The ethnic studies controversy bandwagon, that is. Last semester, the exceptionalism of ethnic studies was reinforced when a student committee was given a certain amount of hiring power in the search for new comparative ethnic studies faculty. Although the students will have little power of their own, the decision–which had been discussed for months but had the appearance of being coerced by the ongoing hunger strike–sends the unmistakable message that ethnic studies is a more urgent curricular concern than linguistics, urban studies, Yiddish or any of the other small departments whose existence is precarious or even questionable (like, do we really have an Israel studies institute? Somebody asked me this last night, and I honestly couldn’t tell them).
The hunger strikers’ line on ethnic studies was more basic than they let on: while they liberally invoked Foucault or Fanon, their protest was rooted in a desire to swing Columbia’s academic politics in a personally advantageous direction. This was arguably the motive behind the MEALAC row of ‘04-’05, in which an intellectually alienated group of students tried forcing the issue in a way in which the issue had never been forced. But the MEALAC students weren’t quite the exceptionalists that the current ethnic studies crowd is: while the MEALACers brought forward some legitimate concerns about some truly despicable faculty behavior, proponents of ethnic studies see their field as the one of the most important in all of academia.
From the article:
“Barnard needs a major that interrogates power, power dynamics, and equality, including race, gender, and class,” SGA Representative for Diversity Svati Lelyveld, BC ’08, said.
Not an objectionable statement, but I wonder where Lelyveld gets off suggesting that 1) Barnard doesn’t already have classes that synthesize these issues or that 2) these issues constitute a single, coherent academic field. I’m sure she would have answers to both of these questions, but that’s really besides the point–I have no idea whether Barnard “needs” an ethnic studies major, or whether the movementarian spirit of the hunger strike is co-opting level-headed curricular thinking. With the Columbia linguistics department suffering a slow, sad death, and with students demanding that the school accommodate their individual academic and political itineraries, I’m gonna go with the latter.
Bureaucratic overreach versus a successful and infinitely reasonable policy. Hmmm, which one do you think Columbia went with?
The old EC smoking policy was simple: if your suitemates let you smoke, you could smoke. And if they didn’t, you couldn’t. It’s a brilliant arrangement–it assumes that students in housing should be able to democratically handle student housing issues, it separates domineering public policy from incipient private habits, it makes it so that RAs don’t have to be on the prowl for illegal smokers and it allows nicotine fiends to reach some kind of an informal understanding with their non-smoking suitmates.
The new EC policy is grade-A Columbian fascism. The administration decided that students in housing are not in fact qualified in determining what kind of legal activity should go on in their own living quarters, and has dropped a ten-ton sack of overweening public policy on a crucial, remaining shard of student privacy. The smoking ban is hugely unnecessary; an unwanted, and unneeded bureaucratic whim that goes against years of successful precedent. On a more philosophical level, it formalizes a once-informal matter, bringing to the public disciplinary sphere something that used to be handled among friends and suitemates.
Sadly but perhaps not surprisingly, the Spectator editorial board is in full support.
If you do not care to hear the Diversity Rep’s answer, why challenge it? She does not suggest that Barnard does not have classes that concentrate on race and ethnicity. Having worked with her and many other Barnard women on this issue, I can confidently say that no one is arguing that Barnard does not have a group of race and ethnicity classes.
Barnard needs an ethnic studies major and this is the opinion of a Barnard student, the opinion that matters. We are the ones who will be majoring in it. Barnard has done well with studies on race and ethnicity. We have opportunities to study at JTS, we have Africana studies, and American studies. There are other race and ethnicity disciplines that warrant a major, hence the move for ethnic studies.
P.S. I must add, nice stereotypical cartoon there.
Said anon,
On February 15, 2008 at 10:22 pm:
The issue isn’t whether there should be more classes in area studies–it’s whether the school’s already limited resources should go towards establishing a new major in comparative ethnic studies. Africana studies and ethnic studies are distinct fields, which is why there are demands for an ethnic studies program in the first place.
Again, in my mind this purely has to do with curricular priorities and academic worth. A Barnard student government resolution isn’t enough to convince me that ethnic studies should be a priority or is of particular academic worth–and I’d feel the same way about Linguistics, Yiddish studies, or any of the other small departments I mentioned. I just find it significant that the Barnard student council considers this an important enough issue to comment on, for reasons that I explained in the post.
Also, apologies if you were offended by the cartoon. I pulled it off of Google images.
Said Armin Rosen,
On February 15, 2008 at 10:37 pm:
It really bothers me that so much attention goes towards Ethnic Studies, which I honestly think would have about the same amount of majors as Linguistics, yet Linguistics is so ignored. We used to have one of the best Linguistics departments in the world… *sigh*
Said Rebecca,
On February 15, 2008 at 12:28 am: