Read the letter at: http://academicplan.ca/2010/08/24/letter-to-the-academic-council/
. . .
6 August 2010
Lannor Mallon, Manager
Faculty Governance and Curriculum
Glenn Loney, Assistant Dean & Faculty Secretary and Registrar
And all members of the Academic Council
Dear colleagues,
We hope this letter and its two attachments find you well. We are sorry to write in mid-summer, in interruption of precious research- and rejuvenation time, and before membership on the Academic Council for 2010-11 is secure and its meetings are set. We trust you will communicate this message and the letters to all new members and appropriate parties.
As you will see, a group of department chairs and directors and concerned colleagues of many kinds, have written, first, to to the Governing Council and, second, to Dean Gertler to expressing concerns about the process leading up to the A&S Academic Plan, and about aspects of the Plan itself. If it were not mid-summer and time permitted, it is reasonable to assume that the lists of signatories would be rather longer. The Faculty’s recent moves to converse with unit heads and others about the changes proposed by the Strategic Planning Committee, and to reassure that a consultation process will follow, are very welcome. But we still look forward to learning about the specifics and the scope of the process, and whether, to put it bluntly, eveything will be on the table for consideration, modification if – when deemed appropriate – rejection. As such, our letters register: that we are particularly concerned by the Strategic Planning Committee’s lack of consultation with academic leaders and key stakeholders in reaching its particular recommendations and considering alternatives for addressing what we agree is a grave budgetary situation; that preparations towards implementation of the Plan have in some cases begun before discussion and approval; and that several of the elements proposed at the Plan’s core lack persuasive academic rationale and intellectual justification, or, at very least require considerable attention and development; and that, to reiterate a central point from above, it has not been demonstrated that the proposals – and not alternatives – are our best solutions to battle a deficit which we understand to be serious.
We’re aware of the integral role which your body, the Academic Council, plays in evaluating Faculty policy and procedure, and in advising the Governing Council, and thus send on these letters for your consideration at this time and going into the autumn of 2010. We would be grateful for your reassurance that they will be passed on to the AC’s membership for the next academic year.
With warm best wishes for the rest of summer and for our important discussions ahead,
Kenneth Mills and Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi
. . .
Read the letter at: http://academicplan.ca/2010/08/24/letter-to-the-academic-council/
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Letter to the Governing Council
July 22, 2010
Dear Chair Petch, Vice-Chair Nunn, President Naylor, Provost Misak and other distinguished colleagues and members of the Governing Council of the University of Toronto,
On 13 July 2010 the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences issued his Academic Plan for 2010-2015. A few days earlier some of its provisions had been transmitted to the departments involved, and concern was already being expressed. When the complete plan was circulated the major provisions and their implications created astonishment in those affected by them and among many others with overlapping academic missions: the smaller language departments conflated into a single School of Languages and Literatures, a number of Centres dismantled, including the disestablishment of the university’s internationally-known Centre for Comparative Literature. The Dean’s Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) was small and it worked without real consultation with the stakeholders whose roles it intended to change. Furthermore, the committee announced a tight schedule of deadlines by which time its recommendations were expected to be in place. Though “town hall” consultations have been promised in the fall, there is concern that these may proceed on the assumption that the Plan’s recommendations will be accepted. News about the proposed changes has already produced much national and international comment, in effect putting the reputation of the university at risk.
. . .
read the full letter at http://academicplan.ca/2010/08/24/letter-to-the-governing-council/
Dear Chair Petch, Vice-Chair Nunn, President Naylor, Provost Misak and other distinguished colleagues and members of the Governing Council of the University of Toronto,
On 13 July 2010 the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences issued his Academic Plan for 2010-2015. A few days earlier some of its provisions had been transmitted to the departments involved, and concern was already being expressed. When the complete plan was circulated the major provisions and their implications created astonishment in those affected by them and among many others with overlapping academic missions: the smaller language departments conflated into a single School of Languages and Literatures, a number of Centres dismantled, including the disestablishment of the university’s internationally-known Centre for Comparative Literature. The Dean’s Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) was small and it worked without real consultation with the stakeholders whose roles it intended to change. Furthermore, the committee announced a tight schedule of deadlines by which time its recommendations were expected to be in place. Though “town hall” consultations have been promised in the fall, there is concern that these may proceed on the assumption that the Plan’s recommendations will be accepted. News about the proposed changes has already produced much national and international comment, in effect putting the reputation of the university at risk.
. . .
read the full letter at http://academicplan.ca/2010/08/24/letter-to-the-governing-council/
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Dan Ben-Amos, University of Pennsylvania
Alarmed by the news about the impending demise of the University of Toronto Comparative Literature, I am writing to you with an urgent appeal to stop such plans on their track, reverse any action already taken, and continue your support for Comparative Literature.
I am writing to you not only as a member of the Comparative Literature Program at the University of Pennsylvania, but also as a faculty member who was himself subject for such an administrative action that terminated a distinguished scholarly program with global reputation, as a cost saving strategy, and without any consideration for the intellectual, scholarly and educational goals of the academia.
For thirty years I was a member of the Department of Folklore and Folklife of the University of Pennsylvania. The department was founded in 1967 by the distinguished ballad scholar Professor MacEdward Leach, and for the next thirty years achieved world-wide reputation. Our students became leading folklore and related disciplines scholars, assumed leading national positions in American Folklore Society and headed major national scholarly funds like the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Simon Guggenheim Foundation.
The distinction of our faculty did not go unnoticed. Other universities raided us, and without sufficient administrative support we were defenseless. Faculty attrition due to retirements also contributed to an admitted decline.
The administration considered this temporary situation as an money saving opportunity, and instead of supporting us decided to terminate the program. No faculty member was fired. We were dispersed into other departments, but the Graduate Program in Folklore and Folklife no longer exists.
Ten years after this decision was made, I am still getting inquiries from potential students from all over the world who wish to study folklore at the University of Pennsylvania. In the long run, the termination of our program did not save the University of Pennsylvania much money either.
We all are urged and would like to learn from experience. It behooves us also to learn from experience of other people and apply their lessons to our own situation. The University of Toronto has been a leading center for comparative literary studies. The faculty does not rest on the laurels of the great literary Northrop Frye. They have developed and maintained a dynamic interdisciplinary hub in which ideas are exchanged and shared by students and faculty alike. In today’s world, with the rise of new literatures in societies that have previously had only oral cultures, comparative literature offers the frameworks, theories and methods for rigorous critical studies in the humanities. Terminating such a program is a short term solution that has long terms terminal effects, from which a university as whole would not recover. I urge you to avoid the trap of short-sightedness, and take a leadership role in supporting the humanities in general and comparative literature in particular.
Sincerely,
Dan Ben-Amos, Professor
Program in Folklore and
Folklife, Chair
Comparative Literature
Program, Undergraduate Chair
I am writing to you not only as a member of the Comparative Literature Program at the University of Pennsylvania, but also as a faculty member who was himself subject for such an administrative action that terminated a distinguished scholarly program with global reputation, as a cost saving strategy, and without any consideration for the intellectual, scholarly and educational goals of the academia.
For thirty years I was a member of the Department of Folklore and Folklife of the University of Pennsylvania. The department was founded in 1967 by the distinguished ballad scholar Professor MacEdward Leach, and for the next thirty years achieved world-wide reputation. Our students became leading folklore and related disciplines scholars, assumed leading national positions in American Folklore Society and headed major national scholarly funds like the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Simon Guggenheim Foundation.
The distinction of our faculty did not go unnoticed. Other universities raided us, and without sufficient administrative support we were defenseless. Faculty attrition due to retirements also contributed to an admitted decline.
The administration considered this temporary situation as an money saving opportunity, and instead of supporting us decided to terminate the program. No faculty member was fired. We were dispersed into other departments, but the Graduate Program in Folklore and Folklife no longer exists.
Ten years after this decision was made, I am still getting inquiries from potential students from all over the world who wish to study folklore at the University of Pennsylvania. In the long run, the termination of our program did not save the University of Pennsylvania much money either.
We all are urged and would like to learn from experience. It behooves us also to learn from experience of other people and apply their lessons to our own situation. The University of Toronto has been a leading center for comparative literary studies. The faculty does not rest on the laurels of the great literary Northrop Frye. They have developed and maintained a dynamic interdisciplinary hub in which ideas are exchanged and shared by students and faculty alike. In today’s world, with the rise of new literatures in societies that have previously had only oral cultures, comparative literature offers the frameworks, theories and methods for rigorous critical studies in the humanities. Terminating such a program is a short term solution that has long terms terminal effects, from which a university as whole would not recover. I urge you to avoid the trap of short-sightedness, and take a leadership role in supporting the humanities in general and comparative literature in particular.
Sincerely,
Dan Ben-Amos, Professor
Program in Folklore and
Folklife, Chair
Comparative Literature
Program, Undergraduate Chair
Monday, August 16, 2010
William Ferris, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dear Dean Gertler,
I was shocked to learn that the University of Toronto has recommended that the Centre for Comparative Literature be “disestablished” as of 2011. The Centre, founded in 1969 by Northrop Frye, is the premier site for the study of comparative literature in Canada, and the home of three past presidents of the Modern Language Association of America (Northrop Frye, Mario Valdés, and Linda Hutcheon). The Centre will no longer be able to admit students to the PhD or MA degrees, and it will be reduced to a collaborative, non-degree-granting program in a School for Languages and Literatures. Such a move has grave implications for the role of literature and the humanities in the academy.
In today’s globalized, multicultural world, the discipline of comparative literature is more important than ever. Because of its crossing of cultural, disciplinary and linguistic borders, and its self-reflexive and critical modes of thinking about literature and culture, the research nurtured by the Centre’s faculty and students is crucial for a full engagement with the complexities of a multinational world, and it has important implications for the practice of other disciplines. Such research cannot be done in national language and literature departments.
When I served as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1997-2001, I strongly supported our nation’s interdisciplinary centres. These programs are uniquely qualified to address the complex issues our society faces today. You have a critically important resource that builds on the legacy of Northrop Frye and brings international recognition to the University of Toronto.
I urge you to reverse the recommendation to close the Centre and to strongly support the long international tradition of excellence and innovation of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto.
Sincerely,
William Ferris
Center for the Study of the American South
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
410 East Franklin Street, CB # 9127
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9127
I was shocked to learn that the University of Toronto has recommended that the Centre for Comparative Literature be “disestablished” as of 2011. The Centre, founded in 1969 by Northrop Frye, is the premier site for the study of comparative literature in Canada, and the home of three past presidents of the Modern Language Association of America (Northrop Frye, Mario Valdés, and Linda Hutcheon). The Centre will no longer be able to admit students to the PhD or MA degrees, and it will be reduced to a collaborative, non-degree-granting program in a School for Languages and Literatures. Such a move has grave implications for the role of literature and the humanities in the academy.
In today’s globalized, multicultural world, the discipline of comparative literature is more important than ever. Because of its crossing of cultural, disciplinary and linguistic borders, and its self-reflexive and critical modes of thinking about literature and culture, the research nurtured by the Centre’s faculty and students is crucial for a full engagement with the complexities of a multinational world, and it has important implications for the practice of other disciplines. Such research cannot be done in national language and literature departments.
