To the Editor:
In his letter to the editor ("Full Support for AAS," The Dartmouth, Feb. 22), Aly Rahim '02 makes clear the distinctions between an interdisciplinary program and an academic department. I am sure the campus is now much better off having been made aware of these somewhat minute differences. My arguments about the place of Asian American Studies, however, remain valid.
The creation of an AAS minor, however construed, entails several challenges. This includes creating new courses, recruiting new faculty and perhaps even a readjustment of the distributive requirements. I believe we are better off if we face these tasks head on, rather than bury them in the planning cycles of the various departments (English, history, government, etc.) in a cooperative interdisciplinary project.
Rahim argues correctly that there is no point in combining the Asian, African and Latin American programs into an international studies department. Regional cultural studies are necessarily separated by many factors, geography being one of them. Oceans separate the continents of Asia, Africa and Central and South America. The same argument, when applied to ethnic studies, falls short. Asian-American, African-American, Native American and Latin American studies are bound by a common geography -- that of the United States. There is a reason why we append the adjective "American" to these studies' programs. If hyphenated American studies cannot find anything in common, the prospects for this country will be seriously undermined.
The Asian-American gap in the college's academic offering is real. However, we should not accept unconditionally any demands to fill this gap. A debate surrounding the role of AAS on campus is needed, but it should not become a vehicle for anybody to score political points.
