ICARUS' CLIMB

The Icarus myth tells the tale of a young boy escaping his exile on a pair of glorious wax-and-feather wings. But upon taking flight, Icarus becomes reckless, ascending too close to the sun. Subsequently

his wings melt and he drowns in the sea.

The ordeals of Icarus are a suitable allegory for the tribulations of Duke's Department of English. Having existed as a "respectable but staid Southern English department"--in the words of a September 1999 Lingua Franca article--the department underwent a dramatic transformation in the late 1980s, igniting a wave of events that shook intrafaculty relations and questioned the defining features of a modern English department.

Taking flight

The story begins with the arrival of controversial literary critic Stanley Fish in the fall of 1985, who was recommended by then-English professor Frank Lentricchia, a highly-touted recruit himself just one year prior.

Fish became chair of the department in 1986 and began searching for a number of high-profile and soon-to-be high-profile scholars on the cutting edge of cultural studies and contemporary theory.

Among them were neo-pragmatist Barbara Herrnstein Smith, queer theorist Eve Sedgwick and African-American studies pioneer Henry Louis Gates. By 1992 the department was transformed into a nationally-known authority in these newer fields of study.

"Stanley Fish fundamentally changed the department from a highly respectable, relatively conservative, 1960s-ish focus to a much more high-visibility, kinetic, let-us-lead-the-[Modern Language Association] mentality," English Professor Ron Butters writes in an e-mail.

Indeed, the national academic scene was sitting up and taking notice. An external review of the department in 1992 praised English for becoming "a kind of engine or life-pump for the humanities at Duke, a supplier of intellectual energy and stimulation for the university at large."

For more traditional English scholars, Fish's arrival heralded a radical change. "[Fish] brought in an entirely new philosophy. He caused a sensational impact on our national reputation, which is probably what the administration hoped would happen," says Victor Strandberg, an English professor.

"We were now emulating the Ivy League and other leaders in critical theory, such as the University of California at Irvine and Johns Hopkins University.... Previously, what we essentially had been doing was traditional scholarship, which focused on individual authors to a large extent. The new approach was far more ideologically oriented."

Too hot to handle?

But concerns over the department's rapid makeover manifested themselves in the 1990s.

The 1992 external review cautioned that English had "acquired the personnel for an outstanding department but that this group of talented individuals [had] not yet invented a sufficient collective idea of itself: [had] not yet achieved a sense of what it agree[d] it should be aiming to provide as education, and [had] not yet evolved the group ethic that would make individuals feel obliged to help realize this shared--but of course not homogenized--vision."

When Fish stepped down as chair in 1992, after serving two three-year-terms, he stayed on as a professor. But, the lack of departmental unity then materialized as a division between scholars of traditional versus contemporary fields of study, as well as intrafaculty strife over accusations that certain members were given more generous perks--such as reduced teaching obligations--over others.

When a new external review was conducted in May of 1998, the report confronted a "rather shockingly altered state of affairs." Many of the touted new hires during Fish's time as chair had left the department: Lentricchia to Duke's literature program, Sedgwick to the City University of New York, and later, in December of that year, Fish himself left for the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But both departed and remaining members of Duke English insist that references to a great faculty exodus are exaggerated. "It's hard to have the same group of people together for more than a decade. Sooner or later you're going to have a OThey're breaking-up-that-old-gang-of-mine' feeling," Fish says, noting that although many faculty members left within a short span of time, their reasons varied from health concerns to the simple matter of new job opportunities.

Strandberg, who has been at Duke since 1966, calls himself a spectator during what he terms the "time of troubles."

"Having been here so long, I've seen things come and go," he says. "In several cases I think people were ticked off and in other cases they simply got a better offer.... There were other people who left because they didn't like the vibrations here."

In addition, members of the faculty explain that the problems experienced by the department in the years following Fish's terms as chair had actually been underlying issues exacerbated by personality conflicts with the new leadership.

"[Fish] opened up the course offerings to new and exciting areas of the field, primarily by freeing the faculty to teach from their areas of expertise and research rather than specifically yoking them to a more conventional and time-honored set of courses that got taught year after year. He let the curriculum be more driven by professors' interests than by a set notion of literary figures and traditional frameworks," Deborah Pope, professor of English, writes in an e-mail.

"The downside was that at times courses could seem too specialized or special-interest or as moving away from the more familiar frames and figures.Yet he largely succeeded, due to personal charisma and persuasiveness, his high professional profile and undeniable status as a major literary critic. The chairmen who followed him had none of these qualities, and after his departure, the department really began to show a number of strains that the Fish years had held at bay," she writes.

All parties involved, both past and present, are hesitant to name names or to ascribe blame. Professor Emeritus Wallace Jackson served as chair immediately following Fish, but the rather damning 1998 external review fell under Professor of English Marianna Torgovnick's term. Torgovnick could not be reached for comment.

