Landing Santa Barbara Airport on Jan 30, 2026   

 by Charlie Hale, Dean of Social Sciences and Professor of Anthropology and Global Studies, UC Santa Barbara. This is his response as a scholar, whose writings were called into question by the Report.  The response does not represent the views of the dean's office, or of the university. 

Chris here: I'm posting a set of answers to a reporter’s questions from Charlie Hale, one of the authors cited for criticism in the Vanderbilt-Washington University “Report on the State of Scholarship in the Humanities and the Humanistic Social Sciences.”  The reporter, Emma Whitford, wrote a good piece in Inside Higher Ed about the scholars who were cited as examples of the alleged decline of qualitative scholarship. None of the scholars she’d reached had been told that they were cited in it. 

 

It’s worth remembering that the two chancellors who commissioned the report, Andrew Martin of Washington University in St. Louis, and Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, have been at odds with the heads of peer universities like Princeton and Wesleyan, among others.  This is a minority report even within the circle of elite private universities. The report has been endorsed here and there, and has also been subject to severe criticisms: some I’ve especially appreciated are by Zachary Levenson, Michael Bérubé, and John K. Wilson. See also tweets by David Austin Walsh, Erik Linstrum, Erik Baker, Guy McHendry, Chad Wellmon, Rita Felski, Asheesh Siddique on Bluesky, and many more—those are some of the ones I’ve seen in my 15 daily twitter-bluesky minutes. Also,  UChicago’s AAUP chapter had an interesting comment on the Chicago origins of the report commission. A solid plurality in my feeds rightly see the report as an invitation to administrations to intervene in humanities scholarship, though in language that offers plausible deniability (e.g. Bérubé).  Before I write a separate post, here’s the Q & A.

 

∞∞∞

 

Q1 : I assume the answer is no, given you were unaware of the report, but did the authors contact you at all about your scholarship?

 

A (Charlie Hale): No contact whatsoever

 

Q2. Do you feel your work/views were accurately summarized and characterized in the report?

 

A: No. The report condemns a large swath of scholars—seemingly the entire discipline of Anthropology, save perhaps biological anthropologists of the ilk of one of the co-authors—with the broad-brush term “relativist.”  I have never claimed that term to characterize my work; the authors themselves provide erudite reasoning for why no serious scholar would do so. This term is a rhetorical ploy to place a wide range of diverse positions they disagree with in a spurious derogatory category, without deeply engaging any of them. The quotation from my writing refers to the concept of “situated knowledges”—quite distinct from relativism. The underlying premise of this concept is that when we as scholars position ourselves—that is, explain and reflect explicitly on our own intellectual formation, values, life experiences, etc.—we generate deeper awareness of how we view the subject of study, and that in turn produces a higher level of objectivity and analytical rigor. By equating this concept of positioned objectivity with shoddy scholarship, the authors leave the impression that they have not done their homework.

 

Q3. How do you feel about the report's arguments overall?

 

A: I understand and sympathize with their stated intentions:  to protect the core values of the liberal university from the onslaught, by proactively engaging in self-critical reform, sheering excesses and reclaiming the “soul of the university.” However, their tack is ultimately wrongheaded and would leave us further weakened and vulnerable. Their arguments for clear and accessible language, judicious deployment of data and evidence, careful consideration of contrary views, rigorous analysis, etc. are all salutary and can be readily confirmed. Their call for a return to “disinterested scholarship” reads, quite frankly, like the authors are asking us to scamper back to the privileged bubble of the ivory tower, keep our heads down, and hope that the onslaught passes us by.  That perhaps is a viable option for well-funded professors in elite private universities—a category to which most of the authors belong—although I know of many faculty in these universities who would not agree.  In R1 public universities the social sciences have a different mandate:  to engage the critical issues of the public that funds us and the societies of which we form part.  Not only is this mandate completely compatible with rigorous and objective scholarship, but it is also a more powerful counterpoint to the attacks on the university’s core values.  We must make the case that the publicly facing impact of our teaching and scholarship contributes substantively to the common good, exposing the roots of and seeking the remedies for endemic societal inequalities, and helping students imagine the “good society” to which they aspire, albeit from different standpoints. I am glad to own the term “social justice” as a shorthand for that mandate; the authors have an aversion to that term, for reasons that they do not clearly explain.

