FORUM The Market-Model University —s HUMANITIES in the Age of Money by JAMES ENGELL & ANTHONY DANGERFIELD ILLUSTRATIONS BY PETER HAMLIN CONOMIC PRESSURES AND REWARDS 5 have transformed American higher education during the past 30 years: budgets grew, campuses grew, and tuitions grew appallingly—even after adjusting for inflation. Advanced degrees and centers for special studies multiplied. Admin istrative personnel multiplied faster still. AE- tera slight downturn in the early 19708, re~ search funding resumed its climb and dispersed itself over « larger number of insti- tutions, Faculty salaries eventually out- stripped inflation, with a few “stars"—and Authors’ note: Trough a box (page 54) give perituen fis for Har- 1rd. this aril about thcnadional ste of firs Wis bascdontwo _years of rescarch fa hundreds of educational an profexsionl journals, Studies, hooks, magazines, ce savstcal digests published over the last 35 seas, A bibligraphy is listed on this magdein's website, wwitsharvand-magreincon?. 48 Max = Jorn g98 quite a few administrators—earning sums unimagined in the early 19608. The Age of Money hadl arrived, and happy days were here again, for some, For others, these decades seemed like the winter of discontent. More reaching was as- signed to part-time faculty, at lower pay scales, For financial—not pedagogic—rea- sons, graduate students assumed a growing portion of the enlarged part-time labor force, a trend.with obvious. implications for un- tenured full-time faculty as well as adjuncts Eventually, even tenuzed professors at many institutions feared for their jobs. The environ- ment became tough. from top to bottom: the average term of college and university presi- dents is39 years; they arer‘t around as long as the undergraduates. Accountability, strategicplanning, and downsizing exme snto vogue. The basle raison stetreof colleges and universities could no longer be aseumed— cor was forgotten. And all the while—in our opinion, not coinci- dencally—American colleges and universities systematically dis- investecin the humanities, Consider the dats. VITAL SIGNS [WIMANITUES REPRESENT A SUARDEY DECLINING PROPORTION OF AK WH dergracuate degrees, etween ig7o and 1994, the umber of AS conferred in the Unite! States ove 39 peteent, Among all bache- lor's dearees in higher educatioa, chree majors increased fve-to ten-fold: computer and information sciences, protective services, and transportation aud material rooving. Two majors, already large, tripled health professions and publi administration, AL- zeady popnlar, business managernent doubled, la xg7, 78 percent snore degrees were granced in business thaa English. By 1904 business enjoyed a four-fold advantage over English and re- mained the largest major. Fags, forelgn languages, Philosophy, and religion all deelined. History fell, coo, Some fies plum zmaed, Library sclence shrank to near extinction from.1015 BAS 19 97: On the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Tést, only 9 pete cent of students row indicate intecest ithe humanities ‘Measured by faculty sularies—a clear sign of prestige and clout—the humanities fare dismally, Or average, fnrmanists re- ceive che lowest faculty salaries by thousands or tens of tho: sands of dollars; the gap affects the whole teaching population, regardless of rank, within colleges as well as universities, Na- tionally in 1976, a newly hired assistant professor teaching litera- ture earned $3,000 less thar a new assistant professor in bus acss: ln i984, that gap. had grown to $10,000, In 1990, 1E was Saoje00, nd by 2998 exceeded $2500, Reghing assistant pro- fessors in economies, law, engineering, and computer sciences enjoy-a heity advantage, too, In ogo their salaries averaged $10,000 a year higher thant chose in literature, by 1996 more than 15000. Not is English literature the rane of che litter. Fine arts, foreign languages, and education ate lower ye ‘Salary figuees lonttell the whole story. Consulting fees and second jobs substancally boost incomes in many discipines— except the humanities, where outside income tepeescats less ‘han one-third the average earned by all cisciplincs. The potit is ‘hat professors in other fields, already mote highly paid by the teclucisional institution, spend more time on ouside ventures and less on duties ar the fnstitwion itself ‘Humaniets teaching loads are highest with the least amount of release and research tim yet chey ne nos expected, fr more than three decades so, 0 publish in order to secure professorial posts. ‘Humanists are also, mom than orhers, increasingly compelled to settle for adjumet, pare-time, non-tenured uppointments that ‘pay les, have itl or no job security, and earty reduced benefits, Consider, t00, the health of gradeate-programs. Fiom 1975 t0| 1932 the elite vop quarcer of Pi. programs in English eut their yeurly output by more than 29 students per program equivalent programs in chemistry mencasel om average hy 38, computer sci- tence by 47 (On the.other hand, sore humanities programs with she lowest reputations have expanded) ‘nag60, one of every ei fzcaley members professed the liberal arts in i988, one ef 23, While one can argu tht chi terurns 70 se Mar = Joite 1998 noeth present in the firs hal of the ewenticth century, that’s hard we document, The teueh is, there wasa slow slippage in i tal arts beginhlig as early as1g00, ierripeed in the 19508 and, carly oSo8. Bu i the last 30 years, the erasion has accelerated, cextcing into a base now much wealer. “The weakened condition of bupanities within higher education Isalsovelected inthe caliber of students pursuing the disciplines Byall avilable measunes, national perfombance'n che human ties has declined. Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal scores have fallen: Even allowing fer the undisputed complexity oF the causes, the key fac is that they've dropped far mote than SAT ‘math scores both reported forthe same populition. Nloredver, top performers (Scores 6f 750 cx highes) ia math have elunbed in Tanguage they've plunged ‘Amore scleet population takes the Graduate Recox! Exams, Bait agein, the verbal side remain unmatched in math ot analyt- ‘eal sections In addition, betwcen 1965 and i9e2, scores oa GRE, chemistry and biology rests remained virtually unchanged, yet Epis lceratue scores dropped by some Se pomes “Teaching and mastery of languages other than Fnglish have de clined. The edieatonally intensive skill that might uve m pol tive impact for seudeats who will work ina globsl économny— namely ability in a foreign lnguige—hos been neglected, Across the country, éollge entrance andl graduacion requirements in lan ghage have bern eased, even dropped. In 1960, fot evexy 100 stu clencs in college, 26 enzolled in foreign languages. Inagro twas 12, and by i995 with global econonay in full swing fewer than 8 “The most uthorcaive, trust! seu of the subject (a yearly poll of college-bound gh-sohool grachaces) revels that in 30 yearea tote lip lop has occurred inthe proportion of freshmen centering college who expeot thei higher education to enkance Tutore job security and assuce high-vmage employtaent (greatly increased) versus these who want to develop values, form 2 Tbronde soeil vision, experinent with varied forms of lenowl- ‘edge, and foramlate« philosophy of living (greatly decreased). asc declines of the humanities weit changes in degree. In 4998, with weakened faculties and less well prepared smudents, ‘we face an imminent, dangerous change in kind, As society, we seen to be saying thatthe more we expand the mimber of stu dlents enrolled i college, the less important if is for them to sendy the hitnaaites, THE CREDENTIALS CULTURE EVEN IN TERMS OF SECURING FUTURE EMLOFMONT, HOES THIS MAKE sense for the students themselves? ‘As che fate of thera education darkens, the humanities, once seen ys its core, have been largely replaced by occupational ma- jors. Konically. these courses of stu fail ro demonstrate chat they're better preparation than the liberal arts and seerces for thets associated a¢cupations an professions. Medica! schools do rot prefer patticulat majors, not even biology, as long as basic pre-med courses are taken successfull. The Assocition of Amer” lean Law Schools recommends course that stress Yeading, wit- ing, speaking, critical and logical thinking, Law schools report that by yardsticks of kw aeview’ and grades, their top stodents ‘come from math, the classics, and Hicrature—with political si- ence, economics, pre-Jasi” end “legal studies" ranking lower, “The idea thar students axe in college te prepare for ful patici-pation in society—including participation chat wort advance their careers or enlarge their bank accounts—no longer has much sway in higher ecucation. More chan ever before, policies, curricula, and salaries no longer follow what an institution thinks students and citizens need wo prepare for life work, judg: ‘ments, and complex decisions requiring 2 soctal context of sev eral kinds of knowledge: rather, they increasingly follow the vot- ing fet of students from class to class—though students grasp of what eeaining evencualy helps to secure good jabs ora mean- ingful life, likely punctuated wich several career changes, is com: paratively naive and unformed. This practice can be rationalized as respect for student opinion, or meeting consumer demand: in the market-modl university or college, whats prudent prevails But serious education entails unpopular decisions on the part of administrators and faculty. Students arent getting the educa: ton they deserve afuiling that affects their wisdom and judg. ‘ment more than thei intelligence. Narrow-minded doestit mean completely unobservant—students can tll which way the wind blows. As one American Association of University Professors re pore demonstrates, undergraduates became keenly aware which professors were getting pail more, and this serongly affected their choice of majors and classes, “with the resule that enroll rents in these fields began to increase rapidly further aecentu- ating the demand for faculty members in these disciplines.” The sell-ulliling prophecy continues to unfold Another reason stucdents and parents choose as they do is that the United States has become the most rigidly