the native-lang. question

[Paul A. Klanderud]

I just have a few points to add regarding the Rutgers posting.

First, having read Eliot Borenstein's posting (and others'), I would now
agree that there are valid reasons for a department needing to have a native
speaker -- especially in a case such as the one Eliot mentioned (i.e., a
class full of native speakers who, for whatever reason, would have little
tolerance for someone with less-than-native command of the language [whether
or not this is a "legitimate" attitude doesn't really matter; if half the
class is going to be rolling its eyes or snickering with every linguistic
misstep, this would indeed be hell on earth for a teacher]).

And, on second thought (I hope I don't sound too much like a 1920s Soviet
writer, "distancing" himself from his earlier "mistakes"), perhaps it's just
as well that a department that truly wants only a native speaker state as
much up front.  One can assume, I think, that there have been other
positions posted for many years for which the search committee had either
specific criteria in mind (only a native speaker; only a non-native speaker;
only something else), or a specific candidate in mind (the ubiquitous
"internal candidate"), but never specified this in the job posting.  As an
example, I'm sure virtually anyone who's been on the job market at one time
can recall the dismay of learning only after an interview that the search
committee, all along, had a specific person picked out.  I for one would
much rather see "truth in advertising" along the lines of: "Although the
department has identified a qualified internal candidate, it invites
applications...."  I recall interviewing with a department that had posted
two positions; at the interview, the head of the search committee made it
clear that the other position had priority, and that only if that search
failed would they proceed to the list I was on, and I was very grateful that
their position was spelled out so frankly.

I disagree, however, that discussions of these issues are
counter-productive. Granted, as with any such "hot-button" issue (gee, maybe
I should start writing for the national news), not all contributions are
directly to the point, and personal feelings inevitably creep in.  But the
current state of affairs should not continue to be a "zamalchivaemyi fakt";
I'd even guess that some of the recent discussions in this forum and
elsewhere have, albeit indirectly, contributed to the field's increased
attention to the job question.

Finally, as to hiring "our own," as I put it earlier. By this term I
implied, and still do imply, any student -- native or non-native speaker --
educated in one of the United States' universities or colleges.  Provincial
as this may be, we should bear in mind that these are not ordinary times.
If Slavic graduate studies is to continue, and if we are to avoid more and
more closings or retrenchments of graduate programs, then I still feel that
an extra effort should be made to support the "products" of these programs.
On the other hand, if graduate studies as such is not a concern, then of
course this is a "non-issue."


Paul Klanderud