In the wake of Dr. Ellen Schrecker’s retirement, students have raised a plethora of questions regarding the future of the history department. History majors, while lamenting Dr. Schrecker’s retirement, are shocked and dismayed at the seven history courses being offered next semester. Of those seven courses, three of them have been offered last fall, and one of them–Jewish History–is cross-listed with History to bolster up the history department’s course roster. Though there is a different American Survey course being offered this fall (Survey of US History II) as opposed to last semester’s (Survey of US History), there seems to be too much of an overlap to encourage anyone who took the previous course to take the new, supposedly different one.
Next semester, the number of full-time history professors will be at a five-year low. With Dr. Schrecker being asked to retire this year instead of next, the department will be down to four full-time professors—Dr. Hadassah Kosak, who teaches courses on Israel and American social history, Dr. Douglas Burgess, piracy expert, who will, incidentally, be on sabbatical in the spring, Dr. Joshua Zimmerman, Holocaust expert, and Dr. William Stenhouse, the head of the department.
The department is unable to offer any non-Western Civilization courses next semester because of the dwindling professors in the department. The courses not being offered, however, are required for majors to graduate. Majors have petitioned the Stern College deans, to no avail, for Dr. Bella Tendler Kreiger, currently a “visiting professor” from the YC campus, to remain a professor on the SCW campus in order to continue to teach courses on the Middle East and Islam (which would fall under Non-Western Civs and would, furthermore, replace Dr. Reeva Simon’s courses that have been cut in light of her retirement last Spring). When history majors Robin Joshowitz (’14) and Esther Wohl (’14) approached the Deans’ Office to express their discontent and concern for the future of the department’s supposedly high-caliber education and variety, and request that Dr. Tendler be re-hired to teach at SCW full-time, they were turned away by the Deans’ assistants. Upon their being turned away from the 6th floor, they were told that their request was a “departmental problem,” of “no business of the deans,” and should thus be addressed to Dr. Stenhouse. The students have yet to be granted an audience with the deans.
While the Deans’ Office’s response might be warranted, the students left this encounter feeling that the “higher ups in the university don’t care about history majors.” This isn’t the first time that history majors have experienced this sentiment. Gila Yarmush (’12) remains famous for her “history-crusades,” having brought up the problems within the history department at almost every Town Hall meeting throughout her tenure at Stern. Comparatively, the English department (not to mention the Biology or Psychology department) offers nearly double the amount of courses the history department with an equal percentage rate enrollment in all of these courses. Why then, as Yarmush has asked time and time again, are the history majors being overlooked?
The act of being brushed off by the Deans’ Office signifies a disconnect between the students’ needs and those implementing policy. Of course it is difficult for administrators to listen to every request (and, frankly, the complaints of every student in a university), but if a group of students comes in representing the needs of an entire department, that should not be overlooked.
Joshowitz and Wohl proceeded to take their case to Dr. Stenhouse. Stenhouse was sympathetic to their case but maintained that SCW didn’t have the funds for the history department to hire Tendler (who would have had to be hired as a visiting professor, with a salary nearly three times an adjunct’s).
On a micro level, the history major’s claim, as summed up by Joshowitz, is that they would like “Dr. Tendler, a Stern graduate, to be able to teach at Stern. That’s really what started this increased pressure on the department. We loved her [History of the Middle East] course and that’s rare at this college- it’s the most demanding course, and we worked the hardest, but still loved it– that doesn’t usually happen and says something about the caliber of the professor and her course.” History majors are unanimous about the fact that the absence in the fall course log of yet another engaging history professor, Dr. Tendler, is a huge blow for the department.
On a more macro level, what the majors are looking for, as expressed by Wohl, is “more of a shared history department [with YC]. If that’s not possible, then ours needs to be revamped, because the classes are overused and not unique.”
The fact that Dr. Tendler is considered a visiting professor because her contract specifies her as a “YC” professor is only one facet of this dilemma. The fact that there are not appropriate funds to bring Dr. Tendler onto the staff in this department is a huge issue but stems from a larger question about what makes a strong department—more lesser quality professors in order to offer more classes, or fewer stronger professors who could offer just as many courses but in a more in-depth way?
President Joel’s plan for re-imagination unveiled an umbrella department plan in which both YC and SCW would share professors. Under this program, Dr. Tendler would be able to teach at both YC and SCW with no additional cost or haste to the university. The reason this program has yet to be implemented in full force is due to several causes: the allocation of university funds, the necessity to then renegotiate professor contracts, and general logistics that have yet to be resolved.
