1. World Languages, Literatures & Cultures Task Force Public Forum March 31, 2014 Focus: Faculty governance issues

2. How can we prepare ourselves to teach undergraduates and graduates for the future? How can we develop new competencies and strategies necessary to our students? How can we improve advocacy, representation, communication beyond our individual departments? How can we optimize our resources in a challenging fiscal environment? We have a small window of opportunity to chart a vision for the future.

3. The departments of languages, literatures, cultures & linguistics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison share many things:

4. Our departments share many things: --- great accomplishments

5. Our departments share many things: --- great accomplishments --- daunting challenges

6. thebestcolleges.org: UW-Madison ranked second in country for innovative foreign language study "The University of Wisconsin-Madison is a leader in foreign language education and research and boasts some of the most prestigious departments of languages and literature in the world. Students can enroll in courses in dozens of modern and ancient languages and take part in study abroad programs to more than 100 different destinations on six continents. The school is also home to some other pretty amazing language-learning resources, including the Language Institute, which offers unique opportunities for research, cultural outreach, and language building."University of Wisconsin

10. 2012-13 Credits Follow the instructor Departments of languages, literatures and cultures 81,871 Mathematics54,690 Chemistry50,208 Economics34,199 English31,337 Psychology27,114 Physics26,193 History24,780 Prepared for the WLLC Task Force, December, 2013

11. Challenges: --- national level

12. Challenges: --- national level --- consortial level (CIC)

13. Challenges: --- national level --- consortial level (CIC) --- campus level

14. Challenges: --- national level --- consortial level (CIC) --- campus level --- departmental level

15. Challenges: ---- The challenges we face are pressing and urgent.

16. Challenges: ---- The challenges we face are pressing and urgent. ---- It is clear that we cannot maintain the status quo.

17. Challenges: ---- The challenges we face are pressing and urgent. ---- It is clear that we cannot maintain the status quo. --- Any plan moving forward must address the challenges we face at the national, consortial, campus and departmental levels.

18. National level: --- for decades study of less commonly taught languages has been heavily funded by Title VI and other federal initiatives. This funding source is shrinking and may be lost entirely.

19. Languages funded entirely by Title VI on our campus, 2011-2012 (source: TALC report 2013) FilipinoTibetan Greek (modern)Twi HindiUrdu IcelandicUzbek IrishVietnamese KazakYucatec Maya PashtoZulu

20. Languages partially funded by Title VI on our campus (2011- 2012): (Source: TALC report 2013) ArabicPolish DutchPortuguese FinnishSwahili IndonesianSwedish KoreanTurkish NorwegianYoruba

21. We will be informed of the results of the current round of Title VI funding in August 2014.

22. We know there will be reductions in Title VI support levels

23. We will be informed of the results of the current round of Title VI funding in August 2014. We know there will be reductions in Title VI support levels How will we fund these 27 languages?

24. Consortial level: --- The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, a major source of funding for the humanities, has announced that it is no longer interested in proposals from individual campuses. Instead, it will engage with institutions on the consortial level. Who will represent the interests of our departments at the CIC level?

25. Consortial level: --- There are ongoing discussions among CIC institutions about strategies for supporting LCTLs through institutional collaboration. Who will represent the interests of our departments at the CIC level?

26. Campus level: --- leadership priority to merge small departments into larger faculty governance and administrative units

27. Campus level: --- leadership priority to merge small departments into larger faculty governance and administrative units --- though our departments generate a very large number of credits (over 80,000), we are generally not well understood on campus with regard to our research and teaching missions

28. Campus level: --- leadership priority to merge small departments into larger faculty governance and administrative units --- though our departments generate a very large number of credits (over 80,000), we are generally not well understood on campus with regard to our research and teaching missions --- we are encouraged to improve our effort in development but lack expertise and leverage at the UW Foundation

29. Campus level: --- our building has long outlived its projected period of use and is ill-suited to our needs --- we are encouraged to innovate in teaching and research but are hampered by the strictures of our departmental silos

30. Departmental level: --- several departments encounter faculty governance issues because of their small size

31. Departmental level: --- many key functions either fall by the wayside or fall on individual colleagues. These include: --- TA training --- Undergraduate advising --- Website maintenance, communications --- Introduction and ongoing support for new instructional technology --- mentoring and support of academic staff and classified staff --- grants/grant-writing

32. --- many key functions either fall by the wayside or fall on individual colleagues. These include: --- development/fundraising --- faculty mentoring and support including consultation on tenure and promotion cases --- lack of standardization of practices, TA appointment levels, etc.

33. Departmental level: --- We miss key opportunities for innovation in academic programs and instruction: --- new interdisciplinary undergraduate majors --- graduate degrees/certificates --- team teaching --- duplication of effort/courses --- digital humanities

34. Our range of choices ? ? ? ? ? ? VH chairs School of leader represents WLLC all of our departments, VH chairs formalized as representative body

35. Our range of choices The draft proposal for the WLLC has deliberately left a great number of important points vague, since we collectively need to articulate the specifics should we decide to move ahead.

37. Our range of choices What would not change: --- Tenure and promotion process at the departmental level --- Stewardship of trust funds --- Establishment of program-level hiring priorities

38. Our range of choices What could change: --- Tenure and promotion packages could be reviewed at the school level for formal completeness and coherence --- Engagement with UW Foundation for ongoing and coherent development strategy --- Advocacy for especially pressing hiring needs