When I served as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1997-2001, I strongly supported our nation’s interdisciplinary centres. These programs are uniquely qualified to address the complex issues our society faces today. You have a critically important resource that builds on the legacy of Northrop Frye and brings international recognition to the University of Toronto.
I urge you to reverse the recommendation to close the Centre and to strongly support the long international tradition of excellence and innovation of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto.
Sincerely,
William Ferris
Center for the Study of the American South
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
410 East Franklin Street, CB # 9127
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9127
Eva Kushner, Emerita, University of Toronto, response to Dean Gertler
Dear Dean Gertler,
thank you for answering my letter of July 12 to President Naylor. Your letter rightly draws my attention to the Academic Plan in its entirety and to the forthcoming discussions. These matters have been fully covered in much many-sided recent correspondence in which I have also taken part.
Today I wish once more to draw your attention to the particular case of the Centre for Comparative Literature, for a very specific reason. At this very moment the Executive Council of the International Comparative Literature Association is meeting near Seoul, South Korea, in preparation for the congress of the Association which will begin, in Seoul, in a few days. The International Federation for Modern Languages and Literatures, of which the I.C.L.A is a member in what I like to call the "UNESCO pyramid" of international learned societies, is also holding a meeting there. Many of the colleagues participating in these meetings are aware of the situation of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto because of a multiplicity of reciprocal ties. If the pressure on the Centre continues, the image of the University of Toronto is bound to be affected in the eyes of the international Comparative Literature community, for two reasons mainly: the dismantling of the doctoral program, and the implication that Comparative Literature in its integrity is not an essential discipline at an excellent University. Please believe that I am not dramatizing. I sincerely hope that this particular case (among all the others with which I realize the Faculty is faced) can be creatively and constructively handled in direct consultation with those affected by the proposed plan.
With apologies for disturbing you at this time, and many thanks for your attention
Eva Kushner, O.C., F.R.S.C.
thank you for answering my letter of July 12 to President Naylor. Your letter rightly draws my attention to the Academic Plan in its entirety and to the forthcoming discussions. These matters have been fully covered in much many-sided recent correspondence in which I have also taken part.
Today I wish once more to draw your attention to the particular case of the Centre for Comparative Literature, for a very specific reason. At this very moment the Executive Council of the International Comparative Literature Association is meeting near Seoul, South Korea, in preparation for the congress of the Association which will begin, in Seoul, in a few days. The International Federation for Modern Languages and Literatures, of which the I.C.L.A is a member in what I like to call the "UNESCO pyramid" of international learned societies, is also holding a meeting there. Many of the colleagues participating in these meetings are aware of the situation of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto because of a multiplicity of reciprocal ties. If the pressure on the Centre continues, the image of the University of Toronto is bound to be affected in the eyes of the international Comparative Literature community, for two reasons mainly: the dismantling of the doctoral program, and the implication that Comparative Literature in its integrity is not an essential discipline at an excellent University. Please believe that I am not dramatizing. I sincerely hope that this particular case (among all the others with which I realize the Faculty is faced) can be creatively and constructively handled in direct consultation with those affected by the proposed plan.
With apologies for disturbing you at this time, and many thanks for your attention
Eva Kushner, O.C., F.R.S.C.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University
Dear President Naylor:
I am writing to you about your decision to integrate Comparative Literature into a larger school of Language and Literature and to take away the possibility of the Comparative Literature Ph.D. at the University of Toronto. Your university was kind enough to award me an honorary doctorate in 2000 and I therefore write with the added concern of an alumna.
There is no need to remind you of the extraordinary record of Comparative Literature at Toronto. I will simply speak to the absolute need to train students of the quality associated with Toronto precisely in Comparative Literature, especially as it is beginning to integrate areas of the world emphasized by the ongoing process of globalization.
Rightly or wrongly, we in the United States associate Canada, especially eastern Canada, and perhaps particularly the University of Toronto, as the custodian of the more humane virtues associated with a democratic polity. In this mission, deep language learning in a mode of diversity is a crucial requirement. The practice of reading literary texts in original languages establishes the affinity between peoples through the depth of imaginative training and an other-directed reading practice--an inhabiting of other worlds and cultures--that fuels the ethical capacity of the humanities. It is my experience, after forty-five years of full-time university teaching, that this training will not be rigorous if it doesn’t come through the doctoral process that a university such as yours provides. National language training, and/or heritage language training simply is not a substitute. Comparativism is not merely the learning of many languages, but training in an approach or in approaches that lead us to the perception of a just world.
This kind of training will never generate income for the university directly. Think of it as epistemological and ethical health care for the society at large. We have come to expect fully prepared global citizens and leaders from you. Indeed, rather than close operations, your university should find ways of making Comparative Literature a more attractive choice for interested students so that the number of such persons in society increases significantly.
I write this letter in confidence and hope and look forward to a positive response.
Sincerely yours,
--
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
University Professor in the Humanities
Columbia University
I am writing to you about your decision to integrate Comparative Literature into a larger school of Language and Literature and to take away the possibility of the Comparative Literature Ph.D. at the University of Toronto. Your university was kind enough to award me an honorary doctorate in 2000 and I therefore write with the added concern of an alumna.
There is no need to remind you of the extraordinary record of Comparative Literature at Toronto. I will simply speak to the absolute need to train students of the quality associated with Toronto precisely in Comparative Literature, especially as it is beginning to integrate areas of the world emphasized by the ongoing process of globalization.
Rightly or wrongly, we in the United States associate Canada, especially eastern Canada, and perhaps particularly the University of Toronto, as the custodian of the more humane virtues associated with a democratic polity. In this mission, deep language learning in a mode of diversity is a crucial requirement. The practice of reading literary texts in original languages establishes the affinity between peoples through the depth of imaginative training and an other-directed reading practice--an inhabiting of other worlds and cultures--that fuels the ethical capacity of the humanities. It is my experience, after forty-five years of full-time university teaching, that this training will not be rigorous if it doesn’t come through the doctoral process that a university such as yours provides. National language training, and/or heritage language training simply is not a substitute. Comparativism is not merely the learning of many languages, but training in an approach or in approaches that lead us to the perception of a just world.
This kind of training will never generate income for the university directly. Think of it as epistemological and ethical health care for the society at large. We have come to expect fully prepared global citizens and leaders from you. Indeed, rather than close operations, your university should find ways of making Comparative Literature a more attractive choice for interested students so that the number of such persons in society increases significantly.
I write this letter in confidence and hope and look forward to a positive response.
Sincerely yours,
--
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
University Professor in the Humanities
Columbia University
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Roland Le Huenen, University of Toronto
Saint-Pierre et Miquelon
August 11, 2010
President David Naylor
Simcoe Hall
University of Toronto
Cc: Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Meric Gertler, Prof. Neil ten Kortennar, savecomplit
Re : the disestablishment of the Centre for Comparative Literature
Dear President Naylor,
I have from the start endorsed the petition by the students of the Centre for Comparative Literature who oppose the decision to disestablish the Centre. If I have refrained from writing until now, it is because I know too well that my status as former director, instead of helping the cause of the Centre, could have been perceived as supporting partisan motivation. As the Bible says “no man is a prophet in his own country”. Now that the national and international academic community, through a petition of more than 6000 signatures and numerous letters addressed to you, has had the opportunity to express its views, I join my voice to theirs to denounce a shocking and ill-advised decision.
I do not intend to offer a full defense for the Centre. Many excellent arguments have already been provided in the letters which were sent to you, and I do not want to repeat what was previously so well said. Drawing on my experience as a former director, I simply wish to add a few remarks.
Far from being an ad hoc program which would serve a specific and temporary purpose, as the decanal decision seems to imply, the Centre was created under the leadership of Northrop Frye more than 40 years ago, to be the locus of a discipline which appeared in the 1830s in Europe before being taught at Harvard University at the end of the 19th century. Since then, Comparative Literature programs have flourished in the best universities around the world and especially in the US. What is unique to Comparative Literature as a discipline is that it allows a dialogue among national literatures, with the arts and other disciplines from the angle of cultural inquiries. Furthermore, it reflects upon and theorizes its own practice. If theory has to some extent penetrated the language and literature departments at the University of Toronto, it is certainly not present in these units to the same depth and with the same purpose as it is in Comparative Literature. In addition, the Centre is the only academic unit at the University of Toronto where graduate students can pursue research on several national literatures in the original languages. Since its inception in 1969, the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto has been a highly dynamic and productive academic unit, praised for the quality of its programs, the excellence of its faculty, teaching and research. It has always attracted top students from Canada and abroad where it contributes to enhance the reputation of the University. One has not to take my word for this, but simply to look at where the signatures on the petition are coming from and where the letters which were sent to you originated. Moreover, the large number of applications the Centre receives each year from abroad confirms how well it is regarded in foreign academic circles. Along the years the Centre has acknowledged the changes that occurred in the discipline, introduced new methodologies, promoted interdisciplinary inquiry and teaching, and went beyond its Eurocentric origins to welcome seminars and research in Asian, Latin American, African literature and culture. Remaining at the forefront of cross-cultural exchange, literary theory and innovative inquiry, the Centre for Comparative Literature is not simply another unit in the Faculty of Arts and Science, but stands at the very heart of the Humanities at the University of Toronto. Recommending its disestablishment is not only ill-advised, it is an absurd attack against academic excellence, a crime against Humanities. Such a move would deeply hurt the reputation of the University of Toronto in Canada and abroad.
I urge you to reconsider such a short-sighted and counterproductive decision.
Sincerely,
Roland Le Huenen, D. Lit (honoris causa), FRSC
Professor of French and Comparative Literature
Former Director of COL (1998-2009)
University of Toronto
August 11, 2010
President David Naylor
Simcoe Hall
University of Toronto
Cc: Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Meric Gertler, Prof. Neil ten Kortennar, savecomplit
Re : the disestablishment of the Centre for Comparative Literature
Dear President Naylor,
I have from the start endorsed the petition by the students of the Centre for Comparative Literature who oppose the decision to disestablish the Centre. If I have refrained from writing until now, it is because I know too well that my status as former director, instead of helping the cause of the Centre, could have been perceived as supporting partisan motivation. As the Bible says “no man is a prophet in his own country”. Now that the national and international academic community, through a petition of more than 6000 signatures and numerous letters addressed to you, has had the opportunity to express its views, I join my voice to theirs to denounce a shocking and ill-advised decision.
I do not intend to offer a full defense for the Centre. Many excellent arguments have already been provided in the letters which were sent to you, and I do not want to repeat what was previously so well said. Drawing on my experience as a former director, I simply wish to add a few remarks.
