When the University of Toronto introduced its “Towards 2030” academic restructuring plan in 2007, it became apparent that a major part of the project involved cutting funding to and reducing the size of small interdisciplinary departments. Indeed, programs such as East Asian Studies were the first to feel the effects of the university’s shifting financial priorities when it was proposed, in a restructuring document, that this discipline and a number of others should be amalgamated into one languages super-department. Although small, non-traditional interdisciplinary departments may not appear to be as useful as larger, established disciplines such as English or Biology, their existence is crucial to maintaining the quality of university academic programs.
Many small interdisciplinary programs play a central role in creating and maintaining spaces in which non-dominant approaches to knowledge and learning can exist on university campuses. Departments with a focus on equity-based education, including Equity Studies, Women and Gender Studies, and Sexual Diversity Studies emphasize the importance of identifying power dynamics both within the university and in society in general.
Recognizing the workings of power dynamics, and acknowledging how one’s social position shapes one’s experience, are essential skills for responsible citizenship and for developing a way of living consciously in a complex and hierarchical society. Despite this, critical-thinking skills and forms of knowledge that make power dynamics explicit are often glossed over in mainstream academic programs.
Smaller interdisciplinary departments also offer students the opportunity to take courses that allow them to examine traditional ideas, such as certain historical narratives, from other non-dominant perspectives. University is about getting a well-rounded education and becoming exposed to a plurality of ideas. Small interdisciplinary departments are among the last repositories of alternative knowledge on campuses, and eliminating or limiting these programs severely compromises the quality and heterogeneity of a university-based education.
Interdisciplinary departments not only provide spaces for alternative learning, but are also crucial to maintaining cultural, social, and political diversity on campus. Sexual Diversity Studies, Aboriginal Studies, and Women and Gender Studies are examples of departments that actively aim to create spaces for non-dominant groups to organize and exist as cohesive entities on campus. Without the existence of such programs, many groups would not have as much visibility on campus, would lack the resources to organize, and would be severely underrepresented in the university community. As universities increasingly strive to welcome diversity among their students while fostering a sense of community, it is important to recognize that imposing financial cuts upon small interdisciplinary departments would compromise not only a university community’s diversity, but also the existence of viable political movements on campuses.
Finally, interdisciplinary modes of study are an important part of the future of academics. Many traditional disciplines are incorporating interdisciplinary approaches into their curricula and recognizing that one perspective or methodological approach is often not sufficient to fully understand a complex topic. Similarly, the Faculty of Arts and Science recently implemented a new breadth requirement for all students entering the faculty after September 2010, in which students must take at least one course from each designated subject area. This requirement emphasizes the importance of a multi-faceted education that incorporates several different approaches and disciplinary perspectives — precisely the type of education that is facilitated and encouraged by interdisciplinary programs, which offer courses from a number of academic disciplines. East Asian Studies student union president Michel Marion stated that “with the new changes, no students will be able to study Asia in-depth.” This comment highlights the utility of interdisciplinary approaches by noting that it is not enough to study one aspect of a topic, such as Asian languages, but that other aspects, such as history, culture, politics, religion, literatures, and geography must also be examined. It would be contradictory and counterproductive for the University of Toronto to mandate breadth requirements while eliminating the very programs through which students are most likely to receive the type of multi-faceted, rounded education these requirements seek to implement.
From a long-term perspective, it makes little sense for the University of Toronto to continue imposing cuts on small interdisciplinary departments within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. While such cuts may initially save the university money, they are ultimately indicative of U of T’s lack of commitment to the development of new perspectives and academic approaches, to student diversity on campus, and to providing a rounded, multi-faceted, and relevant education to its students.
