Editor's Note: The Wrong Fight For Humanists

by Jacob Sorgen

When the State University of New York at Albany announced that it was cutting its degree programs in French, Italian, classics, Russian, and theater, the discussion over the value of humanities and arts education reentered the reform-charged arena of contemporary education policy. The empirical data and economic discussions (how we quantify teachers and who pays for it) have exhausted themselves. Now the public, education activists, and press outlets need a new reason to fight, and this month it’s curricular content.

There is no stronger supporter of humanities and arts education than me, yet I find myself puzzled at the separatism academics, policymakers, and advocates take to this issue. It’s not a new discussion by any means; the post-industrial economy and globalized marketplace have been corporatizing and vocationalizing higher education for years now and the call for specificity and professional degrees have been met with equal decrees for a non-material approach to an economy that relies increasingly on the trade and exchange of ideas rather than products. But every time humanities and arts education is discussed, it becomes a fight for face time instead of a collaboration of ideas.

Lawrence Rothfield, a professor of literature at the University of Chicago and co-founder of the Cultural Policy Center has called time and again for those working in the humanities and arts to try and integrate cultural discussions into larger frames rather than continue to bite at the heels of policymakers and education administrators:

“Why should humanists get involved in issues that are better addressed by administrators, economists, lawyers, and the policy analysts? If you leave the support of the humanities to the policy people, they may not do it at all. Deans and college presidents are overwhelmed with the demands of administering. Policy analysts have no particular reason to focus on culture unless they are incited to pay attention – as they were lured into what became environmental studies by appeals from environmentalists thirty years ago.”

Those interested in preserving humanities and arts education in this country need to become humanist policymakers and understand that they are not an ignored voice but a crucial note in the larger chord of education policy. The issue at hand is not saving the humanities; it’s creating a model of education that the humanities play a role in alongside the economics, law, management, and administrative practices of institutions. You can’t convince every person in this country that they have the right and the responsibility to a liberal arts education. And why should it be? The universal agreement in the fundamental importance of economic stability does not send every child in America to a degree in finance. It’s not about universality. It’s about collaboration and equality of curriculum. There are several ways humanists can take action instead of sideline critiquing:

-> Work towards moving humanities education away from its label as an elitist or upper class field of study. The liberal arts are not reserved for Harvard scholars stowed away in the candlelit corners of old libraries. Humanities education is rooted in the development of critical thinking and communication skills, creative problem solving notably with respect to technological innovations, and an understanding of different cultural traditions and laws. These are skills and concepts that could serve a contractor in southern Texas with a diverse work force and changing immigration law and trade policies far more than a Rhodes scholar. Taking humanities out of large-scale institutions and into communities, making the arts accessible and affordable to all, seeking humanistic inquiry to real-world issues can all work towards new and far more realistic understandings of the humanities.

-> In a similar vein, we cannot go back to a time when there did not have to be practical applications or economic benefits for a field of study. Work to build new applications for humanities and arts study, develop interdisciplinary curriculum with business and entrepreneurship, economic and development, and international affairs programs. The emerging field of cultural policy (something I’ll explore next month) covers a vast array of issues from intellectual property and free speech rights to cultural labor law, trade policy, international relations, economic development, and urban planning. Cultural policy is poised to play a major part in the development of the knowledge economy and the globalized marketplace and just as health policymakers are most effective if they have actual medical knowledge and practice, so too should cultural policymakers have deeply rooted understandings and experience working in cultural and artistic fields. We can build the utility of humanities and arts education without losing the scholarship.

-> Use the critical thinking skills and creative analyses at the helm of humanities study for self-reflection. Humanities and arts advocates tend to be very critical of everybody else at the table and not enough of themselves. Most people fighting for dramatic public education reform do not believe public education is a bad idea, they think it needs to change and grow as the world does. In that spirit Humanities educators could benefit greatly from looking at their own curriculum and program designs and acknowledging faults, reimagining approaches, and sharing the responsibility in making the humanities a pillar, not the only one standing but just as crucial to educational infrastructure as any other field, of education in America.