 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Bob ZemskyRecent Posts
Ripe for the Gripe | Comment [9]
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [13]
Prizes Won't Beat the Energy Crunch ... | Comment [8]
Detecting Scientific Fraud | Comment [4]
Countering Big Pharma's Misuse of Academic Prestige | Comment [7]
Featured Articles By the Author
The Humanities' D.C. Money Chase -- Part II
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.
Posted at 02:08:57 PM on May 15, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Where Are Arts and Humanities in the D.C. Money Chase?
Next: The Humanities' D.C. Money Chase -- Part III
My god, the humanities are the chief whiner in the our known universe again—the humanities as the dark energy in our known universe—the poor poor pitiful under-appreciated humanities. Geez when was whining, continual decade in decade out whining a good fund raising strategy!!!!! How about some strategy other than whining?
— Richard Tabor Greene · May 19, 05:48 AM · #
RTG, instead of whining about the whining, why don’t you use your superior intellect and proffer an alternate suggestion?
— a different Dan · May 19, 09:37 AM · #
Here’s some high-class “whining” from the JHU alumni mag which just came in the mail, Hopkins Medicine, Spring/Summer 2008, p. 6 (note the honest touch in the title of the Dean as CEO):
The Great Grant Chase
Flat funding is hampering medical progress, Miller tells Washington legislators.
Ed Miller is putting it all on the line. Cutting support for research is casting a pall across the land for scientists everywhere, he told a Senate committee in March. The flattened funding is coming at a pivotal moment in medical discovery, he says, and it’s having “a particularly insidious efffect on our young scientists.”
The Dean/CEO of Medicine’s appeal to Washington is simple. Please find a way to restore healthy science funding so the best and brightest can get back to their labs.
[…]
Total funding for the NIH has been plateaued near $29 billion for five years, lagging well behind inflation. The net effect is driving promising young scientists to look for work overseas. What discoveries might be leaving with them? “It would be a shame to never know,” says Miller. RF
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · May 19, 12:45 PM · #
RTG’s iterations cloy even after the first one. Any critique is, sophomorically, labeled whining by him. In short, a great conversation stopper from this regular “contributor” who will be satisfied only with the necessary fund -raising recommendations upon which he, of course, will pass his superior judgment.
But let us say it again loud and clear: the professoriate is being impoverished and eviscerated by the growing percentage of contingent teachers, and most of them are attempting to teach courses in the humanities. It’s not just a matter of low funding from government: it’s a matter of administrative decision making which distributes money according to allegedly dominant “values” in our culture, values which, we are assured, are always and inevitably a function of the GREAT GOD MARKETPLACE. Some would argue that we need “research” funding for the humanities and I would argue with Richard Ohmann that teaching is a form of research, and the more we invest in helping teachers at all levels do the work necessary to move students beyond Hirschean notions of cultural literacy, the more we will succeed in really leaving none of the young behind.
— George K · May 19, 11:28 PM · #
On Comment 4:
Yes, indeed, the “adjunctification” of the university is at the crux of the humanities crisis. However, the use of graduate student labor in the classroom, as well as that of the (generally) science post-doc, has also vastly eroded the sciences and social sciences as well as the “professional” fields.
One of the ironies of the “great grant chase” is that generally Federal agencies wisely expect principal investigators to be “regular” (i.e.tenured or tenure-ladder) faculty. Futher, as any experienced grant administrator knows, the quickest way to drive up any required “cost share” is with the “relaease time” of the “regular” faculty whose percentage of salary then is requested in the grant.
In order to meet this “regular” faculty requirement, the intellectual property of contingent employees is often “shared” by and formally attributed to a senior faculty member PI for the purpose of applying for grants. The “honorific” status of the senior faculty placed as authors on the publications of their contingent workers is an extension of this practice.
The cost of the “adjunct” or graduate student, et al., to replace the “regular” faculty member in the classroom or in other duties is subtracted from the “regular” faculty member’s salary fraction to arrive at the “cost” of the faculty member’s time.
This system of determining the PI and calculating “cost share” not only fosters the use of contingent academic laborers but also encourages keeping their salaries low and exploiting their intellectual property as well as the work of their teaching.
And again, all of these and other usual “corruptions” and “pollution” of “the great grant chase” (including the scandals of the improper use of indirect costs by administrators for personal and/or non-grant related purposes) remain unchanged and, by and large, unchallenged by Federal grant administrators.
While, in theory, teaching and research are the reverse and obverse of the same coin, in practice teaching is the handmaiden/stable boy of the university whose work is increasingly transfered to ever more lowly-compensated workers in the academic fields.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · May 20, 07:34 AM · #
On # 5: many thanks AHA for your detailed analysis which again reminds us, as does Marc Bousquet’s work, of “how the university works.”
— Georger K · May 20, 11:27 AM · #