Although nearly all faculty members agree with the review's assessment that department morale during that time was "desperately low," they insist the external review did not paint an entirely accurate picture of the situation.

"External reviews are inevitable, but they are mostly a waste of time. A few supposedly prominent people come to campus for 48 hours and interview people. Then they write a report and go home. They rarely find out very much of any real importance," Butters writes. "In 1992 there was a lot of bad feeling within the department. In 1998 there was even more bad feeling within the department. When people are feeling angry they strive to find bad things to report to the external review committee. The actual substance of the Odecline' was trivial."

Pope agrees. "Was the 1998 review Ofair'? Yes and no. What it had to say about morale was pretty much true and there was certainly dissatisfaction with the leadership. All trust and credibility had broken down in that area. However, there was more unity among the faculty than the report suggests."

Fish dismisses the review's perception of the department. "The department that started to be put together in 1984 was kept pretty much intact for over 10 years.... so the idea of some kind of decline is only relative to a high watermark that was sustained for quite a while."

As to whether the highly-publicized downfall of the English department was inevitable or preventable, the general consensus is tentatively arrived-at. Most reason, however, that although some of the conflict was indicative of the struggles in an evolving English department, personality clashes certainly fueled the way in which departmental discontent was handled.

"There are two facets [to the question of inevitability]," Strandberg says. "One is the idea of whether you can make a major change in the culture of an English department without some sort of upheaval. I don't know the answer to that.

"The other question is if a different set of personalities could have reduced the amount of friction."

Reconstruction

As a result of the 1998 external review, the University decided it was time to intervene.

"The external review identified a sufficient level and number of problems within the department that the administration couldn't expect the department to solve... without outside help," says Jim Siedow, vice provost for research and chair of the English Department Executive Committee that was formed in the academic year following the review.

Although some faculty members say the University's involvement was a hasty judgement, they agree conditions within the department have steadily improved."I think it is a good indication of just how fundamentally sound the department was that in only one semester under a caretaker interim chairperson things turned around," writes Butters, who served as interim chair during the search for a new leader after Torgovnick's term ended. "The truth is that folks were ready to get along and work for common goals."

The administration was adamant in its requirement that a new chair come from outside the University. "That was pretty much a given," Siedow says. "Because of all the difficulties, nobody could have been put in a chair's position who wouldn't have brought baggage to the position."

In January of 2000, Maureen Quilligan was recruited from the University of Pennsylvania to serve as the new chair of the English department. Quilligan credits Butters for restoring "quite a bit of calm and fairness" as interim chair, and notes that the biggest problem she faced upon her arrival was a shortage of funds, which she blames as a major cause of the extent to which "profound and passionate differences of opinion" had become divisive.

With the hiring of several young faculty members and the establishment of an improved undergraduate community, Quilligan's efforts have inspired enthusiasm from her colleagues with respect to the department's future.

"The English department today is largely healed, in my view, from the fractures and distrusts that were there in the past," Pope writes. "We have a chair whose idea of a department embraces full faculty input and democratic procedures, whose door is always open, and who genuinely seems to seek to serve the interests of the whole faculty."

Strandberg agrees. "[Quilligan] has a mature viewpoint and the capability of accommodating a broad sweep of perpectives and personalities.... She has enabled us to get our act together and I think we're going splendidly in the new phase of our history."

Stairway to Heaven?

The re-energized English department's achievements in recruiting and undergraduate education underscore Quilligan's vision for the department.

"At this stage we're promoting people--hiring assistant and associate professors is the way to go in order to build institutional loyalty," Quilligan says, observing that many of the past departures signified a lack of allegiance to the department.

Quilligan has also brought an enthusiasm for undergraduate education, noting a plan to test a revamped curriculum next year.

"We've had a year-long set of incredible conversations that culminated in one Friday morning where 20 faculty members of all ranks showed up to talk about undergraduate curriculum," she explains. "It was a surprising pleasure and an intellectual exploration... certainly the most fun I've ever had talking about a curriculum."

Quilligan's attitude is echoed by other members of the English faculty, as Butter writes: "This is unquestionably the best moment in the department's history."

Icarus may have lost the impressive-looking wings that allowed him to rise to such dizzying heights, but a new creature has emerged. Through conversation and collaboration, the department now looks to ascend via a different means, as faculty competition gives way to a more cooperative attitude.

"There is a very important feeling of synergy going on right now, which is not to say OYe Superstars of Olde' didn't have that too, but we're really building up to something," Quilligan says. "A recruit once asked us, OWhere are you going?' We said, OWe're not really sure, but you want to join? Come and be a part of who we want to be.'"