Note, I am not asking what the university, or especially our students themselves, will lose. That answer seems clear. But perhaps because of my state of mind right now, I honestly cannot understand what will be gained. Surely our small budget isn't the key or that they intend to expand the athletic department into our space, as so many are suggesting? And why does the dean seem so compelled to trash us as individuals, claiming that we engage in "sexist behavior?" Why doesn't he just come out and say which ones of us are the culprits so that we might defend ourselves openly? Or is all of this just part of a master plan that we aren't aware of?
Are we in the anthropology department really just a tiny little band of wild, ineffective teachers that are so totally out of control that the only way this great university's leaders can think to control us is to destroy a fine department and dissolve its 53 (and growing) majors and eight minors? Surely the administration's concern that we are "ineffective" as teachers would be reflected by our classes being shunned by students in droves. These excuses can be seen by everyone on campus as just so much swirling smoke, masking the real reason for our planned partial extinction -- partial because they will want to continue having anthropology taught, as they have told reporters, because we are, after all, a "liberal arts institution."
Why is it that the letter dropped into our mailbox in an unsealed envelope which clearly states that our graduate program is to be phased out, as well as one stating the same but sent to our newly-accepted graduate students, are now being played down? Is there "damage control" going on here? These two letters, signed by Provost David Brown, Paul Escott, the dean of the college, and Gordon Melson, the dean of the graduate school, made it quite clear that our graduate program had been terminated. Moreover, when Ned Woodall, a professor of anthropology, asked Melson face-to-face if the letter meant that this was a "suspension" or if this was "permanent," Melson replied without hesitation, "This is permanent."
Could it be that the university's own "procedures" had not been followed by the administration? It is easy to check. Could this be why the dean is now telling the chairmen of various departments that they have not "really" terminated our graduate program as yet, but when they do, the provost will follow the correct procedures? More smoke?
The wording of those letters leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that our graduate program is quite dead. Regardless of what is now being said to the press and others, one can imagine that those new graduate students already accepted and hoping to enroll in in the fall felt that the decision was quite "permanent" indeed.
So my question above remains -- what is to be gained? Keep in mind I am not asking what our students at this liberal arts institution will gain by the destruction of the department of anthropology -- you already know the answer to that one.
David K. Evans
Professor of Anthropology
Director, Overseas Research Center