20, 2003. The response of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology was

received on May 2, 2003 followed by the response of the Program on May 22, 2003

(which was written on April 30

) and finally, that of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts on

June 4, 2003.

It is evident that past events have had a considerable impact upon the Latin American

Studies Program and its current placement and interactions within the university

community. In light of the many concerns raised during the external review process,

SCUP spent a considerable amount of time and effort in reviewing the external review

documentation as well as:

• A proposed Action Plan from the Dean of Arts which outlined new resources to

assist the LAS Program;

• Enrollment statistics;

• The LAS Self-Study Report prepared for the External Review;

• Comments provided by N. Angerilli, Director, SFU International;

• Comments provided by M. Kenny, Acting Chair of Soc/Anthro at that time;

• Comments provided by J. Brohman, Director of the LAS Program;

• Field Schools Proposal in Latin America from M. Escudero.

SCUP met on two occasions with the LAS Program Director and the Acting Chair of the

Department as well as on one occasion with the new Chair of the Department to

discuss and explore their concerns.

After careful consideration of the resources and opportunities that could be made

available to the LAS Program, SCUP determined that the Program should continue to

operate. However, as a condition of this decision, the LAS Program will be required to

report annually in the Fall to SCUP relating its progress on implementing the

recommendations of the External Review. SCUP may, at its discretion, require these

reports for at least three years (2004, 2005, 2006) and may choose to either extend the

length or frequency of the reports if circumstances warrant it. The reports to SCUP, in

addition to reporting on the activities of the Program should provide particular focus on

the following areas:

• Student Demand

• Administration and Championship of the Program

• Acquisition and Allocation of Resources

• Research and Scholarship of the LAS Faculty

With the decision to continue with the Program, SCUP urges the Dean, the Department

of Sociology and Anthropology and the LAS Program to revisit the existing

Memorandum of Agreement between the LAS Program and the Department of

Sociology and Anthropology and to focus on the following issues:

• Program management and support structure, i.e. Program Director, Program

Steering Committee, Faculty complement etc.;

• Development of a timeline, goals and vision for the revitalization and further

development of the Program;

• Identification of the necessary human (faculty and staff), fiscal and physical

resources needed to provide ongoing support for the revitalization and further

development of the Program;

• Program profile within and external to the University.

Once the Memorandum of Agreement has been revised, the following recommended

areas of focus for the Program should be pursued:

Internationalization

The Program is advised to explore with SFU International, opportunities to work with

and capitalize on the University's internationalization initiative.

Under g raduate Program

SCUP recommends that the structure and design of the undergraduate curriculum be

reviewed with particular attention being paid to:

• Creating a program with a logical and well-conceived set of courses that enable

students to progress methodically in their studies;

• Increasing the range and consistency of the undergraduate offerings;

• Reducing the reliance on sessional instructors;

• Crosslisting courses with other disciplines;

• Monitoring LAS student FTE's to gain an understanding of what courses they

• Enable students to undertake courses at other universities via a letter of

permission.

Graduate Program

SCUP recommends that LAS explore opportunities for graduate students to take

courses through the Western Deans' Accord and identify sources for increased

graduate funding.

External Initiatives

In order to improve its external profile and to cultivate useful collaborations and

partnerships for LAS, the Program is advised to continue its relationship with the UBC

LAS program and to consider offering more community related events.

end.

J. Brohman, Director, LAS

J. Pulkingham, Chair, Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology

J. Pierce, Dean of Arts

EXTERNAL REVIEWER'S REPORT

(Of the Latin American Studies Programme)

to the Office of the Associate Vice-President Academic,

Simon Fraser University

John M. Kirk,

Professor of Latin American Studies,

Dalhousie University

Background

This report is based upon written material received from both the office of the Director of

Academic Planning and the Latin American Studies (LAS) programme; a site visit I made to

Simon Fraser University in February; and email exchanges with some of the faculty who were

away from the University while I was there, and with colleagues in LAS at UBC. I visited the

university on February 19 and 20, 2003. In the morning of February 19, together with the

reviewers of the Sociology and Anthropology programme, I met with Dr. Bill Krane, Associate

VP (Academic), Ms. Laurie Summers, Director of Academic Planning, Dr. Jonathan Driver,

Dean of Graduate Studies, Dr. Bruce Clayman, VP (Research), and Dr. John Pierce, Dean,

Faculty of Arts. Over the afternoon, and most of the next day, I met with individual support

staff, administrators and academics, as well as a delegation of students majoring in LAS, a grad

student representative, and three librarians. The final afternoon revolved around meetings with

the LAS Steering Committee (faculty and students), and with Drs. Krane and Pierce, and Ms.

Summers.

The visit was extremely well organized, and I would like to thank in particular Laurie

Summers for making the arrangements and ensuring that everything went smoothly. I would also

like to acknowledge the cooperation of everyone who took the time to meet with me. It was a

pleasure to spend two days back at Simon Fraser—where I began my teaching career as a lecturer

in LAS in 1976-77.

Historical Overview

The LAS programme at Simon Fraser reached its peak about 25 years ago. At that time it

was the first (and for many years, only) such programme in the country. Later York imitated the

idea of an interdisciplinary LAS programme, and have now cornered the market (There are some

(..4 .

jcC

111

Latin Americanists teaching in it). The introduction of the graduate programme in LAS in

1991 (again, the first in Canada) was a logical step, and solidified the programme's offerings. (I

was one of the reviewers of the graduate programme at that time, and was pleased to support its

introduction). In a recent email from Bill French, coordinator of LAS at UBC, he referred to this

long history: "It is a little difficult to hold up UBC as an example of SFU as they had a thriving

LAS programme long before we did and are, rightly, proud of that".

Then came the turbulent 1990s, replete with personality clashes, legal threats, widespread

infighting, contentiousness, and plummeting enrolment. It was a disaster in many ways, and

resulted in the programme becoming totally dysfunctional. Attempts to merge it with the

Spanish Division (a logical decision anywhere other than at SFU) failed, and in 1996 LAS was

placed in another academic home—the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies—where it stayed

until 1998, when it relocated to its current home, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

(S/A). Along the way (in 1996) it was stripped of its LAS major, and a moratorium to the M.A.

programme was imposed—a correct decision, given the lack of harmony and growing tensions at

that time.

The questions raised by this sad process are quite simple: how fares the LAS programme

now?; and, what should be done about both the MA and undergraduate programmes?; should one

stay with the current course, or move on to something new?; and if so, what course should be

pursued?

General Comments on the Undergraduate and Graduate Programmes

The LAS programme still retains vestiges of its formerly stellar reputation (I personally

have encouraged two of my former students at Dalhousie to complete this M.A. programme.

Both were very satisfied by it, and one is just fmishing his PhD in LAS at York). There is an

extremely hard-working, dedicated set of professors involved in teaching LAS courses at SFU,

and in general they also manage to maintain solid research records. Given the strains involved in

running the two programmes, maintaining a solid working relationship in their own "home"

department, and keeping up their own research, they have done a first-rate job. They deserve to

be commended for their dedication to LAS.

