Keep language centers afloat

A federal budgetary decision for fiscal year 2011-2012 may result in significant funding cuts for foreign language and international programs at Duke. The funding, allocated in the form of competitive grants under Title VI of the Higher Education Act, was awarded to seven different Duke centers, including the Center for International Studies and the Asian/Pacific Studies Institute. The funding is administered through the Department of Education in four-year cycles with yearly installments of $3 million. The federal bill has allowed the DOE to exercise discretion regarding the specific cuts to foreign language and international studies centers, which may total up to $4 million in cuts at Duke academic centers over the remainder of the current cycle.

At this point, it is difficult to determine the precise consequences of a potential lack of funding. Since 2010, when the grant money was first awarded, Duke’s centers have diverted the funds to multiple sources including programming activities, such as conferences and visiting faculty lectures, as well as support for doctoral and graduate fellowships.

It remains to be seen whether the University will compensate for funding lost should the cuts pass in full.

As its official response to the impending cuts, the University has submitted a letter sent from President Richard Brodhead to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The letter calls for a serious reconsideration of the federal decision. Brodhead emphasizes that it is strategically advantageous for the nation to help train its top students in foreign languages. Although it is commendable that Brodhead has already sought to curtail the proposed cuts, it is imperative that the University—particularly the Office of Federal Relations, which serves as Duke’s lobbying arm—to take more decisive action with respect to lobbying the federal government to reduce the effects of its cuts. In doing so, the University must be sure to further highlight the strategic value achieved by teaching lesser known languages such as Pashto.

Should lobbying efforts be unsuccessful, the University ought to allocate enough funds to the affected centers, so the centers can maintain their current level of activity. Some centers with small operating budgets, such as the Center for Slavic, Eurasian and East European Studies, use grant funding in part to support both graduate and undergraduate students. If their funding was suddenly cut, much of the interdisciplinary coursework and unique research opportunities, which likely attracted students to the department in the first place, could no longer be offered. Students should not be confronted with this possibility, as some of them may have chosen to attend Duke primarily on the strength of these language and international studies centers. One cannot expect these students to adjust their academic plans midway through their academic careers.

Duke must be prepared to assist the seven language centers as the endure the current budgetary storm. Especially when bearing in mind that it is possible Congress may choose to reverse its decision as early as the next fiscal year, this is not an unreasonable expectation.