Donadio counters EAC proposal, Editorial

Author: Stephen Donadio

The editorial in last week's issue of The Middlebury Campus in support of the termination of the American Literature Department and major seems to me remarkably uninformed. In offering its recommendation, much of the essay merely recycles uncritically the kinds of unsubstantiated assertions made in the Educational Affairs Committee (EAC)'s proposal, taking these assertions at face value and as matters of established fact.

Among faculty members as well as students, there is much confusion about the nature and effect of the proposed "merger." For the record, here's the necessary history: in the fall of 2003, without openly acknowledging prior discussions of which members of the department were unaware, the Chair of American Literature and Civilization suddenly proposed consideration of a possible new joint major in English and American Literature, reassuring us all that serious exploration of this possibility and an assessment of various options would likely take many months.

Almost immediately, the possibility of a joint major was taken off the table, and replaced by the current more radical plan to terminate the American Literature major and create a new American Studies department.

This plan was then rushed to a vote, and presented to the English Department as the basis for a realignment that required no change whatsoever in the structure of that department or of the requirements for a major in English.

There is abundant e-mail documentation for all phases of the deplorable process that has led to the current situation, but at this point the Middlebury community needs to focus its attention on two basic educational questions:

(1) What exactly is the problem that is solved by the elimination of the American Literature major and Department?

If in the current longstanding arrangement it is now perceived that English majors don't study enough American Literature and American Literature majors don't study enough English literature, that is not a problem that is very difficult to remedy: English majors can be required to take specific American Literature courses in which they become familiar with specific American authors and texts - and vice versa. This would require no structural change whatsoever - nor would more attentive and responsible advising in both departments.

(2) Are there any courses or teaching opportunities that would be possible under the proposed EAC arrangements that would not be possible now?

It seems to me that the only honest answer to this question is NO. Indeed, in the latest list of courses projected out to 2010 in the proposed new department, there is nothing new, and cross-listed English/Am. Lit. courses have been offered here for decades.

As for the EAC claim, recirculated in The Campus editorial, that the very few students in these two departments who seek academic careers "have difficulty competing for admission to graduate programs" because their undergraduate training has presumably "been so narrow," where's the evidence for this?

If the basis of such claims is loosely anecdotal, then it should be pointed out that there is much contradictory evidence to report, evidence suggesting that graduating Middlebury seniors have been better prepared for the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) in American than in English Literature, because American Literature majors have been required to have some familiarity with the principal authors and works in that literature.

In fact, numerous English majors I have taught have reported that when they took the GREs they were surprised to find themselves unprepared for them, since that examination referred to many works that they had never been obliged to read. In any case, any worthwhile conclusions on this score would have to be backed up by evidence, not just selected anecdotes.

Similarly, where is the concrete evidence needed to support the contention that Middlebury graduates who hope to teach high school are currently "disadvantaged" by a "lack of exposure" to either English or American literature?

Are they not sufficiently intelligent to enroll in those courses that they perceive - or are informed by their academic advisers - they will need to secure a literary background that is both broad and deep?

Finally, the EAC's suggestion that if American Literature is eliminated as a distinct department of study "the catalogue will be less confusing to students" is simply juvenile and an insult to the intelligence of Middlebury students - as the high enrollment figures in American Literature courses have demonstrated for many years.

In sum, the proposal to terminate the American Literature major seems to me ill-conceived and intellectually incoherent, vague in its intentions and devastating in its impact, which would be far-reaching. It is my hope that the faculty will choose to maintain a department and a literature curriculum that have served the College with evident distinction, and that offer all Middlebury students the opportunity to secure a comprehensive grasp of the nation's principal literary achievements over the past four centuries.