@kaukana, not sure. But interestingly - due either to an intervention by the provost’s office or perhaps just a realization that the English department was creating a bit of a firestorm - they have just cleaned up a small detail on their website. While the Faculty Statement is still on the home page, they deleted the reference to the Black Studies program. That is now included under the Graduation Program admissions tab, where it belongs, along with the following caveat:
“Please note that this focus on Black Studies applies only to the 2020-21 PhD admissions cycle. The department plans to target different subject-areas each year to foster cohesive cohorts of students working towards compatible goals. Candidates admitted in 2020-21 will be encouraged to take advantage of the wide variety of courses, not restricted to Black Studies, offered by the Department and the Division.”
https://english.uchicago.edu/graduate/admissions (scroll down to FAQ’s)
As to the Faculty Statement, I’m not sure if it strictly violates the Kalven Principles but it seems to come close. All statements, political or otherwise, should come with a name attached to it. Maybe that’s no longer necessary for the English department because, like the Borg, they have all been assimilated? Somehow I doubt that’s the case. Unsigned collective statements of this sort present as if they were voted on or mandated. Either would violate Kalven, IMO.
Perhaps it’s best to heed the ending of the Kalven Report for further guidance:
“These are admittedly matters of large principle, and the application of principle to an individual case will not be easy. It must always be appropriate, therefore, for faculty or students or administration to question, through existing channels such as the Committee of the Council or the Council, whether in light of these principles the University in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.”
https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/KalvenRprt_0.pdf
Perhaps such questioning should take place.