Login
To the editor:
I am surprised to see Andrew Newman, chair of the English department at the University at Stony Brook, in his March 9 essay "The English Major, After the End," repeating Nathan Heller’s unresearched and misrepresented “The End of the English Major,” The New Yorker (Mar. 6. 2023). Heller is widely repeated but almost never criticized responsibly. (See for example Pamela Paul, “How to Get the Kids to Hate English,” New York Times, Mar. 9, 2023)
Following many English professors’ repetitive romanticized myths that falsely oppose subjectivity and objectivity, Newman grasps onto “brain science.” What he cites is not scientific and excludes basic humanity and context, the fundamentals of the historical human sciences. There is a significant literature from the 1930s on of which Newman, Heller, and too many humanities professors seem unaware. (See my own “Myths Shape the Continuing ‘Crisis of the Humanities,’ ” Inside Higher Ed, May 6, 2022)
For his part, Heller misrepresents the “decline” of the humanities while he simultaneously ignores the parallel decreases in the social sciences and to a lesser extent the natural sciences. They began in the 1970s and 1980s, and accelerated during the 1990s and 2000s. To refer to only the humanities “in free fall” since 2013 misreads longer-term trends and makes understanding impossible. Arizona State, under Michael Crow’s presidency, is representative only of ASU.
I write as a professor emeritus of English and history, who was trained in the humanities and the social sciences in the 1970s. I recall clearly that we undergraduates in the late 1960s were under pressure to major in engineering, business, pre-med, or pre-law. My pursuing the Ph.D. was risky; there were few positions when I took my degree in 1975.
Three major currents demand greater attention. First, pressures on young people from middle school forward to concentrate in engineering, computer science, or business for job security only increased.
Two, the so-called “human sciences,” including but not limited to the traditional arts and humanities, failed, and continue to fail, to respond adequately and adapt to changing times and currents. Illogically, we remained isolationist and separatist.
Newman unknowingly reflects this. He demonstrates some of the ways in which English among the humanities falters badly. Turning to neuroscience uncritically is a step backward as is repeating journalist Heller quoting Sanjay Sarma with no context. There are substantial field of studies in reading, writing, and interpretation. Why does he not search t
Third, the entire situation—including the percentages that Heller selectively mentions--is magnified by the over-admission of STEM students and under-admission of all others including humanities since 2010-2021. It is imperative to take changing admissions into account. At the same time, STEM has unacknowledged, if unsurprising, high drop out and flunk out rates, and entering students are not advised that job opportunities and salary levels vary greatly across different fields in Engineering.
--Harvey J. Graff
Professor Emeritus of English and History, Ohio Eminent Scholar in Literacy Studies
Academy Professor,
Ohio State University
English professors shouldn't repeat romanticized myths about the state of their field.
The university system's new policy banning fully online degrees ignores the needs of today's students and leans on outdated information.
An essay provides outdated advice that could hurt scholars, especially younger ones.
The university's former president disputes an article's "mischaracterization" of his efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
To the Editor:
I write in reference to the February 3, 2022 article entitled, “Shouting Down an Empty Hallway.” In contrast to the mischaracterization in the article, during my presidency at the University of South Florida (USF), we demonstrated a deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
As examples, my administration took specific actions to reach the following milestones:
Reflecting the impacts of our actions, in a letter dated July 27, 2021, members of the BESC expressly recognized my “sustained commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism . . .” The BESC letter went on to state:
“Your deep belief in equity and social justice, grounded in the Principles of Community, has led USF to extraordinary achievements in a relatively short period of time. You harnessed your courageous leadership by collaborating with campus partners and particularly BESC. These partnerships have laid the foundation for a future journey in which diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism will be paramount to USF’s future aspirations and success. Thus, we are appreciative of your authentic, ethical, and transformational leadership. You have made USF a better place through your stellar leadership and dedication to equity, diversity, and inclusion.”
During my presidency, we took concrete steps that reflected my lifelong commitment to welcoming individuals from all backgrounds.
--Steven C. Currall
Professor and Former President
University of South Florida
To the Editor:
The framing of your Jan. 3 article on Hamline University as “academic freedom vs. rights of of Muslim students” demeans the rationality and intellect of devout Muslims and diminishes the university practices needed to accommodate Muslim students with respect.
I was once a conservative religious Christian student bewildered by course content that challenged my faith. A crisis of faith will never feel “safe.” However, I struggled with challenging course material in a context that otherwise surrounded me with positive affirming of my belonging: most of my professors shared my race and my Christian religious background. There were multiple campus resource persons I felt comfortable approaching for spiritual advice. My professors, who were all full-time and tenured, were also available to build relationships of trust with their students. The architecture and academic rituals of my college showed respect toward my faith tradition. Portraits of White Christians lined the hallways of my college.
That is what support and inclusion looked like for me.
The surroundings that supplied me with an existential cushion through my crisis of faith convey something very different to Muslims, and particularly non-White Muslims, at predominantly white Christian-affiliated universities.
Imagine, for a minute, how the contexts of our colleges and universities would need to change to provide Muslim students with a robust and positive affirmation of belonging.
The issues at the center of this story bypass these critical surrounding factors to focus on the de-contextualized classroom, where the question is the potential presence of offensive content. “Safety” is achieved through whack-a-mole efforts to remove content perceived to be offensive, aka content that provokes discomfort, often through a case-by-case complaint process. This process in most institutions places the onus on marginalized students for reporting experiences of bias.
It also puts instructors on the hook for managing students’ potential discomfort. We can lament the absence of this mythical thing called “academic freedom”; but we should first talk about how many adjunct faculty don’t have offices for meeting students in person. Adjunct contracts don’t cover the rapport and trust building required for teaching difficult subjects.
We can't choose between "academic freedom" and "the rights of Muslim students" because neither option is actually available here.
--Heather White
Visiting assistant professor, Gender & Queer Studies Program
University of Puget Sound
The perceived choice demeans the rationality and intellect of devout Muslims and diminishes the university practices needed to accommodate Muslim students with respect.
FreshRSS