Flawed Report on Humanities Scholarship Criticized for Process and Framing

A committee of ten professors, convened by the chancellors of Vanderbilt University and Washington University, submitted a report in early April on the state of scholarship in the humanities and humanistic social sciences. The report claims that scholarship quality is compromised by rigid orthodoxy on politically charged issues and moral standards replacing academic ones. Critics, including the author of this article, argue the committee was composed of like-minded insiders, with four philosophers from New York University's same department, and lacked representation from the fields being judged. The report frames issues using culture-war categories, blaming relativism and politicization, but fails to engage deeply with the work it criticizes. It advises administrators to consider limiting faculty deference, a move critics say is reckless and could erode academic freedom. The author notes the process excluded faculty whose work was judged, and the diagnosis of relativism is overly simplistic, ignoring rigorous defenses within analytic philosophy. The report's focus on administrators rather than faculty, and its vague criteria for politicization, risk empowering donors and administrators to act against departments.