credentialized so ‘ety in the world. A bachelor’s degree is required for jabs that by no stretch of imagination need two years of full-time training, et alone four, Why do Americans think this is good, or a last nee essary? Because they think so. We've left the realm of reason ard entered that of faith and mass conformity. College eredentalizing has lowered pressure on secondary schools to keep up thei sta dards, already so low that chey prompted college eredentalzing inthe first place. A sharply increased numnberof classes offered in four-year and especially two-year colleges over the past two ecacles must be categorized “remedial they teach what was ‘once mastered in high school—or junior high. If high schools turned out graduates who had ninch-grade math, could read wel, ‘wrote comect simple sentences, engaged in problem-solving aki possessed basic computer skills and the ability to work in small sroups, then a high-school edueation would suffice for middle-in come jobs. Yer, collectively, high schools ean no longer guarantee these minimal skills. So, even if some of their graduates great y exceed them, they must still obtain the eredemtal of BA, THE CONTEMPORARY COLLEGE and universities avidly pursue—and then advertise—erop star faculty, plush facilites, and the reputation of excellenes, often while neglecting undergraduate teaching, Not co teach hes become a rewand, Professorial salaries correlate negatively with teaching load. It is not overstatement to conclude that the pr mary task of higher education is no longer to educate—certainly not to educate undergraduates. Higher education now reserves, Hanvano Macazine aallies highese rewards for published reséarch in the last 39 yeas, the average number of maximum classtoom teaching hours his reméined steady, but the minimam—that , the amount per- Formed by chose already teaching less, that tears those pre dominantly ont the homanities—hus dropped. Research can, and should Inform and improve teaching, But prizaary erapha- sigan research doesie faster chat improvement. Say, ofall data sve stutied, only one study is able to conclude thar research cor- relates positively with teaching qualiey, be them ory at four- year colleges, not ae doctoral o research instittions: ‘Abundant ancedotal evidence connects a sewed emphasis on rescarch with sezat attention to teaching, For example the pres idea of Princeton kes reinarked chat “many ftculty members “uggest thar undergraduate teaching “gets inthe way" of Front Tine and incressingly complex research. [will other faculty raembers] argue that Moekbuster grants for research centers. phon internal fancs away from teaching We also have bacd ‘lata from the late 1960s, reconfirmed recently. "The acadesive department's legicimation of, ad eraphtasis on, esearch spect ‘zation made reduced teaching loads not only acceptable as a professorial goal but indeed 2 demareator of stztas on campus” In the mid 1g8bs, one study reported “only 15 percent of ehe fac- ‘ulty members at high-quality rescarch insicucons sae that they ‘were vary heavily interested in teaching” Th 1994, William ‘Massy, site president for buainess and finance at Stanford, andl Robert Zemsy of the researc instiuce om. higher education a the University of Peansylvania concirled that “the tendency 19 subordinate teaching to research sees to have spread from the rajor research universities, where Ie might cancelvably be Justi- fied.to the much larger numb of foir-anel even two-year inti ‘ucions.” The ose recent, exhaustive study (1997) reacherla sta- decically unambignons coviclusion, “Our findings eae indicate chat research is rewarded more than teaching.” But the erasion in teaching is not tmiform, Faculty ta the bit: inanities teach differently and teach more, especialy faculty: in the langueges and composition, They wach more because by tes~ dition and by virue ofthe areas they encompass the humanities have charge of Heracy in undengraduate education. Theit bisie mmission isto tnsuee shat zeeipienes of the bachelor's degree can ead and write critically, can reason in Fanguage, ean ange, ean persuade and be apen to persuasion. Teachers in other disci ‘pines assist humanities ficulcy in this task, and noe infrequent surpass them. Bur the bilk of ths job—rauch of i the hardest most time-consuming, snd least rewarded —belongs tothe hw rmacitigs, Which males fall the more diseething that the mars ket forces are work here, too. Why are first-year graduate stu dents, some barely rhrce months from the B.A. often asigned to teach freshman compasition, ¢ required course central to wit- ing, cveicalchought, and che logic of argument? Because ws fat cheaper forthe institution. The money saved is spent elsewhere Given that professors in-the humanities are pail Jess'than those in other elds, and given that the cuicion pall by kuma- thes majors ovtally equals the tuition paid by students in other fiekls, prrenes and sridents associnted with the humanities thus acrusily subsidize the parents and students associated with other fields, blunt tetas, che pooner fekly are requited to en- rich the richcr—a lesson not without impheations