Copyright © 2001 by The Association of Departments of Foreign Languages All material published by the The Association of Departments of Foreign Languages in any medium is protected by copyright. Users may link to the ADFL Web page freely and may quote from ADFL publications as allowed by the doctrine of fair use. Written permission is required for any other reproduction of material from any ADFL publication. Send requests for permission to reprint material to the ADFL permissions manager by mail (26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004-1789), e-mail (permissions@mla.org), or fax (646 458-0030). Some of My Best Friends Are Foreign Language Teachers Dennis Looney ADFL Bulletin Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter 2001), p. 37 ISSN: 0148-7639 CrossRef DOI: 10.1632/adfl.32.2.37 IN “INCLUSIONARY Practices: The Politics of Syllabus Design,” Linda Dittmar points out the limitations of rele- gating previously excluded material to a special unit of a course, as if the material were “alien to the mainstream but morally important and politically unavoidable” (38). As well-intentioned as such course development may be, it inevitably leads to a kind of tokenism in which what one felt compelled to include is made to appear so mar- ginal that it cannot be taken as seriously as what it has been appended to. Dittmar is describing the design of course syllabi, daring us to imagine the potential a new course, if carried out properly, can have on curricular transformation. But much of what she says applies as well to the way university decision makers may conceptualize the organization of foreign language departments under their purview. And it also describes the way they interact with those departments. It is easy to perceive the foreign language department as “alien to the mainstream,” for several reasons. First and most obvious is its subject matter. The foreign language department is a site for preserving, maintaining, and pro- mulgating the essence of another culture through the study of the culture’s language and literature. Its primary reason for being is the study of a culture that is alien or foreign to the one of the institution that houses the de- partment. Second, the foreign language department is usually in a marginal position in relation to the center or mainstream of the curriculum, regardless of how an insti- tution determines that center. Even in a curriculum de- voted to international studies, the foreign language department dutifully takes a place in relation to depart- ments and programs that deal with such issues as foreign policy, international management, and current affairs. But “alien” in this context does not have to mean “alien- ated” from the mainstream: the foreign language depart- ment, like it or not, provides a service, and as such it is in its own interest to make a niche for itself. Whether we view a given foreign language as a subject in its own right or as an applied skill, its place in the curriculum is to some degree alien to the mainstream. Another way to talk about the status of the foreign lan- guage department is to highlight its diversity, which is ap- parent not only in the subject matter but probably also in the teaching corps (to a greater or lesser extent, depend- ing on the institution). In fact, the foreign language de- partment is often held up as an example of diversity on campus, a place where one may turn for information and guidance on how to negotiate issues of cultural difference and diversity; it is, to use the terms introduced at a recent ADFL Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 2, Winter 2001 © 2001 by the association of departments of foreign languages AT THE 2000 Summer Seminars in Tempe, Arizona, and Wilmington and Newark, Delaware, partici- pants took part in frank discussions of foreign language departments as microcosms of cross-cultural difference. The discussions were far ranging, touching on differences among students and faculty mem- bers based on race, national and ethnic origin, faith, gender, education and training, learned and native (and prestigious and denigrated) linguistic varieties, physical abilities, and sexual preferences. The image of the department in the context of the institution was also considered as a basis for a politics of difference. Issues of culturally determined teaching, learning, and working styles were touched on, and solutions evoking balance, civility, and transparency of expectations were offered. We present here two essays from discussion participants, and we invite additional contributions of up to four thousand words from our readers. Seminar participants took the Report of the Task Force against Campus Bigotry (see www.mla.org) as a starting point for their comments: readers might want to look at the report as well. Two Views on Foreign Language Departments as Sites of Cross-Cultural Difference Some of My Best Friends Are Foreign Language Teachers Striking a Balance between Tolerance and Judgment 38 • Two Views on Foreign Language Departments as Sites of Cross-Cultural Difference ADFL seminar, a