Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Resolution 1112-05R
Executive Summary
The committee found no basis on which to recommend the activation or reactivation of any programs in
European Language and Classical Studies. Careful consideration was given to various interpretations of
the Resolution, and is detailed below.
Formation of the Committee
University Senate Resolution 1112-05R states, “Be it resolved that the Executive Committee of the
Senate immediately establish a subcommittee composed of representatives from UAC, GAC and UPPC, as
well as other faculty with relevant expertise, to determine which programs in European Language and
Classical Studies should be activated, reactivated, or remain active in accordance with the liberal arts
mission of the university, such subcommittee to report back to the Senate by 4/15/12.”
This resolution was passed by the University Senate on 2/6/12. The Senate Executive Committee, in its
meeting on 2/22/12, “discussed how the committee would be formed; the resolution calls for specific
membership. Since forming committees in general falls under the work of the Governance Council, a
motion was made that GOV be charged with forming the committee. The motion was seconded and
approved by a vote with 7 in favor, 3 opposed and 1 abstention.” (SEC Minutes, 2/22/12).
At the 2/27/12 GOV meeting, “There was a discussion concerning Resolution 1112-05R which the SEC
has charged to GOV since GOV is the Council on Committees and the resolution calls for the
establishment of a subcommittee to determine which programs in European Language and Classical
Studies should be activated, reactivated or remain active. The subcommittee is to report back to the
Senate by April 15. Senator Stefl-Mabry recommended contacting the Center for Technology in
Government since they could offer resources that can assist. Secretary Leonard referred to a notation
from the SEC that the French Program should provide a representative and the committee should
include members from the Strategic Plan. Chair Lyons asked Senator Fox if she would take the
responsibility for a representative from the French Program and she agreed to do so. Chair Lyons will
look into other required representation.” (GOV minutes, 2/27/12).
The minutes from the next GOV meeting, on 3/19/12, read in part, “Chair Lyons sent requests to the
chairs of GAC, UAC and UPPC to appoint a representative from each of their councils to be on the
subcommittee as outlined in Resolution 1112-05R. Senator Fox responded with the name of a
representative from the French Department and Chair Lyons is waiting to hear from the Provost for a
representative from the Strategic Plan. A representative will also be needed to address the foreign
languages component of the resolution. Once all the names of representatives have been submitted,
Chair Lyons will arrange to have them meet.” (GOV minutes, 3/19/12)
UPPC discussed its representation on the committee at its April 20th meeting. The minutes are as
follows: “Discussion commenced regarding Senate Resolution 1112-5R (to determine offerings in
European Languages and Classical Studies in accordance with UAlbany’s mission) relative to whether Dr.
Wills’ offer to serve as the UPPC rep to this committee is in conflict with his role as sponsor of the bill, as
well as a member of an affected department. Dr. Wills asserted that this legislation is in conflict with an
administrative decision that has already been made. Chair Lifshin asked Dr. Wills if his personal interest
in this committee would compromise his ability to report the activities of this group back to UPPC in
terms of resource implications. Dr. Wills replied that it would not. Dr. Fessler asked Mr. Beditz about the
conflict of interest definition. Mr. Beditz responded that broadly, we should not use our professional
offices for personal gain or in conflict with our duties as officers of the State of New York. Dr. Fessler felt
that the result of the committee’s decision could directly benefit Dr. Wills in terms of employment. Dr.
1
Johnson reflected that having a vested interest could influence one’s participation in such a group.
Dr. Lifshin issued a renewed call for an alternate volunteer to come forth. As no one came forward, Dr.
Lifshin asked for a motion to decline Dr. Wills’ offer to serve on the committee as the UPPC
representative based on a perceived conflict of interest. Dr. Johnson asked what UPPC would want the
volunteer to this committee focus on. Ms. DiDonna voiced a concern that since Dr. Wills authored the
proposal, that there could very well be a perception of conflict within the university community if he also
served on the committee, which was echoed by Dr. Wagner. Dr. Wagner requested clarification on the
committee’s role. (The committee’s charge is to report back to Senate by 4/15/12 on recommendations
for program reinstatement, which would ultimately go back to GAC, UAC and ultimately UPPC). A secret
ballot approved Dr. Wills as the UPPC representative to the committee.”
