The Comment, February 8, 1973

Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University The ommeC nt Campus Journals and Publications 1973 The ommeC nt, February 8, 1973 Bridgewater State College Volume 52 Number 17 Recommended Citation Bridgewater State College. (1973). The Comment, February 8, 1973. 52(17). Retrieved from: http://vc.bridgew.edu/comment/306 This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The COMMENT , . r~ebruary 8, 1973 VOl-. 1.11 NO. 17 BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGE Language Dissens-ion Centers Around "What are Relevant Considerations II ()Par Kevin: he fulfilled either by further study to the requirements for its major, it is evident that both faculty and two basic principles enumerated This is in response to your letter in foreign language courses or by it was assumed that the recom- students found it difficult to grasp above in the sixth paragraph of of January 16, 197:3, regarding the courses in non-English literature ml'ndations of the departments the full implications of the Board this letter. decisions recen~Iy made in the in translation.) w('re professional judgements, not of Trustees' policy in terms of With respect to the Department foreign language requirements at The experience of other colleges to be overruled by any segment or what are relevant considerations. of [t:arth Sciences and Geography, Bridgewater State College .. May I has shown that a great many step of the College Community The Faculty Council, also I subsequently received on say at the outset that I share many students who have studien a governance process, including the cognizant of the Board of Trustees' November- 14, 1972, a sup of the principles that you express foreign language in high schOol are President, unless they were in policy, voted at its November 13, plementary and unsolicited so forcefully in your thoughtful able to pass the proficiency conflict with the two basic prin- 1~l72 meeting to accept the statement further clarifying the iptter. Though many of your ('xamination at the intermediate ciples stated above. recommendations of the depart- comments made by the members principles are sound, your con leve .. Hnd therefore we expect that In examining the evidence at ments. Of particular interest here of that Department at the Faculty clusions are not based on full In Ilwny Bridgewater students will hand T discovered that many is that the Biology Department Council Meeting of November 13; formation and complete un not he required to take a foreign departments listed a number of and the Chemistry Department 1972. which was in accord with the derstanding of the process language course as part of their reasons for requiring a foreign made an oral defense of their basic principles discussed above in through which the decisions were degree requirements even if they language, some of which were not position based on the fact that they the fourth paragraph of this letter reached. Let me try to clarigy the <Ire m<ljoring in departments with specifically related to the major. ahd specific foreign language Tn sum, inherent in the Board's· complex issues and processes. dppartmental foreign language In the case of departments which requirements for their majors decision was the expectation that requirements. advanced multiple i'easons of this both prior to and apart from. the the institutiomil governance You a re correct in your It is important that the process l'ort to the Undergraduate former general education process would give full faith and statement that by action of the through which decisions are Curriculum Committee, the latter requirement. In addition, the credit to the professional Board of Trustees a State College reached in curricular matters be apparently voted to disapprove Chairmen of these two depart judgement of the individual may not stipulate an instituti()nal clearly understood,. First of alt their recommendations of .the nwnts presented a strong oral case departments so. long as it was rpquirement in foreign languages departmental recommendations hasis of inconsistency, In the light for the position' that their par made with reference to. the for a baccalaureate degree. go to the Undergraduate of the Board's policy, I also licular departmental language requirements of the major perse lIowpver. the Board of Tr!lstees Curriculum Committee, whose discounted those reasoris whiCh requirement, namely, 'Scientific drid not with regard to general functions are primarily to review wrre irrelevant. But - again (;erman, was a most useful tool for has rulf.