Far from being an ad hoc program which would serve a specific and temporary purpose, as the decanal decision seems to imply, the Centre was created under the leadership of Northrop Frye more than 40 years ago, to be the locus of a discipline which appeared in the 1830s in Europe before being taught at Harvard University at the end of the 19th century. Since then, Comparative Literature programs have flourished in the best universities around the world and especially in the US. What is unique to Comparative Literature as a discipline is that it allows a dialogue among national literatures, with the arts and other disciplines from the angle of cultural inquiries. Furthermore, it reflects upon and theorizes its own practice. If theory has to some extent penetrated the language and literature departments at the University of Toronto, it is certainly not present in these units to the same depth and with the same purpose as it is in Comparative Literature. In addition, the Centre is the only academic unit at the University of Toronto where graduate students can pursue research on several national literatures in the original languages. Since its inception in 1969, the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto has been a highly dynamic and productive academic unit, praised for the quality of its programs, the excellence of its faculty, teaching and research. It has always attracted top students from Canada and abroad where it contributes to enhance the reputation of the University. One has not to take my word for this, but simply to look at where the signatures on the petition are coming from and where the letters which were sent to you originated. Moreover, the large number of applications the Centre receives each year from abroad confirms how well it is regarded in foreign academic circles. Along the years the Centre has acknowledged the changes that occurred in the discipline, introduced new methodologies, promoted interdisciplinary inquiry and teaching, and went beyond its Eurocentric origins to welcome seminars and research in Asian, Latin American, African literature and culture. Remaining at the forefront of cross-cultural exchange, literary theory and innovative inquiry, the Centre for Comparative Literature is not simply another unit in the Faculty of Arts and Science, but stands at the very heart of the Humanities at the University of Toronto. Recommending its disestablishment is not only ill-advised, it is an absurd attack against academic excellence, a crime against Humanities. Such a move would deeply hurt the reputation of the University of Toronto in Canada and abroad.
I urge you to reconsider such a short-sighted and counterproductive decision.
Sincerely,
Roland Le Huenen, D. Lit (honoris causa), FRSC
Professor of French and Comparative Literature
Former Director of COL (1998-2009)
University of Toronto
Monday, August 9, 2010
CUPE Local 3902, University of Toronto
Dear Dean Meric Gertler:
CC: President David Naylor, Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Brian Corman, savecomplit@gmail.com, uteau@lists.cupe.ca
On behalf of the over 7,000 members of CUPE 3902, we are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Academic Plan and the process by which it was developed. This plan has had a deeply unsettling effect on many of our members as they contemplate the possible elimination of the departments and programs where they study and work.
Last October you formed a non-transparent committee composed entirely of administrators and tenured faculty to develop the FAS Academic Plan. Despite the obvious and predominant presence of our members as instructors, teaching assistants, and students in the departments evaluated, no CUPE 3902 member was included on this committee. As a result of the exclusion of CUPE 3902 members and thousands of other students and non-teaching staff, the committee has produced a plan that is wildly out of touch with the needs and perspectives of the broader University community. In a pattern that is becoming disturbingly prevalent, FAS chose to develop the plan first and consult with the community second. If FAS hopes to obtain the consent of the members of CUPE 3902 and other members of the University community, then we must be brought into the planning process in a meaningful way at its inception.
As a result of a very flawed planning process, the FAS Academic Plan has produced a series of proposals that cuts some of the most dynamic and effective programs at the University. The creation of a School of Languages and Literatures will regress to a thoroughly outdated model of language instruction. The elimination of East Asian Studies will dismantle one of the most treasured Departments at the University where scholars are undertaking research and teaching that cuts across disciplinary and national boundaries. Likewise, the elimination of the Centre for Comparative Literature will cut a locus of important interdisciplinary study and one of the most storied programs at the University. The elimination of the newly formed Centre for Ethics terminates what was quickly becoming an innovative cluster for scholars from across the University who are interested in ethical questions. These are just a few of the devastating effects that the FAS Academic Plan will have on innovative teaching and study at the University of Toronto. In addition, the proposed changes have badly damaged the reputation of the University resulting in scathing accounts in the Globe and Mail and the Chronicle of Higher Education and vocal dissent by prominent academics from around the world.
We believe that the FAS Academic Plan is fundamentally flawed and that none of the proposed changes and cuts should be made. A committee should be created that is representative of the University community. This committee should engage in meaningful consultation with the campus community before developing a plan. We understand the challenges facing FAS, but we believe the best way to address these challenges is through an inclusive and consultative planning process. If such a process is not undertaken, then the members of CUPE 3902 will actively oppose the FAS Academic Plan as an attack on their workplace and learning environment. We await your invitation to help develop a fair and workable plan and, as always, can be reached at the above address and phone number.
Sincerely,
The Executive of CUPE 3902
CC: President David Naylor, Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Brian Corman, savecomplit@gmail.com, uteau@lists.cupe.ca
On behalf of the over 7,000 members of CUPE 3902, we are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Academic Plan and the process by which it was developed. This plan has had a deeply unsettling effect on many of our members as they contemplate the possible elimination of the departments and programs where they study and work.
Last October you formed a non-transparent committee composed entirely of administrators and tenured faculty to develop the FAS Academic Plan. Despite the obvious and predominant presence of our members as instructors, teaching assistants, and students in the departments evaluated, no CUPE 3902 member was included on this committee. As a result of the exclusion of CUPE 3902 members and thousands of other students and non-teaching staff, the committee has produced a plan that is wildly out of touch with the needs and perspectives of the broader University community. In a pattern that is becoming disturbingly prevalent, FAS chose to develop the plan first and consult with the community second. If FAS hopes to obtain the consent of the members of CUPE 3902 and other members of the University community, then we must be brought into the planning process in a meaningful way at its inception.
As a result of a very flawed planning process, the FAS Academic Plan has produced a series of proposals that cuts some of the most dynamic and effective programs at the University. The creation of a School of Languages and Literatures will regress to a thoroughly outdated model of language instruction. The elimination of East Asian Studies will dismantle one of the most treasured Departments at the University where scholars are undertaking research and teaching that cuts across disciplinary and national boundaries. Likewise, the elimination of the Centre for Comparative Literature will cut a locus of important interdisciplinary study and one of the most storied programs at the University. The elimination of the newly formed Centre for Ethics terminates what was quickly becoming an innovative cluster for scholars from across the University who are interested in ethical questions. These are just a few of the devastating effects that the FAS Academic Plan will have on innovative teaching and study at the University of Toronto. In addition, the proposed changes have badly damaged the reputation of the University resulting in scathing accounts in the Globe and Mail and the Chronicle of Higher Education and vocal dissent by prominent academics from around the world.
We believe that the FAS Academic Plan is fundamentally flawed and that none of the proposed changes and cuts should be made. A committee should be created that is representative of the University community. This committee should engage in meaningful consultation with the campus community before developing a plan. We understand the challenges facing FAS, but we believe the best way to address these challenges is through an inclusive and consultative planning process. If such a process is not undertaken, then the members of CUPE 3902 will actively oppose the FAS Academic Plan as an attack on their workplace and learning environment. We await your invitation to help develop a fair and workable plan and, as always, can be reached at the above address and phone number.
Sincerely,
The Executive of CUPE 3902
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Lubomir Dolezel, emeritus, University of Toronto
Lago di Garda, Italy, August 2, 2010.
Dear President Naylor:
I have learned quite late about a proposal advanced by the Strategic Planning Committee (?) of the University of Toronto to merge the Centre for Comparative Literature with the proposed School of Languages and Literatures (?). As a former faculty member of the Centre, cross-apointed in 1982 from the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, I am greatly alarmed by this proposal. Since its inception by Northrop Frye, the Centre has survived many and deep changes in the conception and philosophy of the study of literature. It has thrived on these changes, both by promoting them and critically assessing them. What I found exciting about teaching at the Centre was the energy, devotion, curiosity and creativity of both its faculty and its students. Students of the Centre have been very positively influenced by this atmosphere and are, as alumni still devoted to the institution of their maturation. A merger with the proposed School would most likely destroy this atmosphere and repudiate possible students-candidates.
What should also be considered is the national and international importance of the Centre. It has been seen as a true centre of Canadian humanities and its transformation would be felt as another severe loss for the Canadian humanistic studies. Internationally, the Centre has been known for its scholarly achievements, and its international reputation can, I believe, match any department or institute of the University of Toronto. The contacts with the international research of literature has been mutual: papers and books of the faculty and advanced doctoral students have been read all over the globe and often translated into several foreign languages; on the other hand, internationally renowned scholars were attracted to the Centre as visiting scholars or Northrop Frye visiting professors. It is in these mutual contacts that the study of literature as an artistic cultural activity has flourished at the Centre.
For these (and not only these) reasons, I cannot but join the former director of the Centre, professor Peter Nesselroth in pleading with you: “If the university is truly commited to excellence, it should seriously reconsider this ill-advised recommendation”.
Sincerely yours,
Lubomir Dolezel
Professor Emeritus of Slavic and Comparative Literature
Dear President Naylor:
I have learned quite late about a proposal advanced by the Strategic Planning Committee (?) of the University of Toronto to merge the Centre for Comparative Literature with the proposed School of Languages and Literatures (?). As a former faculty member of the Centre, cross-apointed in 1982 from the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, I am greatly alarmed by this proposal. Since its inception by Northrop Frye, the Centre has survived many and deep changes in the conception and philosophy of the study of literature. It has thrived on these changes, both by promoting them and critically assessing them. What I found exciting about teaching at the Centre was the energy, devotion, curiosity and creativity of both its faculty and its students. Students of the Centre have been very positively influenced by this atmosphere and are, as alumni still devoted to the institution of their maturation. A merger with the proposed School would most likely destroy this atmosphere and repudiate possible students-candidates.
What should also be considered is the national and international importance of the Centre. It has been seen as a true centre of Canadian humanities and its transformation would be felt as another severe loss for the Canadian humanistic studies. Internationally, the Centre has been known for its scholarly achievements, and its international reputation can, I believe, match any department or institute of the University of Toronto. The contacts with the international research of literature has been mutual: papers and books of the faculty and advanced doctoral students have been read all over the globe and often translated into several foreign languages; on the other hand, internationally renowned scholars were attracted to the Centre as visiting scholars or Northrop Frye visiting professors. It is in these mutual contacts that the study of literature as an artistic cultural activity has flourished at the Centre.
For these (and not only these) reasons, I cannot but join the former director of the Centre, professor Peter Nesselroth in pleading with you: “If the university is truly commited to excellence, it should seriously reconsider this ill-advised recommendation”.
Sincerely yours,
Lubomir Dolezel
Professor Emeritus of Slavic and Comparative Literature
Margaret Atwood
Margaret Atwood
c/o McClelland & Stewart
75 Sherbourne St., 5th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5A 2P9
President David Naylor
University of Toronto
Simcoe Hall, Room 206
27 King's College Circle
Toronto, ON
M5S 1A1
CC. Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Meric Gertler, Professor Neil ten Kortenaar,
Re. Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto
July 27, 2010
Dear President Naylor,
I am writing to express my disappointment and frustration with the recommendation of the University of Toronto's Strategic Planning Committee to disestablish the Centre of Comparative Literature in 2011. As you may know, I was a student at Victoria College and studied under Northrop Frye. My admiration for his scholarship, and the work done at the centre he founded, is longstanding.
But the reasons I urge for a reconsideration of this decision are not simply nostalgic. This is a time in which cross-cultural trends are increasing exponentially; interdisciplinary study is booming, and globalization is the watchword of the day. To shunt students off to various linguistic departments instead of permitting conversation and collaboration in a central space is both counterintuitive and short-sighted. This is precisely the wrong time to make a decision of this kind, and would indeed reflect very poorly on the university overall. The University of Toronto, I know, prides itself on being able to dialogue with many of the top universities across our southern border and around the world. The Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto is the only one of its kind in our country. While I understand the temptation to save a few bucks with this closure, I urge you instead to heed the loud reminders (available to read at www.savecomplit.ca) that the costs of closing the Centre might be greater than the University of Toronto can afford.
Sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
c/o McClelland & Stewart
75 Sherbourne St., 5th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5A 2P9
President David Naylor
University of Toronto
Simcoe Hall, Room 206
27 King's College Circle
Toronto, ON
M5S 1A1
CC. Provost Cheryl Misak, Dean Meric Gertler, Professor Neil ten Kortenaar,
Re. Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto
July 27, 2010
Dear President Naylor,
I am writing to express my disappointment and frustration with the recommendation of the University of Toronto's Strategic Planning Committee to disestablish the Centre of Comparative Literature in 2011. As you may know, I was a student at Victoria College and studied under Northrop Frye. My admiration for his scholarship, and the work done at the centre he founded, is longstanding.
But the reasons I urge for a reconsideration of this decision are not simply nostalgic. This is a time in which cross-cultural trends are increasing exponentially; interdisciplinary study is booming, and globalization is the watchword of the day. To shunt students off to various linguistic departments instead of permitting conversation and collaboration in a central space is both counterintuitive and short-sighted. This is precisely the wrong time to make a decision of this kind, and would indeed reflect very poorly on the university overall. The University of Toronto, I know, prides itself on being able to dialogue with many of the top universities across our southern border and around the world. The Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto is the only one of its kind in our country. While I understand the temptation to save a few bucks with this closure, I urge you instead to heed the loud reminders (available to read at www.savecomplit.ca) that the costs of closing the Centre might be greater than the University of Toronto can afford.
Sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Madelaine Hron, Wilfred Laurier University
Dear Dean Meric,
Thank you for your Email dated Aug 4th, 2010, in response to my Email to the President, dated July 14th, 2010. It appears however, that you did not read my Email – I did not write to you with regards to the East Asian Studies program. I wrote to you with regards to the proposed amalgamation of modern literatures (East Asian Studies included), and in particular, the elimination of the Center for Comparative Literature!
While I am glad to hear your assurances – with regards to the East Asian Studies program – that there are “governance processes of the University of Toronto, which will provide further opportunities for discussion and debate”; that “the views and concerns of all relevant stakeholders are part of the deliberation on the proposals”; that there will be “full public discussion of the plan and its detailed proposals” and “[b]oth the proposals themselves and the nature of any alternative structures will be fully and genuinely deliberated upon,” I certainly hope that these assurances also extend to the Center for Comparative Literature and the proposed School of Languages and Literatures as a whole. I also sincerely hope that these assurances are not empty rhetoric, and that you listen better to the concerns of your stakeholders, than you did to mine in my Email.
Since it appears you did not register my concerns the first time around, I reiterate them here again. Firstly, I will address the most egregious part of your plan: the proposed disestablishment of the Center of Comparative Literature, and the rational thereof. Your reasoning to close the center – that it was “successful” and hence dispensable, because its methodologies have now been incorporated by other disciplines – is simply ridiculous, and demonstrates that you have little understanding of the field of Comparative Literature! To give you an analogy, since you are so fond of them (e.g., “sacred cow” in Globe and Mail; “moving furniture” in Chronicle of Higher Education), your rationale is analogous to proposing the disestablishment of the department of mathematics because mathematical modules have been incorporated into the fields of physics, chemistry, computer programming, business, engineering or geography! As a scientist, you know that a gifted mathematician could indeed be of value in various fields – yet it would never occur to any administrator to eliminate the study of mathematics at any leading university, no matter the profit margin!
To give you an example of the value and practical (read “profitable”) application of a Comparative Literature degree, I take myself as example. Not because I am some kind of superstar, but because I am your typical Comparative Literature PhD (read “polymath”). After studying in the modern languages and literatures department at the University of Alberta, I completed a Comparative Literature PhD at the University of Michigan; I specialized in Slavics and Francophone literatures. However, I have taught in such different departments/programs as women’s studies, global studies, arts in society, as well as French and Comparative Literature. Currently, I teach English literature in the English and Film Studies Department at Laurier. It is an interesting development, really – because only took two English classes as an undergraduate/graduate student: English 101 and a queer theory grad course! Nonetheless, I was hired into the department because of my ability to research in and teach literary and narrative approaches, as well as cultural studies, global studies and postcolonial studies in relation to English. I obviously did a decent job, because I now have tenure. Don’t tell me that if I studied in a Slavics department, or in a French department, I would now be teaching in an English department, or have taught in so many other academic units...
As far as the Center for Comparative Literature is concerned, it is one of the few existing places in Canada where you can obtain an MA or PhD in the field. Moreover it has a lengthy, prestigious reputation, with Northrop Frye as its founder. You thus have the opportunity to brand, market and sell a unique “center of excellence” – instead however, you are choosing to disestablish it? I know you are driven by immediate fiscal concerns (and suspect that instead of replacing retiring Dr. Hutcheon with another brilliant super-star scholar, you could create three “new” tenure track hires somewhere else), but is the risk – of losing U. of Toronto’s uniqueness, prestige and reputation for humanistic research – really worth a $1.5 million dollar deficit reduction?
Your plan to amalgamate the literary departments is similarly short-sighted. I feel you are driven by a “copy-cat” impulse – that other literature departments in Canadian universities have been amalgamated – rather than by any real knowledge of how literature/language departments work, or by any commitment to high-quality scholarship in these areas. I know something about the study of languages and literatures; I am fluent in eight languages. I learned some of these languages at “study abroad” sessions, some on my own, some in amalgamated language/literature units, and a few in free-standing literature departments. Amalgamated literature/language units and “study abroad” sessions are just fine to learn a language – because their focus is on acquiring language skills and "fulfilling the second language requirement.” When choosing to study these literatures at an advanced, graduate level however, I only applied to universities with various free-standing literature departments, as I knew the quality would be much higher there because these literatures would be studied in the context of history, geography, culture and politics and because there would be dedicated scholars and specialists there, not just numerous adjunct language instructors, with a few token faculty scholars. I suspect you know all of this, (since you are not including English, French or Near Eastern studies in your proposed School of Languages and Literatures), but if you want to attract high-calibre scholars and students and maintain excellence in research and teaching in languages and literatures, you must retain free-standing literature departments.
As I’ve stated in my previous Email, I am neither an alumnus nor a former employee of the University of Toronto. I am simply a Canadian scholar who has always looked up to the University of Toronto as a world-class institution, and was never hesitant to share this laudatory opinion with my international colleagues. Similarly, I was also never hesitant to encourage my best and brightest students to consider University of Toronto’s graduate programmes, though personally I never considered it for my own studies, because I found it too conservative. If this restructuring proposal goes through however, I will no longer support the University of Toronto. On the contrary, I will be sure to inform all of my students, colleagues and possible University of Toronto donors, how, specifically, the University of Toronto threatens humanities scholarship in Canada.
In all, though you clearly did not read my previous Email, I am encouraged by your assuasive rhetoric, which seems to suggest that you are reconsidering your planned restructuring of the humanities in your Faculty, at least as far as East Asian Studies are concerned. Again, I sincerely do indeed hope that your assurances are not mere rhetoric. I urge you abandon this myopic plan, especially as far as the creation of an amalgamated School of Languages and Literatures and the closure of the Center of Comparative Literature are concerned.
Sincerely,
Madelaine Hron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Madelaine HRON
Associate Prof., English & Film Dept.,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ON, N2L 3C5, CANADA
(519) 884-0710 ext 2949
Thank you for your Email dated Aug 4th, 2010, in response to my Email to the President, dated July 14th, 2010. It appears however, that you did not read my Email – I did not write to you with regards to the East Asian Studies program. I wrote to you with regards to the proposed amalgamation of modern literatures (East Asian Studies included), and in particular, the elimination of the Center for Comparative Literature!
While I am glad to hear your assurances – with regards to the East Asian Studies program – that there are “governance processes of the University of Toronto, which will provide further opportunities for discussion and debate”; that “the views and concerns of all relevant stakeholders are part of the deliberation on the proposals”; that there will be “full public discussion of the plan and its detailed proposals” and “[b]oth the proposals themselves and the nature of any alternative structures will be fully and genuinely deliberated upon,” I certainly hope that these assurances also extend to the Center for Comparative Literature and the proposed School of Languages and Literatures as a whole. I also sincerely hope that these assurances are not empty rhetoric, and that you listen better to the concerns of your stakeholders, than you did to mine in my Email.
Since it appears you did not register my concerns the first time around, I reiterate them here again. Firstly, I will address the most egregious part of your plan: the proposed disestablishment of the Center of Comparative Literature, and the rational thereof. Your reasoning to close the center – that it was “successful” and hence dispensable, because its methodologies have now been incorporated by other disciplines – is simply ridiculous, and demonstrates that you have little understanding of the field of Comparative Literature! To give you an analogy, since you are so fond of them (e.g., “sacred cow” in Globe and Mail; “moving furniture” in Chronicle of Higher Education), your rationale is analogous to proposing the disestablishment of the department of mathematics because mathematical modules have been incorporated into the fields of physics, chemistry, computer programming, business, engineering or geography! As a scientist, you know that a gifted mathematician could indeed be of value in various fields – yet it would never occur to any administrator to eliminate the study of mathematics at any leading university, no matter the profit margin!
To give you an example of the value and practical (read “profitable”) application of a Comparative Literature degree, I take myself as example. Not because I am some kind of superstar, but because I am your typical Comparative Literature PhD (read “polymath”). After studying in the modern languages and literatures department at the University of Alberta, I completed a Comparative Literature PhD at the University of Michigan; I specialized in Slavics and Francophone literatures. However, I have taught in such different departments/programs as women’s studies, global studies, arts in society, as well as French and Comparative Literature. Currently, I teach English literature in the English and Film Studies Department at Laurier. It is an interesting development, really – because only took two English classes as an undergraduate/graduate student: English 101 and a queer theory grad course! Nonetheless, I was hired into the department because of my ability to research in and teach literary and narrative approaches, as well as cultural studies, global studies and postcolonial studies in relation to English. I obviously did a decent job, because I now have tenure. Don’t tell me that if I studied in a Slavics department, or in a French department, I would now be teaching in an English department, or have taught in so many other academic units...
As far as the Center for Comparative Literature is concerned, it is one of the few existing places in Canada where you can obtain an MA or PhD in the field. Moreover it has a lengthy, prestigious reputation, with Northrop Frye as its founder. You thus have the opportunity to brand, market and sell a unique “center of excellence” – instead however, you are choosing to disestablish it? I know you are driven by immediate fiscal concerns (and suspect that instead of replacing retiring Dr. Hutcheon with another brilliant super-star scholar, you could create three “new” tenure track hires somewhere else), but is the risk – of losing U. of Toronto’s uniqueness, prestige and reputation for humanistic research – really worth a $1.5 million dollar deficit reduction?