GOV also reached out to the Vice Provost for International Education, but after careful consideration he
declined to serve on the committee.
In the end, the committee roster was as follows:
Name
Affiliation for the purposes of the committee
Lee Bickmore
Languages; Strategic Plan
Suraj Commuri
GAC
Sue Faerman
Undergraduate Education; Strategic Plan
Rick Fogarty
UAC; Languages
Tim Groves
GAC
Trudi Jacobson
UAC
JoAnne Malatesta
UAC
Diana Mancini
GAC
Greg Stevens
CAS Office; Classics
David Wills
UPPC; LLC; Languages
The committee met on 5/11/12. Senate Chair Fessler called the meeting to order, explained the
committee’s charge, and asked that the group elect a chair. She then left the meeting. In the end, no
committee member was willing to chair the group. There was a general discussion, however, and David
Wills followed up on 5/17/12 with an e-mail to the committee members, containing data about UAlbany
peer and aspirational peer institutions. (See appendices)
No committee activity happened over the summer months. In late August, with the start of the new
school year, Senate officers followed up on the issue. Two members of the original committee were no
longer able to serve in Fall 2012: Greg Stevens (retired) and David Wills (on sabbatical). GOV was asked
to find replacements for these two members. This was discussed at both the Sept. 17 and October 1
GOV meetings. The relevant portions of the minutes are as follows:
“Chair Wagner provided a history of the resolution introduced by Senator Wills and passed by
the Senate this past February. The resolution called for the formation of a committee to address
the issues. A committee was formed last year and met once but was unable to elect a chair. The
committee decided to work as a group but has not met since the initial meeting. There are two
vacancies on the committee: Greg Stevens has retired and John Monfasani has agreed to fill his
seat on the committee. David Wills’ seat is vacant since he is on leave this semester. UPPC
Chair Fessler has agreed to take Senator Wills’ seat on the committee and expressed her
willingness to be nominated for chair the committee. Chair Wagner said GOV is charged with
approving the replacements of the two vacancies.
Mr. White raised the question as to whether the replacement of an LLC member with a member
of EAS would be suitable since the resolution addresses European languages. Chair Wagner
2
pointed out that the resolution requires representation from UPPC, which David Wills filled, as
well as members with ‘relevant expertise.’ GOV members felt Chair Fessler would be the
appropriate member from UPPC but agreed that an additional member to represent European
languages would be more appropriate. They also suggested that John Monfasani would also be
a reasonable nomination for committee chair. Chair Wagner agreed to have a discussion with
him about doing so. She will also make a suggestion to GOV of an individual to represent
expertise in European languages.” (GOV Minutes, September 17, 2012)
“Two of the committee’s members are no longer on campus and are in need of being replaced.
Chair Fessler has agreed to sit on the committee as the required member from UPPC and John
Monfasani from the History Department and also an Associate Dean of CAS, has agreed to sit on
the committee as a representative of CAS and someone who is familiar with Classics. At GOV’s
last meeting it was suggested to have someone from European languages sit on the committee.
Professor Altarriba from Psychology was recommended. The committee will be convened as
soon as possible by Chair Wagner but she would like to have GOV’s approval of new members
before doing so. Senator DeBlasi pointed out that a discussion also took place at the last
meeting about there being no representation from LLC.
A discussion ensued concerning the addition of the chair of LLC to the committee. Since the
committee is charged with determining “which programs in European Language and Classical
Studies should be activated, reactivated, or remain active” and consequently with calling for a
unit to put forth such a bill, it seemed inappropriate to add the chair of LLC, which overseas
European Languages. Senator DeBlasi said he believed the chair of LLC should be part of the
process in looking forward to the issues surrounding activation and deactivation of languages.
GOV agreed, however, that it would not be appropriate to put a junior faculty member in that
position. After some further discussion, a motion was made to invite the chair of LLC to sit on
the committee as well as Professor Altarriba. The motion was seconded and approved by a
unanimous vote.” (GOV Minutes, October 1, 2012)
The Chair of LLC, Lotfi Sayahi, declined to serve, and instead designated Professor Henryk Baran (Russian
program) to serve.
