Yesterday I reported that the English department at Queensborough Community College had voted to reject an administration-initiated restructuring of their composition program, and that the college’s Vice President for Academic Affairs had in response informed them that the department will be largely dismantled next fall.
According to the letter, which I have since posted on this site, CUNY intends to eliminate the composition program at QCC, dismiss all Queensborough English department adjuncts, and immediately cancel all job searches in the department. The administration has threatened to terminate full-time faculty left idle as a result of the downsizing, a move that by my estimate could lead to the firing of as many as nineteen of the department’s twenty-six full-timers. Some 175 composition sections per semester would be pushed off campus by the move, threatening local students’ ability to advance in their studies and overburdening resources at surrounding colleges.
That’s the situation as I understood it yesterday evening. I have since received further information about the crisis that confirms all of the above information and allows me to provide a fuller accounting of the events of last week.
The Queensborough dispute arose, as I noted yesterday, out of the Pathways initiative, a CUNY-wide administrative attempt to systematize and centralize course offerings throughout the system. Faculty throughout CUNY have argued that Pathways is insufficiently responsive to local campus conditions and students’ needs, but the administration has continued to push forward with the plan on an aggressive timetable.
At Queensborough’s English department the primary practical issue with Pathways was its reduction of weekly course hours for composition classes from four to three. This change would cut into students’ class time, require heavier faculty courseloads and — not incidentally — dramatically reduce faculty compensation for teaching composition, a particularly writing (and grading) intensive class.
The shift from the department’s existing four-hour composition courses to new Pathways-compliant three-hour offerings required a departmental vote, and as it became clear that faculty were disinclined to approve the change, administrators made it known that a failure to approve the Pathways plan would result in harsh consequences.
Faculty were alarmed by these threats. They delayed the vote by a week, and asked that an administrator appear at their next meeting to state CUNY’s case in person. Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs Karen Steele represented the administration at Wednesday’s meeting, and according to the faculty member I spoke with, made the threat to the department’s offerings explicit prior to the vote.
When the vote was eventually held — conducted by secret ballot as a result of faculty fears of individual retaliation — the department rejected the administration proposal by a margin of 14 to 6, with one abstention.
In an email the following afternoon, Vice President Steele carried out the administration’s earlier threats. As of fall 2013, she said, all QCC composition courses will be eliminated, with students forced to enroll at other CUNY campuses to meet those requirements. Because composition makes up the great majority of the QCC English department’s course offerings, moreover, all of the department’s faculty searches are to be “immediately” cancelled, all of its adjuncts are to be terminated, and all current full-time appointments, including those of tenured faculty, are to be reviewed on the basis of “ability to pay and Fall ’13 enrollment in department courses.”
By my estimate, QCC’s plan will have the effect of eliminating all part-time faculty and approximately 19 out of the department’s current 26 full-time faculty positions, while shifting nearly two hundred composition sections a semester to other CUNY campuses.
The current situation, in short — and it should be remembered that Steele has presented this as a done deal — represents an effective dismantling of QCC’s English department. The Professional Staff Congress, CUNY’s faculty union, has declared its intention to file a labor grievance in response, and is threatening a federal lawsuit. Faculty have expressed concern that the move could threaten Queensborough’s accreditation.
There’s a reason I was initially skeptical about the accuracy of the early reports I received, and a reason that others have been incredulous — this is a stunningly crude act of retaliation against a department for exercising its legitimate prerogatives in college governance.
Another meeting has been scheduled for this Wednesday. Faculty are adamant that they will not reverse their decision, and confident that they have the vote strength to hold firm.
That is not to say they aren’t worried. They’re scared to death. But they believe that this is a fight that they can and must win.
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 16, 2012 at 11:55 am
Reading Writer
Question for QCC English comp faculty: Is reading given at least as much time and attention as writing in your courses? (Asking without knowing your courses, only knowing that in many ESOL courses, it isn’t — to the detriment of teachers and students alike.) We (teachers) spend too much time responding to writing that’s not linked to reading. Radical proposal: Could 3-credit courses make our lives easier if we made reading the part of a composition course that it truly should be?
