The Chronicle
www.dukechronicle.com commentary
Regarding posthurricane aid to Haiti
T
his letter is in response to the Oct. 12 e-mail sent by Larry Moneta to the Duke student body regarding ways to contribute to Hurricane Matthew relief efforts, in which he encouraged students to donate to “legitimate aid organizations” and included a link suggesting such organizations, including the American Red Cross. We write to Moneta as students of the Limits of Good Intentions class in the Humanitarian Challenges FOCUS Cluster, taught by Laura Wagner. In class, we have been exploring the complex implications of humanitarian aid, particularly focusing on aid to Haiti. This is a topic we are passionate about and we appreciate his
Haitians are, understandably, distrustful of the ARC. While Haiti struggled in the aftermath of the earthquake, they were struck by the country’s first cholera epidemic. Despite multiple investigations that prove that UN peacekeepers imported the disease, the UN repeatedly denied involvement. It was only 6 years later, this August, that the UN finally acknowledged that it “played a role” for the epidemic, and only this week, on Monday, that the UN agreed to pay damages to Haitian cholera victims. Our aim in citing these incidents is not to criticize international organizations, but rather to assert while prominent organizations may have good intentions,
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2016 | 15
Big science: Academic tenure
T
he notion of academic tenure for professors at American universities came about in the early 1900s, spearheaded by the foundation of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. At the time, a number of incidents had occurred in which professors were fired because their views did not line up with those of the university trustees or more established faculty. The event that perhaps sparked the foundation of the AAUP was the forced resignation of economist and sociologist Edward Ross from Stanford University. University co-founder and trustee Jane Stanford disapproved of Ross’s radical views on eugenics, race and Asian-
Students in the Limits of Good Intentions Class
Junu Bae
GUEST COLUMN
INTERESTED IN EVERYTHING
drawing Duke students’ attention to the tragic effects of Hurricane Matthew; however, we would like to propose more effective ways through which Duke as a community can respond both compassionately and ethically, as well as suggest more meaningful ways to contribute to post-hurricane relief and recovery. In reflecting critically on and thoroughly considering the consequences the postdisaster aid that the Duke community extends, we not only grow as intellectuals, but also promote the “determination and application” and appreciation for human difference advocated in Duke University’s Mission Statement. In 1804, Haiti gained independence through a slave revolution, and since then has fought for the rest of the world to view it as a legitimate state. The United States did not recognize Haiti as a sovereign nation until the U.S. was no longer economically dependent on the labor of enslaved people. On top of that, Haiti was forced to pay France an indemnity equivalent to more than $20 billion after the revolution. In short, Haiti’s struggle for sovereignty was threatened from its birth by international resistance to Black independence and continues to be threatened today by NGOs and other international organizations that weaken the Haitian state and foster the idea that Haitian “progress” cannot be initiated by Haitians themselves. The 2010 Haiti earthquake sparked a worldwide humanitarian response, with relief spending totaling an estimate of $2.43 billion (of more than $13 billion initially pledged by international donors). According to journalist Jonathan Katz, despite this pouring of donations to the UN and NGOs, approximately 93 percent never reached the intended recipients. Much was spent on logistics including supplies and personnel; large sums of supposed “aid” never left the donor states at all. Only a reported 1 percent went to the Haitian government. A joint report by Propublica and NPR in 2015 revealed that despite receiving almost half a billion dollars in aid donations claiming to transform entire neighborhoods, the American Red Cross (ARC) only spent approximately 17 percent of it in Haiti and built only six houses since the earthquake.
they are imperfect, not necessarily efficient in their work, and can negatively impact the country. We echo and support the compelling argument Krystelle Rocourt made in her Oct. 21 Chronicle guest column, and we recommend that everyone review the list of local organizations she suggests. Unlike large, bureaucratic organizations like the American Red Cross, these initiatives create the most direct, sustainable change. This is because they are Haitian-run or largely Haitian staffed, financially transparent, “bottom-up,” and exhibit true solidarity with their partner communities. Instead of simply “giving to the needy,” these organizations promote Haitian autonomy. Humanitarian work is not finished as soon as money is sent. We would like to remind the Duke community that organizations must be accountable to the people they intend to help, and transparent about how donations are used. For example, if organizations buy and distribute free clothing, they will adversely impact the lives of Haitians who sell clothing for a living, and thus add to the cycle of dependency. When giving money, we must consider both long term and short term effects of our donations. Advocacy, as well as monetary donation, is an important part of effective humanitarian assistance. For example, Partners in Health has been advocating for the distribution of the cholera vaccine in Haiti. With the increase in cholera after Hurricane Matthew, this work is even more important. We recommend that students push for the distribution of the vaccine as well as to continue to hold the UN accountable for introducing cholera to Haiti. Advocacy is key because long-term change requires action on a large scale, and action on a large scale requires that the relatively privileged, like us, be truly aware. Please, think twice before making donations. Look into the background of the organizations. Think critically on the short term and long term impacts their actions have on local governments and local communities. Find out where your money is going. Talk to your friends and spread the message to ensure that Haiti gets the help it deserves.
