The University of Lynchburg’s Misguided Decision to Cut Key Programs and Faculty

By Aisha Marilyn Abdulbary-Knotts | Staff Writer

The University of Lynchburg’s decision to eliminate key academic programs and let go of faculty, particularly in the areas of languages and cultural studies is, from every perspective, a short-sighted act and at its core, a betrayal of the values of a liberal arts education.

As an International Relations and Security Studies major who speaks several languages, I find it difficult to comprehend that the university would justify removing the language component from the IR and Security major. 

The decision directly impinges on the fundamental values that underpin a liberal arts university and equates to a serious undermining of the student’s ability to speak and engage as a global citizen.

Language instruction is the basic prerequisite and a tool towards international understanding, communication, and diplomacy. The ability to communicate in another language literally opens up thousands of opportunities in the global arena. 

I am a witness to the power of multilingualism. In a way, speaking many languages has given me a unique perspective on the world and also shaped my interpersonal skills with those from different cultures. It gives you insight, access, and understanding. It prepares you to listen and speak with the world, not at it.

Several countries in the world require at least two, if not three, languages be taught in their schools. The fact that an International Relations and Security major would be graduating without any foreign language competence sounds ridiculous and downright dangerous to me.

A university’s function is to prepare students to work through the intricacies of the world, and the global stage keeps getting more interconnected. Dropping language requirements is a step in the wrong direction, taking away the very tools students need to foster cross-border understanding. 

How do we expect the next generation of leaders to engage meaningfully with the world if they cannot speak from the heart to the people of that world?

The proposed elimination of the Africana Studies program is equally concerning. The Africana Studies major was never just another degree; it is a perspective in history, power, resistance, and identity, as well as the contributions of African and African diasporic peoples. The kind of critical thinking and cultural literacy that should form the core of a liberal arts education are produced by this program; thus, the discontinuation of the program sends out a troubling signal about whose histories and perspectives are recognized or esteemed.

If we indeed are a liberal arts university, how could we remotely entertain such a notion of removing programs that teach us to think deeply and engage meaningfully with various cultures and histories?

I’m entirely conscious that the university is facing a financial struggle. However, meeting these challenges by dismissing some very key people and overburdening the remaining faculty with work cannot be an option. Losing professors and staff is not a matter of trimming fat; it is a direct hit to the integrity of these departments. 

Furthermore, what the university has done is, in the strictest sense, more than just cuts in courses-they cut out whole majors. This is a decision of deeper import than finance; it is one that strikes at the very heart of what the University of Lynchburg says it stands for: a commitment to an education that is well-rounded, global, and liberal. 

How can we speak of being a liberal arts institution when we no longer provide those very important courses that make one globally literate, capable of thinking critically, and aware of cultural diversity?

Supporting these disturbing decisions, I also found it odd and truly concerning that Jeremy Welsh, Vice President & Chief Academic Officer, did not speak until after that powerful speech by Ms. Eckert. His apparent hesitancy without any offering of solutions, only serves to give the overall feeling that the administration appears indifferent to these matters. Instead of guiding us to a resolution on the concerns raised, he merely stood there with no plans or directions of value to offer.

In the end, though, what the University of Lynchburg is doing will certainly have far-reaching effects on the surrounding community and society at large. We need graduates who are ready to engage with the world, understand different cultures, and work to solve global challenges. By cutting into these vital programs and faculty positions, the university is choosing its money issues over these aspirations.

We are at a crossroads with the university’s future, likewise for the students who count on the university to equip them for a world that asks for more than technical skills. We should advocate for a university that stays constant in upholding diversity, global literacy, and intellectual development. 

I plead from the bottom of my heart that the administration should reconsider these decisions, reinstate the crucial programs, and put long-term success of students before short-term financial gains.

This isn’t about saving programs—this is about making sure that the University of Lynchburg is a place where education means much more than a degree. It’s about building a better, more globally literate, and a more interconnected world.