Letter from the Editor

I have always been rather eclectic in my tastes. I can enjoy a Mozart sonata as much as the latest hit by the Foo Fighters. I like French cuisine and Burger King. I have read the classics and the Classic comic book versions and enjoyed both. So it should come as no surprise that I have a personal inclination toward things multicultural, multinational, multilingual, multi-anything. Maybe I just like diversity because having grown up in a nearly monocultural middle class suburb, my tastes and sensibilities have rebelled against sameness in the way that someone who has grown up eating nothing but bland overcooked food might crave more savory cuisines. One of the nicest compliments I ever received was from a friend who said, “You are so interested in everything.”But when I responded, “Isn’t everybody?” the puzzled look on her face let me know that an appreciation of difference was anything but universal. For some people, a trip to the local Chinese take-out restaurant is as far afield as they care to venture culturally. So when we face the challenge of internationalizing the university curriculum, given the reality that not all people share the desire to appreciate difference for its own sake and given the inherent challenges of the undertaking, we come to the fundamental question—Why bother? Do we expand the canon of literature, seek out cross-cultural perspectives, and cultivate the voices of nationalities and cultures less heard from simply to add variety to an already rather varied curriculum? Clearly creating a more diverse curriculum just for the sake of diversity is not enough. What then are the practical benefits?

The first advantage is obvious to anyone who has ever traveled abroad. By stepping outside of our own cultural milieu we gain a heightened awareness, not only of the new culture we are discovering but, by contrast, features of our home culture which we never thought about. I recall during my first trip to England, a country whose culture is supposedly not so distant from that of the United States, how amazed I was to find that I could barely understand the accents of many people who spoke to me, that the signs above exits, subway entrances, and bathrooms were completely different from those in the States, and that even such mundane details as lightbulbs and electrical outlets were different. It was then I realized that despite the impression we get from maps, translation dictionaries, and now Internet sites that the world is a conglomeration of universally interchangeable parts, there are real differences from country to country and from culture to culture, and they are more than simply differences in the vocabulary of exit signs and toilets. North Americans really do see certain aspects of the world differently than do people from China, India, or Japan. In China, for example, World War II is referred to as “The Anti-Japanese War,” the communist revolution is referred to as “Liberation,” and the World Series seems a rather curious name for an event open only to contestants from either the United States or Canada. By traveling to and studying other cultures, we can develop a more comprehensive world view, one that points out the limitations of our own perspectives and opens the mind to new possibilities.

The second reason for expanding the curriculum is an acknowledgment and inclusion of the growing diversity of the United States itself. Once thought to be “a nation of immigrants,” this country can also be described as a nation founded by European immigrants and enslaved African peoples occupying Native American territories. Since 1945 and the opening of our borders to Asian and Latin American immigration, we again need to redefine ourselves. But no matter what descriptions are used, the general consensus among most people of the United States is that we have benefited far more from diversity than we have been hurt by it. I am reminded of a statement made by Vice President Gore during the final presidential debate. He said, “…our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it….” In other words the diversity achieved through the inclusion of a broad variety of men and women of varying races, ethnicities, national origins, and language groups actually strengthened the administration as a result of the broader range of experience, cultural sensibilities, and international perspectives brought to the table. There can be no better forum than the university curriculum to bring the strengths of these diverse elements together.

Finally, there is the issue of tolerance. Despite our best hopes and dreams, there will always be friction among diverse groups of people, especially when they are competing for whatever scarce resources and opportunities society may have to offer. In a much-oversimplified sense, the entire history of racial and ethnic conflict in the United States can be reduced to a struggle centered on the question of which groups in society will dominate the control of influence, power, and wealth. Clearly this is a conflict yet to be resolved, but whatever progress has been made in divvying up the pie more fairly has been the result of a broader understanding of what the history of the United States has been and the resulting societal awareness of inequities. The expansion of history to include the voices of disenfranchised and once excluded people is part of the same process we are now undertaking in internationalizing the curriculum. We need to develop a global consciousness in order to answer the questions we are facing today—What responsibility do we have as a country to those countries and societies we have historically exploited? What influence can we have in helping to improve the quality of the environment of the planet? Does the inheritance of immense national wealth and power also confer upon us any moral obligations to assist countries whose economies are so critical they are unable to provide even the basic resources to sustain life? What role should the United States play in resolving conflicts beyond our borders? The answers to questions of this order cannot be found by looking at the world in the same way that our parents or grandparents did. The globalization of the curriculum is nothing less than the expansion of consciousness to include more of the world than we were aware of before. And like the human imagination itself, there seems to be no limit in terms of what we are capable of including.

