This is the final installment in a three-part series confronting the issues raised in a recent Faculty Newsletter article written by Associate Professor of Religion Mel Peters.
Mel Peters was recently removed from a doctoral dissertation committee because the questions he raised seemingly could not be addressed within the narrow time frame allotted for the student's defense.
A man who was once called "peerless" by former Provost Phillip Griffiths, Peters says he initially was placed on the committee because his different perspective was expected to add to the dissertation.
"Yet, when that diversity proved disruptive to the status quo, the minority perspective became expendable; majority again ruled," he wrote in a January Faculty Newsletter article titled "When Diversity Masks Tyranny."
The incident, Peters said, raises even greater questions about what diversity means at the University.
"If Duke says, the way you become a Duke faculty member is to be in the elite 5 or 10 percent of people in your field . . . regardless of any other variable, the primary [attribute] we want to consider is intellectual academic excellence, now that would be a very simple and easy way to recruit faculty," he said in an interview.
"But that isn't what has been said in recent times. Now that's where the diversity question really needs more thoughtful consideration."
Peters said that if the University considered only academic excellence, the cultural makeup of the faculty would not change significantly. "So I, on one level, would argue for us to drop the diversity discussion unless we're going to make it a merit -- a merit which someone can cash in on."
James Siedow, chair of the Academic Council and professor of botany, said Peters' argument is worth consideration. "I think Peters raises an interesting issue in terms of looking at what does [the term] first-rank scholar mean?"
Siedow, while not conceding that diversity is in fact "a merit," did advocate diversifying faculty. "The consciousness that's been raised over the last 30 years has made people [understand] that we shouldn't be exclusive, that we should be diverse," he said. "The academy would be stupid to not see to it that [minority] groups become a part of the academy."
Other professors, while clearly plugging diversity, were timid about calling it a merit in hiring and promoting. "A campus community that is not diverse is incoherent," said Karla Holloway, professor of English and a member of the Appointments, Promotions and Tenure Committee. "Students will learn to measure the conduct of their professional lives by their experiences within the university community. This community, therefore has the responsibility to be coherent."
When a candidate for tenure is discussed, background is not a factor, said Provost John Strohbehn. "But because of their background, they may be contributing positively to research and teaching," Strohbehn said, thereby helping their rating in the tenure equation.
Such thoughts apparently rang true for Peters. "It is advantageous to the life of the university to have a person who has lived, worked and imbibed the culture of West Africa in the department of African studies," he said.
Similarly, Peters added, people who have lived in the Native-American culture are better able to teach the subject. "I can extend that metaphor all over the lot -- you want people who have hands-on experience."
A few faculty members, however, said that some institutions fail to pay sufficient attention to background. "I really do respect the fact that we want to have scholars and outstanding teachers," said George Wright, chair of African and Afro-American studies department and vice provost for University programs. "But I sometimes think some places are unwilling to broaden themselves and take into account the other experiences people bring to the table."
Peters said that scholars who undertake unique research endeavors run major risks. Often, minority scholars are the ones who lose out in such equations, he said.
"The minute you step outside the margins, the minute you are doing something at which you truly have no peer . . . some people would recognize that you are doing something really cutting-edge," he said. "But it is much easier, and it is much more often the case, that people say, `He is off by himself somewhere, he doesn't have any colleagues, he doesn't have any support," Peters said.
Still, Wright, among others, was quick to point out that a person's background cannot be the primary component of a hiring or promotions decision. "It's possible that someone could be unique and within an area that no one cares about," said Donald Berry, professor of statistics and chair of AP&T.
Some argue that if background or ethnicity were a primary component in the hiring equation, then faculty members hired under such circumstances would be stigmatized or marginalized.
"I would be horrified to be part of a system where the color of one's skin or background is [the reason] for appointment or promotion," said Roy Weintraub, acting dean of the faculty of arts and sciences.
Indeed, several faculty members who consider themselves minorities, said a stigma is often attached to those who are hired under minority-specific initiatives.
"I have never really encouraged, never wanted to be part of, a search for women in the sciences," said Kathleen Smith, associate professor of biological anthropology and anatomy and vice provost for academic programs. For this reason, Smith said she did not support the initiative to hire black faculty in its original form.
"It is a very two-edged sword in this climate," Smith said.
With that in mind, Wright said minority-specific hirings occur throughout academia, with the stigma only coming when specific language or contexts are used. "No matter what you call it," Wright said, "the question [in hiring and promoting] is whether the person will make a contribution to the university."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.