for our ma- ‘ional life at large. Ine short, test what you will-—inajors, salaries, ghauate to Mar Juss gal ‘grams, cros-subsidtes, reaching lords requirements, languages, aims of cducscion, stnndardized test oores-=the results come ‘ack the sime, The hismanities vital signs are poor. There are pockets of health dosted about, bur naticnally the patient isnot sell, Since the lite 19608:the husmanicies have been neglected, downgeided ane forced ta reerench, all as other arvas of higher -elneation have gran in numbers, wealth, and influence. When werterméd the list 3o yearn the Age of Money, we west ia part re fing eo the dollar inlus of research grants, bighec tuitions, anal grander capital improvements. But there's anothec, more symbolic poet we the Age of Maney, and’ one not less powetfl for belng move symbolic. The mere concept of money Turns ont to be the sceret key to “prestige,” influence, and power in the ‘American academe world, Here's how, THE THREE CRITERIA FH STAR IOC TAT ES MONEY AS TREMIDST DESIRABLE RESULT of edneation—that knowledge is money or should be directly convertible ro it—has produced what we call the Three Criteria ‘Their rule is reviarkably povent,vnifoem, andl verifiable, Acade- elds chat offer one (oF moxe) of the Three Criteria thrive; sy fc! Jacking three languishes Thiseffect cen be measured by anyone or combination of indices; relative proportion ef de- {grees earned, faculey salaries, time allotted for research, new nnursbers of faculey zppninesd, geacuace or professional popula: ‘fons, capital investment in facilities, support sta, and alursns giving, in the Age ol Metiey the royal road to suctessis to offer at Tease one ofthe following ‘A Promise of Money. The Bilis popularly linked (even if er roncously) ro improved chances of sceuring an occupathon at ‘Profession. thar promises above average lifetime earings. A Knowledge of Money, The field icself stucies money, ‘whether pracically’or mote theoretically, ic fiscal, business, f ‘nancial of evonoime matters and markets A Source of Money. The licld receives signifcane exterzal mone te; research contracts ileal grants or nding support, “er corporate underwriting “The humanities, apart from 2 few superstar peofessors, satis none of the criteria, They'¥e been penalized accordingly with a steady loss of respect, seuclents, and, yes, money. Fields that study money, receive external money, oF ane associated —rightly or wtomgly—wich monetary rewerds are precisely those that Jnave fared best in Amevican higher education inthe last 30 yeas. (Theoretical physies is-an interesting anomaly among the sci fees: ihe met the hurd citerion to some degree, Fue prodices Tete of immediate wrility and is often nove cut from fending and high-paying jobs) Psychology falls che mile fal fee ciology and antheopology slightly below. Health and compute sciences, ki, business, engineering, and applied sciences they're all higher. The fine ats, languages, Metature, hiscory religion, sine philosophy: all lowes, ‘Adiministcations and adrinisteators of higher education nleely fie avery one of the Tiree Criteria, Administratiow has incen a ‘booming industry, for decades ourpacing-~at times hugely—dhe growth, If any, in the size of faculties: more adminiscrative and Ini level maagernene jobs 2c ight pay, even as support-stall postions thar direcly help fxculey members are often cat, Adin: isuatioa i the kding growth sector of highcr education, Desprealarms sounded in the 1980, this tend continues ‘unabated at many institutions. Some administre tive growth was required to meet increased gov ‘emnmental ragulations and a changed student body with new needs for support. Buc no one pretends that these factors explain more chan hal oft The bitter humor of Parkinson's Law isnot that isa good joke bur tha his analysis of bureaucracy is true: “Officials make work for each other” This nicely predicts, for example, thar if administrative and executive personnel increase by x percent, then their subordinates will grow at twice that rate. This is precisdy what happened in more than 3,000 US. calloges and universities fram 1985 0 1990. While full-time faculty grew only 86 per cent, administrative personnel rose by 141 pe cent, and their subordinates, “other professional increased by double that, or 281 petcent. Ie slaw that central administrations tend to expand, even shen there is ess work todo. “Many central administrations take a portion of overhead on research money to fund their own op- erations including their own expansion, typically without any faculty oversight. And increasingly, administrators spend ltele or no time teaching oF conducting research. Administrators have profes: sionalized, becoming a distince clas. Little by lit the, historical ties between faculty and administra tion have loosened—or broken altogether. Exceptions exist, but many administrations and faculties square off as “us” versus “them,” an em ployeriemployee pose. Faculties unionize, Power personnel and budgets—hence over curticu and policies—shifts away from faculties to ara administeative bodies, presumably because faculty members would