September 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
CUNY Declares War On QCC English Department | Juan Monroy
[…] Angus Johnston at Student Activism: […]
September 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm
CUNY Comp. Instructor
Reading Writer: I don’t teach at QCC but I do teach comp within CUNY and am familiar with the QCC English courses. ENG101 puts emphasis on reading non-fiction and learning the basics of the academic essay–which necessitates reading practice to learn to craft argument and identify/use evidence effectively. ENG 102, the second-semester comp class, is specifically an Intro to Lit designed to help students understand and respond through writing to different literary genres. Both, then, are putting a lot of emphasis on reading–because, as you point out, it would be impossible to teach writing without also teaching critical reading practice, not least because students need something to write *about.*
It would be great if it was as simple as reducing to three credits by upping the amount of reading in the classroom, and proportionally reducing the writing. But, there’s already a lot of reading happening, and more importantly, the reduction in writing would hurt the students. By the end of two semesters, most students are barely up to competency. And, while you could argue our definition of “competency” is too high given that most students are not going to go on to write prolific academic essays and pursue literary-critical careers, I for one (and most of my colleagues) don’t really see the academic essay as the point or desired outcome. Composition competency is important to our students not for their academic careers but for their practical careers and their future success outside the university. If we see the mission of a community college in particular and a public university in general as being to serve at risk populations and help provide a point of access into the market economy, that necessitates teaching students the basic skills and discourses that will allow them to find success (the ability to speak and write in Standard English being key–for emails, memos, cover letters…). The high proportion of second-language learners and students who speak “non-standard” Englishes at CUNY generally and at the community colleges specifically makes that goal all the more important, and all the more challenging, not least because they’re students who are not going to be given the benefit of the doubt and for whom the bar is often therefore set higher to prove competency. I’m all for increasing the reading element of composition courses–but to do so at the expense of the writing, or to assume that reducing the credits by upping the reading and hoping that the writing will follow without as much instruction, coaching, or (especially) care in grading by the faculty, is setting our students up to fail.
The choices left to the faculty in that situation are either to stop teaching the students effectively, and therefore knowingly and deliberately fail in our mission as a university to do good and help counteract class barriers through education; or to even further devalue our own efforts and destabilize the future of the academy by accepting the exploitation of faculty and, particularly, adjuncts, by continuing to do the same (already underpaid) work for even less money. Or, as the QCC English Department has begun to do, we fight back.
(Apologies if this seems defensive or aggressive in tone. We’re all more than a little riled about this…)
September 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Reading Writer
Thanks! I absolutely agree that QCC admin’s actions are harsh, ludicrous and ultimately profit-oriented. But I’d still like to ask another question: Hasn’t the writing-across-the-curriculum had positive effects and spread the burden of responding to student writing across most departments? (Wishful thinking? Still not a solution to the 3-credit problem?)
My true motive is to push for ESOL and other non-standard English writers to be respected as learners who deserve content, who can improve their reading and writing through courses outside the ESL and English departments. I reject holding them back from credit-based courses in other departments until their written English is at the level we would all like it to be.
September 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm
CUNY Comp. Instructor
Absolutely agree with the goal, and that there shouldn’t be remediation required to take credit-based courses in other departments. While WAC has made some difference in helping the students see that writing is required across disciplines and is not a menial or remedial requirement, the effect (as far as I can tell) has been to have more writing *assignments,* but not necessarily more substantive feedback on actual writing/argumentation/grammatical practice in courses outside the comp setting (can anyone correct this?).
To that end, while I think it’s highly important to recognize and credit students’ diverse backgrounds, experiences, learning styles, and discursive practices, it’s also unfair for us to ask them to bear the political burden of non-standard English outside the academic environment by promoting a false-belief that content is all that matters. Mastering the content without knowing how to “properly” (and I recognize and agree with how loaded that term is) handle the form ends up producing students who are highly skilled and highly competent in their fields, but whose skills and competencies risk going unrecognized by those who conflate knowing how to write a cover letter with knowing how to do the job.
That’s what I see as at stake in QCC’s decision to dismantle the English department. There are real debates about pedagogy and political stakes that can and should be pursued, but that shouldn’t be at the practical expense of the students.
September 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm
bluespapa
@Reading Writer “Writing Across the Curriculum” requires buy-in from other departments and some training for teaching writing.
I’ve also seen a model of Writing Across the Curriculum that granted a required writing credit in classes outside of a composition program where a student could pass a class, but not get the writing credit based on a portfolio review that had agreed upon parts (examples of in-class writing, an essay on one reading, a research essay, etc.) that colleagues across the curriculum would review. It’s a rare model because other departments don’t want to have to teach writing, and don’t really know how other than to put a grade on a paper.
