Things at Brandeis are in a phase of change, and many aspects of the university are being subject to attempts at innovation. As a part of these alterations, there have been proposed changes to academics, especially The Core.
The Core is the set of requirements that all undergraduate students at Brandeis must complete before graduation. These requirements include taking classes in various disciplines. According to its requirements, students must take a first-year seminar, four foundational literacies, courses from the four schools of thought, three health, wellness, and life classes, and global engagement courses. Part of the global engagement bundle is the language requirement, mandating students take a foreign language up to “30,” or an intermediate level.
An alteration to these requirements has been proposed, which would require students to complete only up to “20,” or beginner level. This means that students would only have to take two semesters of a language course, or its equivalent. The proposed change was put up for debate in the Faculty Senate on Friday, Feb. 13, and is currently being voted on by the faculty.
Many members of the faculty have pushed back on this proposed change, speaking out about the negative effects they believe the alteration would have on the students’ immediate education, the university’s reputation, and students’ ability to succeed outside of Brandeis.
Professors spoke on various factors to consider when deciding where one stands on this issue. Some, like Professor of the Practice of English and Co-Director of the Creative Writing Program Stephen McCauley, talked about the importance language learning had in their education and life: “For me, studying French as an undergrad and then spending a year studying in France—in my day, it was for a year, not a semester—had a more lasting and powerful impact on my life and eventual career than anything else I studied.” Professor of English and Barbara Mandel Professor of Humanities John Plotz also focused on the importance of language learning for the growth of an individual, stating, “I think we underestimate the amount of joy there is to be found in searching for ways to express yourself in unfamiliar contexts and with awkward new words—like being given a toolbox for your birthday and knowing you have to build a box with it.”
These worries about the loss of the individual positives associated with foreign language learning expanded into a discussion about how language learning impacts one’s ability to understand and work within a broader international culture. Associate Professor of History Govind Sreenivasan said, “learning a foreign language, even if you find it difficult and even if you never fully master it, enhances your awareness of the challenges that non-native speakers encounter in learning English. In that sense, learning a foreign language makes you a more sensitive and gracious host and friend to travelers and visitors.”
Others centered their comments on the educational importance of foreign language learning. Professor Sreenivasan stated, “Even for someone who never leaves the Anglosphere, learning a foreign language enhances their understanding and command of English, and that makes them a better thinker.” Professor Plotz expressed similar ideas when stating, “Once you realize that things you thought were natural about how you thought may only be features of the words you use to express your thought, then nothing you do or think, even in English, seems quite the same.” Some, like Professor of Russian Irina Dubinina, pushed even harder, questioning what the purpose of learning a language to a 20 level is at all: “If the requirement is lowered, it will be ‘beginning level’ which is neither here nor there. What is beginning level? It is not even considered a communicative level—it is called ‘pre-communicative.’”
This comment seemed to be reflective of a general feeling that, by lowering the standards to this level, the University was failing the student body. Professor Sreenivasan stated, “At a time when professional job markets are becoming increasingly international, it is crucial that Brandeis students be able to compete at the highest level.” He continued, “Although complaining seems to be a favorite blood sport on this campus, to my mind Brandeis remains a very special place … We, the faculty and administration of this university, owe our students the very best education that we can provide. That includes proper training in foreign languages.” These worries turned into a concern that lowering the requirements could potentially impact the standing of Brandeis itself. Professor Sreenivasan argued, “Lowering the foreign language requirement will simply make a Brandeis degree less attractive to both prospective students and prospective employers. None of our peer institutions are doing this; what possible sense can there be in aiming low?” Professor Dubinina pointed out another fact, “Most other parts of the world take it for granted that you can’t be an educated person without having at least a functional command of at least one other language.”
While the results of the faculty vote are currently unavailable, it is clear that many members of the faculty have strong beliefs that the language requirement should be left the way that it is. For the student body, the rest is a waiting game.
The Hoot will continue to monitor this story as it develops.