Though Rachel Varon, a passionate yet dispirited history major, is not necessarily bothered by the lack of professors, she is wholly disheartened by the fact that there is a lack in specialization and focus tracks within the department. “It’s not like the university even has to hire new professors to do this,” she says. Granted, if the university wanted to expand the department as many have suggested, they should; however, Varon’s point is that students should be able to focus a major around, for example, European History. “Every other university has specialties, to the extent that when we apply for jobs, we are required to provide potential employers with a specialty.” The fact is, as Wohl points out, “there are primarily survey courses offered each semester, which are too broad and lack variety.” Furthermore, as Wohl points out, even if students did want to specialize, their only option is American studies or, theoretically, Israeli history. “I understand this is a small school,” sympathizes Varon, “but our professors have focuses and fields of interest other than American studies and Israel, so it’s not like they don’t have the ability to offer more focused courses.”
Even seniors and students who have been trained to think critically and methodically about history, who should be given the opportunity to challenge themselves at this institution of higher level learning, are prevented from doing so because their course options range from scarce to lacking.
Unfortunately, Wohl’s point that the survey courses are offered too frequently, and are too broad for majors, is not unique to the history department. Many humanities at SCW have this problem. Look at the rosters for English literature, sociology, philosophy, and political science as well: Is this really a liberal arts college?
This problem of shrinking departments and course offerings is not unique to the history department. In the past two semesters, the English department has lost three full time faculty members (Drs. Manion, Manzella, and Evans). Dr. Shires, co-chair of the department, will additionally be on sabbatical during the upcoming 2013/14 academic year. Most of the courses offered have been ones that have been repeated in the last two years, leaving limited options for upperclassmen. Even though English is the largest department left in the humanities, with over 55 registered English majors, the department now only has five full time professors, and has not yet received word from the Provost regarding their allocated funds to replace these faculty members.
The art history department (which has all of 2 full time professors, Dr. Jacob Wisse and Dr. Marnin Young), too, is no stranger to this battle, and is also undergoing a similar struggle. The introductory art history courses are filled to capacity every semester—to the extent that the department has had to add an extra section for the past 2 Spring semester. If anything, this should indicate growth within the department and thus more of an emphasis should be placed on the department, right? Wrong.
Art history minor Hannah Rozenblat has voiced her disappointment of the prospect that Dr. Margaret Samu (“a dedicated and amazing professor,” explains Rozenblat) has still not been hired full time and could thus be potentially let go at any moment.
Universities in general run the risk of losing contingent faculty members like Professor Samu in the sense that if they were offered full-time positions anywhere else, they would most probably be forced to take that offer. Samu would ideally love to work at Yeshiva University, but if another university offered her a full time position, she might have no choice but to take it. For professors, just like any professional, stability is half the battle. The other half is a living wage, health insurance, and remaining time to conduct research and publish.
Also, bear in mind that full-time faculty members are able to do more for the institution. If Professor Samu were a full-time faculty member, for example, she has explained to her students that she would support students getting together to visit museums and new exhibitions as an extra-curricular activity, and she would work closely with majors to help them find internships and jobs that suit their interests. She would also like to form a relationship with the Morgan Library and Museum so that it is easier for students to visit, since it’s so near the College. Professor Samu is an asset to the department and the university, and her students hope that this is not overlooked.
While any university must draw a difficult line between rebuilding a faculty and appropriate allocation of funds, from a student’s perspective, building a strong faculty must be key. Thriving departments, such as art history, should not be overlooked. The department should be cultivated and built up. Without a strong faculty and strong courses, there is no university par excellence.
As much it this should not be the case, the monetary problems that are unfortunately present throughout the humanities departments are affecting the quality of our education: variety is sacrificed for survey course which serve more students, and rigor is sacrificed for “easy requirements.” While those students who have heard about the university’s dire financial situation are slightly more understanding to the problem, due to the lack of communication between the deans’ office and the students, it just seems like the university doesn’t care about our liberal arts education. While that is absolutely not the case, something must be done to serve students’ needs while not depleting the school’s monetary resources.
The university’s resources are depleted, though, you may say. What can we do? Well, President Joel has already answered that question in one word: RE-IMAGINATION. It has been in the works for years now, but it is time to implement it as practice.
Overall, our university is at a crossroads. Firstly, it is the end of yet another academic year, which inevitably leads to reform. Even more than that, however, is the fact that the University has undertaken the search for a new Provost. Since Dr. Lowengrub has officially stepped down from his position as Provost, effective after the coming academic year, the university will be looking for a new Provost. This Provost will need to address all of these issues raised in this article as well as a great deal more than that. We the students implore the university to keep us, our academics, and our intellectual curiosity in mind when hiring Dr. Lowengrub’s successor.
Perhaps a requisite requirement for the new Provost should be his or her responsibility for creating a plan on how to execute re-imagination. Perhaps the Provost, along with the help of the university, must finally implement the umbrella faculty policy, like in Dr. Tendler’s case, and must make smart yet difficult choices when it comes to contingent faculty members, like in Professor Samu’s case.
We are, I reiterate, at a pivotal point in the history of this university. In the words of Robert Frost, “two roads diverge into a yellow wood.” The points outlined are not easy ones, but they are ones that must be considered. Which road will Yeshiva University choose?