To: Dean Dennis Berkey I would like to request that the proposal that ASL satisfy the foreign language requirement in the College of Liberal Arts be placed on the agenda for discussion by the faculty at the next CLA faculty meeting. I believe that this is a sufficiently important issue, and one on which there is sufficient faculty interest across the College (as indicated by the 93 members of the CLA/GRS faculty who signed the petition included with the proposal), to warrant general discussion. While I have so far been unable to obtain a copy of the statement that was read on April 13, it is my understanding that the main problem relates to the question of whether or not ASL is a "foreign" language. I suspect that if languages such as Navajo or Hopi were taught at Boston University, they might well be accepted in fulfillment of the foreign language requirement (as they are at many universities where they are taught) and that they would not be excluded simply because they are spoken within the borders of the US. I submit that ASL should be viewed in a comparable light. Moreover, by the criterion attributed to you in today's Daily Free Press, "if a language is spoken outside the United States, it can be considered a foreign language," ASL should likewise qualify. It is used as the primary language for deaf people in many areas within North America, including parts of Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, because ASL is the most common second signed language for deaf people worldwide, it is also frequently used as the main language for communication at international conferences and events for the deaf. In any event, I believe that the issue of ASL in relation to the intent of the CLA Foreign Language Requirement deserves to be discussed openly. I hope that you will put the proposal on the agenda for consideration at the next CLA faculty meeting |
|
Boston University | Office of the Dean April 22, 1994 Professor Carol Neidle
Dear Carol: Concerning your request that the proposal for American Sign Language (ASL) to satisfy the foreign language requirement int he College of Liberal Arts be placed formally on the agenda for the May faculty meeting, I must respectfully decline. It would be an improper application of the principles embodied in our Constitution of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to ignore the role of the Academic Policy Committee (APC) by bringing a matter so clearly within its domain directly to the full faculty without its endorsement. You are certainly aware of the history of these deliberations. Last summer you presented the Academic Policy Committee with a petition signed by a number of faculty members asking that ASL be accepted as satisfying "the language requirement" in the College. The APC consulted both departments responsible for offering courses currently satisfying the foreign language requirement. After receiving responses from these departments, both of which urged rejection of the ASL proposal, and after considering fully the arguments of your petition, the APC voted unanimously to reaffirm the current foreign language requirement, and to find that ASL falls short of goals held for this requirement. Thus, your proposal has received a full and fair hearing by the committee consisting of elected faculty representatives which is charged with reviewing matters of academic policy and recommending actions to the faculty. Its unanimous conclusion resolves quite clearly the question of whether this matter should come before the full faculty. Your bill has died in committee, as it were. It is important to understand that the full range of arguments presented in support of the ASL proposal was considered by the APC. It was recognized that supporters of the ASL proposal were motivated by social as well as academic goals. Sensitizing students to the nature, issues and achievements of the deaf community is certainly a worthy goal. But that goal is social in nature, not academic. While there was great sympathy in the Committee for this social goal, there was a very strong resistance to the notion of using academic degree requirements as a means for accomplishing it. Another important concern is that a large number of CLA students go on to graduate study, and that mastery of at least one foreign language is a common requirement among graduate programs. ASL is not commonly accepted among such languages, however, because the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that students have access to relevant research materials in at least two languages. More generally, the APC sustained the commitment to a foreign language requirement not out of some technical interpretation of the phrase "foreign language" as you suggest, but out of a clear and deeply held commitment to the principle that liberal arts education should provide students with broad-gauged insights into the cultures of the world, presented through history, literature, languages, religion, philosophy, and the arts. Studying a true foreign language is enabling in many of these ways. Limiting one's self (sic) to studying ASL can, at best, provide increased understanding of a subculture of the American industrial society. You and your supporters seem to misunderstand what is certainly one of the most important points of this debate. The question at the heart of the matter is not about the proper interpretation of the phrase "foreign language." Rather, it concerns a faculty's choice of requirements for its degree. Regardless of one's interpretation of the meaning of "foreign language," this faculty has chosen to require native speakers of English to achieve mastery of one other language, chosen from those offered by the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures or the Department of Classical Studies. Whether or not ASL is classified somewhere or by someone as a "foreign language," the APC's position is that it "falls short" of what is provided by the languages currently satisfying this degree requirement. Similarly, not every history course satisfies the Divisional Studies Requirement in the social sciences, not every mathematics course is applicable for a concentration in mathematics, etc. The question is about which subjects and courses the faculty shall choose to satisfy its various degree requirements, not about a technical classification of one subject or another. Your passion on this issue is well understood and appreciated. The proposal has received a full and fair hearing in the appropriate forum, and a proper and fair determination has been made.
Yours sincerely, Dennis D. Berkey cc: Professor Gary Jacobson |
Back to main page about ASL and the BU foreign language requirement