 

Q4. What else should I know about you, your work or your thoughts on this report?

 

A: As the authors themselves point out, their argument would not stand up in the face of rigorous peer review; the evidence is scant and cherry-picked, and the characterization of entire disciplines—especially Anthropology—is embarrassingly superficial. Their call for a return to institutional neutrality and disinterested scholarship sounds distressingly aligned with what Donna Haraway famously called the “God trick,”—the assertion of universal truths that come with a disavowal of how we as scholars are positioned in the world. This leads me to a friendly suggestion: that the authors amend this report with their own exercise in situated knowledges, along the lines that Haraway proposed some 30 years ago. We know that Chancellors Diermeier, and Martin, who commissioned this report, hold strong views in contrast to other university leaders, and we find, not surprisingly, that the report espouses remarkably similar views as the Chancellors who commissioned it. They presumably chose the authors with that outcome in mind, and excluded others who might hold contrasting views of the problem and the recommended solutions. Fair enough; that is their prerogative.  However, to achieve the higher level of rigorous objectivity that Haraway’s argument prescribes, the authors would have needed to position themselves in relation to the wide field of viewpoints on this crucial topic.  As written, the report’s final recommendation reads like an attempt at the God trick—a lurch backward to a conception of the university and of social science scholarship that I thought we had long since left behind.

From Tunnel Mtn, Banff on June 6, 2026

By Asheesh Kapur Siddique, Associate Professor of History, UMass Amherst

 

This is the second of the talks from the CHCI panel, "The Humanities We Can Build Right Now" in Banff, Alberta. Chris Nealon’s is here, my introduction to the panel is here.

Society needs the cultural knowledge that the humanities produces in its research and disseminates in its scholarship and pedagogy to make sense of the crises of the present. Chris has written about this need and convincingly argued for it, so I don’t have to. Instead, today I want to talk about politics: how do we make this happen?

                          

Society has a need for humanistic knowledge. But there is no political movement in support of the academic humanities. There is a political movement about the humanities in the US-- on the political Right and it is deeply destructive to the project of democracy. While the Right over the last decade has built institutions and invested in undermining us by stealing our resources, destroying humanities programs and departments, and sowing doubt in our scholarship, the Resistance has not responded with anything near the militancy required. We need something different.  I want to begin a discussion about what building a political movement looks like. The political structure of democracies is partisan: parties are the central vehicle through which politics happens. In the US, the ideologies of “Right” and “Left” are not exact correlates to “Republican” and “Democrat.’ These parties are, however, the only way that ideological visions get enacted in public institutions through legislation and bureaucracy.

 

My remarks will proceed in three parts. First, I will describe the political Right’s movement to supplant the academic humanities and why it is threatening to the work we do. Second, I will turn to the political Left in the United States and explain why it, in its own way, is anti-humanistic in important respects. The point of the first two parts is to argue that there is currently no meaningful political support for building the present we want. Third, and finally, I want to end on a hopeful note, by thinking about what it would take to build political support on the Left for robust publicly funded humanities research.

 

So to begin: the political Right has a project for the present and future of the humanities in higher education – the creation of parallel institutions to traditional academic departments that teach courses and sponsor research in humanities fields, though especially political and economic thought, that aligns with various center-right policy objectives. In the US, while there were early predecessors, like the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (founded 1961; part of GMU since mid-1980s), and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (2000) at Princeton University, these are so-called ‘civic centers’ that began to proliferate around 2015, often funded by right-wing state legislatures and/or right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers. Their creation was co-extensive with a renewed assault on higher ed’s institutional autonomy.

