HUMANITIES PROGRAMS ARE VANISHING FROM UNIVERSITIES

 

In the face of declining student enrollment, lost revenue, and mounting conservative political scrutiny, university administrators are putting humanities programs on the chopping block. This issue dominated the local news last summer when the West Virginia University Board of Governors approved cutting dozens of degree programs and laid off 143 faculty to help fix a $45 million budget shortfall.

Among the myriad of issues facing higher education, many view this troubling trend facing the humanities as a major crisis.  My own liberal arts education was completed over 50 years ago. Exposure to the menu of different worldviews offered by humanities courses enriched my life. Studying the humanities made me a better lawyer and a more responsible human being.

Over the years, the humanities have undergone many transformations. When our nation was founded, most institutions of higher learning had religious underpinnings. Slowly, secular principles replaced religious-based moral education, and the notion of “the humanities” took hold. In the late nineteenth century, the term was limited to the organized study of Greek and Latin classics. The professors teaching these arcane subjects considered themselves the custodians of a proper civilization under siege from modernity and the scientific method.

According to the Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the beginning of our modern concept of the humanities began in 1936-1937 at Columbia University. Freshman were required to take “a mandatory and interdepartmental curriculum including a reading list of literary, philosophical, and religious texts from Homer to Goethe.” Soon institutions across the country began “a new intellectual context linking course work in languages, literature, history, philosophy, linguistics, religion, art, and history.” By 1945, the Harvard Red Book could confidently claim, “Tradition points to a separation of learning into the three areas of natural science, social studies and the humanities.”

As the twentieth century progressed, so did the humanities. A younger breed of scholars did not identify with the genteel cultivation of the past. Their work and teaching methods were firmly planted in the modern ideals of building on previous studies in search of new perspectives.

In the 1960s, cultural studies began to emerge within the humanities.  At first, this trend was limited to informal explorations and seminars. Today’s students seeking to learn more about their heritage, gender, and sexual orientation demand cultural courses. The offerings include studies in African American history, women’s issues, postcolonial and revisionist history, and LGBTI issues.

Until recently, there was an intense debate between the older traditionalists, (many of whom have now passed on) and younger scholars involving the influence of cultural studies on the humanities. A well-known example is Harold Bloom, the famous literary critic and humanities professor at Yale. Bloom wrote endlessly in defense of classic literature as being above social commentary on the issues of the day. He believed that great books should be read only for pleasure. Opponent scholars argued that even works considered part of the western canon were open to criticism for protecting the powerful or for marginalizing certain groups of people.

In 2024, the new progressive school has won out. The good news is social relevancy. The bad, is overspecialization and more insular humanities programs.

With this background in mind, why are the humanities disappearing from campuses across the country? At West Virginia University, the proposal was to dismiss seven per cent of its faculty and eliminate thirty-two majors with humanities at the top of the target list. While enrollment suffered during the pandemic, there was no attempt to recoup revenue through less draconian means. The university faculty voted 797 to 100 to pass a no-confidence resolution against the school’s administration for its poor performance.

WVU is not the only university taking these measures. Public universities across the country have slashed budgets. In North Carolina, a new law has made humanities professors at state universities ineligible for distinguished professorships. The President at the University of Wisconsin recently suggested that the school system shift away from liberal arts programs. Most troubling, there appears to be an organized campaign in Republican state legislatures to do away with cultural studies in public universities that address issues like race, gender, or sexual identity.

If conservative state legislatures are able to eliminate humanities programs they will succeed in keeping the Republican monopoly on the least educated voters by keeping them less well-educated for the next generation. The Republican goal is to fortify their voting strongholds and to create a prolonged two-tiered educational system. Students graduating with no exposure to the humanities will become resentful against those students from public universities in blue states and from elite universities who have the advantage of a well-rounded liberal arts education.

It is important to note that university humanities departments have contributed to their own demise. Some curriculums have lost sight of the assumptions that supported their original aims. Recent studies offer critical assessments on what needs to be done to both recover and reinvent the framework of the liberal arts for the modern age.

Higher education is not just job training. A liberal arts education is one of the great foundations of a democracy. Once the humanities expanded into cultural studies, students were able to argue about whether sexism and racism were bad or whether the rule of law, and free speech were good. All classmates attending the college of their choice should be permitted to take part in these important humanities discussions.

