'State of the Humanities' report contains elements beyond those being debated

By Franklin Crawford

The speculative balloon also known as the "Report on the State of the Humanities at Cornell University" remains intact following stormy debate over some of its recommendations.

Critics have declared aspects of the report as tantamount to a "declaration of war." However, when viewed in its entirety, the rather formal document will disappoint readers eager for saber-rattling language.

The faculty Committee on the State of the Humanities at Cornell was commissioned in the fall of 1997 by Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Philip Lewis to "investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the humanities at Cornell in an attempt to devise ways of building on strengths and compensating for weakness without incurring great additional expenditures," as stated in the report's executive summary.

"This is the first time Cornell has undertaken an interior reflection on the humanities," said Timothy Murray, acting director of the Society for the Humanities and a member of the committee that composed the report. "What we undertook wasn't anything like an extensive or comprehensive review of the humanities."

The report is there "to catalyze discussion and further reflection on the status of the humanities at Cornell and strengthen undergraduate education in the humanities," Murray added.

But one of the 11 sections, titled "Ethnic Studies Programs and the Africana Center," has drawn fire from students and faculty alike, transforming the report into an object of intense criticism.

Debates and demonstrations targeting the 48-page report focus primarily on a recommendation to "house all ethnic studies programs in the same building, located on or adjacent to the Arts Quad." The critics castigate the committee for failing to seek input from students and professors in ethnic studies programs before submitting the report.

Murray reiterated that the report is not a mandate, nor is it intended to be a prescriptive, policy-making instrument. It is speculative and flexible in nature, he said, and open to public scrutiny.

The report, Murray said, is an effort, "to foreground the strengths of the college (Arts and Sciences) and the university and reflect areas of possibility and improvement, with the aim of stimulating discussion in a thought-provoking manner."

However, critics charge that its methodology is flawed, and their concerns have been taken into account by the committee, Murray said.

Largely ignored in recent, heated public forums and demonstrations are other salient features of the report, such as its recommendations that the university:

• Create 10 freshman "Introduction to Humanities" lecture courses, each taught by two professors representing different humanities disciplines;

• Be more aggressive in its recruitment and retention of ethnic and minority faculty;

• Consider the possibility of departmental status for the Women's Studies Program or a Department of Gender and Sexuality Studies;

• Increase the number of core faculty in Comparative Literature to reflect new work in Asian, African and post-colonial studies;

• Recruit especially desirable faculty who do not fit neatly in existing departments because of the inter- or crossdisciplinary nature of their work.

• Replace the Department of History of Art with a new Department of Visual Studies; among dozens of other recommendations.

The report also advocates for increased support of the Cornell Library system, the Cornell University Press and the Johnson Museum of Art.

The Arts and Sciences faculty will continue to discuss the topics treated by the report for the rest of this semester.

The full text of the report can be found online at http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/11.5.98/humanities_report.html.