The wrong way to reform the humanities

This spring, Oxford University’s student paper ran an April Fools feature: “Oxford University to abolish Classics degree.” Was the degree in classics judged irrelevant? Is there no need to read old books in ancient languages? It was of course a joke, and Oxford was not going to eliminate one of its most distinguished degrees. But as of last week, the University of Chicago is considering doing this for real. Almost. And in the process, it should prompt observers who care about education to think hard about right—and wrong—ways to work for reform.

According to the University of Chicago administration, the humanities division is in fiscal trouble—and as a result, cuts must be made. Of the fifteen Ph.D. programs in humanities, the University is shrinking admissions in seven programs and suspending admissions entirely in the other eight. Also up for discussion is a substantial cut in language instruction. A committee established by the division dean is supposed to explore if there was a continuing need for the teaching of some languages, and whether some of the language instruction could be outsourced via “partnerships with corporations or other organizations.”

There can be no doubt that humanities education in American universities is in trouble. As a practical matter, even the most prestigious universities can’t keep producing Ph.D.’s in the humanities at the rate they have and expect them to get jobs. The jobs just aren’t there and the humanities face funding cuts nationwide.

But part of the reason for cuts is concern that the humanities have become less valuable to education. Two varieties of critique are widespread: first, the humanities are too often politicized; second, they are insufficiently effective at building skills or knowledge.

Yet the University of Chicago’s proposed first steps do little to address the concerns—and instead seems likely to exacerbate them.

By putting languages first on the chopping block, it is going after what was long one of the university’s major tasks. If one of the concerns about humanities education today is that it requires too little learning while rewarding too much emoting, it does not help to cut one of the areas where humanities demand the most of students to learn information—languages.

Next, cutting language instruction is not going to depoliticize the humanities. Besides languages, most of the programs that are targeted for the deepest cuts are not actually major areas of politicization—classics, Germanic studies, and the university’s world-renowned program on Middle Eastern archaeology, history, and literature. Cutting back at these departments to preserve (among others) English and film studies seems as likely to perpetuate politicization.

It's true that cutting some of the most obscure languages (for example) may be practical. At some level, universities have to respond to market needs. If there is a larger market for hiring graduates with knowledge of Spanish than to hire those who know Latin, it’s a disservice to students to pretend otherwise.

But as a society it’s also valuable to ensure that some areas of knowledge are not entirely lost. We preserve seeds of rare plants because there is value in being able to know something of the past—and ensure that the genetic pool isn’t depleted. In a similar way, ensuring that languages of great historic importance are not entirely lost to us is essential to preserve knowledge.

Who preserves the language knowledge? For several generations now, it has been the universities. And not every university needs to play the same role. The wealthiest universities have more ability to fill a faculty with specialists, to subsidize the preservation of knowledge. This, in turn, sustains their reputation as centers of learning that attract students who want world-class educational opportunities.

As a result, it would be a mistake for every decision at every university to be made with an immediate goal of maximizing career prospects for graduates. There is a place for some universities to invest in a long-term function as a preserver and producer of knowledge. This will in turn serve the students over the long haul. And it will, in the process, serve their country and society by preserving knowledge of history and cultures.

Different universities will have different opportunities to invest in this kind of specialized knowledge production. Some schools may be disserving their students by chasing prestige at a cost to their students.

But University of Chicago is in the category of school that has invested over the years in developing a world-class reputation for specialization and knowledge. If it is not going to take this seriously, no one will. That is why it should be disturbing that this school is considering cutting the infrastructure that was painstakingly built up over time.

It may be wise to reduce the numbers of graduate students. There may be reasons for consolidating academic departments. But whatever is done, we can hope that the University of Chicago—and other schools like it—don’t simply abandon their roles as stewards of knowledge. I suspect many conservative critics of current humanities education will nonetheless agree that, as a society, it matters that we know something about our history and the past. This is an appropriate, and conservative, use of humanities education. Also, critics can agree that we do want universities to promote actual knowledge acquisition by students.

Administrators at the University of Chicago, unfortunately, have so far ignored these key considerations as they’ve decided what to cut. We can hope other universities will be more thoughtful in how they reform humanities education.