The Arts and Sciences faculty last month narrowly rejected a proposal to allow American Sign Language (ASL) classes to fulfill the university's foreign language requirement, with the decision's supporters arguing that ASL did not fit the definition of a foreign language.
In a vote that pitted the child development department against representatives from language departments, the faculty weighed the value of requiring that all students study foreign languages against the concerns of the few students the change would affect.
"For us, it is … a question of whether ASL is a foreign language used by a foreign people. The mission of our departments is to offer alternative world views to such habitual American-centrism," Hosea Hirata, chair of the German, Russian and Asian languages and literature (GRALL) department, told the Daily in an e-mail.
ASL classes currently count toward part two of the language requirement, which can be filled with language or culture courses. Students can only complete part one by taking three levels of one particular foreign language.
While some faculty members raised concerns that the proposed change could cause a sizable exodus from foreign language classes, its supporters argued that it would only have a limited impact.
"It wasn't clear in the discussion whether everybody understood that this only affected one or two students," Lecturer of Child Development George Scarlett said. "Some faculty may really believe that this was opening up something that shouldn't be opened up."
The final decision served as the culmination of a semester-long effort that began in September, when the child development department submitted the proposal to the Arts and Sciences Curricula Committee. In November, the committee held a meeting and invited representatives from the child development, GRALL and romance languages departments to participate.
In preparation for a faculty meeting on Dec. 10, these departments wrote rationales in defense of their positions.
Hirata and José Antonio Mazzotti, the chair of the romance languages department, compiled the language departments' defense, which the argued that ASL, used primarily in the United States and Canada, should not be considered a foreign language.
They additionally noted that ASL courses are not of the same nature as foreign language classes because they involve discussions in English of issues faced by the deaf community.
"Some may worry that, by not allowing ASL to fulfill [part one] of the [foreign language requirement], we are giving it a second-class status. There is no doubt that ASL is a legitimate language," they wrote. "But it is an American language and not a foreign language. And ours is not merely a language requirement; it is a foreign
language requirement."
Still, Scarlett felt that if there had been more time to reflect on the quality of the ASL program, the vote could have gone differently.
"My only regret was that I didn't think some faculty really did understand the ASL program here and how it works and how terrific it is," he said.
He also noted that a higher turnout at the faculty meeting could have given his side the edge. "Part of the democratic process, and a very important part, is showing up to vote," he said.
Putting aside the results of the vote, Professor of Biology Francie Chew, chair of the Curricula Committee, praised the discussion that arose from the debate.
"The faculty did a good job [with the] discussion, and by the end, many more faculty had a better idea of the issues," Chew said in an e-mail. "I think we did a more substantial job of education and discussion than has ever before been focused on ASL at Tufts."
Scarlett added that both sides had the interests of students at heart.
"All of the Tufts faculty really care about supporting students, so I don't see either side as for students and one as not," he said. "The other side wants to support students by helping students become citizens of the world … and we do, too. We also want to maximize the flexibility of undergraduates in making their way through the Tufts requirements."
The child development department currently has no plans to resubmit the proposal. Chew said the issue cannot be resubmitted through her committee for several years, but noted that "it is now clear that supporters of such a proposal have a substantial educational task before them.
"It will be something for proponents to build upon in the years down the road," she said.
