An Open Letter to the UW-Superior Community

(Dear everyone: it has come to my attention that there are a lot of people reading this letter who may not understand what happened last week at UWS. You can find a good summary of the situation here and here. Here is the coverage of the student "listening session" from Friday. Thanks to everyone who has shared this post. Sincerely, Eric.)

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