<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Dear Henry, Christine, and all:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>First let me second Henry's kudos for Christine.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Second, let me note that Michael Pettid's remarks
about ethnicity and cultural interpretation are right on<SPAN
class=937451713-14052008> . But </SPAN><SPAN
class=625252904-14052008>we should not lose sight of Christine's point about
how most tenured faculty--even now, 40+ years after Martin
Luther <SPAN class=703585714-14052008> King, Jr.</SPAN>--are white
males. <SPAN class=937451713-14052008> That, I think, will
change in our field over the next decade or so as increasing numbers of Asian
American scholars are getting tenure track jobs<SPAN class=296130015-14052008>,
but that does not alter the structural inequities we have
now.</SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Third, let me also say that Christine has a very good point
about lecturers, <SPAN
class=937451713-14052008> certainly</SPAN> at the UC system and, from
my limited observation, at most other universities as well. The vast
majority of our lecturers in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at
UCLA are women, many with Ph.Ds. They are treated as second-class
citizens by the UC, with heavy teaching loads, low salaries, and virtually no
hope of advancing to tenure-track positions. The <SPAN
class=625252904-14052008> s</SPAN>ituation <SPAN
class=625252904-14052008> is even more grim </SPAN>for the huge
numbers of temporary/adjunct faculty on whom so many universities and colleges
rely to cover increasingly large percentages of their classes<SPAN
class=937451713-14052008> --not just language classes, but classes
across the full range of undergraduate instruction.</SPAN> <SPAN
class=625252904-14052008> I am not aware of any studies that analyze the
gender and ethnic compos<SPAN class=703585714-14052008> i </SPAN>tion
of temporary/adjunct faculty, but my personal observations indicate that they
are mostly women. </SPAN>They are paid poorly, <SPAN
class=296130015-14052008>have no job security, </SPAN><SPAN
class=703585714-14052008>rarely </SPAN>get benefits, and are often
limited in their opportunities for tenure track positions because of the burdens
they shoulder as wives and mothers. Simply put, from the perspective
of one who works at a (partially) state-funded university, it appears that
American institutions of higher learning have chosen to balance their
instructional budgets on the backs of <SPAN
class=937451713-14052008> temporary/adjunct faculty,</SPAN><SPAN
class=625252904-14052008>a high proportion</SPAN> of whom<SPAN
class=937451713-14052008> -- </SPAN>in the case of Asian language
programs--are women of color. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>UCLA has a number of programs designed to ensure that
female and "minority" tenure track faculty<SPAN
class=625252904-14052008> and even administrative staff, </SPAN> are
treated fairly, but it turns a blind eye to the situation of lecturers and
temporary/adjunct faculty. I suspect the same is true elsewhere.
This is not only a matter of gross inequity, but also <SPAN
class=625252904-14052008>ultimately </SPAN>has--as we see <SPAN
class=625252904-14052008> in </SPAN> the case at UC Berkeley--negative
ramifciations for undergraduate and graduate programs that are heavily dependent
on l<SPAN class=937451713-14052008> lecturers for l</SPAN>anguage
instruction<SPAN class=625252904-14052008> and on adjunct/temporary
faculty to fill in for tenure track faculty on leave and/or
to cover significant gaps in instructional
coverage. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=625252904-14052008></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625252904-14052008>It seems to me
that those of us who are tenured faculty should put pressure on our
institutions to do two things. One is to upgrade language teaching
positions to tenure track appointments. The other is to stop acting like
the Walmarts of the world and expand the number of tenure track positions in our
departments so we no longer have to exploit the weakest and most vulnerable
among our colleagues.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=625252904-14052008></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687125703-14052008><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=625252904-14052008>John
Duncan</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws
[mailto:koreanstudies-bounces@koreaweb.ws] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Henry
Em<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<BR><B>Cc:</B> Christine Hong<BR><B>Subject:</B> [KS]
news re: the korean program at uc berkeley<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Christine,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Both as an expression of thanks and as a self-critique (not having done
anything about the treatment of language instructors) I want to say how
much I admire the way you and your colleagues are approaching this issue
-- raising *under-discussed issues of inequity* and building an
