It’s nice to see news reporting on the current federal administration’s attacks on higher ed (those attacks being mostly a combination of censoring voices they don’t like under the guise of equal opportunity and financially bullying schools). But it would be nicer if both the schools under attack (mostly Ivy League) and the reporters who describe them actually thought a little more about the scope of those attacks and the point of a university.

In today’s New York Times, Gina Kolata and Jeremy Peters discuss how Harvard’s president, Alan Garber hates Trump’s tactics while he agrees with Trump’s agenda. In particular, they note how President Garber agrees there is a culture problem on Harvard’s campus, including the prevalence of antisemitism, but opposes the cuts to funding and tax-exempt status that the Trump administration threatens. So far, so good. I also think that academia has a problem with antisemitism, not to mention other frequent campus culture issues; and I also think that the federal government is taking the wrong tack.

But when they quote President Garber saying “We have so many challenges ahead and we also have so many opportunities…this is a time when we should be doubling down on our investments in research, particularly in science,” they should be pushing him on that. If you want to understand why Americans might be angry at higher ed institutions, if you want to understand why universities might support antisemitism, if you want to understand why the Trump administration is underfunding and dismantling higher ed……you need A LOT more than scientific research, you need research in disciplines that address those questions!

If we should double down on anything, it should be the research that helps us understand what the heck is going on in the world.

Now you might say that we aren’t researching the right things in the humanities and social sciences, and you may be correct. Maybe we aren’t helping to sort these problems out. But if that’s the case, maybe ask experts in related fields to consider the questions. Perhaps suggest funding at the federal level to help them do so.

As much as I think robots are cool — I do! I’m a 20 year expert in the social study of digital technologies…see my published works 🙂 — and as much as I think we need more and better research about our climate, new modes of energy production, new visions of sustainable economic growth, new medical cures, etc., I think we need to understand society. It’s hard, but we have to try.

Journalists, who are themselves under threat of AI replacement and a dismissive public that would rather view 10 second TikToks than read a ten minute essay, should know this. They should know that to understand the New York Times you need an education that includes the humanities and the social sciences. And they should be allies in helping presidents (of nations and of universities) recognize that our problems require comprehensive solutions, and thus comprehensive educations.