Students offer support for embattled Russian Department

Dear Editor:

I will be graduating from Macalester this semester as a Russian and Russian Area Studies major. I transferred here from Cornell University in my sophomore year, after Cornell decided to cut its Russian Studies program. I chose Macalester because it had a strong Russian department with high-quality faculty. I have never regretted this decision. After two and a half years, I know that I have gotten a great education, and feel well-prepared to enter graduate school next fall (in Russian history). Cornell lost a student because they cut their program, and Macalester gained one. I can’t see how cutting the Russian program now will gain the college any students, nor how it will strengthen the quality of the overall academic experience. This department deserves praise for consistently producing high quality graduates, not criticism for its low enrollment. It will be a serious loss for Macalester and for its student body if the Russian department is eliminated.

Emily Baran ’03
 

Dear Editor:

I read last week’s article on the pending decision regarding the fate of the Russian Department. I also read the letters sent in by Russian Department alumni and was excited to hear about the adventurous lives that are being lived thanks to a liberal arts Russian degree. I want to chronicle my support of the Russian Department at Macalester from the perspective of one of those people who never seems to leave Olin-Rice.

I am a Geology major and a probable Russian minor. I often regret that time constraints keep me from majoring, especially now that I realize how it would have helped me with my geology research. I am currently in the preliminary research stage for my thesis proposal and have found that most of the literature and geology research on Afghanistan (where I hope to do my field study) is in Russian. Unfortunately, because I did not complete the language sequence, I don’t think I could read a newspaper, much less an academic paper in Russian.

Although Russia seems to have faded a little on the international chessboard since Soviet times, we cannot ignore its historical and current sphere of influence. The Russian Federation spans 11 time zones and two continents from Europe to the Far East. Furthermore, Russia’s sphere of influence is even broader, consuming the Caucasus, Balkans, East and Central Europe, the Baltic states and, of course, Central Asia. Most academic research and literature on all of these areas is in Russian, not English. It is impossible to study these literatures, cultures, histories, politics, economics or even sciences, without having a firm foundation in a relevant language. Russian is an invaluable tool to study all of these regions without having to learn dozens of languages. How can we at Macalester expect to produce our own research on the issues within these geographic regions without a department that provides adequate language study (four years of it—it is Russian after all!) and develops our understanding of culture?

Why else do I think it is important to keep the Russian Department in full swing? I grew up in Afghanistan during the Soviet Occupation of the 1980s. Therefore, I have always been aware of the important role Russia plays in the world. I also went to boarding school in India where many of my classmates were from Tibet. Thus, China has also always occupied a prominent place on my map. Unless we are exposed to something, we have no way of knowing it exists. I think it is well past time for a Chinese Studies program, and am excited by its ongoing development. I think an Arabic program is also needed at Macalester. I think what makes up China and the Middle East (among other places) is very much a general unknown on our collective consciousness, and anything to broaden our understanding is a good thing. I just do not see the sense in expanding new areas of study at the expense of other vast areas just because they do not seem to be as politically exciting at the moment. I suggest you all take a map, cover up all of the regions previously mentioned as being under Russia’s historical sphere of influence and then see how the world looks to Macalester.

Anneli Terry ’04
 

Quietly lacks perspective in comparing Macalester to Ramsey Junior High

Dear Editor:

I have to question Erik Morales’ decision to compare Ramsey Junior High and Macalester in the Oct. 31 Quietly column. His choice lacks perspective, rendering his argument ineffective.

In an attempt to fault Macalester for admissions practices and an environment that discourages minority students, Morales points out that the Ramsey student body is more diverse than the Macalester population. Armed with these statistics, he seems to argue that Ramsey is welcoming a population that Macalester is keeping out. Though the numbers may be shocking, the context is completely irrelevant: this population is not the same. Even if one finds the admissions policy and social climate of the college to be discriminatory, it cannot be compared to Ramsey’s “selection” process. In any comparison, scale is essential. It is ridiculous to compare a school that draws by chance from its surrounding community to a school that selectively invites qualified applicants from around the world.

I agree that we should recruit more heavily from the diverse population of the Twin Cities. However, I would argue that though it is in the Twin Cities, Macalester is not a continuation of the St. Paul Public Schools. We do not function as a grade 13 for local students and we can never expect the college to directly reflect the demographic makeup of St. Paul.

I acknowledge that there is a lack of domestic diversity on our campus and do not disagree that it may be a result of our admissions or campus atmosphere, but maintain that you cannot highlight our problems in the context of Ramsey Junior High. I encourage us to approach our problems in a more accurate light in order to obtain more relevant solutions.

Annie Taff ’04
 

Federal Energy Bill detrimental to current environmental policy

Dear Editor:

I would like to applaud all who attended the MPIRG Energy Forum on Nov. 3. This forum brought three speakers from the Sierra Club, ME3 and MPIRG to Macalester to speak about a pressing issue on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate have been finalizing a Federal Energy Bill for about the past month. This bill is extremely detrimental to our current environmental policy. The speakers at the forum pointed out various reasons why this bill is a step backward rather than forward.

First, the bill provides funds for eight new coal plants, including one in northern Minnesota. Coal is a power source of the past. Wind energy has become cheap enough that it is now an environmentally and economically-friendly choice. Second, the bill will roll back environmental standards for mining, refining and production of power, making it more dangerous to breathe our air and drink our water. Finally, it will repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which will make it much easier for power companies to exploit their consumers.

Why would anyone pass this bill? Because of various other pieces of pork barrel legislation stuck in to help individual states and because of our government’s marriage to the big dirty power companies. You should be informed about the threat this bill poses to our environment! Visit the Sierra Club web site at http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/bush_bill.asp for more information.

Act now! Contact your senators: Mark Dayton 612-727-5220 and 202-224-9043 and Norm Coleman 651-645-0323 and 202-224-5641. Also get involved with MPIRG Tuesday nights at 8 p.m. in Old Main Room 11!

Kristin Pollock ’07