The new committee roster was then as follows:
Name
Affiliation for the purposes of the committee
Jeanette Altarriba
Languages
Henryk Baran
LLC; Languages
Lee Bickmore
Languages; Strategic Plan
Suraj Commuri
GAC
Sue Faerman
Undergraduate Education; Strategic Plan
Susanna Fessler
UPPC; Languages
Rick Fogarty
UAC; Languages
Tim Groves
GAC
Trudi Jacobson
UAC
JoAnne Malatesta
UAC
Diana Mancini
GAC
John Monfasani
CAS Office; Languages
That the committee includes many members who are affiliated with languages was a result of GOV’s
interpretation of the resolution language, which indicates that the committee should contain “other
faculty with relevant expertise.” John Monfasani was selected by GOV to represent both the CAS office
3
and also Languages.
The newly constituted committee was convened by the chair of GOV, Christine Wagner, on 10/22/12 and
elected Susanna Fessler as chair. This election was held by ballot, and was unanimous except for one
abstention. Prior to conducting the ballot, the Chair of GOV asked for any nominations for Chair from the
floor and there were none.
Articulation of the Committee’s Charge
The language of the resolution states that the “subcommittee [will]… determine which programs in
European Language and Classical Studies1 should be activated, reactivated, or remain active in
accordance with the liberal arts mission of the university…”
The committee found this problematic, because UAlbany does not have a “liberal arts mission.” No such
mission is in our current Strategic Plan, nor was it in previous iterations. Our current Strategic Plan states
our mission as “Expanding knowledge and transforming minds to shape the future of our community
and our world.” Our 1992 mission was articulated as follows:
First, a commitment to the pursuit and advancement of knowledge, for its own sake and for its
practical benefits to society.
Second, a commitment to the teaching of students, to their growth in knowledge, and to that
reinforcement of character, through co-curricular experiences, which enables them to develop
emotionally, physically, and socially even as they mature intellectually;
Third, a commitment to the larger interests of society through acts of public service, and by
fostering the ideals of social justice;
Fourth, a commitment to freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression, and to the rights and
obligations of faculty and students to pursue knowledge, wherever it may lead;
Fifth, a commitment to profit intellectually and imaginatively from differences of opinion and of
culture.
Again, this does not indicate that UAlbany had (before the current Strategic Plan) a “liberal arts mission.”
Nonetheless, the committee returned to the “Whereas” section of the resolution to discern how the UA
mission, as articulated in the Strategic Plan, might apply. In other words, how do the “whereas”
statements in the resolution map onto arguments for “which programs in European Language and
Classical Studies should be activated, reactivated, or remain active” in accordance with our Strategic
Plan?
One other area of the resolution was unclear to the committee: whether the resolution asked for a
consideration of only undergraduate programs, or both undergraduate and graduate programs. The LLC
representative on the committee was asked his opinion, but he did not answer the question. The
committee decided that it would focus on undergraduate programs only.
The committee also discussed whether the financial resource implications of the resolution should be
addressed. It was agreed that, given the absence of financial considerations in the resolution itself, the
committee should keep its report to the issues that did appear in the resolution.
Peer Comparisons
The first two “whereas” clauses of the resolution are:
Whereas none of UAlbany’s peer institutions offers fewer than 3 baccalaureate programs in
European languages,
Whereas the deactivations of 10/1/102 reduce such offerings at UAlbany to 1 (Spanish),
1 We do not have a program in Classical Studies. The major/minors were called Greek and Roman Civilizations and
the program was referred to as the Classics Program. However, since the Resolution uses the term “Classical
Studies” for the purposes of this report we will retain it.
2 As a technical detail, no programs were deactivated on 10/1/10. Rather, admissions to those programs were
suspended on that date, pending further budgetary decisions. The president’s official announcement of
4
These two points were seen as part of the same argument, that UAlbany should mirror or exceed its peer
institutions in terms of European language program offerings. The committee discussed arguments for
such “mirroring.” Certainly not all SUNY campuses, or their peers, aim to perfectly duplicate others’
curriculum. Each campus maintains its own identity, to some extent tied to the unique and/or
particularly strong programs that it has. Indeed, when a SUNY campus proposes to create a new
program, part of the approval process necessitates consultation with other SUNY campuses that have
similar programs to ensure that the creation of a new program will not cause a negative impact. The
concern there is largely one of supply and demand; if the demand of students does not meet or exceed
the supply of programs, then the program does not serve the student body efficiently.
