The Politics Of Expedience

Still no clear picture of those damned elusive changes in our English courses. The English Department has declined an invitation to talk to Salient about what it intends to do since "it is too early to make commitments in print about these matters." The decisions needn't be made until next May. But between now and May students are going to have hell all chance of further contact with the department. By refusing to "commit" itself now the department is ensuring itself a peaceful, undisturbed summer vacation to decide what it is going to do.

Up until now a couple of polite parallel monologues have been going on between the department and an informal group of students. That's what this article is about, to let you know of the (lack of) progress being made.

The petition asked for the introduction of a stage one course to teach basic skills in English analysis through a wide range of examples. This would be the only requisite for an English major; all other requisites would be abolished, including the language requirement. A major could then be built up to a total of 36 credits by free selection from the current pool of courses. We also asked for a course in postwar writing.

Oddly enough, neither group spent much time talking about the 100 level course. Professor McKenzie did say, however, that his stage two class found the current introductory requisite (his Renaissance paper) almost indispensable for anyone doing his Shakespeare course. This type of argument is met time and again throughout the discussion of course structures. A course could not be evaluated on its own terms but in the claimed necessary function it served for other courses. Obviously if everything complements everything in this vital, compelling way then change anywhere is impossible.

But are these inflexible progressions, all these pre— and co—requisites so necessary? Other universities, in New Zealand and overseas manage to teach relatively self contained courses that allude to other genres within the course under study. Victoria seems unwilling or is incapable of doing likewise. The point isn't whether the courses are complementary; they'd all be useful, but students are having to sit too many courses to gather up all the precious insights.

This point became clearer when we brought up the number of credits. The department is demanding 44 English credits plus 12 language credits, a total of 56. This is 20 more than the number required for any other B.A. major at this university. This makes the English major so top heavy that it can hardly fulfil any general educational function. How can it, when one department hogs over half the credits? And how many jobs are open to a degree that is this unbalanced?

It is a degree for English specialists, for academics, for teachers; or as we learned for budding editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.

It was not surprising then, to hear that this is where Professor McKenzie's priorities lie. Without prompting, he said that he was primarily concerned with furnishing the academic community with exceptional students. He cited about five such students that Victoria has produced in the last 20 years as justification for retaining the present degree structure. He was asked in reply whether he was prepared to sacrifice the abilities and potential of the rest of the student body by planning courses whose main justification was that they produced one exceptional student every four years? McKenzie replied that this was so, though he did not sec that a sacrifice was involved. He added that these priorities may seem to be "self-perpetuating".

So quite plainly, the English Department is mainly interested in producing academics. This is why the major must be so all-inclusive and so rigidly stratified. This is why they can allow such bottlenecks as the Augustan course at Stage Two. People who are to edit the Oxford English Dictionary need this background. And they, unlike less exceptional students, never fail. Anyway, as McKenzie so eloquently put it, "if they fail, they fail". Right on, Marie-Antoinette.

During the discussion the department made some interesting admissions.

According to Dr Tye, we have a language requirement because English is a European literature and therefore only Continental languages should be recognised since these are the only relevant ones. If this viewpoint prevails obviously Maori will no longer suffice.

Secondly, they conceded that 12 credit language requirements are quite inadequate. Twenty-four language credits are what is really needed, but after consideration this possibility had been reluctantly abandoned. The 12 credit requisite will, however, remain even though the department admits that it does not do the job for which it was created.

Why does the department cling so stubbornly to this linguistic Chiang Kai-Shek? This was soon made clear. Bollinger and McKenzie both stated that if the language requirement was dropped the language departments would not get enough money to keep going. So if the English Department keeps its requirement the languages will keep their rolls up, and the money will keep coming in. Just so long as the students keep on sitting language exams to keep the whole cosy setup going. As Prof McKenzie put it he was determined to ensure that these language departments survive and "if it has to be on the backs of students then that's too bad".

This, of course, is further evidence that the university administration has capitulated to the old Muldoon demands that the university be simply a service stations for society. If languages do serve a genuine educational function, which everyone seems to agree they do, then that surely should be the basis for getting the money. Not this artificially concocted liaison. Frauds like this language requirement suggest that the university administration is prepared to go to any lengths to appease the service station mentality. Whether its by force or consent makes no difference; it still means that students are the only ones left who believe that this is an educational institution, and pragmatists like Professor McKenzie can see how useful this ignorance can be in maintaining the facade. Students may be an elitist class but as John Lennon says "you still loke like fucking peasants to me."

What sense is there to make of this? A basic conflcit exists over what an English major is for. If you accept the department's premise that this course should be designed for the exceptional student then the fact that it has too many credits and too little freedom of choice is of little importance. The academic community wants the canon taught this way, and the exceptional students will probably want the academic community. But should this be the main priority? Should the mass of students tamely accept being "canon" fodder for the academics?

The mild requests on the petition have other priorities. By keeping the credits at 36 the degree will have room for more intensive, more rewarding study in other fields. Not only will the students learn more, but may have a chance even of finding a job afterwards. Even Muldoon will be pleased. Students would have greater freedom to choose the areas in English they wish to explore. This needn't result in narrowness, because after all intensive study of what interests you is usually of more value than a nominal coverage of the whole field. And those lusting for the Oxford Dictionary can still take the necessary courses as extras to a normal 36 credit major.

Well, what chance has the petition got? The English Department are not utter blackguards. But they are, sad to say, quite unused to the idea that they need explain, much less justify the decisions they make. Its like a backwater of the Catholic Church that hasn't yet heard of Vatican II. In the past it has ruled (ex sella Gordonis) by proclamation; we have to teach it that this generation is re-examining the basis for authority in all areas of society. Blind deference is being replaced by demands for active participation as equals in the decision making process.

Professor McKenzie's role in these matters will be crucial. As a teacher he is the complete don, probably the best thing that s ever happened to this department. But as an administrator the style is more prima donna. He must come to realise that he needn't play Horatius on the bridge beating back the barbarian hordes that threaten his precious English major. Peaceful coexistence is possible once the priorities are reversed.

A public meeting will shortly be held, with McKenzie and Tye. Come along to hear for yourselves why students are asking for a normal 36 credit English major and the abolition of all requisites above the 100 level. Details will appear in Salient.

And what about the postwar writing course? According to Mr Johnson the resident expert in these matters in the English Department, "no significant books have been written since the war". Letters of condolence are being sent to Mailer, Kesey, Burroughs, Bellow, Heller etc.