The bureaucracy that is LSU has proven itself time and again to be a veritable foe for a foreign language-loving journalist.
In the words of Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor John Hamilton at Monday’s Faculty Senate meeting, “I was appalled at the amount of bureaucracy we have at LSU.” Or, perhaps better said by Chancellor Michael Martin in a recent interview, “We’ve got protocols all over the place.”
I’ve recently learned that protocols dictating University policy are subject to interpretation, much like the U.S. Constitution. Whereas one group (faculty) will say curricula have been illegally altered, another (administration) will say programs have merely been defunded while a third (state government) will trump both as it so chooses.
And as the three great protocols are set against one another, one wonders which will win in the end. It won’t be students — we can be sure of this much.
I recently came across the proposed Faculty Senate resolution, endorsed by the University’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. This resolution states, among other things, that the University administration’s recent actions may not be in line with the regulations of the LSU Board of Supervisors. This group grants power to University faculty to establish curricula, a power manifested in the Faculty Senate. According to Resolution 10-14, the Faculty Senate “has no confidence in the current budget-cutting process” — and I don’t blame them.
University administration has not been granted the power to alter curricula, according to guidelines set by the Board of Regents and Policy Statement 45 of the Office of Academic Affairs.
But who then made the call to bring down the axe on the four foreign languages currently sitting on death row, due for execution at the culmination of this semester?
It wasn’t the Board of Regents — they didn’t approve this, according to Regents spokeswoman Meg Casper.
It wasn’t the faculty — Martin stated at both the Forum last Tuesday, as well as in the meeting with the “foreign language 14,” it was his call, and he’ll bear the cross for it.
The closest thing to faculty involvement, as has been indicated by Martin, was the “group” he conferred with, meaning the Right  Sizing Committee.
At this point, you may be asking, “Why have I not heard of this committee yet?” — and you’d be justified in your ignorance. Even I was unaware of the group, until discussing the matter with Faculty Senate President Kevin Cope.
According to Cope, who is on the committee, all members — aside from Student Government President J Hudson and Vice President Dani Borel — signed confidentiality agreements. In addition to this, they have met a grand total of two times: once to receive their charge and the second to hear about progress on budget matters.
While this doesn’t really answer much about the Right Sizing Committee’s involvement in the recent language cuts, it does explain its ambiguity when referenced by Martin at last week’s Forum as “the group.”
This “group” also happens to be one of three that have been formed to address the budget crisis. The first was the Realignment Taskforce, whose significance is shrouded in ambiguity. The second, as mentioned above, was the Right Sizing Committee — which still exists. Last is the FY12 Budget Crisis Committee, responsible for framing budget cut projections that will undoubtedly haunt our University for coming years.
Fun fact: The Right Sizing Committee contains a total of 16 members, of which 11 are faculty. The FY12 Budget Crisis Committee has a total of 10 members, of which only four are faculty — a 29-percent difference in faculty presence.
No big deal — until one considers the legal necessity of faculty involvement when curricula are at stake.
I realize the University has a set of protocols for just about everything. Trying to find out how altering curricula should legally go, I sat down with Emily Batinski, chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature.
She informed me that, according to protocol, changes to curricula should go something like this: University faculty approach a curriculum committee, which then consults with the Faculty Senate, who then bring the matter to Academic Affairs to make the decision.
This amounts to the exact opposite of what happened with the four foreign language programs, with the impetus beginning at the administrative level and culminating on the faculty level.
I’ll admit, deciphering protocol seems impossible in determining who acted wrongly or rightly in this situation. Nonetheless, Batinski and I couldn’t help but wonder why even she wasn’t consulted before the proverbial axe fell on four of her programs.
It was her opinion that “the chancellor did not effectively consult with faculty before making the call.
And it is here the matter becomes more complicated, with the question “was the curriculum altered?” hovering over the entire debacle.
While none of the four axed languages offered majors in their respective fields, international studies seems to be the front runner for affected programs.
Seeking further clarification, I talked to Professor Leonard Ray, director of international studies. He, like Batinksi, was not consulted before the cut fell, but rather was informed after the fact that these languages had been deemed unworthy.
According to Ray, these languages were essential to many students in the International Studies program, and he felt axing these programs “could inadvertently dismantle International Studies.”
For instance, International Studies students with a concentration in Russian require five semesters of the language.
But now that these cuts have fallen, the curriculum has been altered de facto — at least for these students and Ray’s program.
What was once available as a field of study no longer exists, but this change did not come from the faculty — the only place it can rightly come from. It came, rather, from University administration — which is not endowed with the power to make these decisions.
In this particular instance, administration exploited what appears to be a loophole. It did not technically alter curricula by canceling programs. It rather defunded them — the same difference.
So while there apparently are two sets of protocol both for faculty and administration for altering curricula, it seems the two have clashed in this instance. Combine these with the orders coming down from the governor’s office, and we’ve got an unholy trinity of budget cut madness competing to be the definitive “protocol” — though there can be only one.
Administration can’t alter curricula, but they can remove instructors. The question now is, “If programs are canceled because of instructor removals and defunding, does that constitute altered curricula?”
I’m not in a position to answer this dilemma, but the AAUP (the academic equivalent of the ACLU) has thankfully stepped up to the challenge, and the Faculty Senate is giving them notice.
On a final note, the department of foreign languages still has pamphlets in its lobby for the four foreign languages that have, for the time being, been axed.
I wouldn’t throw them away just yet — they may come in handy when it is realized that the recent actions brought against foreign languages need to be brought under further review.
Can I get an “amen” — and some clarification — on who, in reality, has the power to change curricula?
I have a sneaking suspicion we’ll need this information in the very near future.
Andrew Robertson is a 23-year-old English writing and culture senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Arobertson.
—-
Contact Andrew Robertson at [email protected]