OPPOSITION to the proposed "de-Westernization" program has mostly centered around "anti-Southern" beliefs or "anti-Western" accusations, disturbingly similar to the Bush administration's "for us or against us" policy that makes informed debate impossible. It's high time we get behind these veiled ideological comments, clarify what the program really constitutes, and analyze its merits.
As usual, the myths advanced by the embarrassingly uninformed need to be debunked.First, the campaign, as it is today, is officially called the Globalization program, and does not refer to "de-Westernization," as has been cited by misguided opponents of the initiative. If the program's stated name is insufficient, its very nature confirms this; the initiative seeks to add to the ideologies, courses and professors already at the University -- not remove any Western courses.
Second, the North American Non-Western Perspectives requirement, which critics have labeled an act of "academic coercion" is not part of the initiative at all, according to the program's head, Ryan McElveen. The initiative seeks to expand existing academic options which students can then choose, and not to coerce students into adopting these perspectives. Critics should try to engage in informed debate about the program rather than using gross misrepresentations to win support for their views.
The program also addresses some key issues that need to be tackled at the University. First, the breadth of language courses such as Chinese and Japanese are too small to meet high demand. Earlier this year, Asian and Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures coordinator Shu-Chen Chen castigated the University for "not improving the [Chinese] program and adding additional sections, according to an Aug. 29 Cavalier Daily article ("Enrollment in Chinese classes continues to rise"). The demand will further spike after Advanced Placement programs in Chinese begin in 2008, and this initiative will equip the University with the faculty and resources to meet this.
In addition, the program aims to introduce more languages in addition to the ones already taught -- an initiative that has led to lame complaints of insufficient demand and faculty. Such ignorance stems from a misunderstanding of the program that already takes this into account. According to the program, polls will be conducted to gauge student interest in languages, and then professors will be hired based on this interest, which addresses both of these criticisms with ease.
Third, it will address the peculiar AMEL department that is an archaic conglomeration of Asian and Middle Eastern Languages. The program, which has a lot of interest, needs to be split into individual departments -- most importantly an East Asian studies program that is lacking. East Asia, according to a Foreign Policy Magazine poll, was voted by professors as the top region to watch in coming years. It is a shame that the second-best public university in the nation clumps these distinct cultures into one department. This program will go a long way in addressing this.
Forth, it succeeds in its key aim of establishing multiple perspectives within U.S. based courses and college majors as a whole. The evaluation of each major by non-Western perspective standards is right on the money and will go a long way in gauging how much students desire international perspectives in their course of study, and subsequently meet these desires. In addition, the need for a broader ideological dimension in race courses and minority group studies is one that is urgently needed. Anthropology Prof. Richard Handler has been quoted as saying that his class "Racism, Nationalism and Multiculturalism," scares away people on the right -- proving that the problem is one that clearly exists at the University.
That being said, some legitimate questions do need to be clarified about the program. For instance, a popular question has emerged about how the addition of a Queer Studies minor program constitutes internationalization. In an interview, McElveen assured me that the minor would include hiring professors from regions such as the Far East and the Middle East, as well as fit in a larger scheme of turning the University program into the best International Queer Studies program in the United States. This seems international enough for me.
However, the program also seems to leave out the key question of the IB credit system at the University, which grants IB students lesser credits for courses that are more internationalized than its AP counterparts. This remains one of the key obstacles to internationalization and globalization, and University reforms in this regard would help it catch up with other universities of its caliber like the University of California Berkeley. McElveen agreed that the program "should work toward that direction."
There should be no debate about expanding the options available to us at the University to fit an increasingly globalized society -- rather, there should be a debate about how this should be done and on what terms. Arguments about the West and the South merely throw an ideological cloak around the rational argumentation that this initiative deserves.
Prashanth Parameswaran's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at pparameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Virginia’s political parties have left our universities boarded up
By Editorial Board | 18 hours agoThe destabilizing consequences of the present appointment process have revealed critical and unsustainable fault lines that rest within our political system.
DUTTENHOFER: Cutting research cuts out students
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 2 days agoKneecapping the foundation of the country’s research enterprise just to follow nativist principles is an absurdly self-defeating, short-sighted strategy that is a threat to us all.
KURTZWEIL: Big Brother is infiltrating immigration enforcement
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoWhile this law does work to restrict the camera use, the data is still very loosely regulated, leaving it exposed to outside interference.
