To the Editor:
This is an open letter to the Institute.
My name is Jessica Hunter, and I’m a sophomore in nuclear engineering. I came to RPI for my undergraduate degree for a couple of reasons, but one of those reasons is to attain a degree in nuclear engineering with a minor in French.
I’ve been taking French since middle school, and it has always been my goal to become fluent in the language and to learn the customs of France and of French-speaking countries. I could not reach this goal before coming to RPI because of the teaching systems at my previous schools. Every year I changed French teachers, and every teacher was different. Although I could speak a few phrases, I ended up with a very shaky foundation of French. When I came to RPI, I decided to start over again because RPI provided the perfect environment. I could have the same teacher for three years and work my way up from the basics into the advanced classes with the same instruction. Getting the minor was just a label to demonstrate to others that I cared about the language. RPI was going to allow me to fix the mistakes of my previous education. I began taking French here right at the beginning and was delighted to find that I had gotten an even better deal than anticipated.
My professor, Lucien Gerber, is an intelligent, genuine Frenchman whose method is consistent, insightful, and ... well, it works. Not only is he good, but he takes a pride in his job that I have never seen in any of my previous instructors. He injects an infectious humor into the class and pushes us to participate more than any other professor that I’ve had at RPI. The general feeling that I’ve had from professors is that they simply provide the information, and the rest of the job belongs to the student. And that’s great, but Gerber goes beyond that. Students can’t help but to be actively involved in the class. His humor and teaching methods are impossible to “tune out.” His passion for sharing the culture of France almost entirely eclipses my desire to learn it from him.
It is that desire that brings me to speak on behalf of the language program. I am two-thirds of the way through my instruction in French, and I am halfway through the minor. I am not ready to have my feet cut out from under me. Any solutions that don’t involve Gerber teaching French here at RPI are unacceptable. For me, it doesn’t matter if I can take the courses at Russell Sage or some other college. I’m not taking the courses for the minor. I’m taking them so I can have the foundation that I deserve in the French language and culture. Switching instructors defeats the purpose of my taking French, and it is not fair for RPI to both offer me a way to reach my goals and then to yank them back (especially after I’ve spent two years working toward them) before I can even take the courses I need the most. I’m asking that my opinion and my goals be considered in the decision-making process.
For the personal reasons I’ve stated, and for the general sake of student welfare, I feel that the school’s language program should not die. One of the movements I’ve seen at RPI is the expansion of the study abroad programs. There has been a large push to increase the number of students studying in other countries, with the goal of making RPI engineers global engineers that are able to interact with other cultures. But none of the programs require students to learn the basic, fundamental bridge over any culture gap: the language. How will these programs have any meaning if there is no language program? Cutting language while still pushing study abroad programs makes a hypocrite of Rensselaer. How can our students value other cultures without any chance of being exposed to them before being sent into another country? In light of RPI’s support of study abroad programs, the elimination of language from its offerings would present contrasting images of Rensselaer’s dedication to its students. Whether it is discussing offering a global education, increasing understanding and acceptance of other cultures, or providing the tools for international success, RPI would not be able to stand by its projected goals with any confidence.
One of the final papers for French last year was on the relationship between culture and language, and another was on the benefits of learning another language in general. Without repeating the papers I wrote in the class, I will conclude with the main points. It is not possible to gain an in-depth understanding of a culture without even a rudimentary knowledge of the language. Without the tools of language, we are merely observers on vacation in a foreign country, not really understanding or valuing what is happening around us. If we want to make an impact, if we want to work and learn from others in a foreign country, we must have some knowledge of the language. No matter what language it is, learning how to speak and communicate effectively in a foreign language opens doors to many cultures. Learning languages gifts us with an appreciation of the importance of words and with the skill to use them wisely. Without communication, how will the future graduates of RPI be able to function in the U.S., let alone in a world that grows smaller by the second?
I wanted to let you know my thoughts because they echo the thoughts of students, both enrolled and prospective. I have not come across anyone who isn’t enraged by the thought that language might disappear at RPI. My personal reasons may not be the same, but the sentiment is the same: The students want and need language to remain at RPI. The fact that this is even a possibility is too much to believe for students and faculty alike, and I am only afraid that this is a possibility because of recent cuts around campus. Otherwise, I would have faith in RPI’s claims that they value student education. And if language remains here at RPI, I will have that faith again.
I’m guessing that you have already considered some, if not all, of the points that I’ve made, and I understand that there is pressure on all sides. I’m asking that you consider them again.
Jessica Hunter
NUCL ’11