In this issue of The Academic Forum we will explore the internationalization of the curriculum from a variety of perspectives. We are fortunate to have at the nexus of the discussion, a group of articles reporting activities developed under a Title VI grant from the Department of Education, International Studies and Foreign Languages Program entitled “World Languages and Cultures in Urban Education.” Donna Farina and Christa Olson along with the 14 faculty who participated in the grant provide an overview of the grant activities and programs. Alberto Barugel, Edith Villaverde, and Lois Weiner discuss how the grant is being used to enhance language teacher-training. Alicia Pagano reports on study abroad. Yi Ding and Edith Villaverde write about bringing international scholars to the campus. Sheila Kirven provides a bibliography of international materials purchased through the grant. Elba Herrero points out some of the cultural biases behind language testing. Allan DeFina reports from the World Congress of the International Reading Association on the challenges of teaching literacy in developing nations. Clyde Coreil and Steven Haber report on a comparative study of the academic achievements of ESL students and native English speakers on the NJCU campus. Christa Olson and Kent Kroeger report on a survey assessing the intercultural competencies of NJCU faculty and staff.

Exploring more personal reflections on internationalization, Robert Albrecht reflects on the music and culture of a small Brazilian town, Debbie Sanders reports on the search for cultural roots on the west coast of Africa, and Maria Soares reminisces about her Portuguese American childhood. Finally, a poem by Chuck Plosky reminds us of the need for a clear educational philosophy guiding the process toward internationalization.

As always, there are many people to thank who made this publication possible. We express our deepest appreciation to all of our contributors. Special thanks to Dr. Larry Carter for his support of the publication and to Jo Bruno for her invaluable organizational help and work on the citations. Thanks to Ellen Quinn for her outstanding work in layout and design. I would especially like to thank the editorial board for their thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions: Joan Bailey, Ron Bogusz, Walter Glospie, Peter Incardone, Pargellan McCall, and Ellen Quinn. Thanks to Walter Glospie for proofreading assistance.

The theme for the Spring 2001 issue of The Academic Forum will be Race, Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Sexual Orientation—Reconstructing Social Identity. We urge all faculty and staff to submit articles dealing with research, teaching, and/or curriculum development relevant to the topic of how members of different groups are transforming their social identities in America. Reports on scholarly research presented in a style accessible to non-experts in the field are especially welcome. (See call for papers on our back cover)

On behalf of the editorial board, I would like to wish our readers a joyous and healthy holiday season as we welcome in officially the first year of the new century and new millennium. May it mark an era of hope and continued prosperity inspired by a new American presidency and new opportunities for peace throughout the world.

