Response 29: "Sanctuary For The Humanities"

I do not agree with the author’s critics that “all religious colleges should be denied accreditation as a matter of scholarly principle” and it seems unlikely that they would not provide education regarding evolution (1).

I also agree with his statement that “learning outcomes in the humanities cannot be standardized, for the simple reason that human experience cannot be standardized” (2). Standardized practice tests are a predictable indicator of performance in colleges that is true. But, they were also established by in the United States as an attempted excuse to bar those (such as minorities) with less access to education and resources for entrance to universities (a snippet of knowledge we discussed in high school U.S. history).

However, I disagree with the statement that “humanities of tomorrow will flourish for undergraduates only at religious colleges” or that “Only at religious colleges will the humanities find a broad market” (2). Also this comparison of expectations of students in religious, secular, and ivy league schools seems an unnecessary form of conflict between Noble and his critics. Would it not be more beneficial to discuss among themselves the different ways the approach, analyze, and teach the humanities; that way, they may actually be able to see the humanities from a different perspective from a different/unfamiliar/deconstructive perspective.

I also disagree that “It is probably not true that studying the humanities automatically promotes higher degrees of democratic engagement, not if esoteric, democracy-hating radicals like Plato are allowed on the syllabus” and I am increasingly apprehensive of his bias against students that are non-religious or different what he seems to expect to be on the “correct path” (2).

 “writing is crude and unreliable…Should our technology ever advance far enough to enable our species to revert to images and sounds, without loss of data-transfer efficiency, we will surely do so” (2). I am both in agreement and disagreement of this statement. While it is true that we prefer communicating through images (thus the popularity of emojis), I disagree that writing is “crude”, there is something beautiful about the written word and it is my opinion anyway that the written literature can describe stories in a beautiful and complex way that would be lost through simply using images. For example, consider the first caveman paintings, and while we understand the basic messages that they convey, we would be able to better learn about their lives and experiences if they were in the written word. And yes, “film and photography, social networking” are beautiful and changing things in their own ways, they are no substitutes for the written word (3).

While I agree that religion is important, and to many it is a fundamental part of their lives, I find myself disagreeing with his idea that non-religious students are not going benefit from studying the humanities and are simply wasting their money and time.