Students are angry at what they see as the University prioritising profits after the University announced that it is looking to cut the Art History and Visual Culture programme over a continuing decline in the number of students taking the subject.
There has been a 75% decline in enrolments in the programme since 2014, down to 18.7 Equivalent Full Time Students (EFTS) in 2018. Additionally, one of the two Art History lecturers has recently left the University for overseas. Professor Tony Ballantyne, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Humanities, said that the programme “no longer appears sustainable”.
The University’s current proposal is to dissolve the programme in 2020, allowing current Art History students time to finish their degrees.
Some Art History students kicked back against the idea that the future of a department should be based only on the amount of revenue it brings in. One first year Art History student told Critic that “The number of attendees of the course do not determine the importance the topic. We will continue to need the Art History and Visual Culture programme and Art Historians long after we run out of ideas for expressing ourselves with art.”
Waveney Russ, a second year Art History student, agreed. “By proposing the cut of the Art History department from the Division of Humanities, the University acknowledges that they do not value students’ understanding of the social, political and cultural context of history. It goes without saying that the lack of a comprehensive humanities division does little to encourage or value the study of the arts.”
Other students criticised the argument that the department had failed on its own and said that the University had instead “killed” it, by only providing a handful of papers. One Art History student said that “People don’t sign up to papers that don’t exist, or to ones that are shit. I am avidly interested in art history, but don’t really care about 1950s pop fashion. If there were only 3 biochemistry papers, no one would be signing up.”
The same student said that, although they could finish technically finish their Art History degree, they would probably be changing their major. “A degree and an education are different. I want to be enriched – processes and understanding are more important to me than a qualification. A certificate that says I have an art history degree in 2020 from a dying department doesn’t mean I’ve absorbed skills and information on the topic in a big way. There is not enough support in the department for me to really get a graduate level of understanding. It would be a fallacy to say Otago still lets us major in art history. Meeting paper requirements is not the same as an efficient and impactful education.”
James Heath, OUSA Education Officer, said that OUSA opposes the removal of the Art History and Visual Culture programme, “particularly so when students feel as if the Uni has not made enough of an effort to keep it afloat. They’ve decided to call abandon ship right as the iceberg strikes rather than changing direction when numbers started to decline. OUSA also opposes the Uni prioritising economics over academia - the cost of facilitating a diverse academic environment is just as valid as new paving stones or a 150th celebration. We’re not faced with a choice between the Uni running a loss or making these cuts – there’s a balance to be found somewhere that can save Art History and Visual Culture.”
Ballantyne denied that the University was sacrificing the variety of subjects it offers by cutting Art History and Visual Culture. He told Critic that “The Division of Humanities offers a very broad range of subjects and programmes and it will continue to do so… This proposal is a response to a marked and sustained shift in student interest: that is the primary driver for contemplating the possibility of this future change.”
“We understand this matter will be stressful for those involved. Support is available to any staff or students and we will work with any students who have concerns around their course.”
The University met with Art History students the week before last to inform them of the proposal. From here, the proposal will go to the University Senate, where its opponents will present the case to keep the programme, and then on to the University Council, where the issue will be decided.