The recent denial of tenure to Dartmouth English Professor Aimee Bahng has drawn sharp commentary. Bahng is Asian-American. Students, alumni and faculty, under the group name #Fight4FacultyofColor, issued a highly critical press release claiming, with some evidentiary support, that Dartmouth has a poor record of recruiting and retaining faculty of color. Among the facts they offered:
Just over 85 percent of tenured faculty at Dartmouth are white. There are fewer faculty of color than any other Ivy League school.
Thirty-six faculty of color have left Dartmouth since 2002 for reasons including hostile work environment for faculty of color.
Faculty of color are 2.5 times more likely to leave than white faculty at Dartmouth.
Dartmouth’s Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion found an 85 percent attrition rate of black faculty from 2007-2012.
Dartmouth defended the decision. “Tenure decisions incorporate many voices — including external voices that the faculty member has a role in selecting — and are based on scholarship, teaching and service,” college spokeswoman Diana Lawrence said in an email quoted in the May 19 Valley News. “One cannot be just a great teacher or researcher, but must have the combination of excellence in both.”
A June 2 Valley News Op-Ed by Dartmouth graduate Meg Hansen dismissed the #Fight4FacultyofColor concerns as “fueled by the contention that racial animus motivated the decision.” Hansen went on to suggest that, “Indeed, alleging that members of the tenure committee are racist, without proof of the same, amounts ipso facto to racism.” There are abundant signs that many Dartmouth students and faculty of color feel marginalized and unsupported. They are not capable of “racism,” as Hansen claims, because racism requires power and they have none.
Hansen’s thesis, in addition to floating the mythical concept of “reverse racism,” is that Bahng’s scholarship was lackluster, thus disqualifying her for tenure, despite the unanimous support of members of her department and of many students, alumni and colleagues.
Hansen also attempted to discredit those who are protesting the tenure decision by pointing out that, “ . . . black, Hispanic, and Native American families that struggle with unemployment, drug abuse and chronic poverty simply cannot afford to indulge in the manufactured outrage of identity politics.” One can’t have it both ways. Perhaps smugly dismissing these protests as “identity politics,” rather than recognizing their legitimacy, helps to perpetuate the “unemployment, drug abuse and chronic poverty” that Hansen acknowledges.
Glib invocation of “identity politics” is a transparent and offensive way to diminish the real pain of systemic, institutionalized racism. It is similar to Donald Trump’s railing against “political correctness” as a way of justifying his endless stream of racist, misogynist and hateful bile. Naming racism is not “identity politics.” It is speaking the truth.
In April, before this tenure matter came to light, I spoke for several hours to a Dartmouth education class. After class, several students of color stayed for 30-40 minutes to discuss educational equity and other issues I had addressed in my talk. It seemed clear that at least one of these students did not feel fully embraced and supported by the college. I contacted this student and several other students of color after the tenure denial was announced, wondering if the decision to deny tenure to a faculty member of color was troubling to them.
It is indeed troubling. The students with whom I communicated feel that Dartmouth is far from the supportive, embracing community they were invited to join. One student told me, “Upon arrival, I found that this isn’t my paradise I hoped it to be. I don’t know specific numbers, but I can honestly say that all the friends that I speak with experience some sort of mental health issue —anything from anxiety, depression and attention issues.”
Perhaps they are suffering from a particularly acute case of “identity politics.”
It is not fair to judge the tenure decision without full knowledge of the committee’s deliberations, but it is fair to note the discrepancy between what Dartmouth College says and what it does. Despite many years of promises to significantly increase the presence of faculty of color, very little progress has been made. I reviewed Dartmouth’s “Guidelines for Appointments, Reappointments, Promotions and Tenure for Faculty” as excerpted from the “Handbook of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.” The standards for promotion and tenure are utterly silent on matters of diversity.
If diversity is a central value in an institution’s mission, then the various evaluation and promotion processes should expect that all faculty members demonstrate a commitment to that value. The Calhoun School, where I work, explicitly states that support for and involvement in the diversity mission of the school is a central qualification for hiring and a significant criterion in retention and promotion. I can’t equate a progressive pre-K-12 school in Manhattan with Dartmouth College, but you have to put your money where your mouth is.
Some of the protesters are concerned that Bahng’s very visible support for students of color, including the Black Lives Matter movement, may have compromised her tenure application. That too is unknowable, but there is certainly no evidence that her support for minority groups on campus was an asset.
Multiple indicators suggest that many Dartmouth students of color experience a deep sense of betrayal and suffer from anxiety and depression. The record shows that recruitment and retention of faculty of color remains dismal.
In light of these things, perhaps professor Bahng’s scholarly commitment to equity and her empathy and loving support of students should weigh more heavily than an arcane analysis of her research and publications.
Steve Nelson lives in Sharon and New York City, where he is the head of the Calhoun School, a private school. He can be reached at steve.nelson@calhoun.org.