Fri 29 Sep 2006
Africana Studies
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Ideological Diversity, Joy James at 6:15 am
There is a fun discussion at WSO about this post. Aston Gonzalez, who started the thread, does not seem to be my biggest fan.
What I think you’re missing is Kane’s blatant sarcasm and mockery of the Africana Studies program.
I am not mocking the Africana Studies program. I am mocking Williams for thinking that doubling (?) the size of the Africana Studies program does as much to increase “diversity” on campus as would spending the same amount of money on increasing the range of ideological views among the faculty.
Now, there are a lot of messy details in this dispute. Williams did not used to have an Africana Studies program at all. It used to be called Afro-American Studies, which is, as Professor Joy James can explain better than I, not the same thing. I also do not know if the budget has doubled. But you can be sure that Professor James did not take a pay cut when she left her position at Brown to come to Williams. Tenured Ivy League professors do not come cheap, either in terms of the salary they merit or in terms of the resources they require. A glance at the program’s homepage demonstrates that some serious money is being spent.
But the central point is that just because you think that Williams should spend more money on X and less on Y does not necessarily imply that you think money being spent on Y is being wasted.
These were his words: “The fact that KC isn’t at Williams is one of the worst faculty outcomes of the last two decades. No worries, though. We have a new department of Africana Studies. Who needs ideological diversity among the faculty? That would be too confusing for the students!”
He is chastising the College for not hiring a Poli Sci prof. who, in his eyes, believes and teaches from a different point of view. I completely understand and see the merit in that.
Good! Perhaps Gonzalez and I are closer to agreement than he thinks we are. We both agree that Williams benefits from having great teachers like KC Johnson and Joy James. We both think that, in addition to their qualities as superb teachers and researchers, Johnson and James bring something else to the College. In other words, even if they taught, say, chemistry, Williams would be pleased to have Johnson and James. But the fact that Johnson has a unique ideological viewpoint and that James has an expertise in a specific academic discipline means that they are even more desirable than their “raw” teaching ability would suggest.
Fine. All is rosy. But does Gonzalez understand that resources are limited, that Williams can not hire 500 professors, that choices must be made?
Imagine that Morty announced tomorrow that he was doubling the size of the Classics Department, that he had hired away a famous professor from Yale, that two new assistant professor positions had been created and that several new visiting positions and a lecture series were being funded.
Who could be against such wonderfulness? Could Gonzalez be so anti-Grecian (?) that he would deny the value of studying Greek literature? Is he so anti-Roman in his thinking that he might fail to see the value to Williams of more classes in Classics? I hope not!
Instead, I hope Gonzalez would see, not just the wonderfulness of the new additions, but also what those resources might have gone to instead. I hope that he would be aware of both what is seen and what is not seen.
At that point, we can have a conversation about the costs and benefits of the different ways that Williams can spend its money. There are benefits to doubling the size of Africana Studies. But are the marginal benefits of doing so — given that Williams already had a fine program with dedicated teachers — greater than the marginal benefits of adding the first contingent of non-liberal faculty? I don’t think so.
In the same thread, Daniel Blinder writes:
I do agree that more professors with viewpoints not conforming to the liberal norm would be good to have. I don’t consider myself conservative, but I’m also less liberal than a lot of people here.
Andrew Wang agrees:
Africana Studies is fine, but at the same time, the vast majority of faculty teaching in such fields are liberal and left-leaning. As an individual who does not always subscribe to the prevailing wisdom of liberal academia, I would find it refreshing to bring in experienced, well-respected, and skilled faculty who were NOT always left of center.
Agreed. On the margin, the thing that Williams needs most is ideological diversity among the faculty, i.e., a few conservatives/Republicans/libertarians.
However, my problem with his statement is how he discounts the entire Africana Studies program, and implies that its mission, purpose, and existence pale in comparison to that of one allegedly unique prof.
