Afro Department Future Uncertain; Reform Seen Likely

THE Afro-American Studies Department's future is no more certain now than when the Department was founded four years ago. Perhaps it is wrong to greet each new era in the Department's history on a gloomy note--and Afro is on the verge of a new era. But the cynicism and distrust that has always surrounded the Department's development is typical of the troubles of Harvard's black studies program.

The Afro-American Studies Department, created by a Faculty resolution on April 22, 1969, was born when student militancy was at its peak. The Department's novel constitution was a largely unmilitant Faculty's concession to the demands of a highly politicized student body. Since then, the Faculty, generally feeling it had unwisely "given in" to student pressure, has never been fully comfortable with Afro and has never given it full support. Now that the tide of student radicalism has apparently ebbed, the Faculty, under the guidance of a new Dean, Henry Rosovsky, is ready to put the Afro Department into a form more to its liking.

From the very beginning the new concentration's critics claimed Harvard's Afro Department was an unworkable proposition. In 1969 the immediate issue was students voting rights on tenured faculty appointments. Critics suggested that Afro would never attract a top-notch teaching staff because no professor of any stature would subject himself to students' cross-examination.

The presence of students on the Department's executive board remains an issue in the debate, but it has been pushed from the fore-front by charges that the Department is intolerably weak academically due to the mismanagement of Afro chairman Ewart Guinier '33.

Guinier came to Harvard from Columbia's Urban Center in the fall of 1969. He is currently Afro's only tenured member and his direction of the Department has placed him in the middle of a long gathering storm. Presumably, the first step in the Faculty's restructuring effort will be to ease Guinier from power and then replace him.

A preliminary indication that Guinier will not long continue in his capacity as chairman came when the Committee to Review The Department of Afro-American Studies, chaired by Wade McCree, a judge in Detroit, Mich., issued its report to the Faculty in October 1972. Recommendation IIIa of the report was: "The chairmanship of the Department should be on a rotating basis every three or four years in accordance with Harvard practice." The upcoming academic year will be Guinier's fourth as Afro's chairman.

Guinier denounced recommendation IIIa, saying that at Harvard there is no explicit requirement to rotate a Departmental chairmanship and he called the authors of the report "ignorant" of University practice. Guinier said earlier this month that no attempt to remove him is currently in progress.

Guinier's denial of any effort to replace him may be nothing more than wishful thinking. On January 16, 1973 the Faculty voted to form a search committee to find "one or more" additional tenured professors for the Afro faculty. The resolution's sponsor, H. Stuart Hughes, Gurney Professor of History and Political Science, would not say if the intent of his measure was that one of the new faculty members become chairman. But judging from the Review Committee report that prompted the resolution, that was clearly the Faculty's intention.

Recommendation IIIb of the Review Committee's report said that at least two more tenured positions, to be filled by a search committee, should be created. It also recommended that one of the new appointees "take over the chairmanship as early as practicable on the customary rotating basis."

While the Review Committee never called for the naming of a new chairman on any grounds other than "Harvard practice," many detractors of the Department want Guinier removed because they think he is an incompetent administrator.

The most vocal of Guinier's opponents is Martin L. Kilson, professor of Government. Earlier this month Kilson called Guinier "an intellectual and academic disgrace". "Guinier," Kilson added, "is not a scholar at the Harvard level." Another of Guinier's detractors is Orlando Patterson, professor of Sociology Once a member of the Afro faculty, Patterson left the Department in disagreement with the way it was run. In a memo to the Review Committee, Patterson wrote that Guinier "lacks the academic, administrative, and personal qualities for the job of chairman. Not having an academic or intellectual background, he is extremely insecure in his relations with qualified persons, especially any senior or potentially senior person."

Guinier does not remain undefended in the Afro controversy. Derrick A. Bell, professor of Law, said of Guinier that "he has great courage to stick it out over the abuse and criticism he has taken." Bell cited the lack of cooperation Guinier has received from prestigious Faculty members. "Kilson," Bell said, "hasn't done much in a positive way."

Guinier has come to his own defense in the Afro debate. He claims that under his direction the Department has grown and prospered. At the beginning of the month Guinier said of Afro's fall semester offerings: "There are 19 very interesting courses--the most and best ever." Of his detractors Guinier will only say, "Men say foolish things sometimes."

HOWEVER much the Afro debate manifests itself as a clash of personalities, the political and academic issues that hinge upon the outcome remain more important. Although racial considerations are rarely mentioned in the current Faculty discussions of the Department the fact remains that the Faculty's decisions when it restructures Afro will have a profound effect on the undergraduate careers of the majority of Harvard's black students.

The Department's opponents want to "depoliticize" it and restructure it so that Afro's academic quality and rigor are equal to the other departments. While denying that his department is inferior, Guinier contends that to impose the standards of other concentrations on Afro would be tantamount to denying in policy differences which exist in fact.

Kilson and Guinier agree that blacks who come to Harvard are generally not as well prepared academically as their white counterparts. As a result, black students' academic needs often differ from those of whites. Kilson and Patterson say Harvard's Afro program should not sacrifice traditional Harvard academic standards to meet black students' special needs. Guinier's having done so, they claim, has made Afro a poor sister to the other departments.

