While the sciences feast at the federal trough — looking up only to complain of deprivation — the humanities are allotted skimpy federal assistance. The budget tells the sad story: $30-billion annually dispensed to academic science and engineering by a flock of federal agencies; $144-million for the sole agency focused on supporting the humanities, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).

As described in my post of May 12, “Where Are the Arts and Humanities in the D.C. Money Chase?,” science is politically an easier “sell” than the humanities. But in addition to that natural advantage, universities maintain a host of Washington-based organizations to keep up and expand the flow of government money into their laboratories. Nothing comparable exists for the humanities, I noted — which brought rejoinders from several organizations that claim dedication and diligence in promoting the humanities in the nation’s capital.

A spokesman for the Association of American Universities — comprising 62 research universities — acknowledged that “AAU’s first priority is the partnership between the federal government and universities which produce much of the nation’s basic research.” “But,” he added, “support for the humanities, and specifically for the NEH, is also an important priority for AAU.”

The concession of subordinate status for the humanities is unavoidable, given its minuscule share of attention in the AAU’s numerous activities. The AAU’s Web site (www.aau.edu) reveals reams of reports, congressional testimony, budget analyses, and other efforts on behalf of science — usually in behalf of more money and less federal regulation for science. In March, the AAU produced a report, “Science As a Solution: An Innovation Agenda for the Next President,” which offers “presidential candidates and the next administration a vision for science, technology, and education that can help ensure that the nation remains strong and capable of answering the daunting challenges we face.” Increased funding for science and technology is strongly endorsed.

There’s no comparable AAU report on the value of history, philosophy, and literary understanding in presidential leadership. Nonetheless, as the AAU spokesman points out, AAU has not ignored the humanities. In 2004, an AAU Task Force on the Role and Status of the Humanities urged universities to put more emphasis on the humanities and to seek “greater outside funding,” from the NEH and other sources. Ten specific recommendations were presented for enhancing the humanities, mostly in the high-vacuum prose typical of collective academic output , such as: “University presidents, provosts, and humanities deans should seek out, enlist, and support faculty leadership in building strong humanities programs, and should provide mechanisms for evaluating and selectively funding faculty-driven initiatives.” Nothing was said about buttonholing a Senator and making a pitch for a bigger NEH budget.

Apart from that long-ago report, the AAU reports few other activities related to the humanities, but many, many concerning the sciences.

The National Humanities Alliance (NHA) acknowledges that “funding for the humanities is not what it should be,” and that “we are fighting an uphill battle — especially with the relatively rare resources available to the humanities for all activities, including advocacy — but there are those who are working hard to ascend the Hill.”

Good. And I in no way wish to slight or impede those efforts, but rather to assist them, because the humanities are shamefully neglected in the disposition of money for educational and scholarly purposes. Also of concern is the absence of power niches for humanistic learning in high places in Washington. A science adviser, backed by an ample staff, is on hand to assist the president; there’s nothing comparable to shed light from the humanities. But we’re used to that.

The difficulty with the NHA is that its existence is barely noticeable, if at all, in our clamorous capital city. I may suffer from a blinkered journalistic existence, but despite decades of reporting in Washington, I never heard of the NHA until it commented on my post on the humanities and federal support. The archives of The Washington Post, which provides blanket coverage of money politics, contains only a handful of entries for the NHA. The fact that the NHA gets up to Capitol Hill now and then and puts on a presentation for friendly legislators ought not be equated with influence that leads to treasury. The humanities must make more noise to gain political attention.

The measure of reality in this matter can be simply stated: $30-billion for science; $144-million for the humanities.