This is not what I believe. In fact, I expect to become more of a Joy James fan over time. I hear, from students, that she is a demanding professor who requires her students to think clearly and work hard. That’s my kind of Williams professor! The Williams professors/programs which I hold in contempt are the ones that do not require serious work from their students. Science gut courses for non-majors are the worst examples.
What angers is me is how Kane frequently, as Andrew W. said, “would rather see us return to the good ol’ days when we studied the works of “dead white men” to the exclusion of everything else.”
Life is short so I don’t expect Gonzalez to read what I write. But he shouldn’t pretend to know what I think if he isn’t going to take the time to find out. If students prefer Frantz Fanon to The Federalist Papers, if they would rather read Rigoberta Mench� than Plato, then more power to them. I may, on occasion, mock students for making these choices, but I will always defend their right to make them. The College should teach the courses and topics that students want to take (chosen from the universe of serious academic fields) and not the courses and topics that I (or Aston or the faculty) want students to take.
Indeed, this desire to respond to student preferences is one of the reasons that I do not like small, specially focused departments like Africana Studies. Better, I think, would be for these professors to be housed in large departments so that it would be easier to shift them around as student interests change. But this is a side issue to those raised by Gonzalez.
Yet the great irony here is that Gonzalez demonstrates the very need for greater ideological diversity among the faculty by his incorrect assumption that anyone, like me, who would criticize the increase of Africana Studies must be in favor of requiring that students read more Dead While Males. Some conservatives, it is true, do argue that. But many (indeed, most conservative Ephs) don’t. If Gonzalez actually had a conservative professor — someone who like Sam Crane or Marc Lynch taught her classes non-ideologically but who added her viewpoint to the public conversation on campus — he might realize that we aren’t all alike.
The debate on WSO includes this:
Little known fact: Reading exclusively Western literature does not promote diversity because all dead white men agreed with each other.
To which Gonzalez responds with “Amen.” Please tell me that this is irony!
Print
• Email
| « Admissions Questions | Photo ID, #52 » |
12 Responses to “Africana Studies”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
rory says:
hope this fed your navel-gazing quota for a while.
i’m proud to read comments by the students who grasped how Africana Studies is not about “diversity” but about a field of study that warrants study and thus is part of the williams curriculum. I appreciated the fact that students recognized that teaching demands even-handedness, not diverse ideologies. I’m not surprised they don’t get quoted by Kane here. I hope you enjoyed taking pot-shots at students via your blog here, but it all seems so unnecessary.
If enrollment figures or ideological diversity is truly an issue, then I have to ask: why does Williams have Russian or German or Astronomy or French or Cognitive Science? We all know why–but Africana Studies is the field singled out for critique.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:04 amLoweeel says:
Rory, the reason that “Africana Studies is the field singled out for critique” is because it’s the one that got the huge expansion and influx of money. If “Russian or German or Astronomy or French or Cognitive Science” had been similarly transformed in terms of faculty, curriculum, or funding over the last few years, then you would have a point. But instead, you’re comparing apples to oranges by asking why Dave is critiquing the newest department instead of the old curricular standbys.
I’m sure that Dave’s point would be similar if Williams decided to follow Swarthmore’s lead and add Engineering classes.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:51 amwilliams '07 says:
I have to disagree with the overall idea that programs with small enrollments should not be a high priority for resources because they don’t benefit most students. The vast majority of courses I’ve taken and am taking have been in 3 tiny departments (a social science, a foreign language, and your example of classics). Sure, the outcome would not be that different had I focused on similar but more popular social science and language departments (I can’t even think of a large department to compare to classics, it’s so interdisciplinary), but small departments have great benefits for the students who do take advantage of them. The opportunities to take classes with an average size of 5 or 10 and get to know professors without really trying might not be so common elsewhere. You could provide those opportunities for more popular fields by getting rid of classics and hiring enough econ professors to provide tiny econ classes, but why? Why not offer a greater breadth of courses and fields? Why not give ten econ majors the chance to take one elective each, or even double major, in ten tiny departments? Why not give students the chance to fall into unexpected fields by taking random classes instead of just sticking to subjects they studied or heard a lot about in high school?
