13 July 2010
President David Naylor
Simcoe Hall, Room 206
27 King’s College Circle
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5S 1A1
As an alumna of the Comparative Literature program at the University of Toronto (PhD 1986) I was stunned by the news about its impending “disestablishment.” From the scant information available it seems this was a decision based on “strategic” reasons, which seem related mostly to budgetary concerns. While everyone understands the role played by Realpolitik and economics in the life of an institution, it seems to me that even economy is a matter of more than dollars and cents. How does one put a value on an institution’s international reputation? How does one measure success in terms of student placement and influence? And, above all, how does the most prestigious university in Canada justify closing what may well be the most truly inter-disciplinary humanities graduate program in the country at the moment when other universities are scrambling to establish programs that will reflect the need for trans-national, trans-cultural, and trans-linguistic research in an increasingly globalizing world?
The Centre for Comparative Literature has not only a well established reputation and a well functioning structure, one that would be cumbersome to re-establish in the future, when renewed calls for interdisciplinarity and cross-departmental programs will inevitably be heard. Only a year ago the Centre appointed a new dynamic director; it continues to attract elite faculty from across the university, to invite prominent scholars in the field, and to attract the top of the crop of emerging literary scholars from around the globe. It is a centre for internationalization and a lifeline for exactly the type of student who will feel at home in a global world order, who will contribute to the extension of disciplinary boundaries, and who will spread the good news about the quality of learning and scholarship at the University of Toronto to the rest of the world.
The Strategic Planning Committee, in whose eyes Comparative Literature is “no longer necessary,” did not include any representative of the Centre and no consultations have been held with its members or with scholars in the discipline. I believe it was only a year or two ago that the Centre underwent an OCGS review. I am, of course, not privy to the results of that review, but if it indicated that there were grounds for such drastic action, I believe this should be made known. The rationale offered in Dean Gertler’s interview with The Torontoist is scant. He argues that Comparative Literature has made itself redundant by its early success in spreading the teaching of theory to other departments. This odd logic assumes 1) that theory is the sole raison d’être of Comparative Literature, 2) that theory is a static thing and will no longer need a Centre with access to emerging theoretical thought in many languages, and 3) that Comparative Literature is a static discipline and therefore will have nothing further to offer others in the future. All of these are faulty assumptions. Theory is indeed the foundation of the discipline, but nowhere else is theory a cornerstone for studies in multiple languages and of multiple literary traditions. (It is also rarely a field in its own right in individual language departments, where it more often becomes incorporated in the, cognate but different, field of literary criticism.) Theory is a constantly evolving field or, rather an evolving practice of reflection, perhaps the most constantly evolving field in the humanities, and only in a multilingual and multicultural intellectual environment can all of its tenets and trends be made accessible as they emerge before eventually finding their way to translation and accessibility to other fields. What was cutting edge in theory when I graduated has long been superseded and the discipline has changed. Eurocentrism has given place to a global multiculturalism and a truly transnational comparatism. The student body and the faculty now reflect a more inclusive world. Even so, Comparative Literature is still, as it was when I arrived in 1978, the only place where the study of Canadian literature in more than one language can take place. I was fortunate to be able to work in French and English. Now I notice that a recent graduate (encouraged to apply to the Centre from Queen’s) was awarded last year’s Governor General’s Gold Medal for a thesis on Inuktitut literature. Where else could she have accomplished this?
If the Centre closes, the kind of student who now competes for admission will not choose another department at the University of Toronto. She will not choose a non-degree-granting collaborative program such as the one proposed within the framework of the School of Languages and Literatures. As many of the Centre’s alumni can attest, a Comparative Literature degree is a precious commodity which gives students an edge in an increasingly tough job market. Without degree-granting powers Comparative Literature does not exist. Students will simply choose another university, most likely an American one, or possibly one of the emerging transnational fields at other Canadian universities (at Queen’s the recently established Cultural Studies program has attracted students with interdisciplinary backgrounds, a large proportion of whom are aboriginal and minority students). Comparative Literature not only attracts the cream of the crop of students with language degrees. It attracts independent thinkers who are forward-looking and who are set to change not only the discipline of Comparative Literature but to extend the boundaries of the various fields in which they will go on to work. Disciplinary boundaries are always in flux, and comparatists are uniquely placed to contend with and extend such boundaries. Comparatists are exactly the kind of change agents that are needed in a rapidly shifting academic environment.
The caliber of students attracted to the Centre is demonstrated not only by their success in job placement but also by their energetic participation in intellectual life. I have attended several of the annual international conferences organized by the students over the years and have been constantly amazed both by the quality of scholarship presented and the caliber of scholars the students manage to attract. Where else do students organize large meetings of scholars of international reputation? More to the point, perhaps, in what other venues organized by students are international scholars eager to participate? All of this speaks to the unique and valuable role played by the Centre in the world of Comparative Literature, which is, by definition, a world that extends across the globe. It also speaks to the extent of the consternation that will be felt and expressed at its loss.
Financial constraints are experienced everywhere at this moment and how they are dealt with reflects the prevailing culture in each institution. It is a crucial time of tough choices, but it would be a very sad thing if those choices were made on the basis of a balance sheet consisting only of bottom lines and short-term planning. Programs such as Comparative Literature are where the future is made. It is a discipline that, by definition, has to keep abreast of developments in the world. The university can ill stand to lose the most open and exciting window to the world that the humanities has to offer.
One of the expressed reasons for the closing is the size of the program. The rigourous requirements of a Comparative Literature degree are not available to a large number of students, and those who make it in thus constitute an elite. Elite disciplines belong in elite institutions (as a perusal of the locations of Comparative Literature programs in the US clearly shows). When a university’s decisions are based on the inverse of what should be its mission—to preserve and promote excellence—it stands in danger of losing its soul.
I firmly hope the recommendations of the Strategic Planning Committee in this matter will be reconsidered and that long-term academic considerations will prevail over short-term financial ones.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Söderlind
Professor
No comments:
Post a Comment