“Universities should not merely train students who can survive and prosper in the world as it is. Instead, we should educate students who will change the world for the better.”
This quote is from President Christina Paxson’s March 18 address at George Washington University, during which she spoke of the importance of the humanities in academics. This issue is a hot topic at Brown, a liberal arts university where nearly 60 percent of admitted students for the class of 2017 intend to concentrate in the physical or life sciences. The same figure was just 46 percent for the incoming class of 2013.
Similar language was used in Paxson’s Annual Fund fundraising letter, which was sent out to alums two weeks ago. The letter dedicated a paragraph to the work of my friend and colleague Maya Sikand ’13 and her participation in the Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award program for her humanities-based research. Sikand’s research contributes to a foodshed map of Providence, which hundreds of Center of Environmental Studies students have worked on over the past four years. Her work was used in the letter to demonstrate Brown’s commitment to values of “engaged scholarship” and “a lifetime of intellectual development.”
While certainly complimentary, this shout-out was poorly received by Environmental Studies students given recent events in the CES.
Last semester, a committee of professors, administrators and two undergraduate students put together recommendations for a curricular review of the CES. The review introduced four tracks and several changes in required courses. The proposed curriculum places increased emphasis on the hard sciences and quantitative social sciences while demonstrating a lack of commitment to food and agricultural studies, as well as a lack of emphasis on environmental health and justice, despite growing student interest and campus engagement with these topics. Students have pushed back against these proposed changes, but the plan has gone forward almost as written.
Some context is important in understanding this issue. CES is not a department — it’s a center, which means it can’t hire tenured faculty without a co-sponsoring department. Consequently, CES must constantly negotiate with other departments to secure semi-permanent faculty and ensure continued high quality in its course offerings. An extensive search for a new faculty member last semester left the center empty-handed. Though the center found a desirable candidate, its co-sponsoring department wouldn’t sign the dotted line. As a result of this frustrating process, students have felt increasingly wary of the department’s stability, a sentiment that was further exacerbated during the curricular review.
Throughout the review process, the concerns of CES undergraduates were largely not taken into consideration. The two undergraduates on the committee, David Granberg ’13 and Katherine Siegel ’13, worked tirelessly to engage other undergraduates in the review. They organized students to convene in two forums, one in the fall of this year and one in the spring. At those forums, over 40 CES undergraduate concentrators and allies raised several issues with the fundamental direction of the proposed curriculum. Despite consistent and clear pushback, these forums led to only marginal changes to the curriculum.
The aforementioned Annual Fund letter is influential and important to the University’s fundraising campaign. Being highlighted in the letter is an honor. But Sikand was unaware of the Annual Fund’s intent to use her work as evidence of the University’s dedication to the humanities. Since the letter was distributed, students in CES have expressed concern and disdain that their research was blantantly used for fundraising while the center itself is suffering from a lack of funds and support from the University. The center would benefit immensely from the consistent funding and faculty that come with departmental status. Without that consistency, students are left wondering about the center’s future and its curricular offerings.
Of course there is space at Brown for both the humanities and the sciences. In fact, it is imperative that both spheres coexist to provide the best educational opportunities for all students. But given that 39 percent of employed graduating seniors last year went into the nonprofit or public sectors, it is clear that there is an interest in community-based work at Brown. Many students in CES are participating in community-oriented research and studying environmental issues through a humanistic lens. It is imperative that the University follow through on its promises to the humanities and provide support to students interested in related fields, such as Environmental Studies, as well as to those in the hard sciences.
Highlighting work by CES students in a fundraising letter is not enough. The administration needs to follow through and support students who want to “change the world for the better.” Otherwise, Paxson’s statements are simply rhetoric.
Leah Douglas ’13 is a senior who likes writing, food and CES. She can be reached at leah_douglas@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
