By Daily Titan Editorial Board
Published: March 17, 2010

To Whom it May Concern:

We offer this letter as a response to Dr. Milton Gordon’s e-mail requesting input into the Strategic Planning Summary sent out on March 9, 2010.

We write as students concerned with the present state and future direction of the university.

As students we are, of course, troubled by the rising costs of our education. However, we are even more disturbed about what we perceive to be imminent threats to the value and meaning of our education.

We believe that the cultivation of humanistic values, and with this also the intellectual development of critically-engaged, cosmopolitan individuals, is neither incidental to, nor merely a desirable aspect of, a university education. This is a core function of the university, and should be regarded as such.

We resent being referred to in planning documents simply as “consumers,” “clients,” or “human capital.” We are human beings, first and foremost, and should be educated as such.

We believe that a solid grounding in the liberal arts—in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts—provides fundamental creative and critical-thinking skills to students across all disciplines, and all majors.

We fear that current proposals to discontinue the French, German, and Portuguese language programs, and with this also the classical guitar performance program, are merely the first steps towards a more systematic restructuring of the university, one in which the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are further devalued and diminished.

We remind Cal State Fullerton’s strategic planners that, as students, we do not necessarily attend university simply to acquire professional “certificates and licenses,” or to enhance our career prospects, or to better position ourselves for a future in the workforce. We are not here to be programmed as machines designed solely for the generation and accumulation of wealth, personal or otherwise. We are not here to be trained simply as efficient or productive members of society.

We are here, instead, because we desire to become critically-engaged members of society. We are here to better inform ourselves about the world around us, and to question our beliefs, and broaden our worldviews. We are here, in short, because the university provides us with opportunities for personal growth and self-discovery, and for engagement in and with our society. Such pursuits have a social value that cannot be reduced to one-dimensional monetary considerations.

We recognize that we are living in troubled economic times, and that difficult choices must be made to sustain the university over the course of the next few years. We are concerned, however, that hasty, short-term cuts to various programs and services will have a permanent impact on the structure, reputation, and ultimately definition of our university. We fear that such cuts will serve to undermine the university’s fundamental mission to educate.

In light of these statements, we respectfully ask that the university’s strategic planners take the following points into consideration:

1. That course and program offerings in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts are core to the definition of the university, and to the quality of its graduates. Any permanent cuts will, in our view, have a detrimental impact on the reputation of the university, and thus also on the value of our degrees.

2. That “timely graduation” is important, but only insofar as it does not compromise our ability to mature intellectually, and to grow as human beings. The university would be wise to take a more rigorous accounting of the external factors (such as the cost of living, child care costs, and the need to work), rather than just the internal factors, which might prevent us from graduating in a timely manner.

3. That it is crucial for the university to continue allocating resources to programs which are dedicated in full or in part to the “representation of minority and underrepresented groups.” The university must promote diversity, and resist the language and politics of social and cultural homogenization. It is in this light that we would encourage strategic planners to recognize modern language programs, study abroad programs, volunteer programs, and the campus women’s center as being core to the mission of the university, and not merely desirable.

4. That it is essential for the university to offer a “broad, high quality, and full array of programs,” and to support and promote the notion of learning for its own sake. This is the best way to foster pride in our university, and in ourselves.

5. That the research our professors do is not just valuable in and of itself, but is essential to the quality of our education. Their research translates into the classroom, where we are introduced to new, cutting-edge ideas, and to innovative methods and theories. More importantly, if the university desires both in the short and the long term to attract and retain motivated, engaged, and inspiring faculty with “regional, national, and international reputations,” it needs to support and facilitate their research, not only in spirit, but also with adequate facilities and funding opportunities.

6. That it would be in the interest of students and faculty alike to rethink the university’s reliance on under-paid part-time faculty. They deserve, at the very least, to have a voice in the strategic planning process (the explicit concerns and input of part-time faculty are shamefully absent from the Strategic Planning Summary issued by President Gordon’s office).

7. That it is not desirable to adopt pedagogical models that institutionalize online instruction as the principal or sole method for educating students. The physical presence of professors and students in the classroom is a more efficient, more engaging, and more effective way of educating us. Moreover, the skills required to respond to real-time, in-class discussions are invaluable, and are vital to cultivating effective thinkers and communicators.

8. That it is essential to commit to, and reinvest in, smaller classes, ones in which students are better able to engage with course content, and with each other. This is the best way to foster not only “instructional excellence,” but also a “vibrant” intellectual community.

9. That it is of particular importance to respond vigorously to accusations that the theoretical (and thus “unapplied”) work we do as university students is “esoteric,” and somehow divorced from “reality.” We ask, therefore, that any future strategic planning reject wholeheartedly the idea that our academic studies are confined simply to “the ivory tower,” and that our theoretical work has no relevance “to the larger community.” Instead of pandering to, and thus reinforcing, the prevalent anti-intellectual currents in contemporary society, the university needs to be at the forefront of a broader movement to reassert the value of learning and knowledge as a social, cultural, and moral “good,” and not just as an economic or technological necessity. If we are forced to sell ourselves as an institution of higher learning, then we should use the opportunity to emphasize and promote the important intellectual functions of the university.

We appreciate your consideration of this letter, and would be glad to offer further input into the university’s strategic planning.

Sincerely,

Jackie Bebawi, History

Rodrigo Calderon, College of the Arts

Samantha Guzzi, History

On behalf of Students for the Re-Humanization of Society and the University.

the.discussion1@gmail.com