It is also, however, a programme living largely on its past—and is badly in need of fresh

blood. (During the past decade eight of its permanent faculty have retired, or have left: Jorge Nef

and Alberto Ciria in Political Science, Richard Boyer and Ronald Newton in History, Jorge

Garcia in Linguistics, Rita de Grandis in Spanish, Geoffrey Spurling in History, and Patricia

Landolt in Sociology/Anthropology. One additional faculty--Andy Hira in Political Science--has

been hired to teach LAS courses, and two other faculty with Latin American interests have been

hired in other disciplines (Alex Clapp, Geography, and Ross Jamieson, Archaeology—neither of

whom, however, teaches LAS courses. Both clearly have heavy responsibilities in their "home"

Departments, and little time available for LAS. They are thus academics with an interest in Latin

America, -

but in the current framework at SFU not active members of the LAS programme). I

heard rumours when I was at SFU that a Latin Americanist historian was soon to be hired—a

position that is badly needed in order to replace the two historians who have retired in recent

years, and to meet the great demand. In fact it is shocking that a university of the stature of SFU

does not have a historian specializing in Latin America.

Clearly this massive reduction of staff; and the decision not to replace them, has had a

major impact upon LAS. In effect it was put into academic receivership in the mid-1990s, and at

most other universities would have (sadly) died a natural death. Yet despite this extraordinary

pressure, LAS has survived, and in fact has posted a notable growth of students (from

136

students in 1999 to 283 in 2002; moreover the number ofjoint majors and minors has also

increased to its highest point since the discontinuation of LAS/Spanish majors). Given the

growth of LAS courses in other universities, as well as the burgeoning interest in Latin America

(through business ties—and NAFTA in particular—tourism, and immigration), the demand is

clearly there throughout Canada and the United States. In a cosmopolitan city the size of

Vancouver, with large numbers of latino immigrants, and extensive business interests in Latin

America, the potential for successful LAS programmes is extraordinary.

Unfortunately the insecurity surrounding the programme apparently on all sides at SFU

has been very severe, with rumours persisting for several years that LAS was about to be folded.

Certainly its moving around in search of an academic base, and the non-replacement of retiring

faculty, could scarcely have been confidence-inspiring. For the administration at SFU the antics

of the LAS faculty at the time must have been frustrating in the extreme. For the students it was

simply confusing and frustrating. Why should students register in LAS courses when it had such

problems? What was the point of starting LAS courses, only to see the programme closed down?

Several students mentioned to me such concerns, which are completely understandable. It is also

clear that the Registrar's Office and other support staff have actually warned students not to take

LAS courses, because of the danger that the programme could collapse. (Given that

uncertainty—and the anomalous situation in which students can do an M.A. in LAS but not a

Major—it is in fact surprising to see the increase in student numbers. Undoubtedly these figures

would increase far more if there were a degree of stability and appropriate funding for LAS).

Consistently the question of the turbulent past was raised in interviews at SFU, and

clearly it is a millstone around the collective necks of faculty (and students) in LAS.

Furthermore some members of the senior administration are still marked by the troubled history;

and evidence was provided that some Departments at SFU actually try to stress their distance

from LAS, rather than their ability to collaborate with it. Moreover incoming faculty with an

interest in LAS have been recommended to downplay that interest, and to have little to do with

"those troublemakers" (as one person put it). While this might make political sense in ths short

term, it is an attitude that badly needs to be revised. LAS has rehabilitated itself; offers a solid

(albeit limited) series of course offerings, and deserves respect. The new millennium is not the

same as the early 1990s, and collectively this has to be recognized.

The funding question in particular needs addressing. At the time, the move to S/A made

perfect sense. The rationalization of support staff, the sharing of resources, and the opportunity

to develop a solid base for academic regrouping, was extremely important. But three years later,

with increasing undergraduate enrolment and a new cohort of graduate students about to start, it

is time to revisit both the structure of this arrangement (see recommendations below), and the

budget itself. While the operating budget almost doubled from 2001 to 2002, its new annual

total of $5,000—with just $300 designated for honoraria--is rather sad. Moreover the 2003 budget

temporary instructional budget

($18,345

for three sessionals, with $10,560 for TAships) is also

rather miserable. This is unacceptable for any programme—even if there are cost-sharing

arrangements with a larger Department.

Two positive areas need to be emphasized. One bright note is the relationship between

LAS faculty and the Library staff. I met with three subject specialists and raised the question of

library resources with students and faculty alike—and was pleased to see both a highly

professional staff working on LAS material and a reasonable budget for the programme.

Moreover, there is an extremely bright, energetic group of undergraduate students in

LAS, with a clear set of well-formulated opinions. Their written report to me was extremely

well-documented and argued, and their website is first-rate (Maybe they could be hired by LAS

to revamp the official website, which badly needs to be amended?). Their Latin American

Studies Student Union is impressive indeed, and they have been involved in a number of

conferences, film series, community events, and speaking tours to local high schools. Clearly

they have been inspired by a genuine "feel" for Latin America, an exceptional development

which speaks to their respect for the LAS programme, and the ability of LAS -faculty to

communicate effectively with them. Yet, while they feel a debt of loyalty to LAS, they also have

valid concerns, which I have tried to address in this report.

One final matter of concern in this general section needs to be addressed. In the initial

meeting with Bill Krane, we were asked to consider whether there was a stimulating environment

in the university, and whether there was the potential for wider collaboration at the university. A

quick answer to the first part of the question is that the environment has been somewhat stifled,

in part because of the "black legend" of LAS, and all its accompanying baggage of 5-10 years

ago. As noted earlier, some LAS faculty members have in fact been warned by their "home"

Departments to steer clear from the "contentious" LAS programme. This is a sad reflection on

academic openness, or the lack thereof—and badly needs to be addressed.

There is great potential for wider collaboration (see recommendations at end)—but first

there has to be a university-wide acceptance of LAS. This can only happen if the senior

administration recognize that the earlier troubles are a thing of the past, and in turn pass the

world down the line to Chairs that this is so. There is great room for fence-mending, and it has to

start with the senior administration.

0 ?

The Graduate Programme

The graduate programme—which was alone in its class two decades ago—is in a sorry state,

and therefore deserves a separate set of comments. Despite claims to the contrary from some

faculty members, and despite a solid record in the past of grad students obtaining excellent

employment, it is obvious that it is now in trouble. (The quality of graduate students in this

programme, it should be pointed out, is extremely high. The programme does indeed attract

"truly interdisciplinary students with a strong fieldwork orientation," as Marilyn Gates pointed

out to me in email from Mexico). Significantly almost all are not graduates of SFU. This speaks

to the traditional nation-wide and indeed international respect for the programme.

The idea to limit intake of grad students (currently there are 6 in the programme, with 11

applications for the next intake, of whom

will be accepted) to a biennial rate is a good idea.

However it is important to recognize that even with this rationalization there are problems.