botch the task If this vast realignment has any justification be yond the imperatives of power and realpolitik, d- ministrations must constanely be supposed the sounder judges of the needs and nacure of higher education, research, teaching, and knowledge than are faculties themselves. A remarkable proposition, tobe sure but not by any means the oddest feature of higher education's odd predicament. fs usually hard, often impossible, for faculties wo obeain a transparent buel get, orto know, orchard, of important decisions that affect their teaching, their students, their place in the instiution, even ther professional future. I faculty members influence budgctary dec sions only marginally, then they cannot contr major curviculst decisions. At the extreme, departments or schools are cashiered out of existence, Perhaps some shonld be, but who shoul judge? These developments prompced the late Bll Readings, associ ate professor of comparative literature at the University of Mon treal, co claim in 1997 that “the University s becoming a transna tional bureaucratic corporation..The University..no longer participates in. the historical project of culture” More than four Years earlier, Robert Zemsley had scen the trend. Universities, he said, are becoming “more like holding companie The more that colleges and universities act as purely utilitarian ‘operations, the more these forces intensify, and the more tke Tree Criteria come into play: When humanists raise chese issu, they're olten cal, or scolded with, the Feel-Good Funding Myth. THE FEEL-GOOD FUNDING MYTH that external funding for research benefits not only the funded fields bur all fields in the university. According to this pleasirg ‘and serviceable conjecture, funds delivered to one part of an it stitution permit an internal reallocation to benefit ather parts of the institution—librarics, or perhaps the humanitics and tke poorer s0 nces (history, anchropology, and sociology). ‘Any such claim should be expressed! ina lar more eircumspect,complex way: when universities first receive outside research Tunds for science or other fields, they are able to support those fields in a new, expanded way. As funding continues, universities can sustain or expand those fields without siphoning funds from other departments, Bur accepting outside funds entails a Faustian bargain: for if those funds are later cut, universities must either retrench (per- haps deasticaly) in those fields, or cut elsewhere. We can say that such funding increases che amount of scientific research and. often the size of science faculties. But we found no evidence to confirm any direct or indirect financial benefit to fields not re ceiving external support. To top it off, some studies conclude THE HUMANITIES AT HARVARD: A PROFILE ‘o NEARLY TWO CENTURIES LEARNING AT HARVARD Targely meant learning in the humanities, Other fickds were taught—mathematies, for instance, and, increasingly in the nineteenth century, nat ural science and the emerging social sciences, With foresight, Harvard often led the change away from higher ed ucation centered almost exclusively in humanistic pursuits But the humanistic tradition remains vital. With the cre ation of Barker Center and the renovation of Boylston Hal, Harvard enjoys one of the best centers for humanistic study in the world, a circle of facilities centering roughly around Emerson's statue in Emerson Hall (philosophy) and embracing great libraries and art museums, centers of Afro-American, Euro- pean, East Asian, and Literary and Culeural Scudies, expository ‘writing, and facilities for per- forming and studying the visual arts and music. How are they beingused? In the 19205, about hall of Har vvard College students concen- ace in the humanitis, by 2970 less than one-third. During the tid 1990s the number fell to one- fifth, a drop of nearly 30 percent in just afew years, Ie has climbed again to one-quarter, bat th pro: portion remains lower, for exam ple, than ae Princeton or Yale, ot many liberal-arts schools In the early 1970s, 28 of every 100 tmen concentrated in the humanities: today that figure is 5 of yoo, a drop apparently unmatched at any similar inseieution, including ochers that became coed. Graduate programs in the humanities have become smaller, a sensible and ethical re sponse to the poor job marker. Entering classes of English Ph.D. candidates, for example, once nuubered 50 or more, By the mid 19705, they had fallen to 25, Recently, the norm has been 5 or fewer. ‘Of 4o new faculty positions planned for the eurrent cam paign in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), half were Driginally cugeted for the applied and natural sciences, xo for socialsciences, and 10 for the humanities. Since the early to7os no new permanent FAS faculty positions had been ere ated, though the size of the faculty is not large compared swith similar institutions. Despite strong efforts undertaken recently to cut FAS administrative personnel, groweh in their si May Jose 1998) “The Barker Center, Harvard new hore forthe humanities ranks since the early 1p7os exceeds 6o percent. ‘Within FAS, faculty