There are many, mostly outside the academy but also some few within, who will applaud Smatresk's plan. There has always been a strain of anti-intellectualism in American life because of the pragmatic nature of a well- realized democracy: Egalitarianism eschews elitism. Today it is taking the form of a particularly nasty know-nothingism that will likely pass away soon enough. At the same time there is significant pressure on university administrators to adopt a corporate mode of management with a heavy emphasis on outcomes assessment, as if the aim of the institution were to produce an impersonal product that can be marketed so as to show a handsome profit. Smatresk seems to be a captive of this model.
Both of these critiques are far wide of the mark. The contemporary university, particularly the state schools, has probably done more to break down hierarchy and elitism in American culture in the past 50 years than any other institution. A visit to any campus will confirm this. There one will find remarkable ethnic diversity, an effective challenge to the pernicious maldistribution of income and material well-being in the broader society, and a startling gender imbalance: Women predominate in American higher education today as nowhere else. This did not happen by accident but rather is the result of dedicated work in affirmative action, disabilities sensitivity and financial needs support. It's also been generated by assiduous course work in the history of prejudice and inequality, and the social and economic structure of American society, to which I will return momentarily.
Generally, outcomes assessment is a false paradigm for the university also. After the mastery of basic skills in writing, geography, history, mathematics and science, which ought to take place in secondary school but tragically too often does not, higher education was traditionally designed to be a platform for the autonomy of the individual. The corporate model of management, which emphasizes "cost effectiveness," will never fit well an institution that is supposed to nurture creativity across a wide range of potentials and personalities. Graduates are not replicative products, the marketing of which is supposed to generate profit for the organization.
Most faculty and administrators in the university recognize the desirability of liberal arts exposure for the institution's students. There is really no substitute for learning what the best minds of the past have thought, and for participating in the conversation humankind has been engaged in for centuries about what it means to be human and how to make choices that build character, refine judgment and enhance human effectiveness. Certainly this has been the story at UAA, where Chancellors Edward Lee Gorsuch, Elaine Maimon and Fran Ulmer each nurtured the humanities platform of the institution, enthusiastically supported by President Mark Hamilton. As dean of the business school, incoming Chancellor Tom Case was an aggressive advocate of a strong liberal arts foundation for his students. But as UNLV's Dr. Smatresk's intentions suggest, the stress on university administrators to direct resources to "practical" curricula is enormous.
In a recent commentary on the modern university, "Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities," Martha C. Nussbaum argues that the marginalizing of the liberal arts by technocratic and business-oriented demands is counterproductive. It diminishes the university's capability to continue its work of redressing the inequalities and injustices of American society. For it's in the liberal arts courses that the most fundamental aspects of the individual and society are addressed: love, justice, fairness, decency, wisdom.
In another important commentary, "The Core: Teaching Your Child the Foundations of Classical Education," Leigh Bortins writes that students who have confronted these issues in liberal arts courses learn to make better decisions. Dr. Smatresk should probably read these books.
Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.