Post

I’ll bite, as I’ve all but defended my thesis. This entire argument is ideologically unsound. It’s reductive & ignorant to summarize the entire humanities as being under the control of one foundation, which is pushing the entire discipline into forgoing function in the name of advocacy.

I find it very ironic that to solve this conundrum, we need to apparently keep even more people from learning these skills? If more people read & knew history, we could avoid ~90% of the problems in this society. Advocating against the humanities is a giant red flag, & I don’t accept this argument

What your author ascribes to an agenda, is simply progress. Which the author is plainly against in some form, & citing Ruffo as anything but a racist is a giant red flag Defunding the humanities is leading to a crisis in this country, where very few people lack critical thinking skills.

I wish you'd given this to someone with a much smaller chip on his shoulder and a lot more experience. The guy quit before even getting tenure. If you haven't been a multiple PI on grants, refereeing, campus selections, etc., you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The framing is the problem with Mellon grantmaking is social justice orientation. I disagree. All grantmaking with top-down constraints skews research unhealthily. A big foundation for Christian humanities will have the same problem. We need a lot of foundations funding different kinds of research.

The clickbait headline is misleading. The article is much more nuanced. There’s a great quote in it from Mellon that clearly nails them on this ideological agenda. So what the author is saying is not so far-fetched. Their scholarly interests now are indeed pretty limited and utilitarian.

This article is so myopic and ridiculous in its ignorance of the general context (gee, what othermajor humanities funder stopped funding this past year 🤔) that I’m considering pulling my subscription if you can’t distinguish well researched stories from reactionary clickbait.