Some faculty members are supervising more than their fair share of grad students (Marilyn Gates

is supervising three, and John Brohman and Monica Escudero two apiece), while others are

remaining cloistered in their home departments—with little incentive to encourage them to leave

and participate more actively in LAS. (In particular Marilyn Gates should. be

singled out for

supervisory support "above and beyond the call of duty," since in addition to her LAS

supervision she is supervising three graduate students in SA, and is on thesis committees of ten

other graduate students).

The "Graduate Programme Guide" distributed to incoming graduate students, is badly in

need of revision. The "Biographical Profiles" section consists of two complete pages of

"Professors Emeriti" who have virtually no contact with LAS. It is somewhat unepresentative to

have them included, and also misleading. The Guide should also be more explicit on the

remarkably limited funding available to graduate students, and should warn them more clearly

and concretely about the limited availability of graduate-level courses.

The course offerings for grad students are at a skeletal level, and offer an extremely

limited variety of courses. Two of the four courses are compulsory, but are apparently of

inconsistent quality. One (the research methods course) is unpopular, since it has a solidly

Sociology and Anthropology focus; financial support for graduate students is poor; and the core

course for all grad students is clearly a patchwork of offerings. (It is supposed to be of an

interdisciplinary nature, but in fact depends more on the disciplinary preference of the person

who happens to be teaching it). The other two courses are extremely vague and ad hoc solutions

seem to be the order of the day. Finally it is clear that "piggy-backing" of grad and upper

undergraduate level courses, while perhaps necessary in light of limited faculty to teach, is not

satisfactory: it might provide courses for students, but the two constituencies are extremely

different, and deserve to be treated separately, and ultimately with more respect.

It is clear that—yet again—a core number of the LAS faculty go "above and beyond the call

of duty" in supporting grad students. The latter largely graduate on time, have solid supervision

00"

(albeit from a tiny nucleus of faculty), and obtain a well-rounded understanding of Latin

America. But they should get far more—and would indeed if there were a sufficiently large core

of specialists. (The fact that Senior Lecturer Monica Escudero is supervising two grad students

speaks volumes ofjust how short-staffed LAS is. It also speaks to the dedication to the

programme of the stalwarts in it).

Once again the central issue is a lack of resources. To have just five overworked faculty

available to supervise is just not good enough for any quality graduate programme, since it

shortchanges the students. There is clearly not enough variety of supervisory staff. (One

graduate student informed me that he had come to SFU with the intention of doing his Master's

thesis on Latin American history. Since there is nobody teaching that area, however, he switched

to political science. This should not happen). The inevitable result of this structure is that

faculty associated with LAS will gradually withdraw from the programme in order to concentrate

on their (already heavy) responsibilities in their home department. Several colleagues

interviewed echoed this fact: such responsibilities (accompanied by a lack of incentives to reach

out and support LAS) left them leave little time or energy for LAS programme-building. This

badly needs to be addressed by the senior administrators at SFU.

Insufficient funding for grad students is a particularly severe problem. This is

accentuated by the fact that LAS grad students need to undertake extensive field work in their

target country, clearly resulting in extra expenses. These are not met by the university, as the

president has recognized: "SFU must be able to offer student financial assistance which is as

good or better than other Canadian universities ... Simon Fraser currently devotes less resources

to student services than other leading Canadian universities" ("The President's Agenda: SFU at

40").

In sum, the graduate programme in LAS is in critical shape, and is largely being kept

alive by the efforts of 2-3 people. This is unsustainable. In its present format I cannot

recommend retaining it, since it is simply too weak. Mention was made earlier that I have sent

two of my best students to undertake the M.A. programme in LAS here. In all conscience I can

no longer do that. It is time for SFU administrators to decide whether it wants to fund it

appropriately (with faculty, support staff, and an appropriate budget), or close it down.

Challenges over the Next Decade

This is apparently the first LAS review—perhaps not surprising given the traumatic roller

coaster ride on which protagonists have been involved in recent years. It will prove a useful

benchmark on which to reflect in the future, since in many ways it is a baseline report. In

essence it is a series of observations on an extremely limited number of faculty members who are

clearly stretched to the limit. Indeed it is amazing that they are still functioning, given the

various academic pulls on their time and health.

SOne of the areas which is particularly noticeable is the pressure on research activities

which LAS faculty are currently facing. The core faculty are extremely involved in research

ventures—John Brohman, Gerardo Otero and Andy Hira are particularly active, and Monica

Escudero is involved with a large Mexico-US Borderland research project. At the same time

Profs. Hira and Escudero have a large teaching load (and indeed Escudero, a Senior Lecturer, is

also supervising two M.A. theses), while Marilyn Gates is also heavily involved with her own

research and thesis supervision (as well as her regular work in S/A). In addition there is the

omnipresent challenge (which should not be underrated) of proving--to students, senior

administrators, and colleagues alike—that they do indeed have a serious academic programme,

and deserve to be treated with respect. Given these multifaceted challenges, I was surprised by

the high level of research still being done by the LAS faculty, and their ongoing commitment to

their research projects.

The LAS programme is at a critical stage. It might be tempting for senior administration

to consider closing it down and "doing away" with a programme that caused much grief for

several years in the past. This would be a major mistake, given academic trends, and the

progress made by the LAS faculty in the past

4-5

years. It might also be tempting to attempt to

maintain the status quo, hoping that the current faculty can continue to withstand the growing

demands for LAS. The mantra of "doing more with less" is a tempting panacea—but it is

unrealistic in this circumstance. The attempt to "muddle through" would be a mistake, since the

faculty are stretched extremely thin at present. (This is particularly the case for the graduate

programme, which is badly in need of an infusion of extra support—moral, financial, and faculty).

The final scenario—to support growth in LAS—is the one that has already been recognized

across Canada and the United States (A problem, in fact, is that there are insufficient candidates

for the positions opening up). I see from Michael Stevenson's report, "The President's Agenda:

SFU at 40," that some

40%

of current faculty and staff will retire within the next decade. Rather

than merely replace faculty on a one-for-one basis, it obviously makes sense to strategize around

those programmes that offer the most potential for growth in the next 10-20 years. LAS is one of

those areas.

Much has to be done, however, in order to implement such a strategy. The most obvious

challenge is staffing. LAS has a remarkably limited list of offerings, and insufficient courses are

cross-listed. Some simple steps could be taken quickly and easily, as noted below—crosslisting

courses in various SFU departments (and the administration badly needs to encourage

Departments where there are faculty teaching courses with Latin American content to promote

such crosslisted courses); similarly, the administration needs to lobby those Departments so that

faculty involved in crosslisted courses are supported more actively and are in fact encouraged to

work with LAS; in addition LAS should be encouraged to work more closely with UBC; they

should be given the funding to hire some of the talented sessionals who have worked at SFU in

the past (while at the same time ensuring that core courses are taught by regular faculty); and

finally, to continue to seek innovative ways of making joint appointments—as in the case of Andy

Hira, a most successful hiring, (The possibilities of a new International Studies programme

would be a useful avenue for hiring a Latin Americanist, perhaps specializing in "broad-brush"

areas such as security issues, development issues, environmental concerns, or globalization).

One fundamental suggestion needs to be emphasized, however. If this programme is to

be retained, SFU needs to be proactive within LAS per Se, and in particular needs to hire at least

2-3, and preferably 4 more professors to teach core LAS courses. In its present format, LAS—and

in particular the graduate programme—cannot be sustained.

