Unis not defending values they were devised to uphold

The University of Otago has committed to cutting its humanities department. Photo: Peter McIntosh.

Much ink, innumerable trees and oceans of angst have been expended on the University of Otago’s cutting of academic staff from the division of humanities. However, now that the first of the chosen ones have been  led to the altar of  fiscal rectitude and  it has become clear that the university administration will not be tempted to deviate by any plea or argument, it might be an appropriate moment to look at this thing, the humanities, that all the fuss is about.

First, some definitions. What is an academic, and what does it do? An academic maintains, develops and teaches a discipline; i.e., undertakes scholarship, research and teaching, three interdependent activities of which the first is the foundation for the other two. Unfortunately, the priority of scholarship is sometimes lost in the clamour for research (often confused with "publications") and for innovative pedagogy (often confused with "customer service").

And the humanities? The humanities consist of disciplines which span the gamut of human thought and behaviour in order to record, analyse and understand them (even theology is a study of human thought and behaviour). The majority of correspondents on the subject over the past weeks appear to prioritise "the arts", both their  study and production, when discussing the value of education in the humanities.

What the humanities (and the arts) are not is an invariable force for good, a civilising influence that develops the moral and emotional sensibilities and makes  us "better" people (rather in the same way that some feel having discovered god). This, too, is a sentiment that has characterised recent commentary.

On the other hand, we have all heard stories of the SS officer who listened to Mozart and read Goethe in his downtime. Not to speak of the delightful irony in the juxtaposition (ODT opinion, 17.8.16) of a humanities-trained bureaucrat defending job cuts on economic grounds with a defence of the values of the humanities by a retired professor of anatomy. Or we have read the words of a self-obsessed arts graduate who has acquired a vocabulary with which to articulate self-obsession.

Whatever it is that makes us good or bad, sensitive or insensitive, arises  from the old mixture of nature and that varied, unstructured learning called "nurture". Study usually helps to articulate things a bit better.

While it may do no harm for students of other disciplines to study a bit of  literature, history or philosophy and, in particular, to become familiar with the mysteries of language, one should not expect too much influence on their later behaviour as scientists, administrators, politicians, business people, or whatever it is they grow up to be. It would be unfortunate if humanities disciplines were reduced to the status of adjuncts to smooth over the sharp edges of students of "real" subjects.

Record, analyse and understand: what we do and why. The teaching of the humanities, therefore, is not for the sake of students’ wellbeing, or  journeys of "self-discovery" (though such things may be incidental effects of any kind of study), but for the sake of the disciplines themselves, those bodies of knowledge held in common and through which we articulate and understand the wider world. Nor is it training, except in the general sense that certain techniques of research, analysis and expression must be acquired to demonstrate competence, and which later prove useful in employment of various kinds.

If we can agree that the humanistic disciplines are intrinsically valuable and necessary, the recent controversy should raise concerns on two levels.

Firstly, however much the University of Otago protests otherwise, it is clear that humanities is not a priority — the costly beautification of Castle and Union  Sts is a permanent memorial to that. And if there is a real fiscal problem in this division, it is not new and more gradual and considered action could have been initiated much earlier, rather than the current shock-and-awe.

University pro-vice chancellor of humanities Prof Tony Ballantyne denied my earlier assertion that "posts ... have been disestablished and staff required to reapply for [their] positions" (ODT letters, 24.8.16). But that is in effect just what is happening in most cases — ask the staff involved.

Further, these same staff can see little, if any, coherent academic principles or planning behind the process and the hyperbolic assertions of a rosy future. Secondly, in the wider context it is of concern that  the Government, and  Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce in particular,  have little understanding of universities beyond their status as training establishments and emporia for fee-paying students. The dangers of this narrow, debilitating and ultimately self-defeating utilitarianism will become more apparent as the nature of work and training undergo some radical changes in the not too distant future.

But perhaps most concerning of all is the moral and intellectual failure of all our universities, as they become progressively more corporate, to defend the values they were created to uphold.

- Dr Harry Love is an honorary fellow of the department of classics at the University of Otago.