On Jan. 24, The Chronicle reported that Duke will award an honorary degree to Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, at May’s commencement. When the Academic Council and Board of Trustees made this decision, Brinker seemed like a worthy candidate. In a controversial decision, however, The Komen Foundation withdrew its support from Planned Parenthood’s breast health, calling Brinker’s candidacy for this award into question.
On Feb. 8, the media reported that Duke still planned to honor Brinker, despite the recent events. I believe this decision was made without sufficient discussion among the Duke community. Therefore, while I am not calling for the administration to revoke Brinker’s honor, I believe that we have a responsibility to engage in conversation about what it means to give this award, how it reflects upon the University and perhaps most importantly, if Nancy Brinker is still someone we can support.
According to the Board of Trustees website, Duke has granted honorary degrees since 1855 in order to “recogniz[e] people who have exemplified in their work the highest ideals and standards to which the University is dedicated.”
During my Duke career, I have learned that while the University does not have a perfect record on women’s issues, it is committed to empowering women and improving our campus culture. Through the Women’s Initiative, the Sallie Bingham Center for Women’s History and Culture, Laurie Patton’s appointment as dean and the Women Center’s 25-year history, Duke has demonstrated its investment in improving women’s lives.
So, does Brinker’s work “exemplif[y] … the highest ideals and standards to which the University is dedicated”? Yes and no.
Komen’s influence on breast cancer treatment, diagnosis and research suggests that Brinker’s work aligns with Duke’s values. Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations, told The Herald Sun that while at the helm of Komen, Brinker “helped raise more than $2 billion for research, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, and has elevated global awareness of a pervasive disease.” As a woman with personal connections to breast cancer survivors and those less fortunate, I appreciate Brinker’s efforts to raise awareness and funds for research and new treatment options.
In the last five years, Komen’s grants paid for 170,000 breast exams at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, many of which benefited poor women, women of color and un- and under-insured women. These exams detect breast cancer early, which is critical in the fight to save lives. If this alone was Brinker’s legacy, I would wholeheartedly support her recognition.
However, in withdrawing their support from Planned Parenthood’s breast health initiatives, Komen made a decision that calls its commitment to women’s health into question. The organization’s recent actions suggest that even “saving lives and ending breast cancer forever,” Komen’s self-proclaimed purposes, are highly political matters. As CEO, Brinker’s involvement in this debacle taints her otherwise commendable work.
Komen originally explained its withdrawal of support by pointing to a newly enacted grant policy that prohibits the organization from funding organizations currently under investigation by a government body. A Florida representative’s current investigation of Planned Parenthood, therefore, disqualified the organization. Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg, however, proves that this very policy was passed to target Planned Parenthood. This explains why Planned Parenthood remains the only organization to have its funding cut as a result of a governmental investigation, despite other grant recipients that are also under investigation.
Notably, Komen has continued funding Penn State University, which is under criminal investigation after the Sandusky scandal. According to Komen’s policy, the fact that an investigation is currently underway at Penn State should preclude the institution from receiving funding. If this is not the case, the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood uses federal money for abortions would also not be grounds for defunding their breast cancer screening programs.
After the feminist community mobilized online against Komen’s moves, the organization publicly apologized, restated its commitment to fighting breast cancer and vowed to amend their policy to apply only to criminal investigations. Their vice president of public policy, the woman credited with spearheading the decision, also resigned.
One might suggest that withdrawing Brinker’s award after her public apology would be unfair. Brinker’s statement, though, does not reverse the decision, as Komen’s PR folks would like us to believe. Its misleading announcement promises to “continue to fund existing grants,” but does not address whether it will fund Planned Parenthood in the future. While Brinker stated Planned Parenthood would be eligible for future grants, she made no promise that it would receive them. An apology is only worthwhile if it is honest, and does not further the injustice it claims to rectify.
Brinker’s contributions to the field of women’s health are complicated. Historically, she has done worlds of good in a realm that aligns with Duke’s commitment to enhancing women’s lives. Recently, she jeopardized the health of women who rely on Planned Parenthood for breast exams and mammograms. The Duke I know does not stand for limiting women’s options. So what are we to do?
To start, let’s talk about it.
Risa Isard Trinity ’12
Elle Nelson, Trinity ’14, also contributed to this column.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.