At the initial meeting with senior administrators where the parameters for our report were

discussed, we were informed that this review was not intended as a "resource reallocation

exercise". While sensitive to the needs of beleaguered vice-presidents and deans (faced with

clearly insufficient funding from the provincial government, and the need to make the famous

"hard decisions"), I think that this is precisely what has to happen in this programme. It is an

area of tremendous growth potential—and this simply has to be recognized. That in turn means a

combination of imaginative financing and appointments. But, if it is to be saved, I repeat, LAS

desperately needs an infusion of new human capital, in the shape of at least 2-3 new full-time

faculty.

I was very impressed by the president's references to the internationalization of the

campus—a process that is taking place around the country. Specifically SFU is clearly committed

of knowledge in the information age, the competitive natuie of world trade and

the increasing rate of cultural exchange dictate that the international dimension of higher

education must keep pace with changes occurring globally. Internationalization is therefore

essential for the University to fulfill its mandate to create and share knowledge, and to provide a

learning environment that prepares students, faculty and staff to function effectively in an

increasingly integrated, global environment"

"Internationalization of the University should enrich the educational and professional experience

of students, faculty, and staff, by introducing them to the languages, cultures, and intellectual

traditions of other nations"

("Internationalization for the New Millennium")

A key strategy in realizing this goal is to "promote curricula that are international in

nature, and that provide a global and comparative perspective, which are appropriate to particular

courses and programs". Faculties are also to be encouraged "to internationalize courses and

programs". These are laudable goals. Given the trends of recent Canadian trade patterns, this

translates into two major geographical areas—China and Latin America, a fact pointed out by the

president: "Likewise, our location on the Pacific Rim gives us a unique opportunity for

international partnerships and regional focus, especially in Asia and the American hemisphere".

Complementary points were made in the "Three-Year Plan of the Vice-President,

Academic, 2001-2004: Flexibility and Responsiveness". In Goal 4 of the document, it was noted

how more than two-thirds of SFU graduates "indicated that it was somewhat or very important in

their current employment for them to be knowledgeable about the traditions of other countries

and cultures" (74%). Since the Canadian economy will be increasingly interconnected with Latin

America (witness the doubling of bilateral trade with Mexico within

years of NAFTA being

passed), it makes eminent sense to develop LAS. Moreover, given one of the goals of the Three-

Year Plan of the Faculty of Arts and the thrust of internationalization in other SFU documents

cited, it is now worth implementing the recommendation that "Students will be encouraged to

build international experiences into their studies through the increasing use of exchange

agreements". One of the logical places for this to occur—for the reasons stated above—is Latin

America. To a certain extent it is already being done. A more concerted effort badly needs to be

undertaken—and probably can only start once LAS is actively promoted and supported by the

senior administration, and once the SFU community again believes in the LAS programme.

Given the tradition of LAS at SFU before the infighting of a decade ago, there is an

enormous basis of "brand name" recognition that could easily be built upon. In particular the

"Field Schools" at SFU are known throughout the country in LAS circles, and some creative

financing (and hard work tracking down the appropriate funding) could prove enormously

helpful in promoting this agenda of internalizing the campus. In addition, an international coop

. ?

programme, with a support staff member actively seeking coop placements for LAS students,

would be a most helpful innovation. The president is right to talk about the need for

internationalization—and this is one area where tremendous gains could be made at a relatively

low cost. It is time, though, to put into practice his thought-provoking ideas on this process.

Finally, there is a major psychological hurdle that needs to be taken collectively—and this

is perhaps the most important hurdle for the collective SFU community to overcome. The LAS

programme has survived a most difficult test of fire. It has rebounded, and posted modest

growth. Its core of committed faculty have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and have

been cautiously supported by the SFU administration. Now it is time to recognize that survival

and growth, to agree to support (morally and financially) what should be a growth area in the

Faculty of Arts—and to move on. Making the LAS programme into an independent Department,

with its own support staff and budget (the annual $5,000 it currently receives under the S/A

umbrella is vastly insufficient), would be a good first step.

The LAS programme is at a crossroads. The simplest solution is to do nothing—a process

that would not be helpful for anybody. That leaves two possibilities—winding down and reducing

the offerings, or promoting and strengthening them. I believe strongly that the latter path should

be followed, and that this would prove a useful and profitable long-term investment in human

capital at SFU. Both the undergraduate and graduate programmes are in desperate need of

resources—and offer the potential to develop unique course offerings, providing that the funding

to hire more faculty can be provided. The Department has come a long way since the

bloodletting of the early and mid-I 990s, and in recent years has made significant progress in

attracting student growth—despite adverse circumstances. Given North American-wide trends, it

makes sense for this path to be taken, and a long-term plan drawn up.

Conclusion

The LAS Programme at SFU has been through a difficult maturation process. It has come

through this process well, and has exorcised the devils of the troubled past. It is now time for the

senior administration to do the same—recognizing that significant changes have taken place, and

that LAS offers excellent growth potential. There are major shortcomings in the undergraduate

and graduate programmes (particularly the latter)—and these need to be addressed with increased

financial and moral support.

0 ?

Recommendations

The University authorities need to understand that, everywhere else in Canada, LAS is a

rapidly growing area of studies. Even at SFU, where the staff were demoralized by

horrible internal bickering, there has been noteworthy growth. This phenomenon of

widespread interest in things Latin American can be seen throughout Canada and the

United States, and one only needs to examine figures at UBC, U. of Calgary, or many

other locations (My own year-long courses on Cuba and Mexico/Central America

regularly have 150 students. At UBC there are consistently 50 students in all upper level

courses). It is now time for the Administration to realize this academic fact of life.

It is also important to recognize that SFU has been the national trailbreaker in this

regard. Despite its current threadbare offerings, it is still highly regarded because of that

tradition—and it would be easy to build upon this foundation.

SFU, if it accepts the nationwide trends for enrolment in LAS, should strengthen the

existing LAS program. Several strategies could be followed. The most obvious is to hire

at least 2-3 tenure-track Latin Americanists, with joint appointments. (Several people

somebody who was primarily a Latin Americanist). Specialists are needed in fast-

growing areas such as popular culture, immigration, indigenous issues, and resource and

S ?

environmental management. In addition, hiring more sessional lecturers would help to

offer a badly-needed greater variety of courses. More human resources are badly needed,

working within a re-energized LAS Department.

LAS courses, since only two regular faculty members had taught courses at the

undergraduate level, with the bulk of courses being taught by sessionals. There are also

very few LAS courses being taught, and a broader selection of offerings is badly needed.

Since undergraduate students are the backbone of the programme, they have to receive a

better, more consistent treatment. In addition, it was widely felt that lower level courses

often overlapped, since the mixture of professors and sessionals had to continually re-

introduce fundamentals of Latin America. The lack of uniformity among faculty and

sessionals needs to be addressed, so that a well-conceived set of offerings can be given.

(While it is important to have sessionals teaching in the programme, it is necessary to

have the bulk of the courses taught by full-time faculty).

