Few terms are as politically charged as “liberal” – worn proudly by those on the left and a sign of scorn for those on the right. Tossed around frequently without clarity or rigor, “liberal” has become of a catch-basin for various ideas, policies, and values. This is not unusual. I am trained as an historian and I spent years trying figure what, if anything, “progressive” meant to Americans in the early part of the twentieth century. Some terms are both expansive and elusive.
Higher education has a special relationship with the word “liberal” – it anchors that most respected of academic labels, the “liberal arts.” We have liberal arts colleges, liberal arts schools, liberal arts programs and liberal arts degrees. Many within the academy champion the liberal arts as the foundation of learning. The term has classic origins and can be traced to the study of subjects necessary to live as a “free” person (male) in ancient Greece and Rome. Today within higher education, the “liberal arts” or “liberal arts and sciences” frame many academic disciplines: languages, literature, math, sciences, the social sciences and the humanities.
The affinity that we, who work within higher education, have for the term “liberal arts” has long surprised me. I have heard it as organizational schema, unifying principle, and as a bulwark against the commodification of education. And every fall at new student orientation, we try to explain this to our students. They rarely seem to get it. I, too, often wonder about its pervasiveness and what people think that it means.
Books are regularly written and published affirming the liberal arts. Two new ones were just reviewed in the New York Times: George Anders’ You Can Do Anything: The Surprising Power of a “Useless” Liberal Arts Education and Randall Stross’s A Practical Education: Why Liberal Arts Majors Make Great Employees. The titles say it all: academia believes that the liberal arts have value and that public, on the other hand, believes that the liberal arts are frivolous and unhelpful.
Brandon Busteed thinks that term “liberal arts” is a “marketing disaster.” Executive Director of Education and Workforce Development for Gallup, Busteed argues that “liberal” is too political and that “arts” signifies a lack of job readiness. He is blunt: “Other than people in higher education or liberal arts graduates themselves, who understands what the liberal arts are anyhow?”
The Economist magazine faces similar challenges. They do not want to be placed on the right or left of the partisan spectrum. Instead, they describe their philosophy as coming from 19th century classical liberalism, which was about free trade and voting rights. Read the magazine and the topic pops up often. I would wager that the public at large does not understand them, either. Their readers, though, probably do. Similarly, as Busteed notes, we can be confident that most graduates of liberal arts institutions have a working knowledge of the term.
Busteed makes a good argument and I agree with him. The values supporting and around the liberal arts need our support, our resources, and our advocacy. However, promoting the term “liberal arts” with the public at large is not going to do the trick. Is this a battle that needs to be fought? Victory would not be all that satisfying. There other ways to promote academic values and have them stick.
My vote is for “arts and sciences” or “college education” – but it is not about my preferences. Nor should it be about the likes of those within higher education who understand and treasure the “liberal arts.” It is more a campaign for hearts and minds – and we need to give real consideration about what we want to promote. Let us take a page from the utilitarians, the practical, and the markets and champion whatever combination of terms works.
David Potash