 

These civic centers, such as the Hamilton School at the University of Florida (initially funded by $3 million in taxpayer dollars by the Florida legislature), the Chase Center at Ohio State University (initially funded by $24 million in taxpayer dollars by the Ohio legislature), and the Civitas Institute (now School of Civic Leadership) at UT-Austin (funded both by the state and private donors), work within universities in the same way that tobacco and tech companies work to subvert publicly accountable, democratic knowledge structures and institutions.  As Alondra Nelson pointed out in her keynote lecture, they do this by casting doubt on the humanistic knowledge produced in universities, attacking it as “woke,” “political,” invalid, and unserious. They create parallel institutions that exist to produce politicized ideology disguised as “objective” scholarship and often cast in the rhetoric of “civics” that is squarely aimed at destroying the departments and cultures of teaching and scholarship in the humanities and the very idea of public funding for what we do.

 

Through civic centers, the right-wing is seizing on the crisis of funding and adjunctification in our universities for counter-majoritarian ends. As the historian Lauren Lassabe Shepherd has written of these centers, “The right’s approach to higher education has been three-pronged: it has sought to create competing and parallel institutions, to wrest control from existing colleges, and ultimately, to defund public education entirely.”

 

None of the rhetoric is new, of course; if the ‘culture wars’ of the late 20^th century was the ‘new McCarthyism,’ this is the Red Scare 3.0 - the political right has not had a new idea about universities since Joe McCarthy. It  is the political right’s fixed vision of the future of the humanities in higher education go at least since Ronald Reagan became governor of California in 1967. You may know that, during a press conference in 1967 after being elected governor of California, and in the context of his push to introduce tuition into public higher ed in California, Reagan stated “we do believe that there are certain intellectual luxuries that perhaps we could do without for a year or two without hurting the cause of education.” Pressed to define these “intellectual luxuries,” Reagan pointed to only two examples: first, he referred to a course at UC Davis “where they teach you to hang the Governor in effigy.” Second, Reagan referred to “a state back in the Midwest where they discovered that a state university was offering a master's degree in the repair of band instruments, and I thought that this was sort of subsidizing intellectual curiosity.” We cannot give any concession or quarter to this continuing tradition of blanket hostility: it is completely dangerous and invalid. It is actually worse to have right-wing humanities than no humanities at all.

 

So far so retro culture war. Turning from the right’s attacks, I note that we have increasingly lost the center-left, the professional-managerial class (PMC) that once embraced what we do in public higher education.

 

As bad as the right has continued to be since 2020, I would argue that their attacks are not actually the politically worst for us: the center-left attacks have been far more damaging. Since the racist backlash to Black Lives Matter, followed by the backlash to campus protests opposing Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza, the center-left has joined this campaign. Deeply influential institutions within American political liberalism like The New York Times and The Atlantic have peddled a version of the right-wing narrative aimed at casting doubt on the project of the university and indicting the humanities in particular as the source of the university’s now-dubious project. They are reshaping PMC opinion against the idea of publicly-funded humanities teaching and scholarship.

 

There is so much to say about this; I can talk more about how this is happening in the Q & A. As for higher-ed media, an event earlier this week encapsulated everything wrong with it: the Chronicle of Higher Education just re-published an essay that originally appeared at the right wing outlet Persuasion, arguing, and I am not making this up, that humanists should stop doing and publishing research because what we produce is trash. The literal title of the article is “Most Humanities Research Should Stop.” I’ll say it again: this is in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Maybe we need a panel at the next CHCI about why the media coverage of humanities research and teaching is so bad and destructive.