Another possible argument for mirroring our peers is that the programs in question—French, Italian, and
Russian—have intrinsic value, and should therefore be part of all schools’ curriculum, as evidenced by
programs that our peers have in place. This assumes that our peers, likewise, hold these programs to be
intrinsically valuable without concern for viability in terms of enrollments (not majors, but rather FTEs).
The Delaware data (see appendix) which compare UA to our peer institutions, however, does not clearly
support this idea, nor does it necessarily refute it. Naturally, this does not prevent UA from holding some
programs as intrinsically valuable; it simply reduces the strength of the peer comparison argument. The
argument that we should have the same programs as our peers or peer institutions, thus, did not sway
the committee. There was discussion of how enrollments could tie in to such an argument, but it was
quickly agreed that such an approach took us into the finances of program reactivation, and that as
previously agreed, we should focus on the arguments of the resolution solely.
Strategic Plan
The next two “whereas” clauses read:
Whereas the Student Experience Objective #4 of the Strategic Plan, which calls for amplifying the
‘World Within Reach’ perspective through a dynamic, rich assemblage of experiences, includes
as Action Step 4.5 “to encourage undergraduate student contact with foreign languages and
world cultures,”
Whereas the Strategic Plan charges the Vice Provost for International Education with organizing
a group to identify critical languages and ways to build the University’s capacity to deliver
instruction in them, such group to be convened immediately following approval of the Strategic
Plan, such group not having yet been convened,
The text from Action Step 4.5 above is from the Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan. The full text of
Action Step 4.5 is as follows:
Action Step 4.5: Provide training in the languages that students are most likely to need in an
increasingly globalized world, ensure regular course offering at all levels of instruction (including
advanced courses) in these critical languages, and focus on student proficiency in these
languages for both study abroad and career development; charge the Vice Provost for
International Education with organizing a group to identify those languages and ways to build
the University’s capacity to deliver instruction in them.
The language about the timeline above, that “such group [should be] convened immediately” implies an
imperative which does not actually exist. Stepping back to look at the implementation of the entire
Strategic Plan, it is important to note that all mentions of timelines in the Strategic Plan are “suggested,”
not mandated. In presenting the final Strategic Plan document to President Philip, the Strategic Planning
Committee recommended that priority be given to a subset of the six major goals and their objectives.
President Philip concurred and selected a subset of initiatives across the major goals to take priority in
the first two years of implementation. Fully detailed at
deactivations of degree programs was delivered to the university community on 3/24/11.
5
http://www.albany.edu/strategicplan/files/Strategic_Plan_Implementation_year1_2_priorities.pdf, these
included:
1.
Undergraduate Academics
2.
Student Engagement, Advising, Mentoring, and Support
3.
Student Recruitment and Enrollment
4.
Graduate Education
5.
Research
6.
Keeping Pace with Emerging Technologies
7.
Faculty and Instructional Development
The following parts of Action Step 4, which falls under the “Undergraduate Academics” initiative, are
given Year 1 & 2 priority:
Undergraduate/Objective #4: Enhance the international components of undergraduate
education…study abroad/intersession…international student enrollment^…strategic languages…
enhance global course offerings (see also Student Experience/Objective #4 (Amplify the ‘World
Within Reach’ perspective through a dynamic, rich assemblage of experiences)
Of these, “international components of undergraduate education” and “strategic languages” are
applicable to Resolution 1112-05R. The committee notes that “international components of
undergraduate education” is a broad category, which subsumes most of the other categories. The issue
of what is a “strategic language” will be addressed below.
Measuring “Strategic Languages”
The language of the Strategic Plan indicates that UA should “provide training in the languages that
students are most likely to need in an increasingly globalized world, ensure regular course offering at all
levels of instruction (including advanced courses) in these critical languages, and focus on student
proficiency in these languages for both study abroad and career development.” This led the committee
to question how one would measure what languages “students are most likely to need in an increasingly
globalized world.” Suggested metrics were 1) the number of speakers of a language world-wide, 2) The
collective GDP of speakers of a language, 3) current demand in the United States for classes in a foreign
language, and 4) “Critical Language” designation by the U.S. government.