impressive student-based coalition. It's smart, principled, and
inspiring. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Henry Em </DIV>
<DIV>Associate Professor<BR>Department of Korean History <BR>Korea University
<BR>Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, <BR>Seoul 136-701, Korea<BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV>------------------------------- </DIV>
<DIV>Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:40:19 -0700<BR>From: Christine Hong <<A
href="mailto:cjhong@berkeley.edu"
target=_blank>cjhong@berkeley.edu</A>><BR>Subject: [KS] news re: the korean
program at uc berkeley<BR>To: <<BR>Message-ID: <<A
href="mailto:BAY111-W35C162D79F4F23E353EEDB8CC0@phx.gbl"
target=_blank>BAY111-W35C162D79F4F23E353EEDB8CC0@phx.gbl</A>><BR>Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR>hello everyone,</DIV>
<DIV>in the wake of the surprisingly dismissive response (at least from some)
generated by my alert three weeks ago concerning the plight of the korean
program at berkeley, i debated whether or not to follow up with a response, if
only to clarify some larger misconceptions out there which conflated berkeley's
department of east asian languages and cultures and its center for korean
studies.</DIV>
<DIV>i'm writing, now, less to attempt to correct circulating misconceptions
than to present you with heartening news concerning a movement that has
blossomed here on the berkeley campus--a movement spearheaded by the ad hoc,
student-based committee to save east asian languages and korean studies at
berkeley. in the past two weeks, students have mobilized en masse, in no
small part because their interests, like those of the language lecturers, have
been left out of the top-down administrative discussions that dealt
disproportionately high budgetary damage to berkeley's ealc department.
although our advocacy was initially motivated by our desire to ensure the full
protection of the existing korean program within ealc and to raise awareness of
the lack of institutional will that has characterized the development of the
korean program at berkeley, we have come to realize that the dire fate of korean
as well as other many other asian languages at cal (including chinese, japanese,
thai, tagalog, hindi, and tamil) enables us to raise a spectrum of
under-discussed issues of inequity particular to this campus and arguably
elsewhere. for one, we--and many institutional actors behind the
scenes--have been advocating for a robust asian languages curriculum that speaks
to<BR>berkeley's 45% ethnic asian student demographics and to its identity
as<BR>a california public institution and a pacific rim university.
without question, central to the advocacy and recent actions (including a press
conference and a student rally) of our student-based coalition has been our aim
to bring into view the ghettoization of korean within berkeley's ealc department
and to assert the non-negotiability of a strong korean program within a vibrant
east asian languages curriculum.</DIV>
<DIV>we've also had an opportunity to highlight the retrograde language
lecturer/literature professor labor hierarchy within this and other language and
culture departments that, by default, prioritizes literature professors over
language lecturers. this, of course, is the flipside of the non-heritage
question discussed in recent postings--i.e., the necessity of non-heritage
interest in korean studies to the viability of the field otherwise prone to what
one writer deemed its balkanization. when budget crises loom, it bears
noting, the institutional casualties quite frankly are less those (often)
non-heritage interpreters of korean culture than the language lecturers who, by
virtue of their non-permanent funding status, can claim little job
security--this despite the fact that language instruction is typically the
primary service offered by such departments to larger campus communities.
yet, just as few would dare suggest that literature professors are
easily<BR>replaceable, so too do we argue that berkeley's asian
language<BR>lecturers are not easily replaceable. i want to add, here,
that the korean language program at berkeley is absolutely top-notch, and the
korean language lecturers are truly amongst the very best that i've encountered
in my own language learning experience--at ucla, sogang university, and
elsewhere. i cannot speak highly enough of the berkeley sunsaengnims and
the student testimonials that our student coalition gathered speak volumes about
how deeply berkeley students value their chinese and japanese teachers, as
well.</DIV>
<DIV>for both updated information (including calls to action, downloadable
files, press coverage, etc.) on our movement and to add your voice to ours,
please go to our blogspot: <A href="http://savekoreanstudies.blogspot.com/"
target=_blank>savekoreanstudies.blogspot.com</A>. to sign an online
petition regarding the ealc budget cuts, please go to <A
href="http://petition.berkeley.edu/"
target=_blank>petition.berkeley.edu</A>. we greatly appreciate your
support and your goodwill.</DIV>
<DIV>many thanks,<BR>christine<BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>