September 29th, 2006 at 10:59 amDavid Kane says:
1) It is not my claim that “programs with small enrollments should not be a high priority for resources because they don’t benefit most students.” My claim is that the College should spend the marginal dollar where the marginal dollar will do the most good. Shrinking the average class size in Classics from 8 to 4 would, obviously, be a good thing. But it is more important to, for example, shrink the average class size in economics from 20 (?) to 10 first.
2) I am glad to see that Rory thinks that “Africana Studies is not about “diversity” but about a field of study that warrants study and thus is part of the Williams curriculum.” Perhaps he can explain this to Morty! Morty claims that among the “Steps Regarding Diversity Taken in 2004-06″ is:
I realize that, for Rory, the expansion of Africana Studies has nothing to do with “diversity,” that AS is just another academic field like Chemistry or Philosophy, that any increase in its budget is driven by student interest (both actual and likely). Alas, Morty feels differently. For him, and for Williams, the increasing budget of AS is directly related to the Colleges diversity goals.
But, as always, when Williams says “Diversity”, it doesn’t mean diversity of belief or opinion. Williams means chromatic diversity.
And, of course, all off this is consistent with Evelyn Hu-DeHart’s views on the best way to get more non-white faculty at Williams.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:29 amrory says:
Lowell: David made his claim about money only after the fact. That may be a reasonable argument, but it was presented so well after the original point was made as to not be a defensible reason. It’s like the Iraq war–first it was about WMDs, then it was about freeing Iraq. It might have been a legitimate war for the second reason, but that does not excuse the original point.
I’ll further argue that africana studies offers a diversity of viewpoint. Race is an add-on in traditional departments. black people are treated as americans to be udnerstood. Africana Studies has a fundamentally different view of the centrality of race and how to classify black people–as a diaspora, not as a semi-assimilated piece of the US. Of course, because that’s a left-of-traditional-academia viewpoint on the continua of racial politics, that’s not what you and David want in ideological diversity.
And so it seems David falls into a trap of assuming that the ideological sphere can and should only be tilted right in academia, where, in fact, there is a left-of-center critique of academia, at least in terms of race.
David: way to lump me with people I don’t agree with! While Morty might have put money into Africana Studies for its ability to increase the diversity of the faculty, the people in the program and its supporters are not as simple on this as Morty. That’s not why we like it. Similar to how I don’t like Hu De-Hart’s reason for support as the sole reason for creating the department. Beyond that, nowhere does Morty say “we did this to hire black people”. Instead, AS accomplishes two goals–it builds a legitimately more diverse curriculum AND it diversifies the racial make-up of the faculty. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, even as you make it appear as though they are.
sounds like a good expenditure of money in that light, doesn’t it?
You also way oversimplify the creation of institutional goals. The institution is not run by or for the immediate desire of the student. Just because students are all enrolling in econ does not mean williams should become a business/econ school. Williams has these quotes as its “mission” http://www.williams.edu/home/mission.php. that statement is about creating the best liberal arts curriculum, not about reducing class size for the popular majors. Having another econ 101 class might do that, but so does adding Africana Studies.
David, you desire to quantify (size of classes as sign of marginal dollar) that which might not be quantifiable (excellent liberal arts education). Personally, I found williams to be lacking when it did not have latino or africana studies. to me, it seems an undoubtably good expenditure.
September 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pmDavid says:
I am not “lump[ing]” you in with people you disagree with. I am pointing out that you say the reason for increased funding for Africana Studies is X and Morty (and Williams) says the reason is Y. I think that the real reason is Y or, at the very least, that Y plays a part in the reasoning.
But don’t you see Rory that Williams is still lacking! How can you be so blind and Euro-centric? The AS department only has (5) faculty members. It needs 10, at a minimum. In fact, it needs to be a major, not just a program. In fact, Williams needs an Asiana Studies program which would focus in Asians in Asia and the diaspora in America and elsewhere. In fact, we need a Portugesia (sp) Studies program which would do the same thing for Portugese people, in Portugal, Brazil, America and elsewhere.
