Search News


Browse Archives

News

Women's Studies on the Chopping Block

March 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Kim Vaz, chair of the University of South Florida's women's studies department, has been in this position before. She's heard talk that her program, now the only free-standing one of its kind in Florida, would lose its autonomy, face cutbacks, or worse.

All of that's on the table again for women's studies, Africana studies and other small programs and centers after a task force of faculty, students and staff released a report this month that calls for major cuts in order to save the university millions of dollars in operating expenses.

"In good budget times," the report said, "we would keep these departments as is. However, given the [university] president's recent call for drastic budget cuts of approximately 15 percent, these two departments appear reasonable places to absorb some of these cuts."

The committee said that the undergraduate major could be cut in Africana studies and women's studies, and that the graduate degree could be eliminated in the latter department. These changes would result in some faculty budget lines being removed.

Shortly after the report was released, Ralph Wilcox, South Florida's provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, assured both of the departments that he would take into account other opinions, and that he didn't agree with the committee's call for eliminating degrees. Wilcox said he is committed to doing everything he can to keep tenure and tenure-track faculty, and not reducing student options.

But he told faculty leaders that their departments would likely look different administratively next year. That could mean merging the programs.

"If we find a way to reconfigure or realign these small departments in such a way that we can retain the academic programs they're delivering, we can also improve operational efficiencies," Wilcox said. "We don't have to provide a range of clerical support when it could be shared. We don't need to have full operating budgets for each program."

But to Vaz and other faculty members, the prospect of losing the free-standing status is disconcerting.

"It takes years to get departmental autonomy, and it means for us that we're a peer of other large departments," she said. "That gives you a voice that's different from one that a program director would have."

Last summer, South Florida's Faculty Senate recommended to the former provost that the university make "strategic" cuts rather than across-the-board cuts that would affect all academic units. The provost asked the task force to evaluate academic centers, institutes, programs and departments on the basis of their centrality, quality, demand and viability. The group spent a semester reviewing data, narratives from the departments and budget information.

Among the concerns the committee pointed to is the size of the programs. By the end of this academic year, both departments will have four full-time professors. The number of majors varies depending upon whether you count double majors, but department leaders say they are educating a proportionate share of students based on the small size of their faculty. The leaders also dispute the committee's conclusion that the programs lack research productivity or that they aren't viable.

Vaz, an associate professor, said those evaluating the departments need to keep in mind how many courses fulfill general education requirements, and how many of their faculty participate in university service. In a response to the task force report, John Skvoretz, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, said smaller programs are vulnerable when it comes time for evaluation because contributions to the curriculum and intellectual life of the college are intangibles that aren't measured.

Deborah G. Plant, an associate professor and chair of the department of Africana studies, said she doesn't think the committee understands that programs like hers are underfunded and cannot offer their ideal breadth of programming.

"We've spent years building the department and trying year after year, dean after dean to convince them of the centrality of our studies," she said.

A loss of autonomy, Vaz added, would force the department to cut back its course offerings and limit its ability to determine the long-term direction of the program. Undergraduate and graduate students who might already have been hesitant to come into the department because of uncertainty will stay away, she worries.

Added Carolyn J. Eichner, an associate professor in the department: “Women's studies is a discrete discipline. It’s as though the university is denying that fact. I have a lovely relationship with the history department, but that's not my home."

Wilcox said he understands the concerns about viability if the departments' free-standing status is removed. But he argues that centralization could strengthen their positions if it comes time for a future budget cut.

"Rather than a four- or five-member department hanging out on the periphery ripe for picking in the minds of some, they can secure a more unified position," he said. "I don't think it's helpful to anyone to have small yet critical programs just barely surviving and always the seeming target for elimination."

Still, Vaz said that being in control of a budget allows her to bring women's study scholars to campus and to plan an annual meeting where professors on other campuses who don't have a full department can network. "If we're gone, what does that mean for women's studies on other campuses?" Vaz said.

Allison Kimmich, executive director of the National Women's Studies Association, said women's studies programs are often on the chopping block when it comes time for budget cuts. She wrote a letter to USF's department supporting its efforts to fight the committee's recommendations. Vaz said hundreds of women's studies professors elsewhere and supporters of the cause have signed an online petition to save the program's status.