Senior Administrators need to encourage all faculty members with expertise in Latin

American Studies to cooperate more closely, and to be proactive in listing courses with

Latin American content. In particular administrators need to convince Chairs that

interdisciplinarity is innovative, and desirable; and that crosslisting courses with LAS can

be beneficial, and should be encouraged. (It will also save money). Finally, incentives

S ?

should be provided to Chairs so that students who register for such courses can be

counted in both the "home" department and LAS. On a related note—Chairs should look

/171

favourably upon their faculty members who teach in LAS, and take this into account

when making decisions on tenure and promotion.

It is time for the LAS programme to be recognized for its remarkable turn-around. This is

not the same departmental dynamic of 10 or even

years ago. A vote of confidence

should be given by the Administration to the LAS faculty in their reconstruction of what

was an embittered and moribund programme. If the Major in LAS deserved to be closed

down then, it has shown that it now deserves to be re-opened.

There is clearly room for further cooperation with the LAS programme at UBC. The

recent graduate students conference, featuring presentations from students at both

universities, shows what can be done. The UBC coordinator is keen to work with his

SFU counterpart in making this an annual event, and this example of institutional

cooperation should be supported by the senior administration at both universities.

Among several initiatives that should be considered: crosslisting courses at both

institutions; rationalizing offerings; perhaps a joint (or at least a complementary) M.A. at

both universities could be investigated; a joint speakers' series; and alternating—at the

downtown campus—courses (For example UBC could offer a core course one year

downtown, and SFU another course the following year, also at its downtown location). It

is important to overcome strains of tribalism in this relationship—since both groups of

institution.allowing ?

students to take courses at other universities, is cumbersome and far more complicated

than it needs to be. A simple letter of permission, readily available and well promoted,

should be all that is required. Again, this has to be well publicized, and explained to

students at both SFU and UBC.

Faculty in the LAS programme need to meet as a group with senior administrators in

order to outline their goals and vision for future growth. This external review could

serve as an initial document for discussion purposes. The administration needs to

convince itself that the turn-around in LAS is consistent, and lasting. (They also need to

convince Chairs of departments where there are LAS faculty teaching that their

contribution to LAS should be encouraged and supported, and not—as sometimes appears

to be the case—hindered and criticized). Moreover individual faculty need to make a firm

commitment to the programme, and to share equitably the workload.

Some criticism was heard of the administrative duties being undertaken by the staff of

Sociology and Anthropology. In particular several people (including students) referred to

the lack of understanding in the advising process, or indeed support for LAS students in

that process. LAS needs its own support staff, and its own adviser. In addition the

website is badly in need of revising and upgrading—since at present it seems like an

adjunct, or even an extension of S/A.

In addition a student guide should be provided to all LAS students outlining programme

requirements for joint degrees in all programmes. Students complained (correctly) that

putting the name of former professors in the guide is not helpful, and their names should

be removed. These two latter points can be resolved easily—but only if LAS support staff

concentrating solely on LAS matters can function in their own programme.

The "marriage of convenience" resulting from LAS being located in Sociology and

Anthropology has worked relatively well (although several people referred it to a

marriage "without passion"). S/A are to be commended for their collective support and

collegiality, and indeed both sides deserve congratulations for the political will in making

it work. But now it is time to move on—and for a new Department of Latin American

Studies to open. In other words, to go "forward to the past"—and the concept of some

quarter of a century ago.

It would be worth exploring the possibility of funding for grad students with a brief trip to

Ottawa, to investigate possibilities with IDRC, CIDA, and the Embassy of Mexico. The

grad students in the programme desperately need an increase in their financial support

package from the university. It would be worthwhile to send a 2-person delegation to

Ottawa for 3-4 days to beat the bushes and see what funding could be available.

The LAS faculty need to develop a united front around a leader who will provide them

with a commitment to the programme, set out clearly a future direction for the

programme, and provide solid leadership. A full-time, committed leader is needed. The

rest of the faculty with LAS interests have to renew their commitment to the programme,

especially those from other Departments which to date have shown lukewarm support for

their relationship with LAS. LAS has developed well while in survival mode. It has now

reached a plateau, and needs to refocus, gird its loins and, with good, dynamic leadership,

start to move on.

LAS needs to expand its constituency basis. Just as the SFU administration needs to

recognize that the programme has changed dramatically, and is in need of far greater

support, so too LAS needs to take greater initiatives. A Latin American cinema festival,

conference on Latin America with appeal (e.g. Is NAFTA Working?, Canada-Mexico

Relations?, Cuba after Fidel Castro, etc.), the development of connections with the Latin

American constituency, work with local companies that have investments in Latin

America, are all possibilities. A certificate programme in LAS, taught at the downtown

campus, should also be explored—and could be given as an Adult Education/ community

programme. N.B. Because these initiatives are laborious, energy-sapping ventures (and

because LAS faculty are already badly-over-committed), this should happen after the

administration has revealed a greater commitment to LAS. At the same time, such

initiatives badly need to take place

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

oIJ1

OFFICE OF THE CHAIR

8888 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA

AND ANTHROPOLOGY ?

CANADA V5A 1S6

httpi/www.sfii.calsociology ?

Telephone: (604) 2914297

Fax (604) 291- 5799

Email: keiiny@sfu.ca

MEMORANDUM

To: ?

Dr. John Waterhouse, Vice-President, Academic

Dr. William R. Krane, Associate Vice-President Academic

Dr. John T. Pierce, Dean of Arts

Dr. John Brohman, Director, Latin American Studies Program

From:

Michael Kenny, Acting Chair,

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Re: ?

Latin American Studies Program External Review

Date: ?

May 1, 2003

Enclosed you will find a response of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology to

the External Reviewer's Report on the Latin American Studies Program, along with a

copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between S&A and LAS.

c: t

1,aurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning

Karen Payne, Departmental Assistant, S&A & LAS

P- ?

•

r:.r

RESPONSE

of the ?

DEPARTMENT of SOCIOLOGY

ANTHROPOLOGY

to the

EXTERNAL REVIEWER'S REPORT

on the ?

LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES PROGRAM

Michael G. Kenny

Acting Chair, Sociology & Anthropology

(May 1, 2003)

General

In our view, Dr. Kirk's evaluation of the LAS Program is on the whole very well founded. It

forthrightly identifies problems and prospects in plain sight to anyone directly acquainted with the

issues involved.

When the affiliation of LAS with Sociology/Anthropology was first proposed by the Dean

of Arts, it was our hope as a Department that LAS would thrive and, in time, that a useful mutual

relationship would develop, building on the already existing Latin Amercanist expertise within our

own Department. Dr. Kirk now points out the impossibility of LAS doing so without further infusion

of resources in the form of new faculty to help make up for the losses it has suffered over the

years.

We have nothing further to add on that score. However, there are several points that

should be made concerning Dr. Kirk's comments on the relationship between LS and

Sociology/Anthropology. I first provide a little essential background.