 

So the center-left has, in its own way, abandoned the idea of robust public support for curiosity-driven humanistic education and scholarship and has fully embraced neoliberalism. Where do they think the humanities fit in our educational landscape? The center-left has decided that the purpose of public higher education is to supply workers for the economy, not citizens to participate in democracy. The value of any public investment in public education – whether from the teaching side or the research side – must be justified in terms of “return on investment” where “return” is defined in purely monetary terms, with all the non-monetary returns rendered illegible according to neoliberal reason. According to this vision, the humanities are fine in private institutions but their role in public education is less clear. This is important: Democrats do not have any problem with, and indeed support, the teaching of the humanities in private colleges and universities.  This points to the center-left having no problem, per se, with adjunctification and contingency in humanities instruction in private institutions, and especially highly selective ones – look at the reliance on contingent faculty in core curriculum programs at UChicago and Columbia, or in History & Literature and Social Studies at Harvard; look, perhaps most egregiously, at contingent faculty in college writing programs, again, especially private ones. Do any private college or university writing programs have tenure-line appointments?

 

Whether the center-left supports research for the humanities in private colleges and universities is a more muddled question.  What is clear is that in public education, the Democrats post-Reagan have emphasized STEM above all. The Clinton administration began this with its pivot to STEM education as the focus of its priorities and public investment. Barack Obama famously quipped in 2014 that “folks can make a lot more potentially with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.” The Obama administration proposed reductions to NEH and NEA funding in 2011 and 2012. Joe Biden was better, but still, annual NEH funding even under Democratic administrations has never been anywhere near $1 billion. Prior to DOGE, the NSF spent 17.5 times more on undergraduate research than the Congressional funds available to the NEH for individual fellowships to scholars.

 

In 2022, Obama’s Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardonna, tweeted, “Every student should have access to an education that aligns with industry demands and evolves to meet the demands of tomorrow’s global workforce.” Note the language here: the purpose of the public education system is to train workers for industry. Whatever industry demands, the taxpayer should supply. An echo of this came again in the context of the debate over student loan forgiveness during the Biden administration. In 2023, when the US House of Representatives voted to overturn Biden’s student debt relief program, the Democratic congresswoman and Reed College graduate Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, explained why she supported overturning the Biden student loan forgiveness program:

 

“Expansions of student debt forgiveness need to be matched dollar-for-dollar with investments in career & technical education. I can’t support the first without the other. The severe shortage of trades workers needs to be seen & treated as a national priority. It’s about respect.

I’m all for repairing what’s busted but the higher education system is totaled. College costs too much & the credentials produced get unwarranted social status, justifying more cost increases by our country’s elite. They need to snap out of it & the system needs a total overhaul.”

 

Let me underscore again that Congresswoman Perez went to Reed. She had the humanities experience we want students to have. But that experience does not seem to have led her to believe in the value of publicly-funded intellectual curiosity. There is no necessary correlation between classroom exposure to what we do and the willingness of either the college-educated public or college-educated politicians to then go out and support the university we want to build.

 

This is not because pedagogy is not important; far from it. It is because pedagogy in itself is not enough: we need politics – and we need politicians – to make political change happen. 

 

Now for a very brief part three. The construction of a robust public infrastructure for funding humanities research depends in the United States on winning political support. We don’t have that now. But I strongly believe we have a chance right now, even though things are so bad, to build this political support: the next Democratic administration will need to rebuild the federal government knowledge infrastructure, completely and totally. It’s time for us, as humanists, to lay out what we need in terms of public support.

 

We need to be talking to the administration in exile. Media is a huge part of this: the turn by center-left media outlets that influential Democrats read, like the New York Times and The Atlantic, against humanistic scholarship and teaching, is a big problem. The retreat of private funding for university-based humanities research is also a big problem, one that I have written about, but of course in electoral democracies, private foundations are not accountable to publics in the same way as state institutions are, and while we can and should say things about the retreat of private funding (and I have) we actually have an opportunity right now to articulate what a reconstructed NEH should look like and how much it should be funded. The center-right will not let this serious crisis go to waste; neither should we.

 

by Christopher Nealon, John Dewey Professor of English, Johns Hopkins University

This is one of talks from the CHCI panel, "The Humanities We Can Build Right Now" in Banff, Alberta. My explanation of the context and my introduction to the panel are here.

