And once again the language student is in the doldrums
Small language studies are - once again - the one to suffer, writes assistant professor Thom Westveer. And that is unjustifiable. “Without language no knowledge transfer, no exchange of ideas, no cooperation, no future.... Language is capital.”
That the announced cuts will have far-reaching consequences for higher education needs no introduction. That cuts sometimes have to be made cannot always be avoided, but the way it is being done now is disastrous for our society and will create even greater inequality. However, Geert Wilders promised after his big election win to be a ‘prime minister for all Dutch people’ and once it was decided that he would not become prime minister himself, the same message was propagated by the eventual government led by Dick Schoof. Once again, however, little of this is coming true, as the government's course seems to focus mainly on the older generations, while the future of the younger generations is being jeopardised by all the plans.
While this obviously applies to everyone who falls under those ‘younger generations’, again language students seem to be hit extra hard. After all, due to the announced cuts, work has to be done more efficiently and words like ‘efficient’ and ‘profitable’ appear on the scene again. And these small language courses cannot, by definition, meet these criteria, or so the thinking goes. So dissolve them, or at best merge them into a wonderfully vague broad study - which in the past would probably have been given a sounding but meaningless English name, but of course that is now a less good idea. The former is happening at Utrecht University, while the latter scenario seems to be taking place at Leiden University (even though a similar plan there was called off just a few years ago, because there would be no interest in such a programme - has that changed in the meantime?). What is in store for us at the UvA? For now, we don't know. But in modern foreign language programmes, the prospects do not seem particularly bright, given reports from elsewhere.
The consequences of disbanding or merging under a broad label? First, it creates even less opportunity to address teacher shortages. We are already seeing gaps in timetables in some schools, which is also not conducive to student attainment. And there is a growing likelihood that French or German, for example, will be dropped as a school subject altogether if no more teachers can be found. While there are cries that access to teacher training will be provided through several broad avenues, without disciplinary language studies, such as French or German language and culture, the path to becoming a teacher does become very cumbersome for those who have that ambition. And besides, will those teachers still have sufficient baggage in all areas (understanding of the language, knowledge of culture) to provide good and inspiring teaching? And on the other hand, centring language studies at a specific university might seem like a good idea, but that certainly does not generate more students? Rather even fewer, because students cannot or do not always want to travel for their studies and moving to rooms is often not an option either because of the large room shortages. Or will these students be given priority?
Secondly, less knowledge of other languages and cultures leads to a further toughening of society. After all, languages are inseparable from the fact that we as humans are social beings. Without language, there is no communication and thus no society. Precisely a broad knowledge of another language and culture - not to mention the communication aspect - ensures that you have a much better understanding of how other people think and feel, and so you can empathise much better with others. In other words, less polarisation, something that would come in handy in today’s times.
But perhaps most wryly, again, language students are put in the dock. How many times have they had to defend their choice to study languages and answer the question: What can you do with it later? (The answer: A lot, and certainly not just going into teaching; it is precisely these many possibilities that make it difficult to give an unequivocal answer). And then, of course, the obligatory follow-up question: How much will you earn with that? Because that seems to be the central issue in society these days, while research - fortunately - shows that there are also students who still choose their studies based on their passion, which is, in my opinion, the best reason to go for a specific study and complete it successfully.
This negative attitude towards languages starts as early as secondary school. After all, how long has the Culture & Society profile been put away as an easy and fun route? That was true in my time, but also before and it is still the case today. And while publicity campaigns are constantly being mounted for science subjects, for languages it remains just fine words. That there are any students left at all who dare to choose the Culture & Society profile at high school, or even to study languages (which is far from an easy and fun route, as language learning never stops)!
Once again, (potential) language students are being hit extra hard by the announced budget cuts and the changes that will result. Again, the message is: you don’t matter, so your studies can be cancelled. While the opposite is true: with all the challenges ahead, we need good education, and what lies at the heart of it? Exactly yes, language! After all, without language no knowledge transfer, no exchange of ideas, no collaboration, no future.... Language equals capital.
So, dear language student: be proud of yourself and persevere! Dear potential language student: go for it, don’t listen to all those people who say otherwise and choose that language study, you are most welcome! We need you more than ever. Fight with us to preserve university disciplinary language studies. Long live language students!
Thom Westveer is assistant professor of French linguistics at the UvA.