site of cross-cultural difference. But if the foreign language department embodies diversity as a site of cross-cultural difference and is also alien to the mainstream, it follows that diversity itself is alien to the mainstream or at least can be perceived as such. Needless to say, such a view diminishes the possibility for an au- thentic encounter with diversity, tucking the source of di- versity away into Dittmar’s separate and marginal course unit, thereby limiting its ability to transform the curricu- lum, the campus, and the academy at large. Such a view encourages a tokenism in which university decision mak- ers are happy with the foreign enclave down the hall or across campus as long as it stays on its side of town and doesn’t make too many demands. Foreign language educators must recognize this ten- dency to view diversity from a distance and must try to correct the shortsightedness responsible for it. We need to educate not only our students (that’s the easy part) but also our colleagues in our home institutions, especially our administrators, about what we do and how and why we do it. If the foreign language department becomes and re- mains a place to be kept at a comfortable distance (whose texts one might rather read in translation, as it were), we suffer the consequences and so does the diversity that we embody and embrace. One of the most glaring consequences is the discrep- ancy in salary between the typical foreign language educa- tor’s contract and those of other educators. Why are our salaries near the bottom of the scale? It may be that the increasingly pervasive view of language as a skill devoid of intellectual content promotes the notion that languages are easy to teach and that therefore the labor involved in teaching them is worth less on the market. One wonders if the predominance of women and minorities, not to mention foreigners or others perceived to be alien to the mainstream, who work and study in foreign languages also accounts for the low salary scale that characterizes the for- eign language instructor’s contract. Is the low pay really market-driven, or does a lack of genuine concern for di- versity on the part of those drawing up the contracts un- derlie it? Are low salaries brought about by a disdain for the challenges posed by diversity? If you believe you get what you pay for and you pay as little as possible, then your minimal interest in your investment is confirmed. Perhaps someone has done research on the correlation between salaries and diversity. If not, someone should. Dennis Looney French and Italian University of Pittsburgh Work Cited Dittmar, Linda. “Inclusionary Practices: The Politics of Syllabus De- sign.” Journal of Thought 20.3 (1985): 37– 47. THE final report of the MLA Task Force against Campus Bigotry admirably captures some of the complexity fac- ing campuses in an increasingly diverse society. If the bibliography and list of scenarios appended to the report are any indication, the task force was predominantly concerned with race, ethnicity, and gender stereotypes, though other targets of bigotry, such as religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities, were also considered. At the University of North Carolina, Charlotte (located in a booming Sunbelt city with a large international business presence and a quality-of-life climate for African Ameri- cans that is reputed to be one of the best in the country), race, country of origin, and gender per se are approached with a certain amount of civility, at least on the surface. Courtesy is the order of the day and hate crimes so infre- quent that our campus police, when I inquired, denied awareness of incidents. To the credit of our administra- tors over the years, the university’s attempts to attract minority applications have resulted in the highest per- centage of African American students at any of the Uni- versity of North Carolina system campuses except for the historically minority institutions. If indeed we have big- otry issues on our campus, then, they are not of the bla- tant variety. But at a university newly anointed with Doctoral Intensive status, with ambitions for growth and a desire to strengthen its ties with Charlotte’s formidable and conservative business community, voices that ruffle feathers or challenge the values of corporate America are seldom heard. When dealing with any issue that might impinge on individual students’ systems of belief, fear of offending (or, perhaps more often, fear of criticism) can lead to such caution that honest and probing intellectual inquiry in the classroom is stifled. Not surprisingly, a re- cent faculty study of our general degree requirements re- ported dissatisfaction with the courses that meet the values goal for undergraduates. I am grateful for the civility on my campus and would abhor discrimination toward individuals on the basis of their religious or ideological allegiances. With a wide range of backgrounds and cultures represented in our classrooms, however, it is not always easy to reconcile re- spect for each student’s ideological allegiances with the