** 

Thanks for having me, folks. I had been planning to devote my short presentation to an outline of the crisis facing STEM fields, and how understanding that crisis can make a difference for how we think about the assaults on the humanities. I’d be happy to talk about that in our conversation after this panel. But after listening to Professor Alondra Nelson’s fantastic opening keynote on Monday, I found myself wanting to pick up on her insights, and run with them a little bit.

 

As you recall, Professor Nelson walked us through a distinction between stochastic and epistemological frames for knowledge, where the stochastic names the random, unpredictable play of the material world, which nonetheless always holds out the promise of the predictability of phenomena, while epistemological language holds out a different promise, the knowledge of how and why things work the way they do. And she pointed us to the idea of agnotology, which if I followed right, describes both the production of obfuscatory anti-knowledge, and study of that obfuscation.

 

Banff, Alberta back country on June 3, 2026  

This piece is my introduction to a panel at the Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes in Banff, Alberta. 

 

CHCI funds research initiatives, among other things--see their Climate Futures call and other initiatives. The theme of this year's meeting was "Building the Future We Want," which is also an implicit theme of this blog. Building that future means putting humanities research into modes of influence in the world, which involves transforming our existing knowledge system, an issue with which I'm a bit obsessed.  

 

 

UC Irvine on April 13, 2018     

by Trevor Griffey, School of Humanities, UC Irvine

Last May, 2025, I had the radicalizing experience of successfully lobbying for three months as part of a labor union coalition to prevent $270 million in proposed cuts to the University of California (UC) general fund allocation from the State of California, then watching multiple UC campuses go forward with tens of millions of dollars of budget cuts anyway. 

It was a level of cynicism and exploitation that I frankly hadn’t expected from a public sector employer. For months, the UC office of the President (UCOP) mobilized students and Regents to personally lobby legislators to prevent budget cuts that would be “devastating” to students. Legislators, facing tough choices about how to close a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, heard our pleas and protected us while passing on cuts to other government programs instead. Then UCOP said nothing when campus Chancellors, citing structural deficits compounded by uncertainty in the Trump age, went ahead and and made some of the same cuts that legislators had explicitly given UC money to prevent.

 

510 E. Peltason Dr, UC Irvine  

by Trevor Griffey, School of Humanities, UC Irvine

The idea of continuing education— sometimes also called “lifelong learning”— is old and venerable. It taps into some of the best humanist ideals of self-improvement and the democratization of access to skills and knowledge.

But the management of contemporary continuing education programs by many universities has shown the perils of for-profit models for education hosted by supposedly non-profit and even public universities.

Venice, Italy on May 8, 2026   

by Sean L. Malloy, Department of History and Critical Race and Ethnic Studies (CRES), UC Merced

In September 2025, I wrote a guest post for this blog entitled “Why Should We Stand Up for the UC?” that placed much of the blame for the current federal assault against the University of California on the complicity and weakness of UC leadership, including the Regents, UCOP, and the Academic Senate.  In bowing to the false claims of antisemitism that have served as the Trump administration’s pretext for attacking American universities and unleashing police and administrative terror on anti-genocide protesters, the UC invited federal intervention while crushing the grassroots movements of students, faculty, and staff that not only stood up for the best values of humanity, but also represented the best defense against rising fascism and authoritarianism.  

Wayne State, Detroit on April 12, 2019  

This is the corrected text of a talk I gave online to the Wayne State University conference, “Public Budgets, Public Good,” on April 30, 2026.  Many thanks to the audience, whose questions about theory and practice were excellent. Thanks also to the sponsors: Labor@Wayne, AAUP, HELU, and Public Good U. I’m still sorry I wasn’t there in person.

∞∞∞

I’ve always seen the university as a force for the general development of society, having been influence by a tradition that includes Humboldt & Fichte, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Du Bois, John Dewey, CJR James, and many thinkers since.   This has made it easier to grasp the fact that the university’s largest effects are a combination of non-monetary and public.  These public effects have been rendered “dark matter” by the political and business worlds, which have steered people exclusively toward the private pecuniary effect of the B.A. wage increment over high school. College presidents and other officials have simply echoed them.  This is overbearingly true in the US and the UK, and amounts to a mass miseducation about education. But it is also true elsewhere, and apparently in China.