salaries are keptom a broadly even keel 1 professors’ fields do noe enter the equation, Across the University as awhole, however, iis very hard not to conclude ‘that humanists, whether in FAS, Education, or Divinity, find themselves atthe lower end of the professorial salaries paid by the different schools and divisions inthe University “Teaching leads are notoriously har to quantify and reg late. Responsible deans try to make sure that each faculty rember pulls teaching weight. However, a 1985 survey of ju noe fculty in FAS revealed that untenured faculty in the bu rmanities were teaching about 25 percent more than those in the sciences. (This may be mitigated bby a new leave policy) Whatever other teaching is done in labs, tu torial, individual doctoral direc ton, oF reading courses t's com. monly recognized that tenured members fn the humanities and most social sciences generally have a higher course load per year than most of their colleagues in the sciences. Many departmental courses in the humanities are now small enough (5025 students) to be led exclusively by a faculty tember, almost all of whom also condict one individual under graduate tutorial: times three or four—each year “The College does not require any knowledge ofa foreign Janguage for admission, The foreign language requitement for graduation, expected ro be completed by the end ofthe first Year, is low by national standards. Among other ways, may fe fulilled hy a grade as low as D- in one first year language conrse, or an AP score as low as 3. (FAS's Educational Policy Committee is reexamining the language requirement; see Curricular Reform, More and Less” March April, page 83) ‘Although Harvard undergraduates in the humanities are heard to worry about the relevance and “utity” oftheir stu {es for the purpose of later employment, no statistical evidence {indicates chat Harvard-minted humanists have @ rougher time later in the job markets, o that they become any less success ful than ther peers. Many goto medical or law schools; anu ber enter business, education, publishing, journalism, and the entertainment industry. A small percentage pursue graduate stualyin the humanities Photograph by Steve Roseathal| i | thar umivetstles nd op pai an overall uneinibursed cost fae ‘such suppoct. The Thies Criceria programs pocket the vast bulk ‘of external funding: when it coines time to make-up for Funding ‘tits share and share ais Evidence forthe truth of ous extique of che Feel-Good Fund- Ing Mychis overwhelming. Five years ago, William Massy, echo- ing what Alice Rivlin het published 30 yeats earlier with the Brookings Institution, came to the belated, obvians conchiston that “there isa very real. Guescion of whether reseack isin lace being subsidized by undergracuite education He: warned hat federal finoding cats will place “ever greater pressure-on reséarch universities to eress-subsidize sponsoced programms from all avallable soutees"—a genteel citcumocucion that tramsates inte “raid the alteacy dimnntshod fla avallable ro the-humantties acl social seferices, ask alumni to support ‘the college ar ‘the university’ and, in al ikelibood, Hike undérgraduace tuitions _ain, underwrite the research of yponsted progeans.* Absenta more specific rationalization for the current system, » prestige” Is often offered up as the intangible benef that rues to the whale institution whe’ some segmenits ate ftrened vwith move staf or beter faites while othets make co. Buc ike a gravel pit “prestige” isa concept thi grows more emipey wich ust. To be sue, there seems a gain in “prestige” ane! perhaps, in cercain ateas, in quality for nniversties that enjoy extccual we” earch supports these institutions may.genesate a “product mix” that atcraets bright undengradustes in many Bel, ceguably in cluding the humanities. Bat thar explination begs the questi of whether it's good policy or ever Honest lure students with ‘nstitutlonal prestige while chopping away at the very basis of, Ut prestige Sele beguiled many universities ane even colleges bhave in effec deeded that their eal business ts goon eggs the spose willjust have to fend for itsel! ‘None of ee foregoing is intended as an’assnult on the stiences, ‘or incecd on any funded fill, Any cut i facing to science rep resents grave danger toreseatch univizsitis and to us all Seien- tite research is indispensable t national ineellecrna and ec rome life, as well a 0"health eae. tt his proven a wise collective Ingestingnt, andl we advocate its continuance and expansion. Sut the trickle-down fiction chat the prosperity of externally fumded plograans wall find ies way to undergtaduate insteuetion él to the humanities neds ta be exposed fr the airy tle what i, ‘When inequities between aeidemic areas ate pointed out, the Jate thing humanists should doi stay silent, earful of precpitat- ing 2 Kiliovhampf againse what “beings money in. The prety rhetoric produced by high-ranking officials of some universi- ties—promugating the notion thc al Boats ae ldted by «sing tide—is devote of hard figures. Even without going in for hard sciences wich Beavy external funding to the extent thar many’ other insctutions do the University of Virginia sil generates hu ‘anices prograns and ibtary collections ofthe fest water. And salle lbesal-actsschoots also give the le core hurmanivies" pre sued financial dependence on the funded “useful disciplines. ‘They produce humanities underpyadnaues the equals ofthc col lege pects research univetsities, and er aces Ga tval and area source for humanities freultics of those tniversities. As ew federal idles fr inancla! ceounting i higher edeation gp ino eect, we're ike tosee—if administrators let us—thac hie ‘manities and unfunded social-science programs lave beet cross- subsidizing so-called externally fundee! prograrsall slong. “THOSE MILDER STUDIES OF HUMANITY” ‘LENGE HAS CHANG AND PROLFERATED AT HAS CHANGED. 