I worry, frankly, for myself when I've done work in theology or history, and for others who dabble in law, whether we're really equipped to undertake that kind of rigorous use of those tools as necessary to make them effective, and to do them the honor that they're due. JW One is resisting the creation of a new discipline called interdisciplinarity. Two, healthy, rigorous skepticism about any new interdisciplinary initiative. Every interdisciplinary initiative has to earn its spurs through cogency of argument and demonstration of its utility and efficacy for the particular discipline. There is a pervasive sense among people who do interdisciplinary scholarship on campus, including myself, that Emory's research specialization ethic has been resistant to interdisciplinary scholarship.
People are very jealous about retaining their administrative boundaries.
Everything from the financial aid office to the registrar's office is used to working with a system that has particular disciplines, particular majors, particular schools, and any attempt to cross those boundaries laterally or create bridges across them are bureaucratically always resisted. That is still the case at Emory, notwithstanding the fact that we prize interdisciplinary scholarship, have pockets of it that are extraordinarily good, and have in the central administration and the deans a healthy, robust endorsement of interdisciplinarity. But what exactly that ethic should be is an open question. I see President Chace and Provost Chopp as powerful ambassadors for interdisciplinarity. They know what it is, they have done it themselves, and they are serious about rendering Emory a more receptive institutional vehicle for interdisciplinarity.