Int'l Congress of Slavists

[Michael Flier]

Dear Gil,

No need to petition. As I mentioned in my earlier letter, I will raise
the issue of institutional affiliation at the next meeting of the
Executive Committee of the ACS. Times are different and it is appropriate
that the ACS change with them. I'll keep you posted.

Best regards,

Michael Flier, Chairman
American Committee of Slavists


On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Gil Rappaport wrote:

> In my intermediate length experience, communication this year with regard to
> the Int'l Congress of Slavists has been by far better than ever. I think
> that there are three reasons:
>
> a) Michael Flier, chairman of the American Committee of Slavists, has done a
> conscientious job of preparing and disseminating clear and TIMELY documents,
> soliciting submissions and providing progress reports. Given budgetary and
> clerical limitations, it seems that mailings to the 25-30 (?) Ph.D. granting
> institutions PLUS publication in the AATSEEL newsletter, is pretty
> reasonable. This year was a much more open process of soliciting papers and
> providing guidelines than at least I have seen in the past.
>
> b) Several people, including at least George Fowler and Jindra Toman, have
> further disseminated Michael's call-for-papers; George spoke for himself; as
> I recall he posted Michael's original announcement on SEELANGS (and
> elsewhere?); it also appeared in Jindra's newsletter for those working on
> formal Slavic linguistics.
>
> c) The very existence and widespread access to the Internet makes secondary
> distribution (as in (b)) easy and practical.
>
> Are improvements possible? Of course. My guess is that constructive
> suggestions to Michael Flier would be seriously taken into account for the
> future. One could imagine a modestly expanded mailing list, perhaps
> including non-Ph.D. institutions from which faculty in the past had given
> papers. Or, given a Web site next time around (George's idea), the
> announcement could be briefer and cheaper to mail (to all M.A. and
> Ph.D.-granting institutions, plus some UG colleges?), highlighting deadlines
> and the WEB site for further info.
>
> Let's not forget that service to the profession can be very time-consuming
> and is not compensated. AND many elements of the process, dictated from
> outside, are incredibly Byzantine/Baroque (pick your own cultural pejorative).
>
> As for qualifications, to my mind the Ph.D.-in-hand at some reasonable point
> makes a lot of sense, for mostly obvious reasons. The `regular employment'
> does not. It smacks of double-jeopardy: if you DON'T have such a position,
> whether because of youth or seniority, you are already marginalized in some
> sense, and all the more deserve access to extra-institutional professional
> activities. It sounds like the rule has not been enforced for retirees, but
> might have been for those starting out (true?). The latter deserve a chance
> for exposure, in order to compete for a position in the future.
>
> Can we suggest to/petition the ACS that this requirement be removed?
>
> Gil Rappaport
> Univ. of Texas at Austin
>