Editorial: Monkey business

Earlier this week, Duke administrators announced plans to cut the number of faculty positions in the Biological Anthropology and Anatomy to a third of its current size, although it remains a complete mystery why the University would choose to eviscerate one of its top science programs in such a manner.

Currently, the BAA department has 17 faculty members, 10 tenure-track and seven research professors; with the proposed cuts, the total would be reduced to six, four tenure-track and two research. This vast reduction threatens all aspects of the department: the undergraduate program, the graduate program, and the Primate Center, which although technically separate, is used largely by BAA faculty.

What is most perplexing is why the University would choose to destroy one of its most highly regarded programs when it supports so many other less distinguished departments and during a period when it is investing heavily in the sciences in general.

Although the current en vogue fields in science include genetics, molecular biology and the like, as opposed to the largely organismal-based orientation of BAA, the University should not base decisions about which departments to support on the relative popularity of the departments. Indeed, at a time when much of the natural sciences are moving toward an emphasis on biomedical applications, it is important to remember that biology is much larger.

The University's biology offering should not be exclusively those that are the most popular; rather, it should continue to support departments like BAA, which continues to ask important and interesting question and pose problems that are incredibly relevant to us as humans. BAA's study of humankind's closest animal relatives and of the evolution of humans is central to what defines humanity.

What is especially disappointing about this whole situation is how the deans have handled it. They revealed the plans to slash the department's faculty in a private meeting late last week, after which Richard Kay, professor and chair of BAA, announced the plans to the entire department last Friday. However, since that time the administration has not justified or defended its plan.

The professors and students of BAA deserve better from the administration. They deserve answers and an explanation for why a top program is being crushed. It seems rather capricious that the University should target BAA, both because of its valuable contributions to science and because of how well regarded it is.

Eliminating the department will reflect very poorly upon the University and make the natural sciences less well rounded. Unfortunately, the damage may already be done, since now that the sword of Damocles is dangling over BAA, graduate students will no longer come to Duke and professors will no longer be motivated to turn out quality research for a University that has abandoned them.