Bottom line Northwestern’s African Studies Transition Raises Questions About Scholars’ Futures

A program may survive on paper while losing its institutional center

---

Founded in 1948 by anthropologist Melville J. Herskovits, Northwestern’s Program of African Studies is described by the university as the oldest African Studies program in the United States. It was designed to connect scholars across anthropology, history, political science, sociology, literature, law, medicine, music, technology, and other fields rather than confine the study of Africa to a single department.

That structure gave the program a particular kind of influence. PAS was not simply a set of courses. It served as a meeting point for faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, visiting scholars, research partners, and institutions across Africa. The university’s own materials say the program supported interdisciplinary coursework, language training, study-abroad programs, research, conferences, public lectures, student funding, and graduate training.

Reading daily exercises the brain 🧠

What transparency would clarify the issue

Northwestern could address the concern by publishing:

• The program’s previous and projected budgets

• The future governance and reporting structure

• Faculty participation by field and rank

• Staff positions retained or eliminated

• Research grants and donor funds affected

• Plans for African American, African, and diasporic scholarship

• Student enrollment and degree-completion data

• Faculty hiring, promotion, and retention data by racial and national background

How faculty demographics may matter

If African-born faculty are more represented in certain departments, such as STEM, medicine, public health, or international development, that may reflect disciplinary hiring patterns rather than a deliberate racial preference. But if Northwestern protects internationally oriented scholarship while weakening programs focused on Black American history, U.S. racial inequality, or institutional accountability, critics could reasonably ask whether the university is valuing some forms of Black knowledge more than others.

The distinction is between representation and institutional power. A university can employ Black faculty while still marginalizing Black Studies if those scholars lack control over budgets, hiring, curriculum, research centers, and public-facing priorities.

The most revealing question may not be which group is hired more often. It may be which kinds of Black knowledge universities reward.

An African Zebra

A university may welcome African-born scholars when their work supports global research, technical expertise, or international partnerships while offering less support to Black American scholars whose research exposes domestic racism, institutional inequality, or the university’s own history. Conversely, some universities may have strong African American Studies programs but limited capacity to recruit African-born scholars.

The transformative solution is transparent, disaggregated faculty data combined with equitable hiring and retention standards. Universities should evaluate whether they are supporting Black scholars across national backgrounds—not substituting one group for another, but ensuring that African, African American, Caribbean, and diasporic scholarship all receive meaningful resources, authority, and institutional protection.

There may be a connection, but the available information does not establish that Northwestern dismantled the Program of African Studies because of a preference for African-born professors over Black American professors. The stronger connection is institutional: faculty demographics, hiring practices, funding priorities, and decision-making structures can shape which forms of Black scholarship remain visible and protected.

If the program is moved into another administrative structure, its future may depend on the priorities of that department or college. A decentralized arrangement could preserve courses while reducing the program’s ability to secure grants, organize research, recruit faculty, and advocate for resources.

The most precise conclusion is that the faculty-composition question may be relevant to the consequences of Northwestern’s decision, but it does not currently prove the decision’s motive. The central concern is whether dismantling the program’s dedicated structure reduces the ability of Black scholars—African American, African, Caribbean, and diasporic—to produce knowledge, mentor students, and influence the university’s intellectual agenda.