What’s in a name?

What’s in a name? It’s a question worth asking after the DSG Senate approved a resolution to change the name of the women’s studies department to the department of gender, women’s and sexuality studies last week. Sophomore Tara Bansal, senator for academic affairs, proposed the change, arguing that it would combat the exclusionary, “angry feminism” stigma implicit in the department’s current name. While we support the outcome of this resolution, we find this line of reasoning problematic.

Currently, the women’s studies department offers an interdisciplinary and intersectional approach to issues related to “gender identities, relations, practices, theories and institutions.” Courses range from feminism, power dynamics and political theory to body perception and queer theory. With a content scope and methodological approach that extends beyond women’s issues in isolation and instead delves into broader themes of “gender, race, sexuality, class and nationality,” the name “women’s studies” may not fully reflect the nature of the department. The proposed title—department of gender, women’s and sexuality studies—though not all-encompassing, reflects more accurately the scope of the offered studies. As intellectual discourse on sexuality expands beyond that implied in the term “women’s studies”, the name of the department should accurately reflect the content and methodology of the courses offered.

The proposed title further reflects the changing terrain of national discourse on sexual identity and other LGBTQ issues. Renaming to reflect these changes demonstrates how the department’s focus has broadened since its inception. It also mirrors our willingness to accept a broader definition of sexuality and gender in public discourse. This change in department name has precedents—for example, the shift from the literature department to global cultural studies—and follows the lead of many of Duke’s peer institutions who have made similar changes, including Harvard, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Stanford and the University of California Berkeley. The title change, thus, represents a move toward better reflecting the methods of teaching and the content of the studies, rather than prescribing a new direction for the department. It is descriptive rather than normative.

In contrast, the reasoning for renaming the department in order to accommodate those who misunderstand and stigmatize it is problematic and misses the point. Some students, men especially, may be hesitant to take a class under women’s studies, but trying to avoid the stigma is a step in the wrong direction. Catering to the tastes of men who feel alienated by the political associations of gender studies is antithetical to studying the realities of gender and sexuality in the first place.

The key difference between renaming and rebranding is intention—is the objective to influence perception or accurately represent the department’s existing activities? It is a complex issue, further complicated by the notion that the best way to combat the “angry feminism” stigma may be to take a women’s studies class. Whatever the logic behind the initiative for the departmental rebranding, we find that the resolution is sound and reflective of the department’s intersectional direction. In the end, a name is a name—it should provide an unbiased description of what the faculty and students study. As students continue their bookbagging, they should look beyond departmental and course titles and instead engage in their subject matters of interest.