Getting racial "diversity" is harder when a lot of programs are going to require proficiency in Latin (and sometimes in Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Old French, or some other difficult language), and when a lot of black students are not interested in European history (and the amount we know about medieval Africa is vastly less than about medieval Europe).
I don't mean to say that black students are unable to learn Latin--of course many can and do--but if they are aiming at a "quick fix" to improve the statistics, any hard requirements are going to be obstacles.
Wasn’t the richest person in world history a medieval African king?
It would probably be considered Islamophobic to teach that Muslims made a killing in the slave trade of Black Africans
It would be doubly out of sorts because it sometimes seems that many midievalists are outright Islamophiles.
The amount we know about medieval African is sufficient.
They were born into a tribe, they murdered and ate everybody in the other tribe.
In turn they were murdered and eaten by the another tribe.
They are still using the same system today.
And a lot of those paper sessions at Kalamazoo are dedicated to “Queer” topics: homosexuality, sodomy, gay, lesbian - whatever the catch word might be.
One of the most celebrated (not necessarily in a good way) paper sessions (or maybe it was the specific paper title since it was published as an article later) at Kalamazoo years ago was called “Jousting without a Lance” which was about lesbian “homoeroticism”. We laughed about that title FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
There certainly are. It's a lot closer to parity than some of the STEM fields, for example. I question whether such a thing is even important. The identitarian assumptions of which the Left is so fond insist that what is thought is inextricably linked with who is thinking it, but place a text whose authorship is unknown in front of them and they can't tell if it was a man or a woman, black, white, or otherwise, unless the author states it. It really just doesn't matter that much.