Steve Jobs said that among the most impactful classes he ever took in college was a class on calligraphy. It may be easy to turn one’s nose at this statement, writing it off as foolish or performative, or conclude that Big Calligraphy lobbied Jobs to share it. It is especially easy to do so if one subscribes to the idea that all education must provide a specific set of skills that one can lift straight from the classroom to a job site — or at least a graduate school application.
In reality, despite its interface applicability, knowing the difference between serif and sans-serif fonts was not the first domino in a series of chain events that culminated in Jobs’ momentous success. Are we to believe, then, that he gained nothing from calligraphy? That his statement is a bald-faced lie, and that the only real knowledge is that which has direct application? Somewhere, a chorus of professors — teachers of English literature, foreign languages and philosophy — sing a resounding “no,” and I am inclined to agree.
There exists a great disparity between the phrase “taught what to think” and “taught how to think,” particularly in subjective situations. This distinction is often missed by those who fear indoctrination and weaponized by leaders who radicalize the fearful. The former would, in fact, classify as indoctrination, while the latter is the beating heart that keeps the humanities alive. STEM courses are meant to teach you what to think — they do so because there are singular correct answers and one must know how to attain them. They are completely objective, devoid of any individual opinion. It is the subjective disciplines that teach one how to think; we would begin to infringe on individual thought as a whole if the former phrase reigned true.
When one is taught how to think, what lesson does that instruction impart? The humanities offer a modifier for the verb “to think" — specifically the adverb “critically.” The idea is that thinking, in its plain, unmodified form, is not sufficient to support reasoning and logic in subjective situations where there are no singular correct answers. To think critically, one must draw thought from skepticism and a willingness to question. Critical thinkers do not merely examine the evidence put forth on their screens or papers; they also question the process that birthed the evidence. Critical thinkers assume inaccuracy until otherwise proven, a quality that is requisite in the creation of solutions or reaching distinctively defensible decisions.
Classes in the humanities and in STEM generally offer opposite methods of teaching. STEM classes teach skills applied to specific problem-solving contexts, where students implement various theories and principles into one universally correct and specific answer — essentially, what to think. Instruction in the humanities is quite the opposite. Professors provide specific contextualized perspectives by way of canonized literature, philosophical theories and socio-political histories. Students then enter the world with their Rolodex of general precepts from which they can craft their unique outlooks. In fact, while STEM disciplines draw their legitimacy from replication — the proving that no single answer is merely a “fluke” — humanities draw theirs from the inherent impossibility of replication, the assurance that every person crafts their own critical thoughts for themselves. The alternative to this process is indoctrination.
The principles taught in STEM classes lead to scientific breakthroughs that echo the very institutions that nurtured those principles much more loudly than those in the humanities. It is thus no surprise that schools like Tufts have an overabundance of motivation to support STEM disciplines. However, ignoring the humanities is a dangerous game. Tufts is a small, liberal arts college in the Northeast — a breeding ground for dissonance, particularly in a political sense. When navigated with critical thinking, these instances of discord can be transformative and engender a more nuanced and politically aware society. Without this criticality, simple discords can escalate into division and resentment. Last year, we were inches of palpable tension away from conflict between protestors and police. To say that critical thinking and media literacy would have facilitated de-escalation is not to take sides or place blame, but simply to acknowledge the necessity and power of critical thinking. Political questions are inherently subjective and require critical thinking and extensive research to even begin formulating answers, let alone fully-fledged political stances or dissents.
To devalue the humanities is to restrict the development of critical thinking. Though it may appear trivial, there truly exists no greater opportunity cost or threat to our stability, both as a campus and as a world, than the loss of this integral skill.
