First of all, I would like to apologize to my fellow
faculty, to university and academic staff, and, most of all, to the students of
UWS, past, present, and future. I feel that, in my role as a sociologist and as
a department chair, I have not been as vigilant as I should have been.
This summer, as I participated in the Guided Pathways Task
Force, I listened to the Provost’s idea that first-generation college students
are confused by too many academic options, and that we should eliminate some
low-enrolling minors (not majors,
but minors) in order to streamline the process for them. I thought that it was
a ludicrous argument – so ludicrous, in fact, that I did not take it seriously
(see below). I thought that, in fall, people would see this recommendation,
laugh it off, and forget about it.
I have come to realize, though, that not taking this idea
seriously is the single biggest mistake
I have ever made as an employee of UWS.
If you ask actual students who attend UWS what problems they
face (and I have done this every time I teach my sociology of education course),
they will tell you things like the following: there is no daycare on campus; I
have to work two jobs to afford tuition; there aren’t enough scholarships; I cannot
afford my books this semester. I think you get where I’m going with this. At no
point in any discussion I have ever had with a student (first-generation or
otherwise) have any of them hinted that having too many options was a problem.
As a sociologist, it shames me to admit that the
intellectual foundation for the “too many options” argument comes from my own
discipline, specifically Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital. I will
argue below, however, that “too many options” is an intellectually bankrupt and
ethically questionable way to use Bourdieu’s work.
The gist of the theory of cultural capital is this: Bourdieu claims
that class divisions are not just economic in nature, but deeply imbedded in
our constructed culture, which tends to be shared within classes. Working class
people develop a culture that reinforces their working class status (such as
learning the importance of deferring to authority, being on time, following
orders, etc.), while middle class and elites learn how to be leaders. Cultural
capital also manifests in our lives when we interact with institutions like the
higher education system. It presents itself as a cultural unfamiliarity with
what college is and how it works. If no one in your family has gone to college,
you are entering a new world that you have to learn how to navigate.
It is possible that one
manifestation of this cultural unfamiliarity with college may result in being
overwhelmed by too many academic options. However, this is such a minor,
trivial, and tangential aspect of the college experience for
first-generation students that focusing on it to the exclusion of all other
economic and cultural concerns that confront working-class students (such as
having to work more than one job or not having adequate day care) is tantamount
to criminal negligence. Further, solving this (questionable) problem by
eliminating options is the most destructive way possible to help
first-generation students. Bourdieu, were he alive, would be the first person
to tell you that depriving working-class students of options is the worst possible thing you could do to their
educational experience. It is an insult to their intelligence and an unconscionable underestimation of their
abilities.
By the way – to my knowledge, no one from administration talked to our
students about this. If they had, they would have discovered that not a single
one of them had a concern about too many options. This, of course, is precisely
why admin didn’t discuss this with our students.
Let’s not pretend any longer. This suspension/”warning” of majors and
minors is not about helping our first-generation students who are too confused
to take the right classes. This is about transforming the university. It is a
declaration to our students that they don’t deserve a first-class education.
Of course, the easiest solution to this “too many options” problem,
if it is indeed a problem (which it is not, as I have demonstrated above), is
to identify first-generation students as they arrive on campus, target them
with more intrusive advising, and see how it works. Again, “too many options”
is not a problem, but we can indulge administration on this. I have suggested
this advising-centered solution at a department chairs meeting this fall. Eliminating
majors and minors for the sake of streamlining choices for students is like
treating a toe fungus or a wart by chopping off your foot. Administration has
damaged this campus irreparably. If this proposal passes, we will lose
students. We will fail to recruit new students. Perhaps most importantly, we
will provide the remaining students (and our alumni) with a degree that has
less value and prestige.
This proposal is deeply irresponsible, both intellectually
and ethically. It is based on a flawed operationalization of the sociological
concept of cultural capital. The programs chosen for suspension and to be put
on warning seem arbitrarily selected. Finally, it is disingenuous and cowardly.
Administration is stating that this proposal will not lead to anyone losing
their jobs, but they also state (and hope) that our work environment will become
so abhorrent to us that we’ll choose to leave, then they won’t replace people
who go. In other words, it’s an indirect way to eliminate faculty positions. Well,
congratulations! Your efforts are going to pay off!
I would like to call for the Chancellor, Interim Provost,
and any other administrator who was involved in crafting this proposal to do
one of two things: either completely
withdraw this proposal or resign immediately.
If their solution to a non-existent problem is to destroy liberal arts on this
campus, we need to prevent them from making similar reckless decisions in the
future. They’ve proven themselves irresponsible with the power they currently
wield.
I also urge students, faculty, staff, and alumni to reject
this proposal and the manner in which it was presented to us. These are
curricular matters that should be decided by us, the faculty, not
administrators. And it is not something that administrators should present to
us as an accomplished fact. Administrators gave us no warning, and they have
refused to negotiate with the faculty.
Chancellor Wachter, Interim Provost Weissenburger: this is
your legacy. We will always remember what you did on Halloween morning of 2017.
I hope you are happy that you have played a prime part in the national trend
toward dismantling higher education.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Edwards
Associate Professor, Sociology
Chair, Department of Social Inquiry
University of Wisconsin-Superior