1.
Number of speakers worldwide
. Accurate data for this metric are notoriously difficult to pin
down, and there are widely varying numbers available. Many of the most commonly cited data
are now more than a decade old. A sample of more recent numbers—although not necessarily
authoritative—is below.
Top 30 Languages by Number of Native Speakers3
Data source: Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th ed. (2005) & Wikipedia.org.
Language
approximate # of
speakers
Where is it spoken as an official language?
1.
Mandarin
Chinese
NATIVE: 873 million
2nd: 178 million
TOTAL: 1.051 billion
OFFICIAL: People's Republic of China, Republic of
China, Singapore
2.
Hindi
NATIVE: 370 million
OFFICIAL: India, Fiji
3 From http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm. Accessed 11/3/12. The committee
recognizes that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. However, data that includes 2nd language speakers are not
included in Ethnologue’s data set, nor are they easily obtained elsewhere.
6
2nd:120 million
TOTAL: 490 million
3.
Spanish
NATIVE: 350 million
2nd: 70 million
TOTAL: 420 million
OFFICIAL: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, United
States (New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Venezuela
4.
English
NATIVE: 340 million
TOTAL: 510 million
OFFICIAL: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The
Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana,
Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Dominica, Ethiopia, Eritrea,
Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong
(People's Republic of China), India, Ireland, Jamaica,
Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Maritius, Micronesia, Namibia,
Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevs,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands,
Somolia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania,
Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United
Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
5.
Arabic
NATIVE: 206 million
2nd: 24 million
TOTAL: 230 million
[World Almanac est.
total 255 million]
OFFICIAL: Modern Standard Arabic: Algeria, Bahrain,
Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, Israel,
Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Niger, Oman,
Palestinian Territories, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Western
Sahara, Yemen. | Hasaniya Arabic: Mauritania, Senegal
NATIONAL: Mali
Note: These figures combine all the varieties of Arabic. Some
data sources, e.g. CIA World Fact Book, World Almanac,
Ethnologue, treat these varieties as separate languages.
6.
Portuguese
NATIVE: 203 million
2nd: 10 million
TOTAL: 213 million
OFFICIAL: Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor,
Guinea-Bissau, Macau (People's Republic of China),
Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé e Príncipe.
7.
Bengali
NATIVE: 196 million
TOTAL: 215 million
OFFICIAL: Bangladesh, India (Tripura, West Bengal)
8.
Russian
NATIVE: 145 million
2nd: 110 million
TOTAL: 255 million
OFFICIAL: Abkhazia (part of Georgia), Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyyrgyzstan, Russia, Transnistria (part of
Moldova).
9.
Japanese
NATIVE: 126 million
2nd: 1 million
TOTAL: 127 million
OFFICIAL: Japan, Palau
10.
German
NATIVE: 101 million
2nd: 128 million
TOTAL: 229 million
OFFICIAL: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy (South
Tyrol), Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Switzerland
11.
Panjabi
Western: 60 million
Eastern: 28 million
OFFICIAL: India (Punjab)
7
TOTAL: 88 million
NATIONAL: Pakistan
12.
Javanese
76 million
OFFICIAL: Indonesia (esp. Java)
13.
Korean
71 million
OFFICIAL: North Korea, South Korea
14.
Vietnamese
NATIVE: 70 million
2nd: 16 million
TOTAL: 86 million
OFFICIAL: Vietnam
15.
Telugu
NATIVE: 70 million
2nd: 5 million
TOTAL: 75 million
OFFICIAL: India (Andhra Pradesh)
16.
Marathi
NATIVE: 68 million
2nd: 3 million
TOTAL: 71 million
OFFICIAL: India (Daman and Diu, Goa, Maharashtra)
17.
Tamil
NATIVE: 68 million
2nd: 9 million
TOTAL: 77 million
OFFICIAL: India (Tamil Nadu), Singapore, Sri Lanka
18.
French
NATIVE: 67 million
2nd: 63 million
TOTAL: 130 million
OFFICIAL or NATIONAL: Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic,
Chad, Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa,
Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, France,
French Polynesia, Gabon, Guernsey, Guinea, Haiti,
India (Karikal, Pondicherry), Italy, Jersey, Lebanon,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Martinique, Mauritius,
Mayotte, Monaco, New Caledonia, Niger, Rwanda,
Senegal, Seychelles, Switzerland, Togo, United States
(Louisiana), Vanuatu.