“At a time when there is [national] growth in women’s studies at the doctoral level, it seems like an ill-conceived plan to dismantle the only free-standing department in the state of Florida," Kimmich said.

Some colleges, departments and centers have submitted responses to the committee's report. Wilcox said he hopes to make a final decision on the programs by the end of this academic year.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Women's Studies on the Chopping Block

  • Priorities
  • Posted by Sandy on March 21, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • Hmm, I wonder how much South Florida is losing on its football program, since it decided to go big-time some years ago. It would be interesting to know the reasons for the budget squeeze.

  • Women's Studies
  • Posted by Elizabeth Hodge , Professor at Gavilan College on March 21, 2008 at 10:15am EDT
  • Cuttings Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies (which used to be African American Studies, Latino Studies, Native American Cultures, and so forth until the last budget cuts joined forces with so-called political correctness) is simply indicative of a move to eliminate the necessity of studying subjects that permit students to grow intellectually in a manner in which they may discover that they have been both pedagogically and culturally oppressed, or, see that they have been privileged and wish to move in a different direction. This runs counter to the current hegemonic manner in play. Thus, it appears expedient to rid of it via economic means and not have it appear as it really is, a politcal move toward homogenization. So, as the previous commenter noted, football will be safe!

  • Real numbers
  • Posted by Jack on March 21, 2008 at 11:15am EDT
  • Funny how the article can't quote any of the actual numbers in the report. How about this one:

    "Africana Studies granted 8 bachelor’s degrees in 2006/07 and Women’s Studies granted 11 bachelor’s degrees in 2006/07. Additionally, Women’s Studies granted 3 Master’s degrees in 2006/07."

    Or this one about the WStud dept:

    "There were 11 graduates to 6 faculty."

    And about Africana:

    "This department does service our general education requirements by providing 2 classes that are
    approved for general education requirement. Additionally, they fulfill exit requirements for liberal
    arts majors. We have concerns, however, about the level of research productivity as we do not see
    any reference to published papers, books, monographs, or any other scholarly publications. We
    also noted the low number of majors serviced by this department (25 undergraduate majors in
    2006, 0 graduate majors) and that trend appears relatively stable. We do recognize, however, the
    importance of supporting diversity considerations for the betterment of society. The department is
    also unique in that it is the only graduate department in the Florida State System dedicated to the
    study of the Black/Diaspora experience. However, since the department does not show any
    graduate majors, the 190 SCH generated in 2006 must be outside the department. We are also
    concerned about the percentage of activity for ranked faculty by activity type. This graph indicates
    roughly 25% of assigned duties are outside the teaching, research, or service areas. We do not
    have information as to what the 25% consists of; however, for a department not clearly excelling in
    other areas, this raised a red flag for us."

    It's pretty clear that students aren't that interested in these programs. Why shouldn't the university put its resources into things the students want to study instead of things some faculty want to work on?

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on March 21, 2008 at 1:40pm EDT
  • Elizabeth Hodge: "is simply indicative of a move to eliminate the necessity of studying subjects that permit students to grow intellectually in a manner in which they may discover that they have been both pedagogically and culturally oppressed, or, see that they have been privileged and wish to move in a different direction."

    So basically you're saying that it is a bad idea to cut programs whose only purpose is to instill and reinforce a victim culture among some groups and to guilt other groups into submission?

    Seems to me that we should be more focused on educating the individual to find a place in a society of equals, not a "society" of ghettoized tribes competing over resources.

  • Re: Real Numbers
  • Posted by Chris W. at USF on March 21, 2008 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Looking at the number of graduates is misleading because the College of Arts and Sciences at USF does not count double majors in their figures. I would venture to say that the Women's Studies department here at USF has a significant number of double majors, not to mention those students who choose Women’s Studies as a minor (as I did). My experiences in the Women’s Studies department were vital to my intellectual development. Removing Women’s Studies as an autonomous department would leave an irreconcilable void here at USF.