September 16, 2012 at 6:38 pm
contrapologist
I started to reply, but it grew a bit larger than I intended.
Reading Writer — I took a stab at replying to your question/comments:
http://contrapologist.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/come-now-cuny-really/
CUNY Comp. Instructor, and other instructors, for what it is worth, you have my support.
September 16, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Bill
Given that the administrative actions are ham-handed at best, I can see the reasoning behind the impetus for some kind of standardization. In many ways, stick-up-the-butt faculty senates and department chairs have created these issues for themselves by the ways that they (mis)treat transfer students.
With the social mobility and economic instability facing so many citizens of all ages and income levels, colleges set up incredible barriers for folks with ridiculous transfer credit policies. Does QCC accept three credit composition courses from other CUNY divisions when students transfer in or do they insist that students must take (and pay for) THEIR composition course? These types of shenanigans are magnified when students transfer from two-year to four-year colleges, usually requiring students to transfer to do at least one extra semester.
I say this from the perspective of somebody who has taught at the high school level for 33 years, and has adjuncted at a community college and presently at a four-year college. Under the pretense of “maintaining high academic standards” students get seriously ripped off by unrealistic transfer policies. Reform is necessary. Be advised that this type of reformation is coming to SUNY as well.
September 16, 2012 at 8:55 pm
CUNY Comp. Instructor
Bill: I agree with you. Pathways is a great idea in theory–credit transfer even within CUNY is a nightmare and absolutely needs to be resolved. The problem is that the execution happened without faculty consultation and thus without regard for curricular standards or what’s actually feasible in terms of meeting the learning goals that are being set out. Reform is necessary, Pathways is necessary, but it needs (as contrapologist notes on his blog) to work in practice, not just on paper.
Contrapologist, agreed, and thanks.
September 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm
CUNY College's English Department Faces Big Cuts in Dispute Over Credit Hours - The Ticker - The Chronicle of Higher Education
[…] Johnston, a historian who teaches at CUNY and runs the Student Activism blog, writes that the cuts will largely dismantle Queensborough’s English department. Composition classes […]
September 16, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Let’s Help Educators at CUNY: Shame on Karen Steele and the Administration of Queensborough Community College! « Clarissa's Blog
[…] here is the most recent update on the situation so […]
September 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Reading Writer
Bill, thanks for pointing out the transfer nightmare. As a CUNY underling, I learned of Pathways late in the game and was told by someone involved in it that (a) facilitating transfer was a major goal of Pathways, especially because so many faculty at 4-year CUNY schools give students a lot of runaround and nonsense when they try to transfer credits for what’s essentially “the same f-ing course” and (b) faculty committees, I believe, were formed early on and had input in the development of pathways. If they weren’t democratic and inclusive about it, we need to turn our disgust and questions towards them. Karen Steele, use your power to make WAC work! Train faculty, pay for their time; follow all our advice!
September 16, 2012 at 11:31 pm
QCC discussions to continue throughout the week, including Free University « Occupy CUNY – News
[…] also reported here that QCC English faculty will hold another meeting on Wednesday to address the situation. According […]
September 17, 2012 at 1:26 am
Flyon Diewall
It is unlikely that the interim vice president would have threatened to dismantle the QCC English Department without the express support of CUNY’s administration. It is also likely that CUNY’s upper administration decided in advance, as a matter of policy, and in anticipation of expected faculty opposition to Pathways, that any department opposing the imposition of Pathways would be dismantled and would be warned to that effect. The administration likely reasoned that the dismantling of a few English departments will not affect CUNY’s accreditation as long as most of the remaining departments complied with the initiative. One or two dismantled departments would have a salutary effect on the budget. If all CUNY English departments oppose the Pathways Initiative, then all CUNY schools would lose their accreditation. It is a gamble whether the administration is prepared for this contingency. It will take at least one year to restaff dismantled departments. The job market in the humanities may work to the administration’s advantage.
September 17, 2012 at 4:52 am
Links 9/17/12 « naked capitalism
[…] voted to reject an administration-initiated restructuring of their composition program, and that the college’s Vice President for Academic Affairs had in response informed them that the depar… next […]
September 17, 2012 at 8:02 am
Chris Forster-Smith
It seems pretty clear from reading this that the CUNY intended to gut this department one way or another and their refusal to take this imposed wage cut (and hollowing out of the student’s education) is merely a pretext for them to bring the hammer down…
September 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Kathleen
To answer the points raised concernng reading in English composition classes, and to answer the somewhat incorrect impression that English composition courses are devoted to “literature” only, I am offering here a write-up that I had prepared for my own ePortfolio after having the privilege of teaching EN 101 at QCC’s English Department over two semesters. Normally, I teach remedial writing in another department; working temporarily with the English Department was a wonderful, challenging, enriching experience. Please note that any informational errors in this write-up are my own, not the Department’s.