New Haven People's Center on April 18, 2026  

I gave this talk at the 45^th Anniversary Conference of the Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University,  April 17, 2026. Many thanks to the organizers, speakers, audience, and my co-panelists.

I’m going to talk about humanities ambition in a time of diminished authority for its fields,  and I’ll say we need big increases in our ambition in response.  But I have to note that the humanities won’t get enough help from their universities, and in many cases will have to fight them.  The Trump administration’s systematic efforts to erase people of color from the American past and present has been translated on campuses as quiet acceptance, via, in particular, the deletion of DEI programs and the merging or closure of departments associated with ethnicity, sexuality, or countries and cultures MAGA America dislikes.

Stonehenge on December 21, 2025   

In the end, the university’s main value is its intellectuality, the treatment of everything that is with thinking and all its methods. 

 

That was the first line of the post I started drafting on Monday, on the holiday Easter Monday here in Britain. But I was struggling to concentrate.  I thought maybe I needed a rest day: I’d spent a couple of days last week writing a section on AI and the future of jobs for a collaborative report that we’re doing on the crisis of learning worsened by AI, and after devoting another chunk of time to it over the weekend it wound up at 6000 words. It’s not the length, it’s the sense of fighting inevitability from which I’d need a rest.

 

UC Board of Regents, March 2017    

That is the question.

This is the answer: Never.  

Or not at least until the campuses fight and change current Office of the President (UCOP) budget ideology and practice. They have never done that.  Not yet.  

I’m going to compare UCOP’s January state budget show with their offstage borrowing.  State funding yields little, while the debt yields a lot.  

I’ll keep my eye on two major implications for the campuses. The first is a lock-in of structural deficits with continuing cuts to the educational core--to both teaching and research.  

Cornell University on July 11, 2014   

By Dr. Lori Allen, writing from London 

Chris Newfield’s recent post discussed a trend in university administration craven behavior: hiding behind the principle of “institutional neutrality” (or “restraint”) as a way to avoid putting well-paid heads above the bushes to say anything principled about the real problems of the day. Chris writes: “Under Trump-turboed pressure from government and from a loud minority of heavyweight trustees, university presidents have largely muzzled themselves.” 

Genoa, Italy, on June 26, 2024   

You aren’t likely to have looked for criticism of Trump’s illegal war on Iran from college presidents or governing boards.  If you did type the search string, “university president criticizes war on Iran” early on March 5^th you would have gotten a string of university professors commenting as individuals (“Law school professors say strikes on Iran violate international law”).  I got the same result on March 8^th.

This is an established pattern: university professors go out in force and use their expertise to affect public debate about a major issue. Universities practice “institutional neutrality” and say nothing. The justification, as explained by an advocate, Daniel Diermeier, president of Vanderbilt University, is that an institutional position “risk[s] establishing a ‘party line’ and stifling debate among students and faculty.” 

UC President Mark Yudof Reviews Demands Nov 2011  

Chris here: I've criticized pervasive info failures in higher ed, from campus budget opacities to the inability of national associations in the humanities to gather data that can be used to strategize and build positions, organizations, and infrastructure.  Here's a group doing something about that.  The Coalition for Action in Higher Education (CAHE) and the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace have launched a project called "Know Your Governing Board."  

One major element of it is a survey that they are asking campus groups across the country to fill out.  There's research involved! It will be worth it.  

UCLA Royce Hall on May 14, 2018   

By early spring of the annus horribilis 2025, the UCLA Senate had lost patience with a UCLA Administration that had locked it out of any meaningful role in major decisions.  

The new CFO, Stephen Agostini, appointed in 2024, wasn’t working with the Senate in established ways. A new chancellor, Julio Frenk, had arrived in January, was to be inaugurated on June 5^th, and seemed okay with increased opacity.  The Senate chair, Kathy Bawn, must have been worried that something much worse than shared governance could get locked in by the new administration.