The debate continues, but the Faculty Forum has won round one.
The Faculty Forum-a supplementary publication to the Duke Dialogue intended to provide a medium for debate among University faculty members-has been under review by the Academic Council since last May when Roy Weintraub, professor of economics, recommended that the publication undergo a cost-benefit analysis to determine its continued value to the faculty.
During the presentation of his motion at the council meeting, Weintraub claimed that his critique of the publication was primarily motivated by a lack of faculty contributions.
The Academic Council's executive committee, after a summer-long review of the Faculty Forum, ruled that the publication will remain temporarily under the auspices of current editor Victor Strandberg, professor of English. The council will review the forum again at the end of the academic year; in the meantime, the executive committee recommended that Strandberg decrease the number of issues this year from eight to four and attempt to broaden the viewpoints presented in the forum's articles.
Strandberg said that he still intends to publish the forum monthly; he agreed, however, to experiment with different topics, and he said he would entertain the idea of working with a guest editor.
Although many faculty members agreed that the forum's purpose is noble, they disagreed about whether the forum is fulfilling its mission and about how it could be changed in the future to facilitate debate.
Sentiments were also mixed about whether or not faculty members even read the forum: Some said they don't, others said they do.
Roger Corless, professor of religion and former editor of the forum, said that the faculty do enjoy the periodical.
"A number of people told me that they enjoyed reading the publication but didn't have time to write for it," he said.
Although Corless and other past editors reported difficulty soliciting faculty contributions, Strandberg said he has always had enough articles to fill the paper.
The shortage of faculty submissions to the forum springs from a number of sources.
Kalman Bland, associate professor of religion, said that some faculty feel "a sense of futility" about the chances that the arguments they present in the forum will alter readers' opinions.
Several faculty members said they believe that the forum has an ideologically conservative and anti-deconstructionist slant commensurate with the beliefs of its editor; many professors, as a result, choose not to contribute.
"I can read the Duke Review if I want to get that kind of opinion," said Dale Martin, professor of religion, at the Sept. 11 Academic Council meeting.
The publication's perceived ideological slant was also posed problems for Bland.
"Silence is not always dissent," he said, "silence may be a subtle from of protest."
But Strandberg said the forum has no ideological bias and that it is open to any faculty member wishing to make contributions. "Anyone who has anything to say should say it," he said. "I will try to facilitate the process of publishing it."
For example, Strandberg said, although he does not agree with the principles of deconstructionism, he said he is open to debating the topic in the forum.
"I see [deconstructionism] as a rather comic spectacle and treat it as such, but that's just my opinion," he said. "Anyone who takes deconstructionism seriously should take their piece in the Faculty Forum. I'd eagerly look forward to reading it."
Strandberg also said, however, that if deconstruction were solely a comic issue, it would not be worthy of debate. Nevertheless, he said, "I think it's done a lot of harm to my professional discipline."
In support of the publication, John Staddon, James B. Duke professor of experimental psychology, said that the lack of contributions from one end of the intellectual spectrum has resulted in one-sided opinions reaching the forum; those who disagree with that opinion, therefore, say that the publication is politically slanted and attempt to ban it.
"If you don't like what you read, then by God, write something better," he said at the Academic Council meeting.
The lack of debate in the forum, Staddon continued, results more from its contributors than the philosophical disposition of its editor. "You're not going to get debate on deconstruction within the community of deconstructionists," he said.
This absence of debate in the forum, said Sydney Nathans, associate professor of history, provides Strandberg with the opportunity to present his ideas in published form.
"It's not much of a forum," Nathans said at the Academic Council meeting.
To bolster the volume of contributions, Corless recommended that the publication's format be upgraded to a more professional layout-perhaps similar to Duke Magazine, the University's alumni magazine.
"It would give Duke prominence," he said, "and make people think we're number three not because we have nice dorms but because of the faculty."
The forum, originally named the Faculty Newsletter eight years ago, published the minutes of Academic Council meetings as a supplement to the Duke Dialogue. The Academic Council then restructured the newsletter, making it a medium for the faculty to debate issues.
The name of the publication changed at Corless' recommendation but was not implemented until Strandberg became its editor. The new name-the Faculty Forum-reflected more appropriately the paper's ideology, Corless said.
Despite the forum's current predicament, professors said the preservation of an outlet for faculty discussion remains important to them.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.