[KS] news re: the korean program at uc berkeley

[Michael Pettid]

Christine,

It is good to hear there has been some positive
movements at Berkeley to keep the Korean language
program thriving.  

A couple of points concerning your post: First, you
seem to be implying that ¡°non-heritage interpreters
of Korean culture¡± are somehow inferior or different
than, I gather, heritage interpreters of Korean
culture.  All of us, Korean or otherwise, are in a
broad sense interpreters of culture.  The
interpretation of a non-heritage researcher is
absolutely as valid as that of a heritage researcher. 
Surely you are not implying differently.  Being a
heritage researcher does not mean that individual's
research is imbued with some sort of inherent insight
that a non-heritage learner can never hope to achieve.

Second, there are a number of Korean language
instructors/ professors who are non-heritage also. 
Those outside of tenure track lines have the same
difficulties in times of budget cuts be they heritage
or non-heritage.  Such a situation is true throughout
academia and is not limited to merely language
instructors. 

Michael J. Pettid
SUNY Binghamton 

--- Christine Hong <cjhong at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> 
> hello everyone,
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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
> berkeley's 45% ethnic asian student demographics and
> to its identity as
> 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.
> 
> 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
> replaceable, so too do we argue that berkeley's
> asian language
> 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.
> 
> 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: savekoreanstudies.blogspot.com. 
> to sign an online petition regarding the ealc budget
> cuts, please go to petition.berkeley.edu.  we
> greatly appreciate your support and your goodwill.
> 
> many thanks,
> christine 
> 
> 
>