Letter: Deans explain recent actions concerning BAA

We are writing about the series of articles and editorials that appeared in The Chronicle this past week about the biological anthropology and anatomy department. Our intention is to clarify the history of deliberations on BAA, the procedures that we have followed, and our understanding of how the process will unfold. While individual views on proposals for restructuring BAA may differ, we hope that this narrative will dispel misunderstandings about the substance and process of our actions.

Discussions about the future of BAA - since 1989 a department jointly administered by the School of Medicine and by Arts and Sciences - were initiated by the School of Medicine because of concerns about resources and the intellectual direction of the teaching of gross anatomy to medical students. With the encouragement of Provost Peter Lange, the deans of the Medical School and Arts and Sciences began to explore the financial and faculty implications of consolidating the department within Arts and Sciences, a goal repeatedly endorsed by external reviews of the department and endorsed by many of the current members of the department. After extended discussion, a working proposal was developed. Shortly thereafter, Dean of the School of Medicine Sandy Williams briefed Professor Rich Kay, chair of the department, about the plans. Then Dean of Natural Sciences Berndt Mueller, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences William Chafe and two additional deans of the Medical School held a second meeting with Kay, discussing the same proposals.

At the second meeting with Kay, we indicated that we wished to meet with the faculty of BAA as soon as possible to discuss directly with them the proposals, and to seek their response. Kay indicated that he would be out of the country for a period of time, but would arrange such a faculty meeting at the earliest possible moment. (It will be held Feb. 7). We felt it would be improper to discuss the proposal with anyone until we had held such a meeting with the faculty. The Chronicle seems to feel this represented a mishandling of the situation. In our view, it was the most appropriate way to proceed. After meeting, we intend to refine the proposals in light of comments. The proposal will then become part of the normal deliberative process dictated by rules of faculty governance.

As to the proposals themselves, they involve, at this time, 1) the long-recommended reunification of the BAA faculty in one space, which will take place approximately four to five years from now when the French Science Center is completed; 2) an arrangement whereby the School of Medicine, on a sliding scale, will provide financial support to affected faculty for the duration of their continued participation in teaching medical anatomy; 3) the expectation that, as current faculty retire, the Medical School eventually will place the responsibility for teaching gross anatomy within other Medical School departments; and 4) an understanding that the size of the current corps of Arts and Sciences faculty will be in the area of six or seven faculty, with the composition of that group - tenure-track or non-tenure track - to be determined through discussions with the department. The total size of the department will, of course, be larger given the transfer of Medical School faculty. Moreover, given the increased number of undergraduate Arts and Sciences courses taught by the former Medical School faculty, it is our expectation that the total undergraduate course offerings available in the new department will remain basically unchanged. Throughout our goal is to sustain in biological anthropology, the high quality that has been characteristic of BAA at Duke. It is our intent to work with the BAA faculty to ensure a gradual transition toward such a program that does not depend on resources derived from services to the Duke Medical Center.

We look forward to discussing this issue over the coming weeks and months, following prescribed University procedures. We hope that this narrative clarifies the history of the process and why we have proceeded as we have.