Letter From the Editor		Dr. Steven Haber
I have always been rather eclectic in my tastes. I can enjoy a Mozart sonata as much as the latest hit by the Foo Fighters. I like French cuisine and Burger King. I have read the classics and the Classic comic book versions and enjoyed both. So it should come as no surprise that I have a personal inclination toward things multicultural, multinational, multilingual, multi-anything. Maybe I just like diversity because having grown up in a nearly monocultural middle class suburb, my tastes and sensibilities have rebelled against sameness in the way that someone who has grown up eating nothing but bland overcooked food might crave more savory cuisines. One of the nicest compliments I ever received was from a friend who said, “You are so interested in everything.”But when I responded, “Isn’t everybody?” the puzzled look on her face let me know that an appreciation of difference was anything but universal. For some people, a trip to the local Chinese take-out restaurant is as far afield as they care to venture culturally. So when we face the challenge of internationalizing the university curriculum, given the reality that not all people share the desire to appreciate difference for its own sake and given the inherent challenges of the undertaking, we come to the fundamental question—Why bother? Do we expand the canon of literature, seek out cross-cultural perspectives, and cultivate the voices of nationalities and cultures less heard from simply to add variety to an already rather varied curriculum? Clearly creating a more diverse curriculum just for the sake of diversity is not enough. What then are the practical benefits? The first advantage is obvious to anyone who has ever traveled abroad. By stepping outside of our own cultural milieu we gain a heightened awareness, not only of the new culture we are discovering but, by contrast, features of our home culture which we never thought about. I recall during my first trip to England, a country whose culture is supposedly not so distant from that of the United States, how amazed I was to find that I could barely understand the accents of many people who spoke to me, that the signs above exits, subway entrances, and bathrooms were completely different from those in the States, and that even such mundane details as lightbulbs and electrical outlets were different. It was then I realized that despite the impression we get from maps, translation dictionaries, and now Internet sites that the world is a conglomeration of universally interchangeable parts, there are real differences from country to country and from culture to culture, and they are more than simply differences in the vocabulary of exit signs and toilets. North Americans really do see certain aspects of the world differently than do people from China, India, or Japan. In China, for example, World War II is referred to as “The Anti-Japanese War,” the communist revolution is referred to as “Liberation,” and the World Series seems a rather curious name for an event open only to contestants from either the United States or Canada. By traveling to and studying other cultures, we can develop a more comprehensive world view, one that points out the limitations of our own perspectives and opens the mind to new possibilities. The second reason for expanding the curriculum is an acknowledgment and inclusion of the growing diversity of the United States itself. Once thought to be “a nation of immigrants,” this country can also be described as a nation founded by European immigrants and enslaved African peoples occupying Native American territories. Since 1945 and the opening of our borders to Asian and Latin American immigration, we again need to redefine ourselves. But no matter what descriptions are used, the general consensus among most people of the United States is that we have benefited far more from diversity than we have been hurt by it. I am reminded of a statement made by Vice President Gore during the final presidential debate. He said, “…our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it….” In other words the diversity achieved through the inclusion of a broad variety of men and women of varying races, ethnicities, national origins, and language groups actually strengthened the administration as a result of the broader range of experience, cultural sensibilities, and international perspectives brought to the table. There can be no better forum than the university curriculum to bring the strengths of these diverse elements together. Finally, there is the issue of tolerance. Despite our best hopes and dreams, there will always be friction among diverse groups of people, especially when they are competing for whatever scarce resources and opportunities society may have to offer. In a much-oversimplified sense, the entire history of racial and ethnic conflict in the United States can be reduced to a struggle centered on the question of which groups in society will dominate the control of influence, power, and wealth. Clearly this is a conflict yet to be resolved, but whatever progress has been made in divvying up the pie more fairly has been the result of a broader understanding of what the history of the United States has been and the resulting societal awareness of inequities. The expansion of history to include the voices of disenfranchised and once excluded people is part of the same process we are now undertaking in internationalizing the curriculum. We need to develop a global consciousness in order to answer the questions we are facing today—What responsibility do we have as a country to those countries and societies we have historically exploited? What influence can we have in helping to improve the quality of the environment of the planet? Does the inheritance of immense national wealth and power also confer upon us any moral obligations to assist countries whose economies are so critical they are unable to provide even the basic resources to sustain life? What role should the United States play in resolving conflicts beyond our borders? The answers to questions of this order cannot be found by looking at the world in the same way that our parents or grandparents did. The globalization of the curriculum is nothing less than the expansion of consciousness to include more of the world than we were aware of before. And like the human imagination itself, there seems to be no limit in terms of what we are capable of including. In this issue of The Academic Forum we will explore the internationalization of the curriculum from a variety of perspectives. We are fortunate to have at the nexus of the discussion, a group of articles reporting activities developed under a Title VI grant from the Department of Education, International Studies and Foreign Languages Program entitled “World Languages and Cultures in Urban Education.” Donna Farina and Christa Olson along with the 14 faculty who participated in the grant provide an overview of the grant activities and programs. Alberto Barugel, Edith Villaverde, and Lois Weiner discuss how the grant is being used to enhance language teacher-training. Alicia Pagano reports on study abroad. Yi Ding and Edith Villaverde write about bringing international scholars to the campus. Sheila Kirven provides a bibliography of international materials purchased through the grant. Elba Herrero points out some of the cultural biases behind language testing. Allan DeFina reports from the World Congress of the International Reading Association on the challenges of teaching literacy in developing nations. Clyde Coreil and Steven Haber report on a comparative study of the academic achievements of ESL students and native English speakers on the NJCU campus. Christa Olson and Kent Kroeger report on a survey assessing the intercultural competencies of NJCU faculty and staff. Exploring more personal reflections on internationalization, Robert Albrecht reflects on the music and culture of a small Brazilian town, Debbie Sanders reports on the search for cultural roots on the west coast of Africa, and Maria Soares reminisces about her Portuguese American childhood. Finally, a poem by Chuck Plosky reminds us of the need for a clear educational philosophy guiding the process toward internationalization. As always, there are many people to thank who made this publication possible. We express our deepest appreciation to all of our contributors. Special thanks to Dr. Larry Carter for his support of the publication and to Jo Bruno for her invaluable organizational help and work on the citations. Thanks to Ellen Quinn for her outstanding work in layout and design. I would especially like to thank the editorial board for their thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions: Joan Bailey, Ron Bogusz, Walter Glospie, Peter Incardone, Pargellan McCall, and Ellen Quinn. Thanks to Walter Glospie for proofreading assistance. The theme for the Spring 2001 issue of The Academic Forum will be Race, Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Sexual Orientation—Reconstructing Social Identity. We urge all faculty and staff to submit articles dealing with research, teaching, and/or curriculum development relevant to the topic of how members of different groups are transforming their social identities in America. Reports on scholarly research presented in a style accessible to non-experts in the field are especially welcome. (See call for papers on our back cover) On behalf of the editorial board, I would like to wish our readers a joyous and healthy holiday season as we welcome in officially the first year of the new century and new millennium. May it mark an era of hope and continued prosperity inspired by a new American presidency and new opportunities for peace throughout the world.