Photo by Ali Meizels '23. As schools throughout the United States allocate less funding toward humanities programs, Gemma worries that critical thinking skills will suffer.
Silas Gemma ’26
Opinion Editor
On March 30, Mount Holyoke announced it had placed the Russian & Eurasian Studies and German Studies departments on a “sunset” timeline. This announcement has sparked backlash among the student body, with some arguing the importance of foreign linguistic, cultural and historical study for broadening personal perspectives. These departments provide not only linguistic capabilities that increase travel and employment opportunities for graduates, but also critical analyses of historical events and structures that inform current political and social climates. Some programs, such as Film Media Theater, are the result of mergers, while others, such as Latin American studies, used to be offered as majors but are now only available as minors for students entering the College after fall 2022.
I have heard various students bemoaning the lack of classes and the availability within them, particularly those required for their majors. The Five College Consortium allows students to take classes not offered at Mount Holyoke, but Mount Holyoke students should not have to be dependent on the other proximal colleges to fulfill their major requirements. Additionally, other college campuses or the PVTA buses may not be accessible to some students. Concerns about the decline of humanities are not restricted to Mount Holyoke. Higher-education institutions nationally and internationally are jettisoning humanities programs, often in favor of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics departments. Decreasing humanities-based education has widespread implications for interpersonal relations, professional success and the prevailment of democracy. It is imperative that humanities programs across the globe are salvaged in order to promote skills and attributes such as critical reasoning, transcultural understanding, intergroup dialogue and interpersonal communication.
A Bioethics Today article, written by Craig Klugman, historicizes the development of liberal arts colleges within the United States, as well as their initial objectives. The end of World War II, and the contemporaneous promulgation of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (also known as the G.I. Bill), led to a significant increase in the number of men, particularly returning veterans, able to access higher education. Although in the U.S. the Cold War called for technical training in the sciences for military purposes, this period also brought increased interest in liberal arts education. Humanities were thought to be essential for preparing citizens to think critically and analyze information for veracity, therefore preventing the fascism and authoritarianism that marked regimes such as Stalin’s. Klugman argues that there is a connection between the rise, and public backing, of authoritarian regimes and the decline of humanities-based education. This connection demonstrates how pivotal the humanities are for preparing students to critically evaluate information, educate themselves on issues using reliable sources and consider issues on a multidimensional level. Humanities-based education promotes and maintains democracy.
Compounding the crisis, some students are unable to envision how a humanities degree could directly translate into a satisfying job that offers them financial stability. An article by The New Yorker highlights this uncertainty by discussing student trends at Arizona State University. When questioned, a staggering proportion of ASU students were unaware of what subjects fall under the umbrella of humanities, while others expressed an inability to see career outcomes for humanities programs. This survey represents a common idea that humanities degrees are not practical for securing a job post-graduation that helps pay off debts and achieve financial stability. On the contrary, many humanities programs help students develop robust skills that are valued by employers within various fields. Indeed’s Top 11 list of most valued skills by employers include “communication skills,” “teamwork skills,” “interpersonal skills,” “learning/adaptability skills,” “problem-solving skills,” “open-mindedness” and “strong work ethic.” Although it is a myth that STEM programs do not help students develop skills such as these, humanities programs are key for teaching and reinforcing a broad range of skills valued across industries. With regards to income gaps, an article by the United States Census Bureau reports that STEM graduates who go on to work in STEM fields generally earn more than their humanities graduate counterparts, with an average of $101,100 versus $87,600, respectively. Nonetheless, as the article points out, salaries vary across the broad orbit of science and technology careers. The Census Bureau found a $38,760 difference in median earnings between those employed in computer-based professions and those within the life science field, with the latter group earning less. A key finding is that 62 percent of STEM graduates pursue employment in non-STEM industries. The gender pay gap presents additionally confounding comparative statistics on post-graduation earnings. An article by BBC states that a majority of humanities graduates are women, possibly accounting for the average lower salary outcomes for humanities graduates. The article references findings by The New York Times that suggests that the average pay within an industry falls as more women enter it. These statistics demonstrate the interlocking factors that determine professional and financial outcomes. The reductive thought that majoring in STEM guarantees professional and economic success needs to be further analyzed in light of this evidence. Students must keep in consideration that economic divisions between STEM and humanities graduates are far from clear-cut and predetermined as they are deciding what major to pursue.
