From the EditorAuthor(s): Phyllis FranklinSource: Profession, (2000), pp. 1-5Published by: Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595696 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toProfession.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

From the Editor

In 1901, when the MLA convention was small enough to be held on a col

lege campus, Harvard's president, Charles W. Eliot, formally welcomed

the group, invited everyone to a reception at his home, and identified what

he considered the group's special accomplishments. He described the

progress the field had made in the last decades of the nineteenth century in

"pressing towards [. . .] the development of high scholarship and practical instruction" and in becoming part of the college curriculum. This last

achievement he saw as "one of the most striking phenomena in American

education," and he congratulated the group on its "cohesion and mutual

cooperation" with regard to the "standards and aims" it had adopted for

teaching. Because modern language scholars were committed to offering students practical instruction, Eliot believed that the field would continue to grow in importance ("Appendix I" iii, iv). He argued:

As our country develops industrial and commercial relations with the

whole world, which it is sure to do within the next twenty years, the

study of Modern Languages in school and college will more and more commend itself to the American people; and I cannot but congratulate you on this relatively new prospect for the department of education to

which you are devoted. I would not in saying this seem to disregard the learned element or the literary element in the Modern Languages: these are things which in every university we need constantly to take thought for; but your subject is going to have a stronger hold in the next twenty years than it has had in the past, because in addition to this eternal inter est in literature and learning you are to be supported by a vital connec tion with the industrial and commercial activities of the day. (v)

Eliot was right about the place in the school and college curriculum that the field would come to occupy early in the twentieth century, but he did not anticipate how complex the connections between higher education and industrial and commercial activities would become. Now, a century later,

1 Profession 2000

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 III FROM THE EDITOR

not only are the practices of the commercial world affecting higher educa tion in ways that many believe will undermine academic values, but also

practices within the field that Eliot praised have become a source of stress.

Consider, for example, the field's dual commitment to high scholarship and

practical instruction. Although Eliot assumed the special importance of

practical instruction, for most of the century status has been tied to schol

arly achievement. And this tie has meant lower salaries and less desirable

working conditions for the teachers of practical courses. Whether he was

right or wrong, however, Eliot's 1901 account of the field's strengths stands as an interesting point of contrast with the essays in Profession 2000, which

is the last issue of the twentieth century. The Presidential Forum, "Scholarship and Commitment," focuses on a

topic that Eliot would not have thought to mention a century ago. Invited

by Edward W. Said to "talk about their commitments as human beings en

gaged as they saw it in the most exacting intellectual work, with its own set

of norms, obligations, and unsparing loyalties," Michael Fried, Elaine

Scarry, Noam Chomsky, and Pierre Bourdieu responded to their assign ment in different ways. I let Said's introduction to their essays speak for it

self and note here only his reasons for selecting these speakers. Said writes:

[I]t was their integrity, their unapologetically academic and intellectual attitudes to the notion of work itself that made them such extraordinarily

distinguished figures. There was no standard pretense that scholarship was a futile or inconsequential thing, no false modesty about "action"

being more important than reading and writing, no facile academic

bashing, and certainly no hostility toward the university, which all of them see as a place where potentially, as Noam Chomsky puts it, a liber

atory function is meant to be exercised.

The next group of essays, collected under the heading "The Humani

ties Abroad," were submitted in response to the Profession Advisory Com

mittee's call for papers about the study and teaching of the humanities

outside the United States. The authors of these articles report on the state

of the humanities in four countries. Ken Seigneurie describes the declining interest in literature in Lebanon and wonders whether the situation exem

plifies "one version of the world's future: ostensibly postwar and veritably

postliterary." More encouraging is the essay by Benton Jay Komins and

David G. Nicholls, who designed and taught a core humanities program at

Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey, where

the university intends to establish a graduate department of comparative studies. This interdisciplinary department will house the humanities

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

from the editor III 3

core, support advanced research and teaching in the humanities, and

produce a generation of rigorously trained scholars who, we hope, will raise the standing of the humanities in Turkey.

Also encouraging is the article by Eugene Chen Eoyang, who explains how

political and economic developments have affected the study of English in

Hong Kong. His conclusion that the importance of English depends on its

status as "the language of international business" confirms Eliot's belief

that successful school and college subjects are tied to the contemporary life

of a nation. The last essay in this group focuses on the employment of hu

manities PhDs in the business, government, and not-for-profit sectors.