Your plan to amalgamate the literary departments is similarly short-sighted. I feel you are driven by a “copy-cat” impulse – that other literature departments in Canadian universities have been amalgamated – rather than by any real knowledge of how literature/language departments work, or by any commitment to high-quality scholarship in these areas. I know something about the study of languages and literatures; I am fluent in eight languages. I learned some of these languages at “study abroad” sessions, some on my own, some in amalgamated language/literature units, and a few in free-standing literature departments. Amalgamated literature/language units and “study abroad” sessions are just fine to learn a language – because their focus is on acquiring language skills and "fulfilling the second language requirement.” When choosing to study these literatures at an advanced, graduate level however, I only applied to universities with various free-standing literature departments, as I knew the quality would be much higher there because these literatures would be studied in the context of history, geography, culture and politics and because there would be dedicated scholars and specialists there, not just numerous adjunct language instructors, with a few token faculty scholars. I suspect you know all of this, (since you are not including English, French or Near Eastern studies in your proposed School of Languages and Literatures), but if you want to attract high-calibre scholars and students and maintain excellence in research and teaching in languages and literatures, you must retain free-standing literature departments.
As I’ve stated in my previous Email, I am neither an alumnus nor a former employee of the University of Toronto. I am simply a Canadian scholar who has always looked up to the University of Toronto as a world-class institution, and was never hesitant to share this laudatory opinion with my international colleagues. Similarly, I was also never hesitant to encourage my best and brightest students to consider University of Toronto’s graduate programmes, though personally I never considered it for my own studies, because I found it too conservative. If this restructuring proposal goes through however, I will no longer support the University of Toronto. On the contrary, I will be sure to inform all of my students, colleagues and possible University of Toronto donors, how, specifically, the University of Toronto threatens humanities scholarship in Canada.
In all, though you clearly did not read my previous Email, I am encouraged by your assuasive rhetoric, which seems to suggest that you are reconsidering your planned restructuring of the humanities in your Faculty, at least as far as East Asian Studies are concerned. Again, I sincerely do indeed hope that your assurances are not mere rhetoric. I urge you abandon this myopic plan, especially as far as the creation of an amalgamated School of Languages and Literatures and the closure of the Center of Comparative Literature are concerned.
Sincerely,
Madelaine Hron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Madelaine HRON
Associate Prof., English & Film Dept.,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ON, N2L 3C5, CANADA
(519) 884-0710 ext 2949
Friday, August 6, 2010
Marketa Russell Holtebrinck, University of Toronto
August 6, 2010
Dear Dean Gertler,
I am writing to you to express my astonishment regarding your recommendation to "dis-establish" the Centre for Comparative Literature as of July 1, 2011. Since the recommended measures, and the circumstances surrounding their announcement in particular, became a topic of public debate, I have been puzzled by the seeming indifference of the Strategic Committee to the academic and intellectual fate of the incoming PhD students in the unit deemed to close.
The vague insurance in the memorandum from vice-dean Baker that was distributed to graduate students on July 15th makes sure only three things for me. First, come what it may, our course schedule remains as planned for 2010-11; second, the PhD funding package remains valid; third, when I receive my degree the word "comparative literature" will appear somewhere on the document. What it does not assure me of-- and most probably no other incoming PhD student in the Centre --is the curriculum/course offering in my second and third year (should I need it), and the decreasing level of disciplinary cohesiveness due to the loss of faculty and the weakening of the "comparative" student body. In my eyes, a collaborative program in comparative literature is only a cosmetic measure that masks its factual nonexistence.
While academic units such as the German department realized the necessity of teaching theory already (!) in the 400-level courses in their BA programs, the need for real comparativity, i.e. reaching beyond the range of national, cultural and temporal delimitations, is not necessarily at the heart of many disciplines. This may, of course, change with time due to the increasing cultural diversification and shifting of national communities, but so is changing and growing the task of comparative literature. Not only do we read literature and culture in multiple languages and across established canons, we also take the findings of more narrowly constituted scholarship and learn to see them in different contexts in order to see new patterns and tendencies. This is the true experimental nature of our discipline.
I chose University of Toronto for its diversity, its stimulating environment, and for its faculty-- the human face of the huge university enterprise -- many of whom excel not only academically, but also in their ability and willingness to act as mentors to aspiring scholars. With my background -- I studied literature and culture in four different languages, none of which is my mother tongue -- I was aware that I would not fit in any of the more or less self-contained national literature departments in Toronto or elsewhere, which resulted in the preference I gave to the offer from the Centre for Comparative Literature.
The official offer of admission, both from the Centre and the School of Graduate Studies, stressed the financial and academic commitment of the Centre to incoming students that would enable them to develop and pursue their research, as well as, primarily, to complete their degree. With good faith -- indeed nothing else would occur to me -- I signed and returned the offer. There was no small press at the bottom of the letterhead or on its backside saying "subject to changes or cancellation at any time"; it was a solid and upright offer to make the Centre with all its resources my academic and intellectual home for as long as I pursue my degree in comparative literature. Or at least, I considered it solid enough to move my family to Toronto.
The recommendation of the SPC all at once shattered the multiple affiliations on which I had started to build my academic future. I urge you, Dean Gertler, to review and reasonably amend the plans of the SPC so that they accommodate the promises made in the name of the University in their full extent. I would not be able to carry on my multilingual research project in any of the affiliated departments of the proposed new School of Languages and Literatures. With faculty support severely cut back and no new students admitted fully as "comparatists", I also fear that my graduate studies would rather dully proceed than intellectually thrive, as they may do now in the current atmosphere of trans-departmental exchange that the Centre is known for across the University.
I am convinced that the Centre's intensive training in critical thinking, as the former director of the Centre, Professor Le Huenen described the PhD program to me three years ago, is not possible without a clearly defined comparative program. In practical terms, I think that the decreased disciplinary rigor of the proposed collaborative program would soon be well known within the academic community, which would no doubt devalue both the degrees conferred and the future employment prospects of their holders. This unsure future weighs on all of the students in the Centre, but it is especially hard on the incoming ones since the recommended closure of the Centre as a degree-granting entity would cut through their entire graduate training.
Regarding the recent announcement that your "goal is nothing less than to ensure the most stimulating and supportive environment possible for our students and faculty as we focus on our core mission of undergraduate and graduate education and advanced research across a wide range of fields," I firmly believe that you will value the trust I put into the University as represented by the Centre of Comparative Literature, and that you will reward the decades of the excellent teaching and research work done in the Centre by endorsing its status as well as its intellectual and academic capacities.
Sincerely,
Marketa Russell Holtebrinck
Incoming PhD student
Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto
Maclaren Gold Medal (awarded by Victoria College to a graduating student with highest standing in Modern Languages)
CC: President David Naylor, University of Toronto
Provost Cheryl Misak, University of Toronto
Save Comparative Literature Campaign
Paper letter to follow
Dear Dean Gertler,
I am writing to you to express my astonishment regarding your recommendation to "dis-establish" the Centre for Comparative Literature as of July 1, 2011. Since the recommended measures, and the circumstances surrounding their announcement in particular, became a topic of public debate, I have been puzzled by the seeming indifference of the Strategic Committee to the academic and intellectual fate of the incoming PhD students in the unit deemed to close.
The vague insurance in the memorandum from vice-dean Baker that was distributed to graduate students on July 15th makes sure only three things for me. First, come what it may, our course schedule remains as planned for 2010-11; second, the PhD funding package remains valid; third, when I receive my degree the word "comparative literature" will appear somewhere on the document. What it does not assure me of-- and most probably no other incoming PhD student in the Centre --is the curriculum/course offering in my second and third year (should I need it), and the decreasing level of disciplinary cohesiveness due to the loss of faculty and the weakening of the "comparative" student body. In my eyes, a collaborative program in comparative literature is only a cosmetic measure that masks its factual nonexistence.
While academic units such as the German department realized the necessity of teaching theory already (!) in the 400-level courses in their BA programs, the need for real comparativity, i.e. reaching beyond the range of national, cultural and temporal delimitations, is not necessarily at the heart of many disciplines. This may, of course, change with time due to the increasing cultural diversification and shifting of national communities, but so is changing and growing the task of comparative literature. Not only do we read literature and culture in multiple languages and across established canons, we also take the findings of more narrowly constituted scholarship and learn to see them in different contexts in order to see new patterns and tendencies. This is the true experimental nature of our discipline.
I chose University of Toronto for its diversity, its stimulating environment, and for its faculty-- the human face of the huge university enterprise -- many of whom excel not only academically, but also in their ability and willingness to act as mentors to aspiring scholars. With my background -- I studied literature and culture in four different languages, none of which is my mother tongue -- I was aware that I would not fit in any of the more or less self-contained national literature departments in Toronto or elsewhere, which resulted in the preference I gave to the offer from the Centre for Comparative Literature.
The official offer of admission, both from the Centre and the School of Graduate Studies, stressed the financial and academic commitment of the Centre to incoming students that would enable them to develop and pursue their research, as well as, primarily, to complete their degree. With good faith -- indeed nothing else would occur to me -- I signed and returned the offer. There was no small press at the bottom of the letterhead or on its backside saying "subject to changes or cancellation at any time"; it was a solid and upright offer to make the Centre with all its resources my academic and intellectual home for as long as I pursue my degree in comparative literature. Or at least, I considered it solid enough to move my family to Toronto.
The recommendation of the SPC all at once shattered the multiple affiliations on which I had started to build my academic future. I urge you, Dean Gertler, to review and reasonably amend the plans of the SPC so that they accommodate the promises made in the name of the University in their full extent. I would not be able to carry on my multilingual research project in any of the affiliated departments of the proposed new School of Languages and Literatures. With faculty support severely cut back and no new students admitted fully as "comparatists", I also fear that my graduate studies would rather dully proceed than intellectually thrive, as they may do now in the current atmosphere of trans-departmental exchange that the Centre is known for across the University.
I am convinced that the Centre's intensive training in critical thinking, as the former director of the Centre, Professor Le Huenen described the PhD program to me three years ago, is not possible without a clearly defined comparative program. In practical terms, I think that the decreased disciplinary rigor of the proposed collaborative program would soon be well known within the academic community, which would no doubt devalue both the degrees conferred and the future employment prospects of their holders. This unsure future weighs on all of the students in the Centre, but it is especially hard on the incoming ones since the recommended closure of the Centre as a degree-granting entity would cut through their entire graduate training.
Regarding the recent announcement that your "goal is nothing less than to ensure the most stimulating and supportive environment possible for our students and faculty as we focus on our core mission of undergraduate and graduate education and advanced research across a wide range of fields," I firmly believe that you will value the trust I put into the University as represented by the Centre of Comparative Literature, and that you will reward the decades of the excellent teaching and research work done in the Centre by endorsing its status as well as its intellectual and academic capacities.
Sincerely,
Marketa Russell Holtebrinck
Incoming PhD student
Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto
Maclaren Gold Medal (awarded by Victoria College to a graduating student with highest standing in Modern Languages)
CC: President David Naylor, University of Toronto
Provost Cheryl Misak, University of Toronto
Save Comparative Literature Campaign
Paper letter to follow
Olga Bazilevica, University of Toronto
Dear President Naylor, Provost Misak, and Dean Gertler,
I am writing to you as a concerned student of the Centre for Comparative Literature, one who is just about to begin her PhD at a Centre that might cease to exist before her graduation. I am deeply worried about the future of this institution as well as the impact that the closing of the Centre might have on the state of Comparative Literature in Canada. I am also worried about my own future here in Toronto—my trust in the University of Toronto has been shaken and the future of the program is so uncertain that I am seriously considering applying for other universities in Europe, a decision that is very unpleasant for me.
Like most of the international students at the Centre, I came to Canada from Latvia by way of Germany only because of the program and the chance to study at the Centre for Comparative Literature. I declined a prestigious DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) award in Germany which would have kept me closer to home in order to come to University of Toronto, a university, I might add, of which I had a great impression. Upon visiting the campus a year before applying, I was struck by the college-based structure that reminded me of Cambridge and the feeling of stability and strength was supported by the thick Romanesque walls of University College or Victoria University. The Centre for Comparative Literature is a renowned centre of progressive thought and academic innovations with a great reputation not only in North America, but also in Europe where I hope to return to teach upon graduation. I was strongly advised by my professors in Germany to accept the offer from University of Toronto, as the prestige of the Centre would add value to my degree and the innovation would give me the chance to widen my academic horizons. Indeed, this has been especially valuable as the approach to Comparative Literature in Toronto has proved to be significantly different from what I learned in Europe and, even though I work on European literature, I am actively engaging with North American theorists’ ideas.
The Centre for Comparative Literature at University of Toronto was the perfect mix for me – it is a small and very friendly, but also an incredibly creative and inspiring community that is an integral part of a huge community of one of the largest universities in North America, with contacts all over the world. Indeed, the Centre has its own very distinct and very special identity that is just as important as the reputation of the University for the students. It is a heterogeneous community that shares passion for culture and its constellations be it across time, media or national traditions. The discussions with my colleagues over a coffee are as productive for me as the discussions in classes. I have been deeply impressed by the vivacity and eagerness of the students of the Centre, and their professionalism, be it in giving talks or even organizing conferences. Last year’s colloquium left such a strong impression on me that I even changed the subject of my dissertation – after hearing a whole panel on nostalgia and having a chance to personally meet Svetlana Boym, I discovered that this is what I really want to pursue as a scholar.
Culture has the great potential to build bridges between nations rather than to erect walls, an idea that for me is one of the foundations of comparative literature; literary scholars act as ambassadors of social and political development across the world. I feel lucky to have a chance to explore Canada, a country that, by its singular example, manifests a humane and tolerant diversity. Coming from a young Baltic state that is facing serious challenges in human rights and strong nationalism, I am sure that it is definitely something we can learn from in my home.
It was a great shock for me to find out that the while the stability of the Romanesque walls remains unshaken, the inner structure of whole departments can be refurbished and programs doomed to disestablishment. In fact, it seems like the thick stone is not the guarantor, but rather a screen that covers big decisions so that their announcement becomes a shock for most of people affected. I do understand that the University is going through financial difficulties and agree that some changes have to be made, and yet I feel that the process of decision-making has to be more transparent, most especially for the departments and centres affected, so that these have a chance to “defend themselves” in giving a deeper understanding of their work and the consequences of the decisions made. I am sure that open discussions can be productive and more acceptable ways of dealing with the financial difficulties can be found. I am convinced that this ways will prove the current and future value of comparative literature to the University, and the disestablishment of the Centre will no longer be recommended.
Respectfully yours,
Olga Bazilevica,
Centre for Comparative Literature, PhD student, Toronto
I am writing to you as a concerned student of the Centre for Comparative Literature, one who is just about to begin her PhD at a Centre that might cease to exist before her graduation. I am deeply worried about the future of this institution as well as the impact that the closing of the Centre might have on the state of Comparative Literature in Canada. I am also worried about my own future here in Toronto—my trust in the University of Toronto has been shaken and the future of the program is so uncertain that I am seriously considering applying for other universities in Europe, a decision that is very unpleasant for me.
Like most of the international students at the Centre, I came to Canada from Latvia by way of Germany only because of the program and the chance to study at the Centre for Comparative Literature. I declined a prestigious DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) award in Germany which would have kept me closer to home in order to come to University of Toronto, a university, I might add, of which I had a great impression. Upon visiting the campus a year before applying, I was struck by the college-based structure that reminded me of Cambridge and the feeling of stability and strength was supported by the thick Romanesque walls of University College or Victoria University. The Centre for Comparative Literature is a renowned centre of progressive thought and academic innovations with a great reputation not only in North America, but also in Europe where I hope to return to teach upon graduation. I was strongly advised by my professors in Germany to accept the offer from University of Toronto, as the prestige of the Centre would add value to my degree and the innovation would give me the chance to widen my academic horizons. Indeed, this has been especially valuable as the approach to Comparative Literature in Toronto has proved to be significantly different from what I learned in Europe and, even though I work on European literature, I am actively engaging with North American theorists’ ideas.
The Centre for Comparative Literature at University of Toronto was the perfect mix for me – it is a small and very friendly, but also an incredibly creative and inspiring community that is an integral part of a huge community of one of the largest universities in North America, with contacts all over the world. Indeed, the Centre has its own very distinct and very special identity that is just as important as the reputation of the University for the students. It is a heterogeneous community that shares passion for culture and its constellations be it across time, media or national traditions. The discussions with my colleagues over a coffee are as productive for me as the discussions in classes. I have been deeply impressed by the vivacity and eagerness of the students of the Centre, and their professionalism, be it in giving talks or even organizing conferences. Last year’s colloquium left such a strong impression on me that I even changed the subject of my dissertation – after hearing a whole panel on nostalgia and having a chance to personally meet Svetlana Boym, I discovered that this is what I really want to pursue as a scholar.
Culture has the great potential to build bridges between nations rather than to erect walls, an idea that for me is one of the foundations of comparative literature; literary scholars act as ambassadors of social and political development across the world. I feel lucky to have a chance to explore Canada, a country that, by its singular example, manifests a humane and tolerant diversity. Coming from a young Baltic state that is facing serious challenges in human rights and strong nationalism, I am sure that it is definitely something we can learn from in my home.
It was a great shock for me to find out that the while the stability of the Romanesque walls remains unshaken, the inner structure of whole departments can be refurbished and programs doomed to disestablishment. In fact, it seems like the thick stone is not the guarantor, but rather a screen that covers big decisions so that their announcement becomes a shock for most of people affected. I do understand that the University is going through financial difficulties and agree that some changes have to be made, and yet I feel that the process of decision-making has to be more transparent, most especially for the departments and centres affected, so that these have a chance to “defend themselves” in giving a deeper understanding of their work and the consequences of the decisions made. I am sure that open discussions can be productive and more acceptable ways of dealing with the financial difficulties can be found. I am convinced that this ways will prove the current and future value of comparative literature to the University, and the disestablishment of the Centre will no longer be recommended.
Respectfully yours,
Olga Bazilevica,
Centre for Comparative Literature, PhD student, Toronto
Gaëtan Fleuriau Chateau, Director, APFUC
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT:
Closure of a university department is always a backward step, regardless of explanations and justifications that administrators find so easily.
When it concerns the Centre established by Northrop Frye, whose international reputation is a credit to the whole of Canada, such a closure borders on insanity.
An administrative decision is about to deal a serious blow to the reputation of the University of Toronto.
I sincerely hope that such an incredibly negative act will not be implemented.
Gaëtan Fleuriau Chateau
Directeur de la programmation
Association des professeurs de français des universités et collèges canadiens
Président de la section du Canada
Association des membres de l'ordre des Palmes académiques
Closure of a university department is always a backward step, regardless of explanations and justifications that administrators find so easily.
When it concerns the Centre established by Northrop Frye, whose international reputation is a credit to the whole of Canada, such a closure borders on insanity.
An administrative decision is about to deal a serious blow to the reputation of the University of Toronto.
I sincerely hope that such an incredibly negative act will not be implemented.
Gaëtan Fleuriau Chateau
Directeur de la programmation
Association des professeurs de français des universités et collèges canadiens
Président de la section du Canada
Association des membres de l'ordre des Palmes académiques
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Grievance Suit from UT Faculty Association
Information Report #14
Faculty of Arts & Science Academic Plan 2010-2015
Association Grievance
In the July 14, 2010, memo that accompanied the formal release of the Faculty of Arts & Science Academic Plan 2010-2015, Dean Gertler announced that “The real work of implementation now begins.” UTFA welcomed the change in tone in the Dean’s July 21 memo, in which he states that “the consultation part of the process is just beginning.” The instant and widespread protests that greeted the Academic Plan no doubt prompted this significant shift in approach.
UTFA believes that “the consultation part of the process” should have occurred long before any dramatic changes were announced. Lawyers at UTFA are drafting an Association grievance by way of protest. UTFA will issue notice to our members when the grievance is filed, in late August or early September. UTFA will ask that the approval process for the Academic Plan be halted until the grievance is settled. The Association grievance will be filed with the Provost’s office. UTFA’s senior officers will meet with the Administration’s senior officers within ten working days of filing or at a mutually agreed-upon time. If the grievance is not resolved over a series of meetings, it may be moved to the Grievance Review Panel and heard there. UTFA will prosecute this grievance firmly, steadily, and fully. The Association grievance is the only mechanism UTFA has available by which to challenge the planning process. The limited means of redress are among the many shortcomings of our antiquated Memorandum of Agreement, or special plan, which structures the relationship between the Administration and U of T’s faculty and librarians. Unlike some other faculty associations, UTFA does not have a negotiated protocol for addressing program closure.
It is UTFA’s position that significant structural changes in the delivery of the University’s academic program, especially because U of T is a public university, require open and extensive discussion among all stakeholders, including librarians who support faculty research, undergraduates, and graduate students. The consultation process is crucial when the proposed changes involve closing centres and programs and revoking departmental status. UTFA is disappointed to see that the Academic Plan appears to rely heavily on the report of the small committee of external reviewers.
From UTFA’s point of view, whenever the elimination or significant restructuring of units is contemplated, the quality of the education faculty deliver and the working conditions and scholarly standing of research-intensive and teaching-intensive faculty are paramount. There is no question that the closing of units adversely affects academic appointments, even if faculty know that they will not be fired. The disruption and pain are sharp for those pre-tenure faculty who have been recently hired, and they are equally so for those faculty and librarians who have worked for many years to build irreplaceable expertise in specific areas of research, whether Romance languages, ethics, or criminology.
No FAS academic program should be closed in order to save overhead costs, especially when we consider that monies generated by FAS enrolments continue to be transferred to other divisions. The Faculty of Arts & Science has sent mixed messages on the reasons for the closures. Many of the reasons provided in the Plan show a disheartening logic. Are we to believe that Comparative Literature was closed because it did its job “too well”? That it was too successful? The only acceptable rationale for forming a School of Languages and Literatures is that doing so would considerably empower its members academically. Are the former departments now to be called “programs”? Will independence be maintained? Will graduate students continue to be attracted to the disciplines covered by the School? What research funds and support will be available so that research may thrive? These are questions faculty are asking.
Problems with the FAS planning process were apparent early on. For example, the manner in which breadth requirements and competencies were hastily imposed undermined support for curriculum renewal. UTFA is not in the business of academic planning; on the other hand, we have rarely seen such an outpouring of dismay over a single plan. UTFA has long been worried by a lack of transparency in governance at the University. Weaknesses in planning, especially when they affect the appointments of faculty and librarians, are also weaknesses in governance.
Among the goals of UTFA’s Association grievance are these:
• to substantially improve and widen consultation on the Academic Plan
• to restore collegial relations and trust between our members and the Administration
• to negotiate a protocol for program changes in the future that will better protect the fine reputation of U of T, and, by extension, the scholarly reputations of our members
UTFA will hold town hall meetings in early September (dates TBA) to provide faculty, librarians, and students with the opportunity to discuss how the academic planning process at U of T might be strengthened.
