A concrete address for Brodhead

This afternoon, President Richard Brodhead will address the entire Duke faculty at the annual faculty meeting. In the past, we have criticized Brodhead for taking abstract, long views of University problems instead of engaging with the faculty’s concrete concerns. This year, we urge him to be frank and detailed about the University’s finances and global strategy.

In spite of the recovering economy, financial uncertainty still endangers faculty research. Since the last annual faculty meeting, Congress increasingly sought to decrease funding to the National Institutes of Health, a cut especially worrisome for faculty at the School of Medicine, the Nicholas School of the Environment and the Pratt School of Engineering. Brodhead rightly mentioned these cuts at his address last year and, this year, he must put forth a compelling plan on how to weather these funding cuts without reducing the ethicality, independence and effectiveness of scientific research.

Likewise, Brodhead should look at the bright side of University finance, by talking publicly about the upcoming capital campaign and its implications for the faculty teaching, research and hiring. The second big item on the agenda of Brodhead’s address should be Duke Kunshan University. Since his last address, the Academic Council has approved the Fuqua School of Business’ Master of Management Studies program, Duke’s annual subsidy to the school’s operational costs has more than doubled and the opening date has changed more than once. None of this is particularly calming.

Brodhead needs to do two things: provide a genuine justification for the campus and explain exactly how we will mitigate its risks. In the past, Brodhead has offered broad geopolitical and historical arguments to justify Duke’s China presence. Now, we need to know exactly what we can do with a campus that we cannot do simply with partnerships, exchange programs and study abroad.

The multiplying logistical concerns at DKU demand a public risk management strategy. At this time last year, we did not know how long the Chinese Ministry of Education would take to approve Duke’s proposal or that the subsidy would have reached a total of $39.7 million dollars and counting. Some things have not changed: We know that China is not the best environment for academic freedom, but we still do not know what contingency plans Duke has in place to protect its professors from pressure from the Chinese government. The faculty have a right to know how the University plans to combat DKU’s risks, and Brodhead owes them a specific plan on that score.

This address is also a chance to get faculty excited about their role in creating new initiatives at the China campus. The Academic Council has entered a phase of deliberation about new China programs, and faculty ought to be asking themselves, “What impact will DKU have on my work? What kind of new possibilities exist within my expertise?” Brodhead should spur faculty to imagine innovative programs and research opportunities—not only within business, global health or environment-related fields, but also within the arts and humanities.

Today’s faculty meeting presents Brodhead with a unique chance to speak openly and honestly about faculty concerns. He should toss out the broad arguments and speak candidly.