conducted—a position that gives greater latitude to feminist-ori-
ented scholarship.^45
A different logic is applied to substantive affirmative action di-
rected toward non-Western subjects. While preferences for certain
topics and perspectives in these areas could be seen as idiosyncratic,
panelists legitimize them on substantive grounds (for example, by
referring to breadth, originality, or scholarly significance), and do so
using the language of expertise. A historian of China, for instance,
emphasizes intellectual breadth when she defines diversity in opposi-
tion to Eurocentrism: “I would really welcome people who knew
there was something besides the Euro-American, Western tradition
and could work on it...Ifeelit’smyjobtomakethose points, and I
don’t feel that they’re necessarily very strongly influential. It’s more
like a little tweak or a nag.”
She adds to the formal criteria used by the funding program a cri-
terion of her own:
Awareness of the [intellectual] world beyond their focus...It’s
not just international. Many people are extremely either...usu-
allyEurocentric...orAmericano-centric...It’sverycommonin
the academy, but I like to point it out when I find it and I con-
sideritasignofnarrowness...[Idislike] the pomposity of peo-
ple who make sweeping [statements] always...based on Europe.
As a person who’s been in the China field for thirty or forty years,
it’s very annoying. It just shows their ignorance.Another panelist, a sociologist, admits that for him, “There are ab-
solutely some areas which are pet areas.” He favors proposals that
address these topics and geographic areas not for personal reasons,
but because they make accessible materials that are otherwise “hard
to find.”
At the same time, some panelists refuse to engage in substantive
Considering Interdisciplinarity and Diversity / 233