“As a required cornerstone course for students entering college, an overarching goal of English 101 is to introduce students to a wide range of genres of reading, writing, and multimedia communication. Here is where students must learn to bridge the gap–sometimes the chasm–between high school and college. Incoming freshmen may be fairly competent, able to write without too many grammar errors. In contrast to developmental students, their reading comprehension and thinking skills may be a bit sharper, though not nearly as strong as they need to be for advanced learning. Their writing experience may be limited to book reports and personal essays without much development or depth, and they need to be prepared for modes of thinking, styles of writing, and hard work in their future courses that they may never have dreamed of. With my own very diverse corporate and academic background, that’s right down my alley.
CUNY’s Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing Intensive (WI) initiatives were developed to promote students’ writing versatility and development. To support these initiatives, in the 2008-2009 academic year, QCC’s English Department developed an 81-page handbook for its faculty titled, “Teaching First-Year Writing,” that offers extensive guidance for professors of English 101 and 102. The Department’s objectives are clearly laid out and, for English 101 Composition and Literature, may be synthesized as follows:
‘…several longitudinal studies have indicated that many if not most students flounder in each new writing situation and faculty wonder why they ‘can’t write.’ It is our intention that by being introduced to the concept of various genres, and exploring the features of these genres (for example, how the lab report in science courses differs from the literature summary in social sciences), students will move from discipline to discipline with an expectation of encountering new genres and simultaneously accumulating experience in how to adapt to each new writing situation…By learning the concept of genre, students can prepare themselves for writing in the world of work as well.’ (p. 77)
Toward these ends, in addition to literary genres of reading, instructors may incorporate into their course syllabi a variety of readings that will expand students’ intellectual experience with topics or areas of knowledge that fall outside of the traditional ones for an English Literature class, and may be entirely new to them. Through collaboration with campus librarians, instructors can help students learn information literacy, i.e., how to conduct research on new topics using college databases, and how to evaluate source materials. Professors will help students learn how to design and implement primary research projects, and may need to assist them with computer literacy as well.
Still, the foundation of solid writing competence continues to rest on the bedrock of grammar, learning techniques, core knowledge through reading and multimedia, critical thinking, rhetorical devices, literary devices, and the templates for organizing various genres of writing from letters to research reports. All of these form a supporting skills matrix of my English 101 curriculum. As well, the habits of drafting, proofreading, editing, and revising are instilled and required.”
QCC’s Department of English has my utmost respect for the Herculean efforts it makes to give our needy students the experience and skills they require to succeed not only in their future courses but, in their future careers as well.
September 17, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Queensborough Bloodbath | Carceral Nation
[…] here’s the backstory and current round up of the massacre: A CUNY administrator’s threat to dismantle the Queensborough Community College English department is making waves across academic media this […]
September 19, 2012 at 8:22 am
Doing Away with an Entire English Department — Teaching College English
[…] Read more here. […]
September 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Rebels with a Cause | driven to excess
[…] Rebels with a Cause […]
September 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm
What’s One of the Most Fucked Up Things Happening in Higher Ed This Month? | OccuWorld
[…] it’s right here, at CUNY. Filed under: Education, Jaime, Solidarity Source RELATED NEWSBernie Sanders on the Independent […]
October 17, 2012 at 8:42 am
S. Rem.
Concerning: “The problem is that the execution happened without faculty consultation and thus without regard for curricular standards or what’s actually feasible in terms of meeting the learning goals that are being set out.” -Reading Writer
The faculty were consulted every step of the way. The Pathways committee charged with developing the Pathways was composed predominantly of Faculty; there were a few admins and two students. Then the committee charged with the specific dept. and course framework were all faculty. I do not agree that faculty were left out; they weren’t; check the minutes posted on-line.
Change is a slow beast. People focus on blaming others for changing how things are “normally” done and refuse to believe their way might not be the vest way to do things; opposition is easier than adaptation. However, there are people who do “keep the pulse on the students’ best interests” and aren’t afraid to admit the “norm” isn’t working.