"If the Afro Department is going to become a part of the University," Kilson said, "it needs higher standards."

Guinier does not believe that Afro can ignore Harvard black students' special needs. Guinier said in an interview this month, "The issue of blackness causes a lot of tension at Harvard. Tension comes when you are not comfortable about recognizing differences. But these differences do exist and you have to recognize them as factual. In order to gain equality some remedial action has to be taken."

(By way of remedial action Kilson has suggested special reading and writing courses be set up for students needing them.)

Both Kilson and Patterson have suggested various plans to improve the academic quality of the Afro. Each believes that the first step necessary is improving the Department's faculty. Kilson and Patterson agree that in order to attract top scholars joint appointments must be created. To attract new faculty to Afro they must also be given positions in Harvard's older and more stable departments. This should be done, said Kilson, "even at the risk of having white faces in the [Afro] Department."

Kilson and Patterson also agree that the students' power to vote on faculty appointments must be taken away. The Review Committee supported this position in its October 1972 report.

When the Faculty considered Afro at its meeting in January, Kilson proposed an amendment requiring joint concentrations for all Afro majors. Patterson and Kilson believe that such a step is necessary because Afro-American studies is not a traditional academic discipline and because without training in a recognized discipline black students will leave Harvard without a marketable skill.

Kilson's amendment requiring joint concentrations was narrowly defeated last January. One of the amendments's opponents, James S. Ackerman, Professor of Fine Arts, said at the time that telling a Department how to run its affairs would make that Department second-class. Nevertheless, talk of requiring Afro concentrators to master a "core discipline" remains part of the Afro debate.

THE controversy over the Afro-American Studies Department has fallen into Dean Rosovsky's lap and no doubt Rosovsky himself must lead the Faculty to an eventual resolution of the dispute.

Rosovsky is no new-comer to the problem of black studies at Harvard In 1969 he chaired the first Faculty Committee on African and Afro-American Studies and his report first impressed upon the Faculty the need for an expanded program in black studies.

Although Rosovsky may have been among the first proponents of an Afro-American Studies Department, he was hardly the most radical. The 1969 student demands for a black studies program went far beyond the Rosovsky Committee's suggestions. When the Faculty decided to create an Afro-American Studies Department in April of that year, it opted for a department whose design came from the Association of African and Afro-American Students, not for one designed along the Rosovsky recommendations.

Rosovsky was not slow to express his indignation over his colleagues' action. The day after the Faculty vote accepting the AAAAS proposal, Rosovsky resigned as chairman of the Standing Committee on Afro-American Studies.

Rosovsky's objection to the Faculty legislation centered on the placement of students on the Department's executive board. Such a step, Rosovsky said, "went beyond traditional academic guidelines." The resolution adopted by the Faculty differed from the Rosovsky report not only by giving students voting power on faculty appointments; the Faculty failed to heed the Rosovsky report's advice that the new Afro Department be set up to supervise combined majors.

Rosovsky sits in the Dean's chair at a time when the Faculty is anxious to restructure Afro along "traditional academic guidelines." It is probable that Rosovsky finally will have his way and the Afro Department will come to look more and more like Rosovsky wanted it to in 1969.

Rosovsky is presently on the committee searching for new tenured faculty for the Afro Department. Rosovsky was to have chaired the committee, which was appointed before the new Dean took office, but Robert J. Kiely, associate dean for Undergraduate Education, replaced him as nominal leader of the committee. Kenneth O. Dike, professor of History, and Guinier are the other members of the committee.

Kilson has made Guinier's appointment to the search committee a point of controversy. Kilson insists that the appointment is "extraordinary and unfortunate" in that it disregards the intent of the Faculty legislation creating the committee.

The Search Committee is not the first to search for new Afro Faculty. During 1970-71, the Standing Committee on Afro-American Studies, chaired by Richard A. Musgrave, Burbank Professor of Political Economy, met several times to consider a list of candidates for a tenured position in the Department. When the Standing Committee failed to approve the Afro executive board's nominee an impasse was reached. The Committee voted to discontinue its search in April 1971.

The current search committee has divided itself into two groups. One group is looking for specialists in the social sciences and the other for specialists in the humanities. Kiely said that he expected at least one tenured Faculty member to be hired from each group.

Guinier's place on the committee not withstanding, it is Rosovsky and not Guinier who holds the key to the Afro Department's fate. If Rosovsky's posture in 1969 is any indication, the Department's structure will begin to look more and more like that of older academic departments at Harvard.

As for Guinier, much uncertainty remains about his position at Harvard. He is clearly not the most popular man with the Faculty, and he will probably not be able to retain the chairmanship of Afro Department very much longer. Whether Guinier will want to remain at Harvard after a new chairman is named remains a subject for speculation.

And the speculation already has begun. Kiely said that the search committee was looking for a new Afro chairman because Guinier "planned to retire in the next year or two." When told that Guinier's office denied that the Afro chairman had any plans to retire in the near future, Kiely explained that he assumed Guinier55HENRY ROSOVSKY may make some changes in Afro this year.