  • Put up -- or sit down
  • Posted by Buzz on March 21, 2008 at 6:35pm EDT
  • "Hmm, I wonder how much South Florida is losing on .. football .. It would be interesting to know the reasons for the budget squeeze .."

    Excuse me -- why don't you do the analysis? Here are USF's financial records --

    http://usfweb2.usf.edu/bpa/

    Athletics are supposed to support themselves -- including, BTW, women's sports that have n-e-v-e-r supported themselves financially.

    That is, those "hmm's" from men's football and basketball financially support women's sports, due to Title IX. Hmm ...

    If someone has evidence of possible illegality -- bring it on. The MSM will love you. Or ask Eliot Spitzer for advice -- he's got lots of time, now.

    Otherwise -- quit blaming others from your comfy lounge chair and try doing your job.

    BTW: here is what USF's female president had to say about USF's financial problems --

    http://www.usf.edu/About-USF/Administration/President/financial-crisis.asp

  • Eminently reasonable.
  • Posted by Engineering Graduate Student on March 22, 2008 at 9:20pm EDT
  • Given the lack of student interest in these areas, as demonstrated by the number of graduates from these programs, it's a reasonable cut. These are essentially majors in politics, which I would note should be explicitly differentiated from political science. This indoctrination brings no value to a student post-graduation in the marketplace, nor does it bring value to society through the "work" (zero publications in Africana?) performed by these departments. On the issue of football, it indeed will be safe -- it probably represents a funding source for these parasitic departments.

  • Most likely a good thing
  • Posted by Fossil , Brain-dead professor emeritus at Major Eastern University on March 22, 2008 at 9:20pm EDT
  • I am just about the last person to defend big-time revenue sports, having retired from my own institution just as its commitment to football and basketball lunacy was reaching its apex, much to the detriment of educational values.

    But if it comes down to a choice between jocks and overpaid coaches, on the one hand, and Women's Studies, Black Studies, et al., on the other, the ethics of the situation no longer seem clear-cut. I've never seen a coach defending his salary and perks on the basis of his "groundbreaking" scholarship. That kind of absurd posturing, however, seems to be the hallmark of the "oppression studies" gang, most of whose work consists of intellectual vacuity propped up with interminable assertions of their own righteousness and of the wickedness of their critics.

    Frankly, I'd be happier if the Women's Studies and Africana Studies departments at S. Florida took the football team with them when they fell. But, inasmuch as that won't happen, the demise of these departments is still to be welcomed. I only hope it sets a precedent for the revival of common sense and serious scholarly standards at campuses throughout the land.

  • Posted by Robert Lewis Deniston , Economist on March 24, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • It is an educational market place out there.

    Some fields fail to compete. They fail to convince stakeholders ( students, administrators and funding bodies ) that they are relevant or contribute significantly to knowledge. They eventually go bankrupt.

    Welcome to reality.

  • Posted by A Prof on March 26, 2008 at 12:35pm EDT
  • To some of the hyperventilating posters above: I don't think USF is saying to completely eliminate Women's Studies or Africana Studies as potential minors. The question seems to be whether they can justify them being 1) majors in their own right, and 2) independent departments. I think it important to note that this was a _faculty_ committee that recommended these changes after studying them, not a unilateral administrative action.

    Our university offers both fields as minors, but they are interdisciplinary, not lodged in a separate department.

  • Womens studies is not just the only CUT!
  • Posted by i , Frustrated at USF school of architecture on April 6, 2008 at 2:30pm EDT
  • The USF School of Architecture is also in the same prosition as Women's Studies. The school is being threatened with meging with another college. This is ridiculous!

  • Not just Majors!
  • Posted by A student on April 23, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • The number of students graduating with degrees in the program does not represent the number of students effected by the departments.

    I don't know about Women's studies, but as a business major I have taken 3 classes in Africana Studies. These classes can all count for core courses.

    It is very hard for me to meet a student who hasn't taken a class in "Racism in American Society." It was an auditorium class with over 200 students when I took it several years ago. Class sizes have only increased since then.

    Africa & the US in the Africana Studies department was the heaviest history class I've taken.

    I haven't seen the administration indicate anything other than denial when it comes to cutting these majors though.