It is intended to demonstrate that the author can sustain a certain
level of argumentation, in terms of length and (hopefully) originality. At
least this is RELEVANT to the question of who should best represent the
American community of Slavists, even if one could argue that it isn't
infallible. People who get their Ph.D. later can propose for the next one.
     Criterion (2) is "regular (not occasional) academic employment in an
American college or university. This excludes part-timers and (temporarily)
unemployed scholars, some of whom are very sharp (there but for the grace
of God go I...) and, as Frank pointed out, retirees. Do we really want to
exclude, for example, an esteemed and active scholar such as Horace Lunt?
Or Catherine Chvany? And I am sure there are equally important retired
scholars on the lit side, e.g., is Victor Terras retired?
     I can think of two reasons for this policy: 1) give the younger
scholars a better chance, by not allowing established scholars to
monopolize the roster after retirement; 2) to make selection less painful
by limiting in this way the pool of possible candidates. The first is
standard reasoning; the second is a bit touchy--but I can't say it
represents ill will; I'm sure the ACS is trying to make things work as well
as possible.
     This has turned out to be a bit of a shaggy dog posting. The main
point is, information was at least adequate, if not overabundant. A
secondary point is, given that a selection procedure is necessary, the two
eligibility criteria are at least defensible (although I personally
disagree strongly with the idea of excluding retirees).
     Let me close by thanking Michael Flier and the ACS for at least making
it pretty clear in the call for papers how the selection procedure will be
conducted. (The call for papers said that it would be based upon abstracts
exclusively; the letter fudges a bit on this, by pushing the participation
decision back to August 1996, i.e., AFTER the deadline for submitting the
actual paper, which would presumably permit the ACS to accept a larger
number of abstracts, and then evaluate the papers to separate them into
"delegates" and "alternates". This is not unreasonable.) Compare this to
the previous Congress, when I, at least, had NO IDEA that my paper would be
accepted until I got a letter from Alan Timberlake, the linguistics editor,
asking for certain revisions.
     George Fowler

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Fowler                    [Email]  gfowler at indiana.edu
Dept. of Slavic Languages        [Home]   1-317-726-1482  **Try here first**
Ballantine 502                   [Dept]   1-812-855-9906/-2624/-2608
Indiana University               [Office] 1-812-855-2829
Bloomington, IN  47405  USA      [Fax]    1-812-855-2107
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~