Any and all comments on this Information Report are welcome.
UTFA Information Report #14
Faculty of Arts & Science Academic Plan 2010-2015
Association Grievance
In the July 14, 2010, memo that accompanied the formal release of the Faculty of Arts & Science Academic Plan 2010-2015, Dean Gertler announced that “The real work of implementation now begins.” UTFA welcomed the change in tone in the Dean’s July 21 memo, in which he states that “the consultation part of the process is just beginning.” The instant and widespread protests that greeted the Academic Plan no doubt prompted this significant shift in approach.
UTFA believes that “the consultation part of the process” should have occurred long before any dramatic changes were announced. Lawyers at UTFA are drafting an Association grievance by way of protest. UTFA will issue notice to our members when the grievance is filed, in late August or early September. UTFA will ask that the approval process for the Academic Plan be halted until the grievance is settled. The Association grievance will be filed with the Provost’s office. UTFA’s senior officers will meet with the Administration’s senior officers within ten working days of filing or at a mutually agreed-upon time. If the grievance is not resolved over a series of meetings, it may be moved to the Grievance Review Panel and heard there. UTFA will prosecute this grievance firmly, steadily, and fully. The Association grievance is the only mechanism UTFA has available by which to challenge the planning process. The limited means of redress are among the many shortcomings of our antiquated Memorandum of Agreement, or special plan, which structures the relationship between the Administration and U of T’s faculty and librarians. Unlike some other faculty associations, UTFA does not have a negotiated protocol for addressing program closure.
It is UTFA’s position that significant structural changes in the delivery of the University’s academic program, especially because U of T is a public university, require open and extensive discussion among all stakeholders, including librarians who support faculty research, undergraduates, and graduate students. The consultation process is crucial when the proposed changes involve closing centres and programs and revoking departmental status. UTFA is disappointed to see that the Academic Plan appears to rely heavily on the report of the small committee of external reviewers.
From UTFA’s point of view, whenever the elimination or significant restructuring of units is contemplated, the quality of the education faculty deliver and the working conditions and scholarly standing of research-intensive and teaching-intensive faculty are paramount. There is no question that the closing of units adversely affects academic appointments, even if faculty know that they will not be fired. The disruption and pain are sharp for those pre-tenure faculty who have been recently hired, and they are equally so for those faculty and librarians who have worked for many years to build irreplaceable expertise in specific areas of research, whether Romance languages, ethics, or criminology.
No FAS academic program should be closed in order to save overhead costs, especially when we consider that monies generated by FAS enrolments continue to be transferred to other divisions. The Faculty of Arts & Science has sent mixed messages on the reasons for the closures. Many of the reasons provided in the Plan show a disheartening logic. Are we to believe that Comparative Literature was closed because it did its job “too well”? That it was too successful? The only acceptable rationale for forming a School of Languages and Literatures is that doing so would considerably empower its members academically. Are the former departments now to be called “programs”? Will independence be maintained? Will graduate students continue to be attracted to the disciplines covered by the School? What research funds and support will be available so that research may thrive? These are questions faculty are asking.
Problems with the FAS planning process were apparent early on. For example, the manner in which breadth requirements and competencies were hastily imposed undermined support for curriculum renewal. UTFA is not in the business of academic planning; on the other hand, we have rarely seen such an outpouring of dismay over a single plan. UTFA has long been worried by a lack of transparency in governance at the University. Weaknesses in planning, especially when they affect the appointments of faculty and librarians, are also weaknesses in governance.
Among the goals of UTFA’s Association grievance are these:
• to substantially improve and widen consultation on the Academic Plan
• to restore collegial relations and trust between our members and the Administration
• to negotiate a protocol for program changes in the future that will better protect the fine reputation of U of T, and, by extension, the scholarly reputations of our members
UTFA will hold town hall meetings in early September (dates TBA) to provide faculty, librarians, and students with the opportunity to discuss how the academic planning process at U of T might be strengthened.
Any and all comments on this Information Report are welcome.
UTFA Information Report #14
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sita Monsef-Rao, University of Toronto
August 3, 2010
Dear President Naylor,
I am writing as an incoming PhD student at the Centre for Comparative Literature this fall to express my deep disappointment and distress at the recent news of the proposed closure of the program I am about to commence.
To begin with, I must say that this announcement has come at a very difficult moment in the academic year for me: at a time when I am supposed to be searching for a place to live, preparing to move to Toronto for the next four years and writing SSHRC and OGS grant applications, I am now having to reconsider my decision to attend the University of Toronto and giving serious thought to applying to other programs; the announcement of the recommended changes is surely most ill-timed for new graduate students.
My proposed area of specialization is in contemporary women's literature in Britain, Spain and France; my background is in French language, literature and translation. During the application process for my doctoral studies, I chose the University of Toronto and the Centre for Comparative Literature not only over other universities and other Comparative Literature programs but also over programs in national language departments; I made this choice precisely because of the opportunity of working with cross-appointed English, French, and Spanish professors using a comparative approach to the literature and cultures which interest me. The U of T's Centre for Comparative Literature with its interdisciplinary mandate and its ties to national language departments such as English, French, and Spanish & Portuguese as well as the Institute for Women's Studies and Gender Studies seemed to me to offer the most exciting intellectual space in which to pursue my research. In fact, it was the only school in North America at which I found, among the cross-appointed professors, a suitable potential supervisor in my area of research. On top of this, the U of T was strongly recommended to me by my professors as the best place in Canada to study Comparative Literature, with an excellent reputation and a thriving group of professors and graduate students.
For me (and likely for many of my colleagues), the proposed new School of Languages and Literatures is not a logical place to do my research in Comparative Literature as it excludes two of the three cultures and languages that I will examine: British and French. Furthermore, with the elimination of cross-appointed faculty, my course options would be greatly reduced and my supervisor no longer part of my program. There may be solutions to these issues for me as an incoming student in 2010, but in the future, Comparative Literature at U of T would not interest a student like myself. In addition, I do not see how a collaborative program within a school of languages and literature can offer the space for the exchange of ideas between comparatists which students like myself are keen to explore; I am very concerned that the proposed collaborative program will not attract the quality of students with whom I have been so looking forward to work. In any case, the structure and operation of the new School of Language and Literature and the place of Comparative Literature within it is currently so unclear as to suggest that this will be an extremely unstable time to begin my studies at U of T. Essentially, with the closure of the Centre for Comparative Literature in 2011, my primary reasons for attending the University of Toronto would disappear.
To conclude, it seems to me that the University of Toronto administration's proposed closure of the Centre and creation of a collaborative program in Comparative Literature reflects a short-sightedness focussed solely on financial considerations, a misunderstanding of the role and the contributions of the discipline of Comparative Literature within literary studies today and a step backwards in the U of T's commitment to the Humanities, not to mention a troubling disregard for the incoming graduate cohort who, by the time of the announcement, had already given up opportunities to study elsewhere.
I certainly hope that during the upcoming consultation process, a less drastic, more logical solution can be found to address the University's financial concerns with respect to the future of its world-renowned Centre for Comparative Literature.
Yours truly,
Sita Monsef-Rao
Incoming PhD Candidate
Centre for Comparative Literature
Cc: Cheryl Misak; Meric Gertler; the Save CompLit campaign.
Dear President Naylor,
I am writing as an incoming PhD student at the Centre for Comparative Literature this fall to express my deep disappointment and distress at the recent news of the proposed closure of the program I am about to commence.
To begin with, I must say that this announcement has come at a very difficult moment in the academic year for me: at a time when I am supposed to be searching for a place to live, preparing to move to Toronto for the next four years and writing SSHRC and OGS grant applications, I am now having to reconsider my decision to attend the University of Toronto and giving serious thought to applying to other programs; the announcement of the recommended changes is surely most ill-timed for new graduate students.
My proposed area of specialization is in contemporary women's literature in Britain, Spain and France; my background is in French language, literature and translation. During the application process for my doctoral studies, I chose the University of Toronto and the Centre for Comparative Literature not only over other universities and other Comparative Literature programs but also over programs in national language departments; I made this choice precisely because of the opportunity of working with cross-appointed English, French, and Spanish professors using a comparative approach to the literature and cultures which interest me. The U of T's Centre for Comparative Literature with its interdisciplinary mandate and its ties to national language departments such as English, French, and Spanish & Portuguese as well as the Institute for Women's Studies and Gender Studies seemed to me to offer the most exciting intellectual space in which to pursue my research. In fact, it was the only school in North America at which I found, among the cross-appointed professors, a suitable potential supervisor in my area of research. On top of this, the U of T was strongly recommended to me by my professors as the best place in Canada to study Comparative Literature, with an excellent reputation and a thriving group of professors and graduate students.
For me (and likely for many of my colleagues), the proposed new School of Languages and Literatures is not a logical place to do my research in Comparative Literature as it excludes two of the three cultures and languages that I will examine: British and French. Furthermore, with the elimination of cross-appointed faculty, my course options would be greatly reduced and my supervisor no longer part of my program. There may be solutions to these issues for me as an incoming student in 2010, but in the future, Comparative Literature at U of T would not interest a student like myself. In addition, I do not see how a collaborative program within a school of languages and literature can offer the space for the exchange of ideas between comparatists which students like myself are keen to explore; I am very concerned that the proposed collaborative program will not attract the quality of students with whom I have been so looking forward to work. In any case, the structure and operation of the new School of Language and Literature and the place of Comparative Literature within it is currently so unclear as to suggest that this will be an extremely unstable time to begin my studies at U of T. Essentially, with the closure of the Centre for Comparative Literature in 2011, my primary reasons for attending the University of Toronto would disappear.
To conclude, it seems to me that the University of Toronto administration's proposed closure of the Centre and creation of a collaborative program in Comparative Literature reflects a short-sightedness focussed solely on financial considerations, a misunderstanding of the role and the contributions of the discipline of Comparative Literature within literary studies today and a step backwards in the U of T's commitment to the Humanities, not to mention a troubling disregard for the incoming graduate cohort who, by the time of the announcement, had already given up opportunities to study elsewhere.
I certainly hope that during the upcoming consultation process, a less drastic, more logical solution can be found to address the University's financial concerns with respect to the future of its world-renowned Centre for Comparative Literature.
Yours truly,
Sita Monsef-Rao
Incoming PhD Candidate
Centre for Comparative Literature
Cc: Cheryl Misak; Meric Gertler; the Save CompLit campaign.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Technical Difficulties
We're currently experiencing technical difficulties with our website, www.savecomplit.ca -- we're hoping to have everything sorted out shortly!
Thanks for your patience and support.
Thanks for your patience and support.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Daniel Fried, University of Alberta
Dear President Naylor:
I write to urge reconsideration of the recently-proposed changes in the Faculty of Arts and Science amalgamating several independent departments into a single large School of Languages and Literatures. Since I myself have a joint appointment in East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature at the University of Alberta, I will focus my comments on the potentially negative consequences to Toronto of eliminating both of those two programs.
