On the Role of the Humanities

Since its beginnings in September 2006 -- we're at four years now! -- I have tried on MH Blog to emphasize the importance of historicizing the humanities, of understanding the themes and issues most relevant to the key shapers of the educational program known as the studia humanitatis.

Although the Western humanities are of course ancient in origin, they were mediated in crucial ways by medieval and Renaissance humanists whom, I have argued, were primarily interested in practical engagement with the world.  Their program took off at least in part from dissatisfaction with the cloistered nature of Scholastic pedagogy, and many of the humanists sought to apply erudition in the service of virtu in one's daily practices and lives.  In my entirely subjective and relatively uninformed view, the paragon of this ideal, and hence the patron saint of MH Blog, is Montaigne.

Part of my rationale for discussing these sources is my sense -- a sense which I admit I have failed to find a language adequate to persuade -- that this historicization has relevance for contemporary humanities scholars, including those working on issues of health, illness, and human suffering.  Therefore, from time to time on MH Blog, I have mused on the significance of the humanities both in higher education and in the polis itself.

That the humanities are deemphasized within American higher education is at this point beyond dispute as far as I am concerned.  Hence the recent decision of SUNY Albany to terminate its French, Italian, Russian, Classics, and Theater Arts programs was sad but unsurprising (which is not to imply it is acceptable).  In response to this news, a professor of biochemistry at Brandeis University, composed this remarkable open letter to the President of SUNY Albany, which was published, in all places, in the BMC journal Genome Biology.  Like all articles published in a BMC journal, it is available full-text open-access.  The letter is absolutely worth reading in its entirety, but below the jump I have provided a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

Just 30 days ago, on October 1st, you announced that the departments of French, Italian, Classics, Russian and Theater Arts were being eliminated. You gave several reasons for your decision, including that 'there are comparatively fewer students enrolled in these degree programs.' Of course, your decision was also, perhaps chiefly, a cost-cutting measure . . . Finally, you asserted that the humanities were a drain on the institution financially, as opposed to the sciences, which bring in money in the form of grants and contracts.

[ . . . ]

As for the argument that the humanities don't pay their own way, well, I guess that's true, but it seems to me that there's a fallacy in assuming that a university should be run like a business. I'm not saying it shouldn't be managed prudently, but the notion that every part of it needs to be self-supporting is simply at variance with what a university is all about. You seem to value entrepreneurial programs and practical subjects that might generate intellectual property more than you do 'old-fashioned' courses of study. But universities aren't just about discovering and capitalizing on new knowledge; they are also about preserving knowledge from being lost over time, and that requires a financial investment. There is good reason for it: what seems to be archaic today can become vital in the future.

[ . . . ]

If none of that convinces you, then I'm willing to let you turn your institution into a place that focuses on the practical, but only if you stop calling it a university and yourself the President of one. You see, the word 'university' derives from the Latin 'universitas', meaning 'the whole'. You can't be a university without having a thriving humanities program.

The letter is highly recommended. 

Thoughts?      

Comments

[Greg B]

Who doesn't pay their own way?

Thank you for posting the link to, and excerpts of, Dr. Petsko's letter; he makes his good point very strongly. However, it is unfortunate that he reiterates the idea that the arts and humanities 'don't pay their own way'. In "Ending the Budget Wars: Funding the Humanities during a Crisis in Higher Education" (in Profession, 2009) Christopher Newfield does a case-study of university budgeting, finding "The humanities and social sciences are major donors to science and engineering budgets. Major dogmas about university
research turn out to be wrong: science and engineering research costs money, and humanities and social sciences teaching subsidizes it." I recommend the President of SUNY Albany also read Newfield's piece.

[Daniel S. Goldberg]

Hey Greg,

That's a good point re the dogmas of funding. It's critical to interrogate those assumptions especially because they are so profligate.

Thanks for reading.