STUDY HISTORY TO GAIN PERSPECTIVE

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”   George Santayana    

In today’s 24/7 media cycle, minor news stories can run for a week and important ones disappear in a flash. On cable news and social media, biased news sources seek to build up or bury events that are helpful or damaging to their preferred political party.

A constitutional republic such as ours, which depends on a well-informed public and a government capable of compromise, cannot be effective under these circumstances. The study of recent historical events often provides unbiased information for understanding the present and envisioning the future.

Several months ago, my spouse began reading the novel Munich by the historical fiction writer Robert Harris. The book relates the history of the 1938 Munich Agreement in which the British and French conceded Adolf Hitler the border area of Czechoslovakia. Five months after this appeasement to tyranny, Hitler violated the agreement, invaded Czechoslovakia, and hostilities began.

As my wife was reading the story, she would often comment on how certain historical figures sounded and acted like political actors in the news today.  For example, the characters in Munich tell us, “Hitler’s genius was for making men and women love him…. Only when Hitler starts to lose will his supporters turn against him by which time it will be too late… People believe what they want to believe, he has given them an excuse not to think….Hitler had to beat, bend and cut the truth into the required shape.”

This fictional telling of an historical event gave me reason to pause and think about the lessons history can offer. There is value in taking the time to consider what came before when forming opinions about the present and the future. Below, are two examples of twentieth century history that are relevant for events in 2024. The historical and present situations are not identical, but they often do “rhyme.”

Fascism in Germany and America.  Prior to Hitler seizing power, the Weimar Republic democracy was in place from 1918 until 1933. Some historical facts from this period are eerily similar to the rise of Donald Trump in America. The German conservative industrial sector spent all fourteen years trying to erase democracy and the economic concessions given to the average worker at the end of WWI. These wealthy authoritarians, who detested regulations and talk of equality, joined forces with outright fascists to defeat democracy and install a dictator.

The fledgling German Weimar democracy depended on the middle class. Because of hyperinflation, followed by the depression, these citizens lost their savings. Many average Germans became increasingly disenchanted, and with encouragement from Hitler, blamed their situation on the German democratic institutions and Jewish citizens who tried to save them.

In America during this period, there was a strong undercurrent of isolationism, antisemitism, and fascism. According to Rachel Maddow’s recent book, Prequel: An American Fight against Fascism, “Hundreds of New York City police officers joined the Christian Front in the late 1930s; National Guardsmen supplied the group with weapons. Isolationists in Congress recited talking points drawn up by the German Foreign Office in Berlin, vilifying Franklin D. Roosevelt and urging the United States to stay out of the war. One senator, Ernest Lundeen of Minnesota, had a Nazi agent as a speechwriter.”

Many of the same anti-democratic and isolationist tendencies are front and center in today’s Republican Party. Immigrants have replaced Jews as the immediate scapegoat. White, Christian nationalism is again on the rise.

The Next Global War. I read with interest a recent essay by Hal Brands in Foreign Affairs, The Next Global War: How Today’s Regional Conflicts Resemble the Ones That Produced World War II. This distinguished professor of global events makes a strong case that “a world at risk could become a world at war” and uses the history leading up to WWII to prove his point.

We often forget that there was no integrated world war until the United States entered the conflict in December 1941. Before then, three regional conflicts were playing out with Japan’s invasion of China, Italy’s bid for an empire in Africa, and Germany’s push to take over Europe. Despite very different goals, the three aggressor nations “banded together against Western democracies that could prevent their respective ambitions.”

Today, a similar scenario is developing. The international system is again facing three regional conflicts. Two of the situations, in Ukraine and the Middle East are in open war. The third involves China and its desire for regional dominance and could explode at any time. Russia, China, and Iran are “drawing closer together through a strategic partnership featuring arms sales, technological cooperation and displays of diplomatic cooperation.” Clearly, history is close to repeating the geopolitical situation that preceded WWII.

How the nation addresses these broadening regional conflicts should be a major campaign issue in the upcoming national election. Many mistakes that were made prior to WWII can now be avoided with an aggressive foreign policy that supports our allies and proper deployment of American military resources.

One take away from these examples is how Republican foreign policy positions have ignored recent history and the growing threat to global order. Calls for increased isolationism, halting foreign aid to Ukraine, a withdrawal from NATO, and rejection of a two-state solution in the Mid-East are irrational. The darkening international scene could quickly deteriorate into a world war with nuclear implications.