100, Jn whee John Dryden calls “those milder studies of humanity.” 3uc no such changes can explain why. universities and calleges have sharply disinvested in the humanitics-~the very fields which continue to ask how such changes affect our lives and val- ugsas human beings individually and soelally. Ou most difheult problems remain precisely those thar do not acmic of solutions ‘by quancititive or technical means alcine. Nor are they susceptl ble to solucion by one traditionally defined profession working alone, fethical debates in medicine, environmental crises, lepalis- snes involving the history of eace relations: ia these and iioce we requice eloquent Innguage, hard analysis and persuasion in words; and the combined insights of science, history, religion, ‘business, medicine, andethical traditions. ‘But humanists of the last three decades responded tothe Thtce Criteria with acar-complete incptitude, They yielded ground on nearly all fronts. Many of their taétical and strategic fathuees can betmaced co chetr upologette atvitudle to dther disci plines, itself arising from self-doubt about the value nnd rele- sance-of their own activities. Humanists began speaking —and arguing—more mid more onily with themselves. ‘Ther aequies- ‘cence ir the sole of graceful pensioner of the implicitly “useful* disciplines and administrations was tacit acceptance of thie low ranicin the academic hierarchy of our era, ‘Itimuist be admitted, in fairness, thar humanists have beon ma- neuvered into a false postion where any response seems like an cadorsement ofthe peeunlaey ethos, To nsis on thet far share of funding, if only for equal salaries and library collections, is, in eppeavance, ta accept the false proposition that money is the aneasuré of everything, Yer if humanises endure without protest Ahr Cinderell seas visa-vis the Thee Crzeria disciplines, they end ip conveying the same message: what is, right. No such problem would exist if humanists were not embar- assed to proclaim their traditional eminence in the academy, ‘Hursanists willing tp stand upfor their high relevance bave only 1 assert bath “Yes, we too. need money—and more than we're {etting—to support our activities” and “No, chat doesnt mean ‘we.accept wealth as the paramount kuman and educational value” Not having done so, humanises and their disciplines have come to be construed as a dispensable luxury. The scandal is thar, colleetively, by their silence it general, as well asin faculty meeting’ and aclininistrative posts, huumanists have accptiesced, “The kavoanitics inform every cidiberatve body from the US ‘Congress te the local PLA. No matzer what is happening im Higher education, we dowt stop dealing with ethics and asthe fs, with language and rhetoric and religion and the arts, with the legacy of our pase. We're hiiman—wve coulda stop.it if we: ‘wanted to. What we ean da, evidently, is pretend that we ean ‘cope with these marners just as well if no one studies them. A pe- caltarity of American sociecy is our enpacity to question (with spparenc sinectity) the desirability of producing, and supporting: incs trained in the stucly of such matters. In this capacity we seem to he unique. Our tradition of anti-intellectuslisin is alt the: ‘nore amazing in light of the nation's hisory, since we coun ‘among our founding fathers some of the most distinguished and (please arto page us) Hlaavaro Magkcie 55 | i | | : | 1 | | i I | : ' | ' { I i | ' | : \ 1HUMANITIES (onthe ror page 85) Jearned humanists ever vo engage in political Wife: Madison, Frankdin, jefferson, john and Jol. Quiney Adams, Marshall andl Jay.t0 name a few. This isa country that spends more to support ‘beer anc: shaving eream on one Supee Bows! Sunday {not ro men son tax subsidies to build the stadiums) chan its government spends on music ahd painting and theaver ig a’ycar. As Réchardl Hiofstacter noted in 1963, "In the United Staves the play of she anind fs pechaps the only form of play that Ssinot Tonked upon ‘withthe most tenderindidgence.” Remarkably, immanists have sen active participants in.theie ‘own subversion. Inner politcal and theoretical bickering tthe ‘unmanities has contributed little wisdom co the polite Ife.oF the country or local communities for wo decades, Just as the colt of money was leying siege to the culture of learning, many beleaguered exponents of humanistic study divided