I agree. I think this proposal also avoids the potential for conflict in mandate with the Multilingual and MultiCultural committee. Elisabeth was quite comfortable with everything last time we talked, but I have still always worried about mandates clashing in practice or appearance.
The only caveat I would suggest to this is is that I think it would be a mistake to see us as working narrowly on admissions issues. GO::DH seems to me to be more community development rather than straight on admissions--though that is obviously not in conflict with admissions.
So, for example, a perfectly reasonable result would be an increase in African individual participation in the ALLC, or Latin American participation at DH, rather than the creation of an African or Latin American DH society.
I realise that narrowly focussing on admission to ADHO was not what was being suggested. My point only is that if a danger of being not assigned to admissions is that the mandate might start creeping around, a danger the other way is that association under admissions might have a psychological effect of narrowing it.
I still think this is a great idea, though. Probably the thing to do is make sure the language about the mission and range of activities is very good.
I think there have been some real steps forward here!
-dan
On 12-10-18 09:10 AM, Marcus Bingenheimer wrote:
Neil and Ray,
Personally I would be very comfortable working within this framework (GO::DH reporting to Admissions). It seems like a good basis for discussions with prospective ADHO or Centernet members in India and China.
marcus
-- Dr. Marcus Bingenheimer 馬德偉 Department of Religion, Temple University http://mbingenheimer.net
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l