 

 

 

 

HOW PETTY POLITICS CAN CONTAMINATE AN OUTSTANDING PROGRAM

Local county government is more complex than most citizens realize. Voters elect three Washington County Commissioners and are informed about their deliberations at regular public meetings. Following minimal discussion, votes are taken on all manner of county business.

In fact, the heavy lifting has already taken place well before the public meeting. An intricate maze of Commissioners’ staff, county departments, agencies, authorities, commissions, and committees have worked to hash out the details of county policy. The Commissioners then hold an in-depth meeting to discuss the final agenda.

This efficient system permits a vast amount of information and competing interests to be condensed into manageable issues requiring only an up or down vote at the public meeting. Occasionally, the system goes adrift in a big way.

Such was the case at the Commissioners’ meeting on February 15 when a vote was taken to approve the list of economic development projects submitted by the County’s Local Share Account Committee (LSA). A project advanced by the Washington City Mission appeared on a preliminary LSA list and for unexplained reasons was later removed from the final agenda. City Mission leadership, along with many concerned pastors and citizens who support the Mission, were not pleased.

Some background is in order. The LSA program was established in 2004 by the state legislature to fund economic, infrastructure, and community development projects through gaming revenues generated by casinos in counties hosting gaming facilities. Under a unique arrangement, Washington is one of the few counties that makes its own funding decisions, replacing the Commonwealth Financing Authority. An eleven-member LSA Committee made up of commissioners’ staff, a broad range of local economic interests, and two local legislators, meet to review proposals.  

Each year, the final list of LSA recommendations is submitted to the Commissioners for approval. The Commissioners have always agreed that the final list would be approved without objection to keep political considerations out of the process. This would avoid applicants from currying favor with the Commissioners or a Commissioner from rejecting a proposal for political reasons.  It is important to note that one reason for keeping the LSA process local, rather than permitting the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Financing Authority to choose the winning proposals, was to keep political influence at arm’s length.

Over the years, the LSA Committee has diligently performed its responsibilities. According to the Committee Chair and Chairman of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, Jeff Kotula, “The program has invested nearly $113 million in projects across Washington County.”

The one challenge to the work of the committee has been a long-running quixotic effort by local House of Representatives member Bud Cook. For years, Cook has criticized the Committee for its work, demanded an audit of the distribution of funds, and complained about members’ conflict of interests. Cook’s complaints have largely been ignored. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Authority, which acts as fiscal agent for the LSA Committee, has improperly managed the funds. Moreover, Chairman Kotula has explained, “there is a conflict of interest policy mandating members remove themselves from discussions and voting if a project in which they are involved is being considered.” Unfortunately, Cook’s claims of lack of transparency have gained some traction after the recent events involving the City Mission.

A recent editorial in the Observer-Reporter explains the community uproar facing Commissioner Chairman Nick Sherman and the LSA Committee:

“On a preliminary list that was shared with Commissioner Larry Maggi on Feb. 2, $500,000 was earmarked for a shelter for homeless women that Washington’s City Mission hopes to start building this spring. Then, without explanation, it was removed before the LSA committee voted to make its recommendations on Feb. 6 and the $500,000 was rolled back into the local share account. Despite pleas from City Mission officials and supporters at Thursday’s commissioners meeting, the women’s shelter funding was not put back on the list and, again, no explanation was offered for why it was removed. Absent such an answer, we’re left with the assumption that it was all about payback.

Here’s why: In a couple of weeks, former commissioner Diana Irey Vaughan will become the new president and CEO of the City Mission, and denying the grant to the shelter was a way to settle some scores. Irey Vaughan defied the orthodoxy of the local Republican Party and stood up to her GOP colleagues in recent years. Maybe whoever decided to take the City Mission off the list thought they were being clever. Maybe tough, too. Perhaps they thought they were sending a message that you’d better toe the line or face consequences. Instead, they merely looked small and petty.”

It would not be difficult for Commissioner Sherman to interfere with the work of the LSA Committee by urging his staff members, political supporters, and fellow Republican elected officials on the Committee to remove the City Mission proposal from the final list. The Republican Commissioners and the LSA Committee need to explain what transpired with the City Mission proposal.  

This issue is not going away. In the interest of transparency, the City Mission and all entities submitting future LSA proposals are entitled to know if the rules of engagement have changed. If petty political considerations are now going to contaminate the LSA process, then say so.