~d that it is proper and it is {'ducation. It was entirely in ace. perm issible to include a foreign and coordinate items submitted, because of the Board's policy-- 0 the understanding of much of the cordanee with the Board of language requirement as part of a a nd then to make recom felt bound to accept as decisive l'cientific literature, currently Trustees' policy and its im major. Prior to the Board's ruling, llwndations to Oie Academic Dean (lny single valid relevant reason available of the European con plimentation in ways consistent the College required - regardless and the President, with referral lldvanced by a department. I also linent At the same meeting of the with that policy that I,issuetl my of the student's major - twelve simultaneously to the Faculty discovered that among the F'aculty Council, the Department memorandum of November 15, semestpr hours of foreign ('ouneiL The Faculty CounciJ in its negative votes of the Un- of Mathematics, and the Depart 1972 to the Members of the College language study of nearly all B.A. ·turn reviews the recom- <iergraduate Curriculum Com" 111('nt of Anthropoligy presented Community· indic_ating the stUdents, the only exception being nwndations of the Undergraduate llIittee, there was a pattern based valid reasons for requiring foreign varying requirements with respect those B.A. students who were able Curriculum Committee and on objections to a foreign language language study for their majors. to foreign languages in the several to :-;tart their college work at the l'C'ports to the Academic Dean and requirement under any cir- Mieast one such reason presented academic departments which advanced level, in which few the President the Council's ap cumstances. Whatever the merit . namply, that much of the offer majors. cast's Ii semester hours W£lre proval or disapproval of specific of this position, because of the literature relevant to these I trust that this letter will be l'('quired. Therefore, we felt items. The F'acuHy Council may, Board of Trustees' position, I had academic disciplines, was found helpful with regard to the main obligated to give the academic if it so votes, choose only to record to disc.ount such votes as in the 'European languages points raised in your letter dppartnwnts an opportunity to that it has reviewed the recom irrelevant to the Board of (Portuagese, French, German, With best personal regar~s, consider the matter in I'elation to llJ('ndatin and taken no action. Trustees' position. Therefore, and Spanish) and that students Very Cordially, their majors and to make Based upon the inputs of the Un such votes had to considered should also have available other Adrian Rondileau l"l'comlllPndations as to whether dt'rgraduate Curriculum Com irrelevant on the same basis as I language options in accordance President lorpign language study should or III iUee, the Faculty Council, and did the Academic Departments' with their specific lang-range should not be required in each ilny other sorce that may be ap reasons that were inconsistent objectives in their disciplines, <\{·partnwnt. ,md, if so, how many propriate, the President I"<'quirl'd l'eml'ster hours, or with ultimately makes a decision, as he ,???rM;;;i; WM~;~; 10 be c=istent Mth llie. HELP till' allainmt'nt of what level of is chargid Lo do by the Board of profieiency. Trw;lces. After following this ('lpurly nnd {'quitably, each standard governance process, 1 .dg ??? ' dppartnwnt was free to exercese accepted the departmental at B rl e~ater . .. its own professional judgement. recomnH'ndatins referred to in :b you Iwow. provision was made paragri.lph :~ above. On Tuesday, January 29, 1973, a System. lor studt'llt input, which was taken Thl'se foreign language group of approximately thirty . If Bridgewater were to have a into account by the departnwnls in decisions Wl're ('xtrcmely difficult students and four faculty members music major then all three regions US Illllldng ltll'ir recommendations. om's to make, complicated be of the Music Dept. met at 10:00 in would have a major in music, The COMMENT is in need of Two departnH'nts in fact conflicting recomn1endations and ll-G-4 to discuss plans for an at- which is only fair to the students of staff mrmbers, in particular, n'comnu'nded that no foreign 1)(> ('xtraneous factors. It was my tempt to bring a major in music to this area. language be required of their (ask and my responsibility to sift Bridgewater. Wr would like your reaction to typists, photographers, and \\Titers. We cannot be expected to 111;1 jol's , and most of the other IIll' l'videnre from various sources, This meeting was held in our situation. Therefore, please dt'partnwnts I'Pcomnwndcd a to assess the validity of the response to the Board of Trustees answ('r this short questionaire. adequatly function as a college substantial t'eduction in the ('vidence pn'sented, and to render of tht' Stall' College System's W(' have to know the opinion of the newspaper without the support of IIUIllIH'l' of :-;emt'ster hours il judgement that was based on r("commendation that Bridgewater l'tudent body· since the im the student body.

Load more