I usually try to steer away from politics in my public/social media personae. I have pretty strong political beliefs but I don't see them as a useful point of contention in most instances, so I try not to wave them in everybody's face too often. There's enough negativity out there without my help.
That being said, sometimes I just can't keep quiet.
Today, with the help of Twitter (follow me bros lol) I came across this article. In case you're like me and don't want to read the whole thing, I'll give you the bite-size version. Basically, Florida seriously wants to change how higher education happens in their state, especially when it comes to money. Governor Scott proposed a $10,000 Bachelor's Degree at all of Florida's state (community) colleges (which is super cheap) and seriously cutting state funding for universities, who can't quite afford such a massive drop in price on their own. Now, I'm all for cheaper education, especially when the government helps out. But this is what really gets my goat.
"To nudge students toward job-friendly degrees, the governor’s task force on higher education suggested recently that university tuition rates be frozen for three years for majors in “strategic areas,” which would vary depending on supply and demand. An undergraduate student would pay less for a degree in engineering or biotechnology — whose classes are among the most expensive for universities — than for a degree in history or psychology...
"The message from Tallahassee could not be blunter: Give us engineers, scientists, health care specialists and technology experts. Do not worry so much about historians, philosophers, anthropologists and English majors."
Wait wait wait. Did I just read that?
"'Every business has to figure out how to make itself more efficient,' Mr. Scott said when announcing the challenge at St. Petersburg College last month."
"'The higher education system needs to evolve with the economy,' said Mr. Brill, the president of the Florida Chamber Foundation. 'People pay taxes expecting that the public good will be served to the greatest degree possible. We call that a return on investment.'"
Yes, yes I did.
Now here's the issue. All of this makes sense if you think of education and society as a business. Economically speaking, degrees in literature and philosophy and the liberal arts are not efficient. It takes more time and more education to receive a large salary working in those fields than it does working in engineering or construction management. The work anthropology researchers and art museum curators accomplish is much less noticeable economically than a computer scientist, both individually and within a community. Jobs are more scarce, more nebulous, and less stable in the liberal arts than they are in the chemical engineering or medical fields. Most importantly, the societal value of a Latin teacher or concert pianist is, if measured *economically, not that much.
But I'm not measuring economic efficiency here, and you shouldn't be either. Society is not a business and should not be run like one*. If you look at society from a Spockian, purely economic view--if you believe that if society focuses only on business all the rest will work out--things turn into the Industrial Revolution and people start dying. Stay with me. If you believe this guy, education is society in miniature. Thus, if you run education like a business, with money the top priority, things will turn into the Industrial Revolution and people will start dying. I know you think I'm being dramatic, but listen to this.
Studies have shown that there has been a notable decline in **empathy among college students in the past 30 or so years, most rapidly in the last 10 years. A number of smart people have commented on the connection between art and empathy, but the only one I could find in my cursory search was from this deliciously beautiful article about reading and the internet. "(Marshall) McLuhan... said that our tools numb 'whatever part of our body they "amplify."' Deep reading and deep thinking are entwined and both require 'a calm attentive mind,' says Carr, as do 'empathy and compassion.'"
Art and empathy have always been married, giving voices to oppressed and opinionated people and providing a language in which universal human realities can be mutually understood. And this is something I've come to value so much in my own experience with art (my medium of choice, of course, being literature). I can "converse" with people I would never have otherwise had occasion to converse with on subjects that I would never have had occasion to learn about in a language (and I don't mean just English) that we both understand. And that understanding has hugely influenced my world view, especially as a Christian. If charity is the be-all end-all, and charity is pure love of mankind, and empathy is the psychological manifestation of that (by scientists' previous accounts) natural "love" (they would probably use the word "response" or "relationship," but I see it more as love than anything else) then empathy is something we must continue to foster. And how does that happen?
Art. Conversation. Social interaction on an equal basis. Art.
Now let's back up from religion. Speaking logically, empathy is necessary for a healthy, productive society. Empathy is the cure for genocide, for war, for the corruption we see in politics, for bullying, for family issues, and for the unethical business and governmental practices we are constantly bombarded with on the news. If people made an effort to understand each other on a fundamental, me=you level, so many of our world's ethical problems would be solved; or, at least, more people would want to solve them.
I bet you can figure out where I'm going with this. If liberal arts degree programs are cut back on or cut altogether for the sake of economic improvement, society will degenerate, not improve. This seems dramatic, again, but listen. I'm not saying that everyone should get a liberal arts degree. Quite the opposite, in fact. I would say this exact same thing (though not necessarily make the exact same case) if science and technology degree programs were being cut. And I'm making a general argument here that art should be given an important place in all education systems, not only higher education (in fact, probably less for higher education than for primary and secondary education).
I guess what I'm saying is that government leaders and the public that elects them need to acknowledge the balance between the arts and the sciences. This balance is a fundamental part of society which fosters both economic and cultural growth, and not as strict binaries either. Science feeds art and creativity feeds science-- we need both to survive. To amputate one is to disease the whole body.
Okay, this is super long and really boring. You may finish studying for finals now.
A Song They Won't Be Playing On the Radio -- Molly Nilsson
**How I define empathy: me = you, therefore, I have an instinctual response, an immediate desire/need to help you or to be nice to you. Golden rule, but deeper biologically.
thanks for writing this. it's very well said. i like your logic and i agree 100%.
ReplyDelete