Noting the decline in tenure-track teaching appointments in higher educa

tion in both the United States and Australia, Rosanne Kennedy considers

how the systems of graduate education in these countries differ and what

effects these differences seem to have on students' attitudes toward the ca

reer opportunities available to them.

The last group of essays is collected under the heading "Reports from

the Field." How universities operate was a major concern this year. Paul

Delany takes up a widely discussed topic?the fate of the humanities. After

considering several accounts of how the university has changed, he con

cludes that competitiveness and the "struggle for rank" now dominate both

higher education and the humanities. Cathy N. Davidson, Stanley Fish, and Geraldine Geary Nichols write about university administration.

Davidson lists ten lessons she learned in her first year as an administrator.

Drawing on these lessons, she urges English departments to assert their

"centrality to the modern university" and consider how best to work with

colleagues. Fish asks whether there are helpful generalizations to be made about administration and concludes that there are only particular prob lems, the possibility of local gains, and the certainty that administrators "are bound to fail." Nichols reports on her effort as a department chair to

handle the special challenges that foreign language departments now

face?staffing large numbers of Spanish courses and justifying faculty posi tions in languages that have smaller enrollments.

The remaining essays touch on a variety of topics. Expressing his com

mitment to interdisciplinary projects, Vincent B. Leitch argues for both the

stability of the university as a "disciplinary institution" and the importance of interdisciplinarity. Carla Love looks at the governance arrangements at

the University of Wisconsin, Madison, which enable non-tenure-track

teaching staff to participate in decisions that affect their working conditions. She notes that shared governance for part-time teachers may reenforce the

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 11 FROM THE EDITOR

importance of faculty participation in decision making. Daryl S. Ogden re

views debates in the field about the value of postdoctoral programs for

PhDs who are unable to find tenure-track jobs, and he describes a fellow

ship program at the Georgia Institute of Technology for new PhDs that

provides opportunities for teaching and scholarly work, mentoring, and

instruction in media design and teaching. Cindy Moore looks at the men

toring of graduate students and the difficulties associated with the task. She

suggests the adoption of a new "community-mentoring model" that would

encourage shared responsibility for mentoring. Cary Nelson examines the concerns that have been expressed about the excessive or premature profes sionalization of graduate students. Stressing the importance of quality over

quantity, he provides guidelines for judging what he calls "misguided pro fessionalization." Lisa Botshon and Siobhan Senier consider the opportuni ties and advice available to junior faculty members employed by institutions

that have four-four teaching loads. Botshon and Senier question the empha sis in recent self-help articles on individual solutions and argue instead for

advocacy and institutional change. Donald E. Hall and David R. Evans, who have written about surviving in institutions that have heavy teaching loads and substantial demands for service, respond to the essay. Two

committee reports on topics of long-standing concern to MLA members

conclude this issue of the journal. One is by the Committee on the Status

of Women in the Profession; the other is by the Task Force against Cam

pus Bigotry. I conclude with thanks to the members of the Profession Advisory Com

mittee: Angelika Bammer, Phillip Brian Harper, Lydie Moudileno, and

Linda Ray Pratt. Their careful readings of the many submissions we re

ceived shaped Profession 2000.1 wish also to thank my colleagues on the

staff?David Laurence and Elizabeth Welles?for their comments on new

submissions and their recommendations of ADE Bulletin and ADFL Bul

letin essays for reprinting. The responsibility for the final selection of arti

cles, however, is mine.

For Profession 2001, we seek essays about professional matters that are

on readers' minds. We also welcome articles on recent changes in the un

dergraduate curriculum in language and literature that are the result of

state-mandated tests, actions by boards of trustees, or faculty decisions. Fi

nally, in accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force against

Campus Bigotry, we invite "articles that address tolerance in teaching and

learning and in the profession, the different forms that intolerance can

take, [and] best-case scenarios that offer strategies for resolving conflicts

and misunderstandings productively." Essays should be from 1,800 to

5,000 words in length and should reach the MLA office by 15 March 2001.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FROM THE EDITOR II 5

Manuscripts may be sent by regular mail or by e-mail to the managing edi tor of the journal, Carol Zuses (carol.zuses@mla.org).

Phyllis Franklin

WORK CITED

"Appendix I. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Modern Language Association of America, Held at Harvard University, Cambridge, December 26, 27, 28,1901." PMLA 16 (1901): iii-lxxxvi.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.83 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:21:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions