I sent the text pasted below to Lu earlier this week, but also wanted
to circulate it to program heads.  It is a collectively drafted
response by the Literature Committee.  We also support the response of
the College Composition Committee and look forward to the much needed
discussion of this important program.

Best,

Andrew

---

Literature program response to ACE/ ESL proposal


At our retreat last spring, the department committed itself to
meaningful conversations about our future goals.  The place of ESL and
how we can support it was identified as an important topic of such
discussions.  With a new chair in place as of January, we only
recently began the process of deliberation planned during our retreat.
 It is our understanding that, by widespread consensus, our retreat
mandated this careful consideration of the ESL program for the benefit
of our department, of the ESL program, and in preparation for program
review.  We worry that the ACE proposal sidesteps the deliberative
process and governance of the English Department and potentially
undermines the mindful, careful process of strategic planning to which
our department is committed.  Unfortunately, Professor Porter’s
proposal went to the College just as our new chair took office.
Professor Mao has earned the respect, and deserves the time, to
oversee the process of self-study he outlined in his campaign and that
the department endorsed.  We urge that the College give Professor Mao
time to see his plan through, and we call for the department to
continue along its trajectory of deliberation, planning, and continued
support of this vital part of our composition program in concert with
our commitments to all of our programs.

Perhaps the most surprising assertion in the ACE proposal is its claim
that the English department has failed to support the ESL program.  In
the last few years, the department has gone from having a small ESL
program to one that currently serves hundreds of students and that is
designed to teach composition and ESL simultaneously.  The department
has always hired enough staff to run the program and has gone beyond
this minimum level of support by hiring a well-regarded lecturer who
also teaches upper level and graduate level courses on language
instruction.  In each of the past several years we have requested ESL
hires, and we requested another lecturer hire this year.  We are
therefore perplexed by the claim that the English department has
failed to support the ESL program and would note Professor Porter has
provided no evidence that the ESL program is in urgent need of new
management.  He has, in fact, not identified any specific gaps in
support that threaten the continued functioning and growth of the
program.

As a program with a strong cultural studies component and commitment
to intercultural awareness and communication, the literature program
values ESL teaching and learning.  We value the process of
deliberation and governance in the English Department as well, and we
see no reason that we cannot uphold both values in a manner that
respects the collegial process of decision making that we have
developed in the department.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Cheek, Christopher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The Creative Writing cohort would like to see both Jim Porter’s proposal and
> the College Composition Committee’s response discussed as a part of the
> planned forthcoming department meeting on ESL.
>
>
>
> We see the department as having a lot to gain from keeping the ESL program
> as a part of the significant service that we already offer.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile we fully support the response of the College Composition
> Committee’s response to the proposal from ACE and stand behind it.
>
>
>
>
> cris cheek