“Question One” was formulated as a way to provoke conversations  re­gard­ing the uneven development of Black Studies  pro­grams and begin the discussions around the needs and “best practices”  for sustaining the field. Although Black Studies has reach­ed de­part­men­tal status at a few elite institutions, each year a sig­nif­i­cant number of pro­grams struggle to maintain as budget cuts threaten dissolution or con­solidation. Rojas (2005) suggests, “Suc­cessful institutionalization d­epends on framing and tactics and an accurate understanding of the institutional de­sign.” The first pan­el consisted of James Turner of Cor­­nell Uni­ver­sity and Esther Terry from the University of Mas­sa­chu­setts. Each brought to the discussion perspectives based specifically on their own insti­tu­tions offering a kind of “experiential” approach to the ques­tion.

Although Molefi Asante was not originally included in the panel for question one, he contributed a position paper that pro­vides an im­portant perspective to the understanding of the in­sti­tu­tion­al­i­za­tion of Black Studies. Therefore, his paper is in­cluded here. Asante in­ter­preted the historical development of the field, and ar­gued that the es­tab­lish­ment of a discipline is the primary di­rec­tion needed to sus­tain Black Stud­ies in the twenty-first cen­tury. He fur­ther sug­gested, as others did in con­ver­sa­tions through­out the con­vening, that free­stand­ing de­part­­men­tal sta­tus and the hiring of PhDs in the field are equally as im­portant to con­tinued de­vel­op­ment.

While methods for institutionalizing the field differed at the va­rious universities and colleges, the discussants formed the con­sen­­sus that Black Studies departments must situate themselves within the acad­emy in ways that enable them to be functionally inde­pendent; hav­ing the ability to grant both degrees and tenure is important to that pur­suit. Esther Terry suggested that depart­ments design courses that meet general requirements in order to attract diverse en­roll­ment. The point was raised that eventually, institu­tion­alized programs, re­gard­less of joint appoint­ments, should grant their own degrees and prepare stu­dents for career choices both within and outside the dis­ci­pline.

According to James Turner, race-driven perceptions poison the “Amer­i­can Academy” and undermine Black Studies. “What we mean by ‘where the discipline is’ has little to do with its inherent in­tellectual vi­abil­i­ty and capability and more to do with its in­sti­tu­tion­al position­ing. This is fundamentally relevant to Black Stud­ies be­cause it informs how the programs are perceived, how they per­ceive themselves, and their abil­i­ty to generate the necessary in­sti­tu­tion­al support for long-range suc­cess.” A most significant point ad­dres­sed by both Turner and Terry is formed by the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the concept “institu­tional­ized.” Both agree that Black Stud­ies is in­stitutionalized by its very exis­tence in the academy, but the panel’s question directs one to consider “dom­i­nance.”

There was enthusiastic agreement that growth in the number of in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary programs and approaches incorporated into the acad­emy since the first Black Studies programs were founded, empha­sizes a major his­tori­cal contribution of the field that is little known and rare­ly dis­cus­sed. However, the future of Black Studies depends on the de­part­ments and programs operating as a col­lective to combat the ag­gres­sive and dy­nam­ic push to steal au­ton­o­my, desta­bi­lize depart­ments, and un­der­mine the legitimacy of Af­ri­can Amer­i­can scholars.