into parties sacternbarked! on a series of unedlifying disputes, inciading ones that degraded the name. “humanist.” The subjects were worthy cough the nature of language and of gender. the rales politics and race ad non-Western culture, And these veeived neti, Wel- come attention. But such gains were often sqptandered through encleanic petsiness, bud faith and gulltby association. Hemanists developed their own politially motivated cult of personalitics And newatlays few people, understandably, wae to write the ‘way many professors of literature do, Fifteen yenes nge Norehnap Frye warned that humanists; like Fortinbras in Hamlet. were fighting wars over territories bacely luge euough co hold she contending eemics ‘recent internecine wranglings ere impoverished, their ap- peal diminished by rebacbative jargon, name-calling, nureow specialization, and dull, predjtabie nccisations of being on the ‘wrong “side ofa polacized “war,"it'sall che more sobering 10 re~ alize that the humanities have picked an especially bad time to {all ppomeach other. Jn igg7 Fadl Shoesis pur it this ny" The di ‘vision should come becween market-driven culture and the hu- -nanities; not beeween the beauty of an Asian pot ad a Euzo- ‘pean poem.* WHAT DO WE WANT? FOR THREE MILLENSTLA 1S EAST AMD WEST THE HUMANTTIES HAVE NET associated not only with fmaginative art bur with the world of affairs and professions—law, thedicine, trade, government. Apollo is che gad of healers dul pocts, Solzhenitsyn's chaptet on the family doctor in Cancer Ward might be put before medical- school students and cheit teachers, Taw has ancient, deup eon- uueetions with shetorie ane! composition. Solon wraee Ais legal ‘cole in verse, Behind the Iron Curtaln—in fact, wherever chere ‘was or is repression and intslerance—poots and ghysicists alike have together kepe the faith of homane action and hitman cights ‘The environmental movement unites seiencts, socal sciences. ‘and fiumanities, business, economics, and religion. Joh Muir sand Rachel Carson: scientists, humanists? Use segment our ethucation, prizing only what will produce cone Kind af economie value, we may segment the totality of our experience and tsivialize all values. Thene is no faster way to uarancee the shattering of our societal toss’ than to-assume that ts higher education should be che sum ofa series af sepa- rate professional specializations —ad chat thiese should be sup- plemented im the hmanities primarily by arguments over the study of various cultures constrained ta serve present politica’: als dna social agendas, Are we teady’co jetison 3,000 years of collective expecience in higher education? in his loquene book ‘Tho dea of Highr Eduction, Ronald Barnect concludes with & per- tinent question: wall higher education be forced ta settle for “che narrowness ofan indastr-led conipetence-boiund mands for more publication at the expense of move and betusr teaching and hecter, noe more, publications, ‘An econontic sotial Darwinism ean apply self ro igher ecko cation. Our society distances inselffeont pursuits and learning that take considerable tine andl dost pay immediave eash divi- dends, Ecouomic compectiveness is responsible for ruc good. and prosperity. But when visited on every segment of society. and on higher edcation, st may contribnte 0 a social beak, Do we wane it incressingly applied co colleges and vniversines? Do we cate any more whether enfleges and universities are custodians of collectives dvetse cultures —hiether they record reach, and trensmit traditions, and give us the linguistic and symbolic rools to express our venerition, cfitcism, and contii- bon co our culture, 0 make eoinectéons within its varity, 2 exces checkered past and to imagine its possible furure? tf (sue institutions of higher education doat do this, who will? For Intelligent young people, do we want carees ip the humanities to be obviously ess attractive than many otker options oper 2 them Do Wwe want matker forces thoroughly to Work thelr will on che very set oF institutions that we onceafter careful debibes- ation, decided should be largely prorected from them? tall boils own to cive queston: Doos fc matter? To us Its eve dent that our nation cannot steer the best course thrcugh our ex thing bt complex and perilous times without the aid and lead- ‘ership of men ahd women who have mastered Janguage, ho can pus together a sound angument arid Blow a specious one to Tits, who have learned from the past, thd who have witnessed the ‘weacheries and gloriés of human experience profoundly tewaled bby-writers and artists But if nothing changes, we will soon. fe ‘ur-dificnlt world and onr endlessly corsplicated faeure-without new gerieations so teained. We will soon be looking not.at = ‘weakened tradition oF humanistic learning and education, but a defutexione, 9 Jes gl 7, PAE 78 rer of Engh and compra sas acd the tering commie des nity an etude we ergrauate rogram it Eglshand Anerican itensture Fs nest book, The ‘Goramities! Word: Literatuie ancl Public Valucs, wll appr n9g9. “Anthony Danger eve his PRD. eis fm Comal Fc as enghe English Dartneuth. Hawvaro’Masazige a