Faculty members are circulating an open letter written by political science professor Harvey Klehr that seeks to show support for College Dean Robin Forman, who announced the closing of several departments and programs last semester. More than 100 faculty members have signed the letter.
We at the Wheel, however, take issue with the language used in the letter, which we believe to be ambiguous and unclear. While politically correct and judicious, the letter can be interpreted many ways. Do the faculty who signed the letter support none, some or all of the department cuts? The letter has been characterized as one of support but we ask, support for whom and to what degree? Is the letter meant to support Forman’s decision, Forman as a decision-maker, Forman as a person or Forman as a leader who has started a great dialogue on campus. Or perhaps was the letter meant to show support for those faculty on the College Financial Advisory Committee (CFAC) who worked with Forman on the decisions? Support, even, is a contested word, and perhaps the letter is meant to be a show of respect.
Because of the letter’s great ambiguity, we believe that it is ineffective since it is difficult to know why everyone signed the letter, given the numerous possible intents or motivations. We do agree though, as the letter points out, that dialogue concerning the department changes has been one-sided and that in order for conversations to be productive, both sides must be vocal.
We applaud the motion in and of itself, as it opens up a necessary dialogue. This letter, in our opinion, aims to tell the community that another side exists and that this side has a voice. Now, we encourage this side and this voice to clarify what exactly they believe and advocate for. And as always, we, as a newspaper, encourage those differing opinions to reach out to us. By that same token, we understand that it is difficult for some to be blunt about their opinions, for fear of appearing insensitive to their peers and colleagues who have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
The above staff editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel‘s editorial board.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Take a step back for a second. As much as we might like to see the letter as a call for further dialogue and new voices, I think it’s interesting that the letter’s author has steadfastly tried to lead votes against submitting the process of the cuts to transparent review by faculty. Whatever side you’re on RE: the issue of the cuts, and whatever side you may or may not have felt to have been too “vocal” in the past, what does it say about how much you authentically value dialogue and community discourses when you don’t even want to look into the past few months of events in a democratic, open, and transparent way? Complaining that the discourse has been one-sided and then trying to shut down open review isn’t making a case for an alternative position, encouraging dialogue, or even acting in good faith – it’s really just advocating for another, more sinister kind of one-sidedness.