Background

Sociology & Anthropology became involved with LAS when Dean Pierce concluded that

the various units associated with the catch-all Division of Interdisciplinary Studies should be found

suitable departmental homes. S&A was a logical place for the Latin American Studies Program

because of the presence of Marilyn Gates and Gerardo Otero. The former - an anthropologist -

has had a long involvement with LAS, regularly undertakes research in Mexico and, as Dr. Kirk

points out, has done 'more than her fair share' of supervision of LAS graduate students; Dr. Otero

- a sociologist - came half-time into S&A during the troubles in the old SLAS Department, and

now splits his teaching between the two programs. He is also heavily involved in research in Latin

America, particularly Mexico.

I was Acting Chair of S&A when the Dean proposed this affiliation - which was conceived

of in terms of the potential for intellectual and programmatic 'synergy' - and negotiated for the

Department on how to bring this off to mutual advantage.

I therefore had discussions with a number of those involved in the Program, particularly

Drs. Brohman and EscuderO. It became apparent that there was a great deal of ambivalence

concerning this move on the part of those with longest and closest involvement in LAS. The

desire was for things to continue on very much as before - administratively housed in S&A but

basically the same program with the same support staff. Sociology/Anthropology agreed with the

proposition that the LAS Steering Committee should control the basic direction of the programme,

structure, courses to be taught, etc., and that S&A would be closely involved only when policy

issues of mutual concern arose. This arrangement was formalized in a Memorandum of

Understanding laying all this out [see addendum].

The only immediate result for S&A in practical terms was the acquisition of a new staff

position. Formerly the role of Graduate Secretary and Chairs Secretary had been combined; in

light of the greater workload that an affiliation with LAS would entail, this position was split into

two. On the other hand, our Departmental Assistant now

also

assumed the responsibility for

advising LAS students, as well as administering grant funds, and other administrative matters.

At the time the LAS affiliation was first mooted, SM was about to lose a sociologist (Han

Sharma) to retirement. In light of the affiliation with LAS, it was decided to define the proposed

replacement for Dr. Sharma's in terms of Latin American expertise. The goal was to enhance the

Department's own strength in this area, while also enhancing the supervisory capacity of the LAS

graduate program. However, we emphasize that this position was never conceived as anything

but a Sociology position fully attached to SM; the teaching of dedicated LAS courses was not an

option (we are short of faculty as it is). But unfortunately the successful candidate for this position

(Dr. Patricia Landholt) soon pushed on to other pastures back east and the job is currently

vacant, with no replacement search as yet authorized. This was the state of things at the time of

Dr. Kirk's visit. With the above background in mind, I now address several points in the

"Recommendations" section of Dr. Kirk's report:

Res p onse to s p

ecific recommendations of the LAS External Review

[re

point two on

p. 11]:

"SFU, if N accepts the nationwide

trends

for enrolment in LAS, should

strengthen the existing LAS program [The

most obvious strategy] is to hire at least 2-3 tenure-

track Latin Amencanists, with joint appointments. (Several people suggested the great need to

replace

Prof. Landholt as soon as possible - but again with somebody who was primarily a Latin

Americanist.)H1

These points are reinforced by Dr. John Brohman's response (Apr. 30) to the Kirk report, in

. ?

which he says: "to replace the many vital faculty the Program has lost over the past decade, three

tenure-track Latin Amencanists need to be hired... These new faculty might have several home

departments in related disciplines,

but it is essential that they be available to teach LAS courses

at both the undergraduate and graduate levels...."

(my emphasis).

We find this phrase difficult to interpret. Is Dr. Kirk under the impression that the Sharma/Landholt

position was a "joint" appointment with LAS? As explained above, it was not, and S&A would be

very antipathetic to any notion that this should have dedicated LAS teaching responsibilities

(graduate supervision is another matter, since this was envisioned as a possible responsibility in

the first place). The SOciology side of the SM Department is currently down two and one-half

positions from three years ago. On the Sociology side, 1/3 of our faculty complement (3 of 9) are

in cross-appointed positions. The actual resources available for undergraduate teaching,

graduate supervision, and committee work are correspondingly limited. SM cannot afford having

resources siphoned off to an autonomous program by way of another joint appointment. I

reiterate that Sociology/Anthropology would not be sympathetic to any arrangement that involved

a transfer of its own teaching resources to LAS. New joint appointments are one thing, but the

fate of the SharmalLandholt replacement is quite another. However, our thinking about this

position is contingent on what the Administration decides to do about the LAS

Program.

[re last point on

p. 12]:

"Some criticism was heard of the administrative duties being

undertaken by the staff of Sociology and Anthropology. In particular several people (including

students) referred to the lack of understanding in the advising process, or indeed support for LAS

students in that process. LAS needs its own support staff, and its own advisor.

0 ?

This comment is not very helpful, and amounts to innuendo. We would ask, what "lack of

understanding"; what lack of support"? As for LAS having its own support staff and own advisor,

that would certainly be advisable and necessary if LAS were to grow beyond its present scope

and/or become an entirely separate unit again.

C. [re

second point on

13]:

'The "marriage of convenience" resulting from the LAS affiliation

with Sociology and Anthropology has worked relatively well (although several people referred to it

as a marriage "without passion."

It would be more accurate to characterize what happened as a shotgun marriage, at least from

the point of view of LAS, which was given little choice in the matter. As mentioned above, the

hoped-for arrangement was phrased in terms of an evolving synergy; SM did

its part, and then

some, through what proved to be the disappointing and currently vacant Landholt appointment.

The so-called 'marriage of convenience' got off to a somewhat rocky start, but is now functionally

stable.

109

Dr. Kirk has given everyone much to think about - and especially his fundamental point that LAS

should either be given suitable resources or closed down. It should also be noted that the original

Memorandum of Understanding between S&A and LAS stipulated that the relationship should be

evaluated after a 3-year trial period. This has now passed, and the time is now ripe for everyone

to seriously re-examine the issue in the light of Dr. Kirk's report.

NB: The S&NLAS affiliation will be revisited in the response to our own External Review

Report.

?,/

Memorandum of Agreement between the Latin American

Studies

Program and the

Department of Sociology/Anthropology

20 May

1999

Preamble:

This agreement concerns the housing of the Latin American Studies Program, currently an

"three-way negotiations between program steering committees, prospective home departments,

and the Dean's office should be concluded as soon as possible to determine where the Canadian

Studies, Latin American Studies, and Family Studies Certificate programs should be transferred,

effective no later than September 1, 1998." It also states that "active discussion on the transfer

and reorganization of Latin American Studies may see the program become part of the Sociology

and Anthropology Department." Discussions between the two units regarding the feasibility of

this recommendation were carried through the Sprint and Summer Semesters of 1998 and

resulted in a tentative agreement document consisting of eleven (11) points which was

forwarded to the Dean of Arts Office in late August 1998. Since then the Department of

Sociology/Anthropology

and the Latin American Studies Program have been working toward a

definition of the nature of the relationship between the two units, and on the details for the

implementation of this new administrative arrangement. One key issue has been the need of

LAS to maintain its autonomy within the Dept. of

SocioI

ogy/Mtopology, seen as esencial for

LAS to realize its full potential, which will clearly benefit the Department as a whole. A second

issue is that, as a result of this arrangement, neither the LAS Program nor the Department of

Sociology/Antlixopojogy will lose resources, especially with regard to graduate student support.

