��ɫӰ��app

One of the chairs’ chief concerns lay outside the academy, in society’s negative perceptions of the humanities and of higher education as a whole.

Though we asked chairs to limit their discussion of political concerns to those that directly impacted their department, two-thirds of chairs brought up the topic. Around a third of chairs—particularly those leading ethnic studies, gender studies, history, and LOTE departments (which, as one chair noted, contain a large percentage of international faculty)—mentioned that their departments had been directly impacted by legislative changes at the state or federal level. These changes ranged from funding allocations that disadvantaged the humanities to outright bans on their disciplines. An additional third of chairs did not mention specific legislation but raised concerns about the overall political climate, its impact on undocumented students, and the loss of the federal grant system. Because they have previously received death threats about programs they have sponsored, one chair of a combined department no longer advertises their activities in the community.

Chairs felt that “declining student interest in humanities may be in fact due to the politicalization of the humanities fields so that students are less likely to see them as valuable.” They saw the humanities and the idea of a “liberal arts” education as having become particularly polarized. Indeed, four chairs reported that their institutions, despite having “a strong reputation as a liberal arts institution,” were actively distancing themselves from this mission due to negative perceptions of the liberal arts. One English department chair echoed the sentiments of many when they explained that the humanities “shouldn’t be seen as partisan. . . . It’s something that should not be pigeonholed in one political camp.”

These perceptions of the humanities and liberal arts are having a material impact on humanities departments’ efforts to enroll students. This issue was especially poignant for the ethnic studies chairs we spoke with. One stated that majors and enrollment numbers in their department have been “diminishing” due to “hostility toward general academic work,” “anti-intellectualism,” “hostility toward the populations we serve,” and “anti-woke sentiment.” Another ethnic studies chair explained that “the political situation has trickled down to students, [who are asking] ‘should I even take these classes in Black or Latino studies?’” The same chair added, “I used to feel very supported. . . . But as the political arena has shifted, it is incredible how weak the administration has been in defending our interests.”

For chairs, these concerns about politicized perceptions of the humanities and liberal arts are inseparable from higher education’s “vocational” turn. The prioritization of career readiness and the perception that a humanities degree does not suit that agenda are the main reasons chairs feel they are struggling to attract majors. Beyond the context of recruiting students, chairs also discussed higher education’s turn toward professionalization as part of the wider sociopolitical landscape that is having detrimental impacts on the humanities.

For the chairs we spoke to, the current political climate and the resulting perceptions of higher education and the humanities are problems that cannot be ignored. As one gender studies chair argued, these “broader public perceptions” matter because “the university is not divorced from the rest of the town.” They explained, “Now is a good time to have a PR campaign for the humanities: what we do, why it matters . . . how it impacts public life. This is an important task for attracting students, getting funding, but also informing the broader public who can’t afford to go to university, to have them understand the broader impact of the humanities.”