The “Report on the State of Scholarship in the Humanities and the Humanistic Social Sciences” — more commonly referred to as the Vanderbilt Report — wants stakeholders in academia to believe that progressive politics have slowly permeated higher education, replacing scholarly rigor across the humanities. Commissioned by the chancellors of Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis and chaired by New York University philosopher Paul Boghossian, the Vanderbilt Report argues that a growing trend in the humanities prioritizes moral and political aims over objective inquiry. More specifically, it argues that dissenting arguments, specifically right-wing opinions, are purposefully suppressed by academics in order to advance a politicized, left-leaning agenda. The 10-scholar panel spent months examining six humanities disciplines and singled out anthropology for what it calls a “widespread deterioration in scholarly standards.”
The report is not only a poorly substantiated piece of scholarship, but it manufactures a crisis that dovetails with a broader political effort to discredit and constrain higher education. Simultaneously, the report manufactures this crisis that inadvertently gives — and already has given — legislators across the country the fuel to erode institutional autonomy. Legislators do not need real evidence of politicized scholarship to act on it. They just need a report that looks credible enough to cite.
Of the report’s 10 authors, four are philosophers. This would not be troubling if the panel’s philosophers spoke adequately for their field. But several faculty members, such as those at the University, took issue with the report, citing a lack of evidence for some of the report’s most brazen claims and asserting that the report’s conclusions do not reflect a consensus position within philosophy itself — let alone the humanities writ large. A report that cannot represent the field it draws its authority from has little business diagnosing the fields it does not. In addition, the panel never disclosed its funding sources, a crucial omission of ethical importance which American Association of University Professors chapters at both sponsoring universities felt warranted the report’s retraction. A report chaired by a philosopher that aims to invoke objective inquiry is hypocritically holding itself to a lower evidentiary standard than it criticizes. For a report that seeks to identify a national problem, its authority rests less on breadth of expertise than on the credentials of a narrow, self-selected group funded by as-of-yet unnamed, shadowy figures.
The narrowness of the report does not only show up in its authorship, but also in the evidence it presents, too. References to Akhil Gupta, former American Anthropological Association president, and his 2021 address to the Association were utilized out of context to punch home the point that the field has abandoned truth-seeking in place of advocacy, an act Gupta called a “cardinal academic error.” Moreover, the report makes no effort to provide comprehensive evidence to support its broader claims. The report asserts that the field of anthropology has evolved to suffer from a toxic intellectual climate and cites the research methods of fields such as women’s studies, Black studies, ethnic studies and postcolonial studies as evidence that the discipline has evolved from apolitical objectivity. Conflating intellectual expansion with political corruption is not an argument. It is rather alluding to the notion that these subjects are not worthy of legitimacy to be studied — a grave error in itself. And most unwarrantedly, the basis of the report relies on so-called data gathering and internal disciplinary assessments that were largely completed by artificial intelligence models. Where in the report and how much AI was used has yet to be released.
The most dumbfounding and hypocritical part of the report is that it accuses scholars in the humanities of selecting evidence in a self-serving manner in order to fit predetermined political conclusions. Of course, the report fails to provide tangible evidence of such behavior, but more brazenly, the report commits the same error. If the report cannot practice the objectivity that it demands of others, what exactly is it diagnosing?
Despite the report’s attempts to place blame upon internal figures within academia, the real political pressure on humanities scholarship is unambiguously external. Legislation such as Texas SB 37 grants politically appointed university regents increased control over curriculum decisions in higher education, and allows those appointees to deem which courses are “necessary.” Conservative-led state policies have targeted diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and institutions have faced program eliminations and department dissolutions of subjects such as Women and Gender Studies. These threats, unlike those supposed within the report, are documented and have already begun to reshape academia. The actual political pressure on humanities scholarship is not coming from inside the academy.
The University should be familiar with this external pattern, and not lose sight of the serious federal interventions that trump any internal improvements necessary. Last summer, the Department of Justice essentially forced former University President Jim Ryan to resign in part due to the implementation of numerous diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And the fight has not stopped there. As a public institution, the University will likely continue to be exposed to exactly the kind of claims made by the Vanderbilt report, and it is imperative that, so long as a doctrine is invested in the narrative that higher education is ideologically captured, the University should not turn a blind eye. Reports like this will continue to supply the pretext for federal overreach, and the humanities cannot bow down. We must continue to allow the humanities to flourish as a space to explore the contours of freedom.
Farah Eljazzar is an opinion columnist who writes about identity and culture for The Cavalier Daily, and previously served as an Opinion Editor during the 136th term. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
GARVIE: Fighting the sustainability fight requires an army
By Adeline Garvie | 21 hours agoIn order for these students’ sustainability actions to reach a broader sphere of attention, green practices need to be encouraged and attainable, both of which can be achieved with increased advocacy.
HASNAIN: Virginia must be for all lovers
By Zehra Hasnain | 2 days agoAccording to various bumper stickers, t-shirts and other state gift-shop paraphernalia, Virginia is for lovers — yet the state constitution begs to differ.
EDITORIAL: USPS cannot override the Constitution to regulate elections
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoThe whistleblower report exposes more than a flawed system. It exposes a federal agency, empowered by President Trump, unafraid to attack democracy and judicial oversight.