19.
Urdu
NATIVE: 61 million
2nd: 43 million
TOTAL: 104 million
OFFICIAL: India (Jammu and Kashmir), Pakistan.
20.
Italian
61 million
OFFICIAL: Croatia (Istria Country), Italy, San Marino,
Slovenia, Switzerland.
21.
Turkish
NATIVE: 60 million
2nd: 15 million
TOTAL: 75 million
OFFICIAL: Bulgaria (Kurdzhali Province and areas of
South and East Bulgaria), Cyprus, Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus, Turkey
22.
Persian
54 million
OFFICIAL: Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan.
23.
Gujarati
46 million
OFFICIAL: India (Gujarat, Daman and Diu, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli).
24.
Polish
46 million
OFFICIAL: Poland
25.
Ukrainian
39 million
OFFICIAL: Ukraine, Transnistria (part of Moldova).
8
26.
Malayalam
37 million
OFFICIAL: India (Kerala, Lakshadweep, Mahe).
27.
Kannada
NATIVE: 35 million
2nd: 9 million
TOTAL: 44 million
OFFICIAL: India (Karnataka).
28.
Oriya
32 million
OFFICIAL: India (Orissa).
29.
Burmese
NATIVE: 32 million
2nd: 10 million
TOTAL: 42 million
OFFICIAL: Myanmar.
30.
Thai
NATIVE: 20 million
2nd: 40 million
TOTAL: 60 million
OFFICIAL: Thailand.
It is worth noting that Indonesian is missing from this list, perhaps because it is not the native language
of many, but it is spoken by most of the population of Indonesia.
Given these numbers, the order of priority for European Languages would be Spanish, Portuguese,
Russian, French, and German, but the number of speakers of non-European languages is significant.
2.
Gross Domestic Product
Again, there are many statistical resources available. The data below of GDP by language come from
http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn13/#GDP_by_Language. Based on the gross domestic product, the
most important non-English European languages would be Spanish, German, French, Portuguese,
Italian, and Russian, in that order.
9
3.
Current demand
The Modern Language Association recently published a report on foreign language learning trends in the
United States. The full report can be found here: http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey.pdf.
The chart below comes from that report.
Percentage of Total Language Course Enrollments, 1968-2009, for the Fourteen Most Commonly Taught
Languages in 2009.
1968
1980
1990
1995
1998
2002
2006
2009
Spanish
32.4
41.0
45.1
53.2
55.0
53.4
52.2
51.4
French
34.4
26.9
23.0
18
16.7
14.5
13.1
12.9
German
19.2
13.7
11.3
8.5
7.5
6.5
6.0
5.7
ASL
-
-
0.1
0.4
1.0
4.4
5.0
5.5
Italian
2.7
3.8
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.6
5.0
4.8
Japanese
0.4
1.2
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.7
4.2
4.4
Chinese
0.4
1.2
1.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.3
3.6
Arabic
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.5
2.1
Latin
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
Russian
3.6
2.6
3.8
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
Hebrew
0.9
2.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.3
Greek,
Ancient
1.7
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
Portugues
e
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
Korean
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
Other
Languages
2.4
0.7
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.1
Taking solely the European Language data from this table (those rows shaded above) and charting them,
we find the following trends:
10
1968
1980
1990
1995
1998
2002
2006
2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Spanish
French
ASL
Arabic
Latin
Hebrew1
Greek, Ancient
Both French and German have seen significant decline since 1968. Italian, by contrast, has seen a slight
increase in enrollments. Latin, Russian, and Greek have also declined, although their numbers were
never high to begin with.
4.
Critical Language Designation
“Critical language” is a term used in the U.S. to designate languages for which there is large demand for
language professionals but little supply. The list of which languages are considered critical changes over
time as economic and political situations change and develop, but often these languages are radically
different from English in grammatical structures, sound systems and writing systems. The current “critical
languages” are:
Arabic
Azerbaijiani
Bengali
Chinese
Hindi
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Punjabi
Russian
Turkish
Urdu
Russian is the only European language currently considered “critical.”
In sum, these four interpretations of “strategic” do not result in a common conclusion.
11
Language Offerings and Degree Programs
Consideration of these data brought the committee to one more issue: concerns about “strategic
languages” and consequently which programs should be “activated, reactivated, or remain active”
conflate the offering of foreign language classes with the offering of baccalaureate degrees in those
languages. Offering language classes is not the same as offering a BA degree in those languages. Of note
is that in these area studies units, courses fall into one of three categories: language courses (those that
focus on teaching the language as a second language), content courses taught in the target language
(those that focus on other topics, such as history or literature) and content courses taught in English
(again, those that focus on other topics, such as history or literature).
A key question is thus whether reactivating a language degree program would address Action Step 4.5
of the Strategic Plan, “Provide training in the languages that students are most likely to need in an
increasingly globalized world, ensure regular course offering at all levels of instruction (including
advanced courses) in these critical languages, and focus on student proficiency in these languages for
both study abroad and career development.”
The minors currently in place for French, Italian, and Russian require the following:
French: A minimum of 18 graduation credits from course work with an A FRE prefix above A FRE
101 including A FRE 341Z. No more than 3 credits of courses conducted in English may be used
to satisfy the requirements of the minor.
Italian: A minimum of 18 graduation credits from course work with an A ITA prefix above A ITA
100, including A ITA 206, 207, 301Z.
Russian: A minimum of 18 graduation credits in courses with A RUS prefix as advised with at
least 9 credits in course work at the 300 level or above and/or in courses requiring at least one
prerequisite course.
In comparison, the deactivated majors in these areas required the following:
French B.A.: a minimum of 36 credits above A FRE 222. These include: 21 credits of core courses
(A FRE 301, 306, 340Z, 341Z, 355, 360, 461Z); 15 credits of elective courses at the 300 level
and/or 400 level, including at least 6 credits at the 400 level. A FRE 306, 355, and at least one
400-level course must be taken in residence at the Albany campus. Credits earned through study
abroad programs will not fulfill this requirement.
Italian B.A.: A minimum of 35 credits including A ITA 103, 104, 206, 207, 223, 301Z, 313, 315 and
nine additional credits at or above the 300 level, six of which must be at the 400 level.
Russian B.A.: A minimum of 36 credits of Russian language (above A RUS 102), literature, or
culture courses. Two alternative tracks lead to the degree: (A) Language, (B) Literature and
Culture. Each program consists of a common core of 28 credits plus at least 8 credits in the area
of concentration.
Core Program (28 credits)
Language (19 credits): A RUS 201, 202, 301, 302, 311.
Literature and Culture (9 credits): Three courses, at least one of which is in literature, from
among A RUS 251, 252, 253, 161/Z, 162/Z, 280 or as advised by the Director of Undergraduate
Studies.
Area Concentration: (8 credits)
12
(A) Language: A RUS 480 plus 5 credits in Russian language courses or in literature courses
taught in Russian at the 300 level or above.
(B) Literature and Culture: A RUS 480, at least one course in Russian literature at the 300 level or
above, and at least one course as advised from among A RUS 380, A HIS 354, 355, A POS 354,
356, 452Z or other courses.
In general, the major requirements place emphasis on upper-level courses, some (but not all) of which
are language courses. Is reactivating the majors in French, Russian, and Italian necessary in order to offer
upper-level language courses in these languages? Re-activating the degree programs in these languages
would not necessarily be the only way to “ensure regular course offerings at all levels of instruction
(including advanced courses),” assuming that these languages are determined to be “languages that
students are most likely to need in an increasingly globalized world” (an assumption that this
subcommittee has not been able to validate).
The existence of minors in these languages in most cases necessitates, as the above-listed requirements
make clear, some advanced course offerings. It does not seem, however, that a BA program in a given
language is the only way to offer courses at the upper-level. Would reactivation increase the language
courses being offered at the advanced level, as mentioned in the Strategic Plan? The answer to this
question is “yes,” because a robust slate of advanced courses would be necessary to constitute a major
in these languages. However, one must note that it is not necessary to have a BA program in a language
in order to offer upper-level language courses in that language.