Colleges and universities must look at broader evidence when considering the distribution of funds and resources. The belief that the career prospects are bleaker for humanities majors than for STEM majors has made it seem most prudent to encourage studies in the STEM fields. This focalization of economic growth is problematic, however, as it elides the benefits of a liberal arts education. According to a Forbes article by Willard Dix, “If cost-benefit analysis becomes the only measure of worth for universities, then we are faced with a true cultural crisis. Institutions of higher education … are the repositories of human history and culture.” In other words, churning out students purely as agents of economic growth poses hazards for future generations to be able to think critically, analyze different perspectives and collaborate with people of different backgrounds. The economic, business-focused framework suggests that prosperous economic outcomes are the only important objectives of a college education. Meanwhile, other majors, such as philosophy and English, are considered non-practical for the ever-automatizing and technology-dependent economy. Dix argues that far-right ideologies lead to bureaucratic college administrations that ditch humanities departments for fear of students “think[ing] critically about social systems, culture and history,” reminiscent of book bans put forth largely by conservative governments on texts that offer perspectives other than heteronormative, cisnormative, Eurocentric and fundamentalist Christian ones. Hallmark conservative ideals are represented by this decentering, or even rejection, of curricula that highlight multiple perspectives, yet so-called liberal colleges are also slashing humanities departments despite claims that they prioritize a balanced education.
Despite the justifiable outcry for the contemporary elimination of humanities departments across the globe, Heidi Tworek, in a 2013 article for The Atlantic, points out that enrollment rates in humanities departments have been decreasing for the past half-century. The most drastic drop occurred between 1967 and the early 1980s, during which time the number of students who matriculated in humanities programs plummeted from 17.2 percent to 7 percent, where it plateaued. Tworek argues that this decrease was largely influenced by the increase in women in higher education during this time period. Women have remained a majority in the U.S. undergraduate population since the early 1970s, bespeaking their pivotal role in influencing statistics on department-specific enrollment rates. In other words, their decisions about what to major in have significant effects on data about enrollment and graduation rates within different programs.
Additionally, although higher-education institutions have the responsibility to allocate their funds appropriately to serve their students, the atrophy of humanities departments can be partially attributed to a more general decrease in government funding for higher education. As the Bioethics Today article mentions, the reduction of humanities departments at universities accelerated after Reagan-era policies that cut funding for higher education. Yet the slashing of humanities departments is increasing even in recent years. [title] Jill Barshay, in a 2021 article for The Hechinger Report, mentions that the quantity of humanities graduates in the United States had fallen for eight consecutive years, with only 200,000 humanities degrees conferred in 2020. This is between a 16 to 29 percent decrease from the 2012 statistic. Barshay does critically mention that the scope applied to the humanities category can influence statistics drastically. According to the same article, if communications is eliminated from the humanities grouping, making it so that “English, history, philosophy and foreign languages and literature” are the only majors within the humanities categorization, “only 4 percent of college graduates in 2020” graduated as a humanities major. Barshay reports that English departments have been disproportionately affected, with significant decreases in the number of students that opt to pursue a degree in the field. The continuing decline in humanities departments on both a national and international scale calls for further analysis of why students do not value a humanities degree, or possibly why they believe that the labor force or larger society does not value humanities graduates.
Higher-education institutions such as Mount Holyoke must not give in to pressures to defund humanities in favor of STEM fields that will supposedly lead to greater economic outcomes for graduates. The humanities have proven to be essential for the development of attributes needed for effective and responsible communities as well as employable skills and tools that promote democracy while shunning political extremism, fascism and authoritarianism. In light of Mount Holyoke’s dedication to “always … be an innovator in designing and delivering an inclusive and exploratory liberal arts education,” it is imperative that students resist the defunding of programs that directly inhibit the College’s ability to fulfill its objectives by continuing to vocalize their concerns and enroll in classes that are important to them. In addition, colleges across the globe must revalorize humanities in order to provide a varied liberal arts education that prepares graduates to think critically, conduct thoughtful analysis, consider various perspectives and interact with and understand those of different backgrounds.