Gutting the humanities imperils democracy and human rights

Decline is not inevitable: there is plenty that university leaders can do to shore up students’ interest in these crucial subjects, says Kathryn Shailer

五月 14, 2023
The word "democracy" turns into "autocracy"
Source: iStock

Humanities academics might not like it, but students are resolutely voting with their feet for STEM and business subjects.

That is particularly true of international students, whose numbers in major anglophone systems have mushroomed over the past decade as public funding has declined. And however interesting they might find the humanities, many domestic students, too – including a rising percentage of first-generation students – are attracted by shiny, state-of-the-art STEM facilities and swayed by parental wishes for them to graduate with good job prospects.

Government statistics underscore the stark reality of how much has changed across the US. Between 2007 and 2020, the number of awarded bachelor’s degrees in the humanities plummeted by 34 per cent; in the social sciences (including law and communication) the fall was 18 per cent, while graduates in business, engineering and other professional programmes rose in almost perfect mirror image. By 2020, 24 per cent of all bachelor’s students were studying STEM majors, with 22 per cent in business, 21 per cent in social sciences, 15 per cent in health-related subjects and just 6 per cent in humanities. And the picture is almost identical in Canada, the UK and Australia.

The trend is no less troubling for being explicable. Independent monitors of the state of global democracy (Stockholm-based International IDEA, Washington’s World Justice Project, London’s EIU Democracy Index) all confirm a continuing five-year tilt toward authoritarianism, an erosion of human rights and deterioration of basic freedoms – of speech, press, assembly – even in many Western countries. And one of the key findings of a 2020 study on authoritarian attitudes by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University is the mitigating effect of post-secondary education in general and of liberal arts majors in particular.

That is why, within the past five years, liberal education institutions and programmes have been either closed or gutted in Hungary, Singapore and Bolsonaro’s Brazil. And even in more liberal regimes, the humanities are dangerously under-valued as governments chase the economic gains promised by STEM. Australia has used tuition increases to push students from philosophy and literature programmes, while the UK government’s determination to crack down on “low-quality” courses has also been seen as an attack on arts and humanities subjects.

In the US, some governors and state legislatures outright censor liberal arts curricula and ban books. In other states, declining course enrolments in the humanities justify cutting majors and redirecting replacement faculty positions to “high-demand” programmes in business and engineering, depriving the humanities of renewal and reinforcing the vicious circle.

In the short term, that only increases the frustration of humanities doctoral graduates who can’t land permanent academic jobs; in the longer term, it could see demand for humanities expertise actually exceed supply as young people see the writing on the wall and stop enrolling in doctoral programmes. That will threaten remaining general education breadth requirements for all degree majors, as well as the development of interdisciplinary programmes. More importantly, it poses a threat to the quality of future political leadership and the direction of democracy.

Think of new developments in artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, and the battle for online dominance, not only among BigTech companies, but also between major nations. Think of the ways fake news, propagated by social media, has derailed free elections. If we take to heart Stephen Hawking’s prophetic observation that “our future is a race between the growing power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it”, we need to ensure that the essential knowledge and skills for making wise decisions are not sidelined.

Most higher education mission and vision statements mention the importance of promoting liberal values. If university leaders really believe that, they must guide the content of the programmes they offer and facilitate the best teaching infrastructure to draw students back to the liberal arts.

As well as allowing arts and humanities to renew themselves (ideally with positions that can play a role in developing those much-touted interdisciplinary programmes), leaders can ensure that technology and business programmes include a prescribed liberal arts core.

Presidents, principals and provosts also have an important advocacy role to play, preaching the value of the arts and humanities to politicians, industry leaders and the public (parents and grandparents), as well as their own trustees. Leveraging success in that endeavour could elicit donations to create new and richer scholarships and endowed professorships in the arts and humanities.

Employers should be engaged to talk to students about the soft skills they look for in job applicants – and which they are likely to need in the future. Critical and creative thinking, inquiry and analysis of information, understanding of historical context, problem-solving, quantitative literacy, ethical reasoning and conduct, human empathy: these have been the goals of a liberal education for centuries and also align strikingly with the World Economic Forum’s list of essential skills for entering a future of uncertain jobs.

University graduates move into leadership roles in government and industry, and they are the teachers of students at all levels. The humanities deficit of today’s graduates has implications for at least the next two generations. University leaders must do better. In the race between technology and wisdom, we’re depending on them to give wisdom a fighting chance.

Kathryn Shailer is a higher education consultant and former provost and vice-president, academic at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

I find the analysis of the article to be weak. assuming the tilt towards authoritarianism correlates with decline in humanities subjects does not imply causation - even if there had been no shift towards STEM, factors like economic decline night have still been factors. [cf "Its the economy...."] critical analysis and creative thinking are central planks of all STEM disciplines, it is surprising that the author appears to be unaware of this. "soft skills" including topics such as communication, team-work, ethics and professional development are also covered. If the behaviour of graduate does not reflect the author's preferences perhaps the problem lies elsewhere. Attempting to force students to ingest material they are not interested in brings to mind an old adage about horses, water and drinking. And students have choices if on e institution tries to do such a thing the students can and will opt for alternatives.
The populist return and dominance via a combination authoritarianism, nationalism, austerity, isolationism, and neoliberalism appears to have trapped universities, academics and students. They are caught in a situation where everyone is forced to operate in an environment which contravenes the critical findings of critical scholarship across disciplines. Students will opt en masse for degrees that will pay of their debts, and will tend to defer to authority until this is achieved. Humanities' nuances on such behaviours will be lost. This does not represent a real choice for students. Without a vibrant humanities I don't see much of a future for universities outside on an 'industrial strategy', which might suit neoliberals but undermines the integrity of scholarship. The consequences for the country are now becoming clearer too.
The Humanities deficit is worrying. Part of the problem, in my view and based on experience of UK is that there isn't much of a defence of humanities mounted by universities, UUK, funding agencies (although British Academy does do a good job with its SHAPE initiative) in terms of why they are important other than offer instrumental based justifications (training graduates for employment, skills etc). I would like to see these sector leaders make a compelling, confident, and robust public defence of why humanities are important in today's world, the British Academy shows it can be done.