Join the conversation! dukechronicle.com/section/opinion
American immigration, pressuring his eventual leave from the university. In their 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” the AAUP outlined a set of academic rights that teachers should be entitled to and a potential outline of a tenure process for professors, which have since been adopted by nearly every university in America. The path towards becoming a tenured professor in the United States has become an arduous process that typically consists of a six-to-seven-year probationary period, during which newly minted assistant professors must demonstrate their capacity to publish papers, acquire grants and teach students. Once their performance has been deemed acceptable by more highly established faculty, they will join their ranks and essentially secure a lifetime job guarantee. Especially in recent years, a number of people have spoken out on negative effects of tenure. Foremost, tenure can breed a sense of complacency. Once a professor is tenured, it becomes much more difficult for him/her to be let go, which is the very intent of tenure. However, some professors abuse this lenience by slacking off their responsibilities, and there is often very little action a school can take. A number of possible solutions have been suggested; most notably, Jim Wetherbe and others propose a multiyear rolling contract following the normal probationary period for new professors. In this scenario, professors would be reevaluated every several years, keeping them in line throughout their term. But this alternative would severely hurt those who have controversial opinions or clash with administrators, making it difficult to speak out with dissenting viewpoints. Other criticisms of tenure include the point of the probationary period. During this time, professors are under pressure to publish papers and obtain grants quickly, which can lead to focusing on trivial research projects that are bound to be successful, but may not have any significant conclusions. Furthermore, professors must be able to play politics and keep their views aligned with the current administration, muting any contrasting opinions they may hold. Therefore, many
claim that the tenure process rewards those who “fit the mold” and don’t think or reach outside the status quo. However, without the tenure process altogether, professors would never be able to get to a point at which they didn’t have to worry about these issues; fundamentally, they would persist in a constant “probationary period,” which is objectively worse than a simply temporary one. Overall, we can boil down the issues as such: in the big picture, professors, as a collective group of people, at large institutions like Duke essentially have two objectives: first, to conduct research and develop new ideas towards extending humanity’s knowledge and ability to think;
and second, to train, teach and prepare students for whatever goal they plan to pursue following graduation. The tenure process helps this first objective. A professor with tenure has the freedom to incite debate by raising controversial opinions without fear of retaliation, allowing universities to maintain a healthy atmosphere of free discussion and make people consider things they may never have thought about otherwise. A professor with tenure has the freedom to dive into risky research projects that may not have any shortterm gains, without the pressure of immediate publication or success. Tenure allows the best thinkers to reach their potential, and without it, they would be intellectually stifled into simply conventional points of view or noninnovative, inconsequential research. However, the second objective is at odds with the tenure process. There has been evidence showing that students learn worse from tenured professors than those who aren’t. As mentioned above, the job security offered by tenure can render professors, especially those who are primarily interested in doing research, indifferent to their teaching responsibilities. In this regard, it would be ideal for schools to have checks in place to ensure the quality of teaching remains high. The question over whether schools should offer tenure to professors lies in the main priority of the school. If administrators feel that fostering critical thinking and top research is the more important aim, then tenure is absolutely necessary to offer tenure. In contrast, if successfully guiding students through the curricula of their respective major is more important, it may be beneficial to offer professors multi-year contracts to protect the integrity of the students’ training. At this point in time, tenure is too deeply ingrained within the root of academia to be completely removed from American universities. But reforms are possible, if not likely, to make the process less black and white. Junu Bae is a graduate student in the chemistry department. His column, “interested in everything,” runs on alternate Fridays.
Interested in contributing to campus dialogue? Submit a guest column to jackson.prince@duke.edu.