If you refuse to recognize that the resources of Williams are limitted, that there choices must be made, that for every professor you hire in field X you must not hire a professor in field Y, then it is impossible to have a productive discussion with you about what Williams is doing and how it might do things better.
To be concrete, would William have been better off doing these hires in Asian American studies rather than AS? If not, why not?
September 29th, 2006 at 4:03 pmAC '9X says:
The ideological diversity debate is one that is replicated on most campuses, including at my law school.
But my question is: should we really care about the political persuasion of the faculty?
If ideological viewpoints of professors are important in regards to one’s concern for on campus teaching and discourse, you are implying that students are simply sponges that soak up whatever professors serve them in class and are incapable of critical thought. I think Williams students/alumns deserve more credit than that. If Williams continues to attract the brilliant students who possess the ability and courage to engage their professors and challenge ideas expressed in class, what is the real issue here?
The focus of most schools should be on attracting the type of scholars that are of top teaching and scholarship ability. Where they fall on the political spectrum should be largely irrelevant.
Those who support ideological diversity should also ensure that the candidates they support possess teaching styles that actually encourage engagement with conservative ideas. Sadly, the little experience I have had with conservative teachers, both in undergrad and law school, featured dogmatic teaching styles where disagreeing with the professor’s positions on written work had profoundly negative consequences on grade performance in a way unlike I experienced with “liberal” teachers. As a result, these classes tend to fill up with sycophants and those whose views already mirror the professors as opposed to challenging the broader campus population. As a result, the net effect on campus of their teaching is limited.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:56 pmAston says:
If you read on Kane, I wrote:
“No, no. My bad. I was agreeing that ‘Reading exclusively Western literature does not promote diversity.'”
September 29th, 2006 at 5:22 pmLoweeel says:
AC — I’ve had the opposite experience entirely. In Econ, I was penalized for disagreeing with the scholarly consensus and refusing to accept Card and Kreuger as gospel on MinWage.
Similarly, at my law school, I’ve never heard of anybody being marked down for disagreeing with the professors’ personal opinions. And yes, that covers our liberals too.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:41 pmRichard Dunn says:
Hold up. Card/Krueger is not the scholarly concensus nor is it gospel. That is true in general and so I don’t see why it would be different at Williams.
There are few classes that would have even addressed the paper so I doubt you could have been penalized often. If you were penalized, might I offer that it wasn’t because you disagreed, but rather that you didn’t disagree well. It is one thing to say: “I do not accept CK” and another to explain why you do not.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:05 pmfrank uible says:
In my view, no partisan politician falls into the camp of “good guys” or “bad guys” depending on the point of the political spectrum, upon which he is found. He will almost always engage in lieing, cheating and stealing, given sufficient circumstances – which for some of his ilk seem to occur quite frequently.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:08 amrory says:
David–
I actually think the lack of a real asian-american studies program to be the next point of contention at Williams academically.
I’m perfectly happy to make my arguments about where Williams should spend its money in a real-world, limited budget environment. Your original post, however, took a potshot without stating it as such a point about marginal utility of a hire. Further, your original post was about “intellectual diversity” (which is really “political” or “ideological” diversity, as the faculty have quite a diverse set of viewpoints as an intellectual body) and linking africana studies to the dread beast of left-wing academia.
In a post about the Duke rape case, referencing KC Johnson’s non-tenure at Williams, you singled out Africana Studies and noted Williams does not have the ideological diversity you want. Only after criticism did ideas of marginal utility and cost come into play. the original post is very clear, sadly, in NOT making the more nuanced points. Only after critique do these points come out. Don’t change the narrative.
I doubt KC Johnson wants to be hired just to be the token conservative. I think he wants to be hired because a school respects his research and teaching.
(I also never said the program is big enough. I just said doubling it seems like a good expenditure. maybe it should be more. I don’t know, as i’ve not been at a williams with the newly staffed africana studies program)
September 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pm