In sum, Strategic Plan Action Step 4.5 calls for “training in the languages that students are most likely to
need in an increasingly globalized world, ensure regular course offering at all levels of instruction
(including advanced courses) in these critical languages, and focus on student proficiency in these
languages for both study abroad and career development,” which argues for upper-level language
classes but not necessarily for activating, reactivating, or keeping active degree programs.
Role of the Faculty in Initiating Programs
The final “whereas” clause of Resolution 1112-05R states: “Whereas Faculty By-Law 2.2.1 charges the
Faculty with initiating, disapproving or approving and recommending for implementation 'all changes in,
additions to, or deletions from the Curriculum.'” The implication here is that the committee's report
could serve in place of a Senate bill proposing changes in the status of the deactivated European
languages. However, it cannot. If a member, or members of the faculty, wish to propose a change in an
academic program, he/she/they must submit such a detailed proposal to the appropriate school or
college (local committee and dean's office), and after that the proposal must pass through the
appropriate Senate Council and the Senate as a whole. If approved by the Senate AND signed by the
president, then the proposal can be enacted.
Conclusion
The committee did not find the arguments of Resolution 1112-05--that peer comparisons and the
Strategic Plan Action Step 4.5 called for the reactivation of degree programs in French, Italian, and
Russian--compelling. In response to the charge to “determine which programs in European Language and
Classical Studies should be activated, reactivated, or remain active,” our conclusion is that research and
analysis of relevant data did not provide evidence to support making such a recommendation. This
decision is not meant to be a global decision, one that takes all other arguments into account.
Additionally, there was concern that, should one want to accomplish the “activation or reactivation” of a
program, a Senate resolution was not the proper vehicle. Although the committee can and hereby does
render an opinion on the matter, the ad hoc committee of Resolution 1112-05R has no power to initiate
13
a proposal to activate or reactivate a program. A possible channel would be for faculty to propose a
“faculty initiated interdisciplinary major” in French, Italian, and/or Russian. Although this is not the same
as having BA programs in these languages, it would be a first step toward rebuilding these programs in
the future.
A remaining, tangential question is “What languages will our students need in an increasingly globalized
world?” Although the committee investigated ways in which such a question could be answered, it did
not attempt to answer the question definitively. The Strategic Plan does call for such a decision, however,
and the committee hopes that it will be made sooner rather than later.
14
APPENDICES
1.
Resolution 1112-05R
2.
Peers and Aspirational Peers Comparison Charts
3.
GDP by Language Report
4.
Results from the 2009-2010 Delaware Study
5.
UAlbany 1998 Strategic Plan
6.
UAlbany 2010 Strategic Plan
7.
UAlbany Strategic Plan Year 1 & 2 Priorities
15
Senate Resolution 1112-5R
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Introduced by:
Senator David Wills
Date:
February 6. 2012
RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE OFFERINGS IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES & CLASSICAL STUDIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UALBANY’S MISSION AND STRATEGIC PLAN
Whereas none of UAlbany’s peer institutions offers fewer than 3 baccalaureate programs in European
languages,
Whereas the deactivations of 10/1/10 reduce such offerings at UAlbany to 1 (Spanish),
Whereas the Undergraduate Education Objective #4 of the Strategic Plan calls for various initiatives
designed to enhance the international components of undergraduate education,
Whereas the Student Experience Objective #4 of the Strategic Plan, which calls for amplifying the ‘World
Within Reach’ perspective through a dynamic, rich assemblage of experiences, includes as Action Step
4.5 “to encourage undergraduate student contact with foreign languages and world cultures,”
Whereas the Strategic Plan charges the Vice Provost for International Education with organizing a group
to identify critical languages and ways to build the University’s capacity to deliver instruction in them,
such group to be convened immediately following approval of the Strategic Plan, such group not having
yet been convened,
Whereas Faculty By-Law 2.2.1 charges the Faculty with initiating, disapproving or approving and
recommending for implementation “all changes in, additions to, or deletions from the Curriculum,”
Be it resolved that the Executive Committee of the Senate immediately establish a subcommittee
composed of representatives from UAC, GAC and UPPC, as well as other faculty with relevant expertise,
to determine which programs in European Language and Classical Studies should be activated,
reactivated, or remain active in accordance with the liberal arts mission of the university, such
subcommittee to report back to the Senate by 4/15/12.
16
