University of Virginia Library

Faculty Retains Language Rules

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

At yesterday's fourth special session
to study the Report of the Curriculum
Committee, the College Faculty voted to
retain the present language requirement
in full.

In the largest turnout of faculty
members since the special sessions started
November 18 the academic group struck
down the Committee's recommendation
that an alternative such as foreign culture
should be given the student in place of
the language requirement.

William Little, Chairman of the
Department of Germanic and Slavic
Languages, opened the discussion by
presenting a motion which would have retained
the present language requirement and would
have required the student to complete six hours
of a foreign culture or continue for six hours
more study in their language.

Mr. Little in arguing for his amendment
stated that his proposal was but a "modest
raising of the hours in order to arrive at a
compromise." Another member noted that
"the usefulness of a foreign language need not
be blatantly obvious" and drew upon his own
experience in arguing for the motion.

Alexander Sedgwick of the History Department
discovered through questioning of the
chairmen of the language departments that only
three instructors with the rank of associate
professor or above teach undergraduate introductory
language courses. He thought that "the
more distinguished members of the departments
should be trying to get to the grass
roots."

Douglas W. Alden, Chairman of the
Department of Romance Languages, painted a
grim picture of the future of language at the
University if the language requirement were
altered. He talked of a domino effect "that
there will be a very significant decline of
students who will take foreign language which
will accelerate." He also predicted that there
would be no graduate language program in
three years if language were not required.

Proponents of Mr. Little's motion also
stressed the importance of having graduate
students teaching a language and criticized the
Curriculum Committee's proposals for a foreign
culture alternative, claiming that there really
are not any courses offered which could really
be termed "culture."

James Riopel of the Biology Department
and member of the Curriculum Committee
stated that he was firmly opposed to the
motion. He reviewed the philosophical guidelines
which had guided the Committee in
formulating its proposals. For him the motion
would have ruined the balance of the Report
and would have been too inflexible.

In a rather close vote the faculty defeated
Mr. Little's motion by 98 to 77. Fredson
Bowers, former Dean of the Faculty, then
introduced a successful motion to retain the
present language requirement rather than
follow the advice of the Committee.

John Moore, who chaired the Curriculum
Committee, was "skeptical that disaster would
fall on the language departments" if the
Committee's recommendation for a foreign
culture option were allowed to stand.

Walter Hauser of the History Department
argued that students should have the option
and "should at minimum be introduced to
other cultures besides his own."

The argument of Frederick Hartt typified
the proponents' view observing that knowledge
of foreign language by any educated man is
almost a necessity. Robert J. Morgan noted that
he was not afraid to tell students some of the
courses they ought to take "to lead the blind
hog to the trough."

Despite charges of vested interests, questions
about the quality of the language program at
the University, and the opposition by members
of the Curriculum Committee the faculty voted
to retain the full language requirement with no
option by a 115 to 58 vote.

The faculty will meet again tomorrow to
consider more changes in the language of the
Report with the final vote not in the
foreseeable future.