Governor misses value of humanities

North Carolina governor Pat McCrory recently took to the press to lambast the humanities and liberal arts education. According to McCrory, the liberal arts should be contained solely in the realm of private institutions and big “flagship” public schools like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Other public schools within the University of North Carolina system, like the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, should be more concerned with “workforce management” to produce “more productive citizens.” Earlier this week, we discussed the role of the University in asking fundamentally important questions concerning the human condition. Today, we answer McCrory’s critique and weigh in on the value of the humanities.

The governor’s critique evokes the perennial debate about the purpose of education. Should learning serve pragmatic economic ends, or can the pursuit of knowledge be driven purely out of curiosity? Though employment and economic sustainability are vitally important, and students should be cognizant of post-graduate financial realities—especially with the increasing trend of growing student loans—focusing education on economic means is insufficient. Not only does the economy change quickly and unexpectedly, but it also does not exist in a vacuum. In a society that is complex, historical and ever changing, studies in the humanities offer different and equally important perspectives, building communities and producing knowledge in ways that offer benefits beyond the narrow conflation of material worth and value.

In this way, the humanities are not “intellectual luxuries” but, rather, crucial elements to how we understand and operate in inter- and intra-personal relations in society. The humanities allow us to reflect upon our existence through a profoundly human lens; they provide a philosophical pursuit of understanding the human condition in a way that is fundamentally important and distinct from other disciplines. Rather than limit access to the humanities, they should perhaps be emphasized.

Yet, the common stereotype that majoring in the humanities decreases one’s employability is one that suggests a larger issue of over-emphasizing college majors. For many, majors bring with them the baggage of preset categories and characterizations: a math major, for example, is seemingly universally viewed as hyper-intelligent and analytical. Yet, assigning people identities and characteristics based on majors is problematic and reductive. On one hand, most majors require only 10 classes—a curriculum that hardly constitutes expertise. Even more, a major is only one of many components of a student. The experiences outside one’s major—summer experiences, co-curricular activities, classes in other disciplines and research—are arguably more formative than one’s major and more telling of an individual’s unique skills. Thus, while it is important to recognize the nuances between many majors, particularly STEM majors that train in specialized skills, students and employers should weigh less the title and more the external experiences.

Exploring one’s passion and providing benefit to society need not be mutually exclusive. In his dismissal of the humanities, the governor calls to question the choice to major in something that, as he argues, may not lead to employability. Yet, the assumption that the only way to be a productive member of society is to benefit it economically, starting with one’s collegiate studies, is problematic. The humanities offer a value that is both tangible and intangible, material and immaterial. Indeed, by engaging with the fundamental questions of humanity—past, present, economic, social and cultural—the humanities help to produce “ambassadors of human flourishing.”