What follows is a summary of the points of implementation agreed upon by both units.

Program Management:

• The Latin American Studies Program will continue to be run by its own Steering Committee.

• The Director of the Latin American Studies Program will be a member of the LAS Steering

Committee, will be elected by the members of the LAS Steering Committee, and will be

recommended

the Dept of Sociology/Anthropology.

for appointment to the Dean of Arts. The Director may or may not be a member

S ociology/Anthropology

will be invited to participate as non-voting member in

• The Chair of Sociology/Anthropology will communicate proceedings of the Dean's Advisory

Committee meetings when issues relevant to LAS arise.

This agreement is modelled on the Memorandum of Agreement between the Asia-Canada Progam and

the Department of Humanities, signed on August 30th 1998.

Undergraduate Program

undergraduate

• The LAS undergraduate

curriculum.

curriculum will

be separate from the Dept of SocioIogy/Mopo1or

• The

LAS

guide for undergraduate studies will be separate from the S/A undergraduate

program guide.

• The Director of the LAS Program will be responsible for all matters related to the LAS

Undergraduate Program.

• The Director of the LAS Program will have signature authority for all matters related to the

LAS Undergraduate Program.

he Chair of the Sociology/Anthropology Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will

represent LAS at FACC.

• The Chair of the Sociology/Anthropology Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will be

invited to participate as a non-voting member in the LAS Undergraduate Committee meetings

when issues related to

S/A

are on the agenda.

• The Director of the LAS Program will be invited to participate as a non-voting member in the

Sociology/Anthropology Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meetings when issues related to

LAS are on the agenda.

Graduate Program

• The LAS Graduate Program is an independent, interdisciplinary program developed by the

former Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies. As such it is unrelated to the

S/A

graduate program except for the sharing of administrative resources.

• The LAS graduate curriculum will be separate from the Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology

graduate curriculum.

• The LAS guide for graduate studies will be separate from the S/A graduate program guide.

• The Chair of the Sociology/Anthropology Graduate Studies Committee will represent LAS at

FAGSC.

• The Director of the LAS Program will participate as a non-voting member at FAGSC meetings

• The Chair of the Sociology/Anthropology Graduate Studies Committee will be invited to

participate as a non-voting member in LAS Graduate Committee meetings.

• The Director of the LAS Program will be invited to participate as a non-voting member in the

are

Sociology/Anthropology

on the agenda.

graduate Curriculum Committee meetings when issues related

• The Director of the LAS Program will be responsible for all matters related to the LAS

graduate program.

• The Chair of the LAS Graduate Studies program will have signature authority for all matters

related to the LAS graduate program.

• The LAS Steering Committee will be responsible for the admission of LAS MA students.

At present the Director of the Latin American Studies Program performs the duties of both

Steering

res

ponsibilities

dergraduate

Committee

related

and

members

Graduate

to the Undergraduate

desisgnated

Program Chairs.

to those

and

This

Graduate

tasks.may

change

Programs

the

will

future,

be assumed

in which

case

the

LAS

• The

LAS Graduate Program will be

allocated three

(3) Graduate Fellowships

per year

for the

next three years starting April 30th,

1999.

• The

Steering Committee will be responsible for the

allocation

of Graduate Fellowships

amongst its

LAS graduate students.

0

• Teaching

Assistantships

and other sources of financial

support

for students will be allocated

and managed

under separate budgets.

• Qualified LAS graduate

students will have

priority

for Teaching

Assistantships

available

through

the Spanish language program.

Resources

he LAS Program Steering Committee currently

consists

of seven members (five tenured

Faculty,

one Senior

Lecturer and

one Lab

Instructor) belonging

to different

Departments within

the Faculty of Arts. As of

May

99, three

(Monica

Escudero,

Marilyn Gates and Gerardo Otero)

are members

the Sociology/Anthropology Department. -

• Space

will be allocated to house LAS

resources (TV,

VCR, videos, etc.).

• LAS resources

(TV, VCR, videos, etc.)

will

continue to be

the property

of LAS, to be shared

with

S/A as needed.

• Space will be made available for

the LAS Steering Committee

to hold

its meetings.

• The space allocation for

faculty will continue as at present.

graduate students

and

Future

appointments

• The

Steering Committee will be responsible for,

and

have autonomous jurisdiction

matters

to teaching

secondment

for Faculty appointments will be made by

the

Director of the Latin

American Studies

Program directly to the

Dean, with the support

of the

Chair

of the Dept. of

Sociology/Anthropology.

Request for faculty

appointments

will not be linked

with negotiations

for appointments/replacements undertaken by the Dept.

of Sociology/Anthropology (or other

affiliated

units)

unless such linkage is seen as desirable by

the

units concerned.

Administrative Personnel

• The Sociology/Anthropology

Graduate Secretary will serve both

the

Sociology/Anthropology

and the

• The Sociology/Anthropology Chair's Secretary will also serve LAS in an

graduate programs.

equitably distributed

manner. This person

will also serve as

to the LAS

student advising in LAS when necessary. Fluency in Spanish will be an

for

position.

• The Sociology/Anthropology general office secretary position continues as in the past.

• The Sociology/Anthropology Departmental Assistant becomes DA

and undergraduate

advisor

for

both units.

Budget

• Library, capital

and operating

budgets will remain autonomous. LAS program budgetary

matters

may be discussed directly

with

the Dean's office.

C:^? 

^4

Note. Unforeseen future situations/conflicts not covered by

this

agreement will be the subject of

negotiations between Sociology/Anthropology and the LAS Steering Committee.

The agreement reached between LAS and Sociology/Anthropology will be reviàed by each of

the parties at the end of three years of implementation of this agreement

(Ic

April 2002) to

determine whether the arrangement is still viable and desirable for eack If at that time, a

majority of the members of either LAS or Sociology/Anthropology indicate dissastisfaction with

the arrangement

this will

be conveyed to the Dean of Arts. If a majority of either LAS or

Sociology/Anthropology desire

an alternative structure to house LAS in the Faculty of Arts

will befound.

Ellen Gee

Mónia Escudero

Chair

Director

Dept of Sociology/Anthropology

Latin American Studies Program

John Pierce

Dean

Faculty of Arts

SIMON FRASER I

LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES ?

Ii ?

PROGRAM

JNIVERSITY

8888 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA

CANADA V5A 1S6

Telephone: (604) 291-3146

Associate Vice-President, Academic

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC

Dear Bill,

Accompanying this note is the formal Response from the Latin American Studies Program to the External

Review Report authored by Dr. John Kirk. As Director, I wrote the Response of the LAS Program, which

was discussed and approved by the Program's Steering Committee at a meeting on May 2, 2003.

q(EIVED

Response by the Latin American Studies Program?

To the External Review Report of the LAS Program?

by Professor John Kirk?

