Finding a home for 'Fun Home'

Beyond the FAC chats and author’s talk during Orientation Week, this year’s summer reading selection, “Fun Home,” was accompanied by an informal class-wide discussion on its content. Many first-years took issue with its sexual images and the book’s themes, bringing to light concerns about what is appropriate for the University to select as the first common intellectual experience of new students.

The University is not afraid to select books tackling controversial topics. The last four selections of “Americanah, “Let the Great World Spin,” “State of Wonder” and “Eating Animals” dealt complexly with race, immigration, religion and animal welfare. We applaud the University and summer reading selection committee for continuing to choose books that challenge students. A summer reading book should challenge incoming first-years in a meaningful way. The University will never be able to please everyone with any book selection, but it has the right and imperative to present all students with a chance for discussion.

There has been a sense that first-years who chose not to read the book for moral and personal reasons create a controversy. We instead believe that the discussion generated is simply one of the many ways students can engage with the reading. Choosing not to read the book is a statement in itself and invites the very discussions we have seen on Facebook and in The Chronicle. Though some claim that this book and other choices exclude certain sets of views on these issues, we recognize that no book can have every student in mind, especially when students often have diametrically opposing views. The choice of any book has a political dimension, but that only becomes a bad thing when only one view or one topic is featured. For all the discussion, year in and year out, the selection committee should be mindful that in addition to pushing the envelope, selections should come from a variety of ideological backgrounds in the interest of challenging students across philosophical spectra.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that historically, many viewpoints have been given less of a platform. To ensure that all people are heard, we as a community have to understand our historical context. Like many universities, Duke at one point refused to accept queer students, though the organizations like the Duke Gay Alliance sought to correct that culture of intolerance and provide spaces for queer students as early as the 1980s and perhaps even before. In addition, women in the past had to push to liberalize social regulations, especially those that were placed on women and not men.”

We urge all students, especially first-year students, to continue to thinking about the book, including the viewpoint that it should not be read. We especially hope students will try to place the book’s themes in the history of Duke, whether or not they choose to read the book itself. The Queering Duke History exhibit, website for the Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity and written history of women at Duke provide a lot of context for how conversations regarding sexuality have often been limited in the past. As first-years make their way into the school, it does them well to understand the history behind why a book like this might have been chosen and why it is important to welcome every kind of statement about it. Most importantly, all of our students should draw the line between controversy and meaningful conversation.

Correction: In an earlier version of this editorial, it was stated that Duke had no center or space for queer students prior to 1994. It has now been updated to reflect that organizations like the Duke Gay Alliance existed at Duke as early as the 1980s. The Chronicle regrets the error.