From my reading of public statements by Dean Meric Gertler, I take it that FAS has anticipated that there would be protests at the proposed administrative changes, and that a prime motivating factor behind the protest would be the simple fact that neither faculty nor students like to see their disciplinary identity and independence taken away. There is some truth to this, of course: if you were to examine administrative divisions of peer institutions in the U.S., you would notice that the existence of independent East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature programs is one of the main criteria separating elite schools from the merely good, and as a result, there is significant prestige attached to their presence. I can only assume that Dean Gertler and other FAS administrators have realized that the loss of these programs could result in top faculty quickly being hired away, and in a future loss of top graduate student applicants, and have decided that this is a cost worth bearing. However, it is important to note that there are also substantial intellectual reasons why the loss of these two programs would be harmful to education and the advancement of knowledge at Toronto, and that resistance to the proposed changes should not be discounted as mere narcissism, nostalgia, and institutional inertia.
In the case of East Asian Studies, the change from an integrated area studies program to a strictly language-and-literatures model is, explicitly, an attempt to remove social and historical context from the study of East Asia at Toronto. Within a School of Languages and Literatures, the teaching of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean would necessarily be equated with purely linguistic aptitude, the study of literature probably being reduced to the role of the most difficult form of linguistic competence, for study by advanced language students. The great problem with this model is that even this stripped-down version of fluency would not work on its own terms. Even if one were to assume that language ability in absence of historical understanding were sufficient training for U of T students to interact with those countries, language itself is not ahistorical or asocial. For instance, modern Chinese—even at the basic colloquial level—is saturated with historical allusion; modern Japanese—also at the basic colloquial level—is structured with a complex system of formal and informal registers which require fairly detailed understanding of Japanese society in order to master.
Western languages do exhibit some similar features, but most Toronto students are fluent participators in Western cultures, and most have had secondary education in Canadian schools where introduction to the history of North America and Europe has been very thorough. In contrast, Canadian public understanding of East Asia is very sketchy, with much misinformation, mystifications, and other stereotypes circulating as “common knowledge.” It is reasonable for a Chinese student to competently study Chinese literature in isolation, and for a Canadian student to study English or French literature in isolation, because a knowledge of context can be taken for granted; the same cannot be said for Canadian students working cross-culturally with East Asian traditions.
With regard to research synergies, I strongly believe that cross-cultural comparison is valuable and necessary; perhaps scholars of European and Asian languages and literatures would find new venues of cooperation in the proposed school of languages and literatures. However, by eliminating the prime venue for contextual research, almost certainly more would be lost than would be gained. Interdisciplinary cooperation should not be limited to historically contingent fields, but it certainly should not ignore them either. In history, religion, governance, economics—as certainly in literature and language themselves!—the linkages between China, Japan, and Korea have persisted from ancient times through the present, meaning that a dissolution of the area-studies focus uniting the study of these three countries, and treating them as mutually indifferent participants in a global cultural market, would constitute the structural assertion of an untrue proposition.
The proposed dissolution of the Centre for Comparative Literature, even going so far as to end the granting of degrees in Comparative Literature, is also a potentially destructive decision, albeit for very different reasons. As I understand the rationale behind this move, it is believed that the program can be eliminated because of its successes: the comparative methodologies previously rare, at the foundation of the Centre by Northrop Frye, have now been widely adopted by other departments of literature. This reasoning is mistaken in two ways.
Firstly, it does not realize that Comparative Literature is defined as a discipline not merely by its methodology, but also by its object of study, cross-cultural influence, which simply can never be addressed within single-language programs. Are there any properties of literature as such, without regard to national or linguistic origin? If so, then they cannot be assessed or even discovered by research specific to single language groups, which could not isolate the mechanics of literature-as-such from their particular literary histories. Are there meaningful patterns of influence between literatures from different language families? If so, then there is little incentive to trace them rigorously without the institutional support of a comparative-focused home department. Of course, no specialist would dispute the importance of, for example, Vergil to Dante, or Li Bai to Ezra Pound, but such patterns of influence, in order to be investigated with proper rigor, need deep investments of time in disparate literary traditions which are made extremely difficult by the teaching exigencies and promotion standards of monolingual departments.
Secondly, to the extent that Comparative Literature is a site of methodological innovation (and it is), such innovation is a continuing process, not a one-time promulgation of Frye’s methods (which have long since been superceded by developments in the field). Shortly after the founding of the Centre, the postmodern revolution in the humanities began, driven in large part by comparatists; moreover, that revolution has now apparently run its course, and scholars affiliated with the Centre have been in the forefront of attempts in the past decade to define new directions for theoretical inquiry. I assume that Toronto would never contemplate abandoning its departments of mathematics and statistics on the grounds that the physical and social sciences have broadly adopted their discoveries; obviously, for the continued health of those methodologies, they need core groups of faculty dedicated to their continued teaching and elaboration through further research. Comparative Literature occupies a parallel position within the humanities, and hence has a parallel need for independence, for the general methodological health of its partner disciplines.
In short, I strongly urge that the University of Toronto begin a much more thorough and transparent process to reconsider the proposed changes in the Faculty of Arts and Science. The proposals have been broadly noted by scholars across North America, and there is virtually unanimous agreement among all of us that Toronto’s reputation would be seriously damaged if the changes were to be implemented. Though we are often competitors with Toronto, none of us would like to see such a sad end to the leading role which the U of T has played in these disciplines.
Sincerely,
Daniel Fried
Assistant Professor of East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature
University of Alberta
PS: I will also be sending a formal copy of this letter by regular post to your office and the office of Dean Gertler, but am sending this first by email because of my belief in the urgency of the matter.
I write to urge reconsideration of the recently-proposed changes in the Faculty of Arts and Science amalgamating several independent departments into a single large School of Languages and Literatures. Since I myself have a joint appointment in East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature at the University of Alberta, I will focus my comments on the potentially negative consequences to Toronto of eliminating both of those two programs.
From my reading of public statements by Dean Meric Gertler, I take it that FAS has anticipated that there would be protests at the proposed administrative changes, and that a prime motivating factor behind the protest would be the simple fact that neither faculty nor students like to see their disciplinary identity and independence taken away. There is some truth to this, of course: if you were to examine administrative divisions of peer institutions in the U.S., you would notice that the existence of independent East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature programs is one of the main criteria separating elite schools from the merely good, and as a result, there is significant prestige attached to their presence. I can only assume that Dean Gertler and other FAS administrators have realized that the loss of these programs could result in top faculty quickly being hired away, and in a future loss of top graduate student applicants, and have decided that this is a cost worth bearing. However, it is important to note that there are also substantial intellectual reasons why the loss of these two programs would be harmful to education and the advancement of knowledge at Toronto, and that resistance to the proposed changes should not be discounted as mere narcissism, nostalgia, and institutional inertia.
In the case of East Asian Studies, the change from an integrated area studies program to a strictly language-and-literatures model is, explicitly, an attempt to remove social and historical context from the study of East Asia at Toronto. Within a School of Languages and Literatures, the teaching of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean would necessarily be equated with purely linguistic aptitude, the study of literature probably being reduced to the role of the most difficult form of linguistic competence, for study by advanced language students. The great problem with this model is that even this stripped-down version of fluency would not work on its own terms. Even if one were to assume that language ability in absence of historical understanding were sufficient training for U of T students to interact with those countries, language itself is not ahistorical or asocial. For instance, modern Chinese—even at the basic colloquial level—is saturated with historical allusion; modern Japanese—also at the basic colloquial level—is structured with a complex system of formal and informal registers which require fairly detailed understanding of Japanese society in order to master.
Western languages do exhibit some similar features, but most Toronto students are fluent participators in Western cultures, and most have had secondary education in Canadian schools where introduction to the history of North America and Europe has been very thorough. In contrast, Canadian public understanding of East Asia is very sketchy, with much misinformation, mystifications, and other stereotypes circulating as “common knowledge.” It is reasonable for a Chinese student to competently study Chinese literature in isolation, and for a Canadian student to study English or French literature in isolation, because a knowledge of context can be taken for granted; the same cannot be said for Canadian students working cross-culturally with East Asian traditions.
With regard to research synergies, I strongly believe that cross-cultural comparison is valuable and necessary; perhaps scholars of European and Asian languages and literatures would find new venues of cooperation in the proposed school of languages and literatures. However, by eliminating the prime venue for contextual research, almost certainly more would be lost than would be gained. Interdisciplinary cooperation should not be limited to historically contingent fields, but it certainly should not ignore them either. In history, religion, governance, economics—as certainly in literature and language themselves!—the linkages between China, Japan, and Korea have persisted from ancient times through the present, meaning that a dissolution of the area-studies focus uniting the study of these three countries, and treating them as mutually indifferent participants in a global cultural market, would constitute the structural assertion of an untrue proposition.
The proposed dissolution of the Centre for Comparative Literature, even going so far as to end the granting of degrees in Comparative Literature, is also a potentially destructive decision, albeit for very different reasons. As I understand the rationale behind this move, it is believed that the program can be eliminated because of its successes: the comparative methodologies previously rare, at the foundation of the Centre by Northrop Frye, have now been widely adopted by other departments of literature. This reasoning is mistaken in two ways.
Firstly, it does not realize that Comparative Literature is defined as a discipline not merely by its methodology, but also by its object of study, cross-cultural influence, which simply can never be addressed within single-language programs. Are there any properties of literature as such, without regard to national or linguistic origin? If so, then they cannot be assessed or even discovered by research specific to single language groups, which could not isolate the mechanics of literature-as-such from their particular literary histories. Are there meaningful patterns of influence between literatures from different language families? If so, then there is little incentive to trace them rigorously without the institutional support of a comparative-focused home department. Of course, no specialist would dispute the importance of, for example, Vergil to Dante, or Li Bai to Ezra Pound, but such patterns of influence, in order to be investigated with proper rigor, need deep investments of time in disparate literary traditions which are made extremely difficult by the teaching exigencies and promotion standards of monolingual departments.
Secondly, to the extent that Comparative Literature is a site of methodological innovation (and it is), such innovation is a continuing process, not a one-time promulgation of Frye’s methods (which have long since been superceded by developments in the field). Shortly after the founding of the Centre, the postmodern revolution in the humanities began, driven in large part by comparatists; moreover, that revolution has now apparently run its course, and scholars affiliated with the Centre have been in the forefront of attempts in the past decade to define new directions for theoretical inquiry. I assume that Toronto would never contemplate abandoning its departments of mathematics and statistics on the grounds that the physical and social sciences have broadly adopted their discoveries; obviously, for the continued health of those methodologies, they need core groups of faculty dedicated to their continued teaching and elaboration through further research. Comparative Literature occupies a parallel position within the humanities, and hence has a parallel need for independence, for the general methodological health of its partner disciplines.
In short, I strongly urge that the University of Toronto begin a much more thorough and transparent process to reconsider the proposed changes in the Faculty of Arts and Science. The proposals have been broadly noted by scholars across North America, and there is virtually unanimous agreement among all of us that Toronto’s reputation would be seriously damaged if the changes were to be implemented. Though we are often competitors with Toronto, none of us would like to see such a sad end to the leading role which the U of T has played in these disciplines.
Sincerely,
Daniel Fried
Assistant Professor of East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature
University of Alberta
PS: I will also be sending a formal copy of this letter by regular post to your office and the office of Dean Gertler, but am sending this first by email because of my belief in the urgency of the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)