THE VOTE IS INFaculty paves way for Am Lit merger

Author: Daniel L. J. Phillips

During its annual November meeting at the Kirk Alumni Center on Monday, the Faculty Council voted 104-62, with three abstentions, to strike down the Substitute Motion to preserve the American Literature and Civilization Department. The move to cast paper ballots on the issue was called and seconded following an hour of discussion and clarifying questions, and the result determines that the Educational Affairs Committee (EAC) proposal to establish a department in English and American Literature and a new interdisciplinary program and major in American Studies will come to a final vote at the December Faculty Council meeting.

Cates Baldridge, professor and chair of the English department, noted that a "simple majority" would pass the EAC proposal into effect next month, but any number of amendments can be submitted up until a week before the Faculty Council's vote. Baldridge was unable to speculate as to just how many amendments might be submitted.

"The actual wording of the proposal is quite simple," he said, adding that several suggestions for curricular changes - such as a historical and literary survey course and two required American literature courses - had already been attached to the original EAC proposal.

According to Baldridge, the envisioned English and American Literature Department would retain "roughly the same structure." All current English or American Literature majors would keep their current major, unless they acquire enough credit and choose to receive their degree under the new department's title, "but no one will be forced," said Baldridge.

This option would remain in place for all students in the Class of 2009 or above, but would not apply to students entering the Class of 2010. Like all curricular changes that are introduced, "we grandfather them in over the course of a student's career," said Baldridge.

As for redistributing the current faculty's appointments, Baldridge said that if the EAC proposal is passed, some members will seek full appointment in the new English and American Literature Department, and others will seek joint appointments with the American Studies program.

Baldridge noted that those professors' contributions to American literature will "be known beforehand because, as department chair, I have to know what courses we can count on. As we get more experienced with the new structure, innovation and cross fertilization will help people think of new kinds of courses," said Baldridge.

After Middlebury College President Ronald D. Liebowitz called Monday's meeting to order, urging that the deliberations focus on "curricular" issues, Fulton Professor of American Literature Stephen Donadio - who wrote the Substitute Motion with Professor of Humanities John McWilliams - took the floor. Before the start of the meeting, Donadio had distributed a six-page document of the "Chronology of the American Literature Termination Process," and attached printed copies of actual e-mails that were sent throughout the proceedings.

Donadio argued that the sudden termination was brought about by four tenured faculty members in the Department of American Literature and Civilization - Reginald L. Cook Professor Brett Millier, Dean of the College Tim Spears, and Associate Professors Michael Newbury and Will Nash. Donadio also claimed that the there was no action by the academic administration in response to such tactics and that there was a "curious" process to bring the EAC proposal to the faculty.

Donadio's written chronology began with his account of Millier calling a meeting on Oct. 3, 2003, to discuss the preliminary idea of a joint English and American Literature major. Donadio refers to Millier as "one of the principal initiators of this move," and questions the responsibility of a so-called "Literature Committee," which was comprised of professors all in favor of the merger and unknown to the administration.

Donadio also cited an e-mail from Dec. 15, 2003, which was signed by Millier, Spears, Nash and Newbury, four of the six tenured American Literature faculty members. The e-mail attempts to solicit a two-thirds approval of the department before proceeding with the proposals, yet Donadio points out that the four authors of the e-mail already constitute a majority, so any further discussion meetings prove to be "empty and superfluous."

The chronology notes another instance on March 1, 2004, when McWilliams was prohibited by Vice President for Academic Affairs Alison Byerly to send out a letter alerting American Literature alumni to the developments. Conceding that a majority of the English Department was in favor of the changes, Donadio pointed out that during late spring 2004, "negotiating teams" appointed by the literature department chairs to produce proposals to the EAC consisted only of members in favor of the reconfigurations.

McWilliams took the podium after Donadio, and said the decision will "gut" teaching opportunities in American literature. He told the faculty the curricular suggestions in the EAC draft - such as the survey course - constituted an "11th hour proposal" and a "sop to gain your vote." McWilliams said he does not think the survey course would last more than three years, calling it "a soothing delusion for today's political purpose."

Associate Professor of Biology Helen Young was the next to address the faculty on behalf of the EAC. She stressed that the EAC had focused on the anecdotal opinions of currents students in drafting its proposal. She said the present relationship between the English Department and the American Literature program fosters "conflict, confusion and redundancy," and noted that only the current English Department houses the creative writing and post-colonial literature programs.

Young added that the current American Civilization program has a strong literary bent, and that the "true interdisciplinarity of the field will be accomplished" under the new American Studies program.

Millier stood up to defend the EAC proposal by pointing out that a 1999 external review committee, comprised of academics from outside the College and unrelated to the EAC proposal, had reviewed the English Department and concluded there was a "prohibition of cooperation" between the two different literature programs.