March 29, 2023
The question of program elimination can be an opportunity for stakeholders with opposing or varying perspectives to come together, conduct discussions, and work toward consensus of some sort—whether it be for conservation, elimination, or something in between involving new configurations and agendas. Parties may articulate their concerns, their plans, their aspirations.
So far, we haven’t had that kind of discussion.
We’ve been in crisis mode, rushing here and there, putting out fires. We’ve also been attacking one another, an unfortunate dynamic that often arises in conflict—faculty attacking administrators, and v.v., and worse, faculty sometimes attacking other faculty. I’ve noticed in my 30 years in higher education that faculty can be snippy. Administrators can be smarmy. And vice versa, and everything in between. There are egos, and a lot of intelligence, an occasional dose of peacockery, many instances of immaturity—and really a whole panoply of foibles and character defects that beset any group of adults needing to rely on one another and to problem solve together in stressful conditions.
If we are to reorganize programs around “humanities,” as opposed to our current, traditional departmental arrangement, with its multitude of disciplines, a good first step would be to invite all the disciplines to some kind of planning/brainstorming/retreat-type experience in which there were guarantees of safe and non-threatening discourse, perhaps some food and drink, and some visible effort at securing both goodwill and honest sharing/analysis. That discussion hasn’t happened—at least in any kind of formal way. Collegial friendships among faculty across disciplines has, at times, led individuals to envision possibilities for new kinds of program building—at least in a sketchy, or conceivable way.
In our own case, there are natural synergies between English and Communication, particularly in the area of rhetoric and writing; likewise, synergies exist in the realm of language, textual analysis and cultural studies—a space where philosophers, historians, sociologists, linguists, and literary scholars all feel at home. We could work together towards new programs that truly draw on the considerable strengths of our current faculty in the disciplines.
We have not had such discussions in any kind of formal way because we have been busy doing our jobs. We have been teaching full loads, which only relatively recently were raised to a 4-4 load, with increased course caps; we have been building assessment plans and conducting assessments; we have been writing reports and meeting to build programs within our current frameworks. We were doing these things in an era of unprecedented stress and uncertainty, caused in equal measures by Covid (whose impacts are still in evidence), and the administration’s aggressive and toxic approach to conducting business.
The plan to eliminate our major was not on our horizon because, frankly, our numbers met all the published criteria for acceptable thresholds. In English we have 56 majors. Most (37) are English Secondary Ed—but these students are required to complete the same curriculum as the other tracks, so there seemed to be no danger in regards to the question of the demand for coursework in English. Also, our department’s contribution to General Education has historically been strong. Even as course caps were raised (to 30) we had good fill rates, and our cost per credit hour numbers for the institution made us, along with other CAS programs, a real bargain for the university.
In short, once the talk of program closing was introduced earlier this semester, many of us felt blindsided. I’m inclined to ask, belatedly, “Can we talk this over?”
Usually such talk involves curriculum committees, perhaps a task force, perhaps a sequence or series of meetings in departments and chairs council and other kinds of meetings. Instead, the process consisted of the provost and dean requiring chairs to fill out an unexpected program report, a quasi-program review with a turn-around of little more than a week or two (this report was requested despite the fact that our department had recently submitted a 50-page program review, along with a 3-page report from an external reviewer—neither of which received any acknowledgement or response from the administration, but which you may read here, once I have a moment to post the documents). As a follow-up to the new report, departments were invited to discuss “program evaluation and elimination” (the two terms yoked together in this way in the very first meeting). This meeting was suddenly announced during Spring Break, appearing in our calendars to take place the Wednesday after Spring Break—essentially giving us a 3-day notice.
This is the fire hose of life at SXU—no time for deliberation, consolidation, consensus building, and calm planning. And the experience of the meeting was not any more collegial than the manner of calling it.
The Department of Language and Literature was only one of the several departments to be brought in for an “evaluation and elimination” discussion. The consensus among the departments was that the discussions did not go well. Our debriefing included descriptions of breakdowns of every kind; a full summary would require more testimony than I can provide here. Suffice to say, the discussions were not productive.
What would productive discussions include? We need to put our heads together on our goals, our resources, our opportunities—perhaps in the usual SWOT and similar-type analysis we’ve engaged in for strategic planning in the past. But for analysis to work we need a less toxic environment than the one we currently find ourselves in. We need trust. We need time and consideration. We need to believe that if the faculty votes down curricular changes, the Board of Trustees will not simply override our decisions and make the changes anyway—and refuse to speak with us about it when we have questions or concerns. All of that has been happening in recent Board actions, repeatedly. The breakdowns in communication between the Board and faculty has become near absolute. All this, as the Higher Learning Commission is slated for a site visit next January, with the express purpose of following up on, among other things, their mandate that the Board of Trustees to undergo a development program in the area of shared governance.
There were times in the past where there existed established lines of communication between the Board and faculty. Ex officio faculty members served on various Board committees and attended meetings. Trustees were present at campus events. There was camaraderie and shared experiences, values, and understandings. Such no longer is the case—but maybe some practices can be resurrected?
What do we need to do to remedy SXU’s deficient approach to program elimination? Please write your suggestion in the comment area.