On Sept. 14, 2011, Dean of Arts and Sciences Joanne Berger−Sweeney sent an announcement to the Tufts student community regarding multiple new initiatives focused on diversity and inclusion. Among these initiatives was the proposal for the creation of a new academic program. From her announcement, it seemed that this proposal stemmed from the task force on Africana Studies that convened throughout last spring.
However, this new proposal moves away from the idea of a department specifically focused on Africana Studies to an umbrella program focused on comparative race and ethnicity studies, as cited as goals in her letter to the Tufts community.
Though at first glance this seems like a simple, comprehensive solution to create an inclusive education, we believe otherwise. A program jumbling Africana, Latino/a, Asian American, Judaic and possibly gender/women's studies conflates these multiple identities together. This program would be devaluing the individual experiences and knowledge surrounding each identity by lumping them all into one category of racial and ethnic others. It also creates a diluted academic program where none of these individual fields of study is given ample resources to expand to its full academic potential. Tufts would not be affording each field, and identity, its own rightful place in academia.
Secondly, the lack of resources for this new program is problematic. A program receives significantly fewer funds than a department and more importantly, programs cannot hire their own tenured faculty. Dean Berger−Sweeney mentions that the reasoning behind creating a program and not a department is that "programs often offer more flexibility and allow for faster implementation and a more robust curriculum, university−wide, than a department would."
Dean Berger−Sweeney cites successful programs that already exist at Tufts, such as international relations and community health. However, she fails to mention that these programs are able to offer a "more robust, university−wide curriculum" precisely because of their ability to draw on the resources and faculty of Tufts Medical, Dental, Nutrition and Veterinary Schools, Sackler, the School of Public Health and The Fletcher School. Unless this umbrella program is given the same amount of resources (i.e. funding, faculty and facilities), what are the real chances of creating a sustainable program that will prosper as these other programs have?
The new program does account for three new faculty positions. However, their role in the program is secondary to their role in their home department, as Dean Berger−Sweeney stated during her open office hours on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011. Is this really enough to create a whole new program? Though this program will draw from some preexisting courses and faculty, the addition of three faculty members can by no means fill in the curricular voids needed to offer a comprehensive program focusing on all of these identities equally.
Our calculations estimate that the addition of three new faculty members would equate to a maximum of 12 new courses throughout an academic year. Twelve courses are barely enough to offer one new major, let alone all of the majors being proposed under this umbrella program. If this program is going to be held as a legitimate and essential part of our Tufts curriculum, we will need to see far more faculty and courses added to the equation than is currently proposed.
Therefore, instead of this proposed program, we suggest an alternative: Create an Africana Studies department that is accountable and sustainable. An Africana Studies department would not just benefit a handful of students. It would broaden academic opportunities for the entire campus and as an interdisciplinary field it would reach out to and benefit many students — no matter their major or field of interest. Africana Studies is also important to all students because it adds perspectives from marginalized groups that are otherwise not focused on in Tufts' primarily Eurocentric curricula.
Eventually, we would love to see the creation of multiple departments, one for each of the aforementioned identities, and those beyond. A department and adequate support for each, with proper resources that are thought out thoroughly and deeply, will ensure strong academic fields of involvement, and in turn offer the opportunity for a more rigorous, thought−provoking curriculum. But this takes longer than a year to create and takes more than just three new faculty positions. We want a quality department, not a makeshift program.
At the end of the day, people invest in what they care about. If Tufts cares about providing a diverse and inclusive education for their students, if they really care about seriously addressing the issues that have plagued this university since its conception, they will do more than what is necessary to ensure that each field will be actualized.
We want an Africana Studies Department. Now.
--