April 30, 2003

Background

The members of the LAS Program are very appreciative of the time and effort that was

invested in the External Review by all involved, and especially by the External Reviewer,

Professor John Kirk. Dr. Kirk came into the review process extremely well informed

about the background of the Program, and its major issues, problems, and challenges.

While at Simon Fraser, Dr. Kirk was also very conscientious in meeting, both

individually and collectively, with faculty, staff, students, and others involved in all

facets of the workings of the Program. The members of the LAS Steering Committee

believe Dr. Kirk's Report is an accurate reflection of the current situation of the Program,

and they hope that concrete steps will soon be taken to meet the major concerns of the

Report, especially in the badly needed areas of augmenting faculty and other resources.

We agree with Dr. Kirk's major recommendation that, given the progress that the

Program has shown in recent years, and the considerable potential of LAS programs in

Canada presently in general, it is time to put the unpleasant events of the 1990s behind us

and move vigorously into a new, more promising era.

Recommendations

Our response to the External Review Report of Dr. Kirk focuses on its many insightful

and useful recommendations:

Despite the troubles of the 1990s and the considerable ensuing contraction of LAS at

SFU, we are pleased to hear that our Program is still highly regarded nationally, due

especially to the longstanding tradition of Latin American Studies at our university. We

agree that, if badly needed resources were devoted to the Program, it would be relatively

easy to build upon this foundation, and all of our members would be ready and able to

pitch into this task ahead. Especially given the rapid growth of other LAS programs

across Canada in recent years, we agree that it would be a shame if SFU were not to take

advantage of this opportunity.

We also agree with Dr. Kirk that additional faculty are absolutely essential to the

continued rebuilding of our Program, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. To

replace the many vital faculty the Program has lost over the past decade, three tenure-

track Latin Americanists need to be hired in areas such as Dr. Kirk has identified where

there is a heavy student demand. These new faculty might have several home

departments in related disciplines, but it is essential that they be available to teach LAS

courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, if we are to offer an appropriate

mixture of regularly-taught courses to our students. The geographic areas of greatest

need for these faculty are Brazil, the Caribbean and Central America, and the Andean

0? -1

L--Jl

region. The substantive areas of greatest need are popular culture, indigenous studies,

environmental issues, urban studies, communications, and business.

One of the chief complaints of our undergraduate and graduate students, which was noted

by Dr. Kirk, is the insufficient course offerings of the Program. This is a problem which

cannot be corrected without hiring additional faculty whose course loads include LAS

offerings, many of which might be taught via cross-listing arrangements with other

departments. In addition to the tenure-track appointments noted above, the hiring of a

LAS Lecturer, at least as a

position, might help to alleviate some of the strain the

Program is currently under to offer an appropriate array of undergraduate courses.

However, as Dr. Kirk suggests, new faculty hiring for LAS probably ought to begin with

a replacement position for Patricia Landolt, whose departure was a real blow to the

Program, to its graduate offerings and supervision, and to its nascent relationship with

Sociology/Anthropology.

As Dr. Kirk also notes, in addition to new faculty, the Program needs to find ways, in

concert with other departments and the administration, to open up avenues for its current

faculty, who are based in other 'home' departments, to contribute to the workings of the

Program on a more consistent basis. Many of these faculty perceive that their home

departments discourage such involvement. Such faculty are understandably reticent to

become more fully involved in the day-to-day workings of the LAS Program—meaning

that the bulk of tasks and activities are left to a very small group, a situation which is not

sustainable. Therefore, the members of the LAS Program propose consultation with the

Faculty of Arts and the Chairs of relevant departments to search for ways to provide

incentives for more consistent faculty involvement in the Program, as well as removing

any disincentives that are perceived to hinder such participation.

One such meeting should quickly take place, for example, with the History Department,

which recently hired a Latin Americanist. This hiring took place without any

consultation with the members of the LAS Program, who were not even made aware that

candidates were holding seminars and giving interviews. While we recognize that this

appointment is to a full-time History position, we expect that the person hired will play

an important role in the workings of the LAS Program, especially via graduate

supervision, as did several Historians in the past whom have recently retired.

Nevertheless, we cannot help but feel the disregard of the LAS Program during the hiring

process of a Latin Americanist does not bode well for our future relations, and tends to

underscore the points made above by Dr. Kirk about unnecessarily poor relations

between LAS and the 'home' departments of Latin Americanists at SFU.

It is also evident that, given the relatively small size of LAS, it makes good sense to

increase cooperation with LAS at UBC, which also has a fairly small program. In fact,

several meetings have recently been held between LAS faculty at the two universities in

which all agreed that it would be mutually beneficial to increase joint events and other

activities between the campuses. A very successful recent conference organized by LAS

graduate students from both campuses demonstrated the potential that such cooperation

could offer. We believe that an appropriate first step to increase cooperation would be

the organization of ajoint LAS speakers' series, with seminars to be alternated between

the downtown campuses of the two universities. This might also be an excellent way to

increase the visibility of LAS among the general public, especially the Latin American

population, in the Lower Mainland. A seminar organized by SFU's LAS Program last

September was held before an overflow crowd in one of the Harbour Centre's largest

theatres, demonstrating the potential for such events. We agree with Dr. Kirk that there

are probably several methods which might be explored to increase cooperation between

the LAS programs at SFU and UBC, but that an appropriate first step would be for the

universities to jointly sponsor a speakers' series, which could increase interaction among

faculty and students at the two campuses, and could serve to build rapport and confidence

in the mutual benefits of such a relationship. Toward this end, a work-study position

should be made available to a LAS student so that s/he could devote some time to helping

faculty organize a SFU-UBC speakers' series and other cooperative inter-campus events.

However, in order to hold such activities, which are essential to enliven the Program and

create synergies with UBC, it is also necessary to increase the LAS budget. Dr. Kirk

commented that the current annual budget of LAS of $5000 is "vastly insufficient," and

does not allow for mounting the types of activities expected of a vibrant program.

Accompanying the steep reduction in LAS faculty at SFU in recent years has been an

equally drastic reduction in budget. Indeed, the LAS Field School in the 1990s used to

receive a stipend from the university which was four times the current annual budget of

the entire program! While we do not seek to return to this type of field-school funding,

this comparison underscores the extreme financial strain the Program has been put under

in recent years.

In the end, we agree with Dr. Kirk that there are several initiatives that the LAS Program

can and should undertake in the coming years in order to better serve its undergraduate

and graduate students, to enhance its cooperation with UBC and other LAS programs in

the Lower Mainland, and to increase its visibility and meaningfulness to the local Latino-

Canadian population and others with an interest in Latin American affairs. However, in

order to do this we must clearly put our troubled past behind us, something in which we

must have the full cooperation of the administration and other interested parties at SFU.

We would be glad to participate in discussions and meetings toward this end, and we

pledge to cooperate with the administration so that it may have confidence once again

that LAS is a worthy cause in which to invest scarce resources. We have worked very

hard over the past several years to 'turn a new page' on LAS at SFU—to resurrect the

Program 'from the ashes.' Against considerable odds, we have shown some modest

success, which we think should be rewarded by a 'vote of confidence' from the

administration that it is willing to support the rebirth of a nationally-recognized LAS

Program at SFU.