Against All Odds: Protecting the Liberal Arts

It's pretty much the worst-kept secret in higher education: the liberal arts are in trouble.  On a national scale, rhetoric and emphasis with regard to higher education have been increasingly focused on college and university study as a means to an end - a better job, a higher salary, a greater degree of self-sufficiency and a lesser degree of dependence on social welfare programs.  Recently, even the President of the United States has been pitching the idea of making college more affordable, in part by reducing the length of time it takes to complete a degree.

While I am reasonably confident all college instructors would like to see higher education within the financial reach of every American regardless of income, race, or gender, those of us in the liberal arts are acutely and painfully aware of which "fat" gets trimmed when it comes time to pull out the cleaver.

It's hard to argue with the idea that many careers and trades do not require a sophisticated understanding of traditional college subjects outside the field.  But it's equally hard to argue with this: even if the post-college career doesn't require it, the college graduate does!

There are reasons for this.  Perhaps most obvious is that the integrity of higher education in general is important.  A college graduate should not only be prepared to enter his or her field, he or she should also be able to uphold the expectations of a "person who has attended college".  If I were an employer hiring a college graduate, I would expect this potential hiree to be able to describe the significance of the Parthenon, give me the gist of theories developed by Freud and Marx, and understand the basics of human cell biology.  In addition, I would anticipate she or he would have the ability to write reports clearly and coherently, make compelling arguments, and correctly cite reliable sources.  A college education should - nay, must - mean something beyond being able to perform a specific job, else we could enroll our kids in a trade program at ten and be done with it.

Positive civic involvement and good public policy depend on both an educated populous and policy-makers whose backgrounds include the liberal arts.  An understanding of history, philosophy, and rhetoric is essential when it comes to developing, selling, and implementing effective public policy, not to mention the ability to evaluate and apply research evidence!  If college is expensive, how much more money have we spent putting into place programs and policies that were later found to be ineffective or even counterproductive (and were often unsupported by research in the first place)?  Eschewing evidence-based interventions was precisely what resulted in such gems as abstinence-only education and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Finally, there's a question of values at stake here.  Economic self-sufficiency and increased social mobility are not the only reasons to go to college.  What about learning for the sake of learning?  What about expanding your understanding of the world?  What about pursuing your interests?  What about the fact that a liberal arts background could potentially make you better at just about any job you might wish to pursue?  Financial success may be among Americans' core values, but it's not the only thing that matters (and we liberal arts adjuncts know that better than anyone).  When liberal arts are part of a core curriculum, college can be an opportunity for students to explore those areas of interest and learning while simultaneously developing the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need in order to achieve their economic and career goals.

So the liberal arts are important, and as teachers, we should be fighting like hell to protect them, even when the battle increasingly appears to be a losing one.  And while engaging in that fight publicly, there's also a subversive path we should be taking at the same time, which relies on one universal truth: 

Teaching about anything is an opportunity to teach about everything.

No matter what you teach, you can incorporate all types of topics and subjects.

When lecturing about economic systems with one of my classes, I often use Henrietta Lacks as an example.  While her case allows me to discuss the implications of capitalism (with regard to biological material), it also gives me leeway to talk about so much more, including gender, race, class, medical ethics, families, sexuality, and history.  When talking about how to conduct research, I often use the example of Ignaz Semmelweis to illustrate why research is so important... and in the process, we can talk about germ theory, history, and social psychology. My husband, Jason Whitesitt, a Professor of English and Humanities at Yavapai, also adheres to this philosophy, utilizing units on body modification, media, and food ethics to teach composition and rhetoric.

Now, he and I might not be ideal candidates for the type of subversive behavior I'm describing here, because we both teach courses that already fall under the liberal arts umbrella.  I'm certain it's considerably more difficult for a welding or agriculture instructor to include liberal arts topics in their lectures (although I have no doubt it can be done).  But the liberal arts aren't going to disappear entirely.  Nursing students will always need to take psychology; business students will always need a composition class.

The real danger is this: students are increasingly at risk of getting a mouthful of liberal arts in their college experience, instead of the three-course meal that they need and deserve.  Which means as teachers, it becomes more important each year that we make it a point to offer every bite we can, at every opportunity we can find.