Salinas v. Texas

There has been a lot written about the NSA surveillance program because it offends contemporary notions of privacy. My previous blog post addressed how the right to privacy has racial, class, and gender connotations.

I want to follow that up with the relative silence about the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Salinas v. Texas. The case is about how prosecutors used the defendant's silence before he was in custody and given the Miranda warnings as evidence of his guilt. The facts are that the police asked the Salinas about questions about a murder. He answered some but refused to answer others. The state then argued at trial that his silence suggests guilt.

 Slate has a pretty good piece on the case and why this is both bad reasoning and bad for police.  The majority argued that Salinas did not invoke his rights properly. Scalia and Thomas, siding with the majority, argued that the Fifth Amendment should be merely limited to requiring the defendant to testify and not be applicable if a prosecutor mentions this silence.

It is stunning to see the conservative wing, so-called originalists and textualists, transfer so much power to the state in criminal prosecutions and reduce the scope of the Bill of Rights, given their hostility to government in so many other aspects of our lives (e.g. the NSA surveillance program). However, this decision like so many of the past twenty years have continually sought to roll back the criminal justice revolution of the 1960s and 1970s and give prosecutors, the police, and the state more power and defendants (i.e. ordinary people) fewer rights. The result has been to make the United States the world's leader in incarcerating its own citizens. The Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance program would have been impossible without the erosion of fourth and fifth amendment during the War on Drugs. I find it ironic that most Americans or at least most pundits are horrified when they see how the criminal justice system treats them, like it has been treating criminal defendants. It is just another reminder that we need to defend the rights of even the worst offender if we are to have a robust and meaningful Bill of Rights.

Race, Privacy, and the NSA Prism Scandal

Recent revelations about the NSA's PRISM program has generated alarm about the state of privacy law in the United States. While some writers have begun to question the initial shock, I want to just take a moment to remind everyone that the history of privacy rhetoric has always had class, gender, and racial undertones. In our edited collection, Lovalerie King and I were able to publish Karla Holloway's great essay, "W.E.B. Du Bois and the Right to Privacy." There, she shows how it was two elite white men (Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis) who developed the legal concept, after journalists sought to report about one of their children's birthday parties. What makes Holloway's essay so good is that she shows how Warren and Brandeis basically urged a new constitutional right based on the expectations to which  white wealthy men believed they were entitled. The majority of Americans, then or now, have rarely been able to shut their mansion's gate and keep the world at bay. The rhetoric of privacy has benefitted some groups but more often it has been denied to women, racial minorities, or the poor in service of other supposed national interests. This "scandal" should remind us that there is much work still be to done in achieving the civil rights revolution and making sure the privacy of all peoples are respected and honored.

The Rhetorical Crisis Related to the Humanities

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal published a piece "Humanities Fall From Favor" that looks at the decline in incoming freshmen at Harvard who express interest in majoring in the Humanities. The piece is not all that well-written, nor does the Harvard Humanities Center come off as that well attuned to the world our students face.

The national debate about the humanities seems unusually stuck on the cost of higher education and the "return on investment," rather than the actual content or purpose of the humanities. While there is a strain of criticism that the humanities is too leftist in its orientation, it seems like it is more of a remnant of the culture wars.

A more common set of themes is that college has gotten too costly and humanities majors cannot get jobs. On their own, both are valid concerns. Tuition has grown, while per student aid is down. Students are pushed into loans increasingly. This is a cause of concern. Also, it is true that many humanities students struggle to find their first job and many humanities departments don't do a good job preparing students for the job market. (My department needs to do better on this front and has been making some changes to address this).

Where I think it is worth taking some time to think and reflect is on a few of the potentially false conclusions that tend to follow from these concerns or are implied by the way the objections to humanities education are posed:

(1) the increase in college tuition is the result of an overfunding of the humanities.
(2) the tuition crisis would disappear if humanities majors somehow disappeared.
(3) colleges and universities would not have the humanities if they did not offer humanities majors.
(4) if humanities students majored in other fields, there are ample entry-level jobs out there for them.
(5) other fields and disciplines can teach writing, critical thinking, communication, analytical thinking, etc. as well as the humanities.

What is interesting is that each of these are essentially provable claims with data. My hunch (and unfortunately it is only a hunch at this point) is that all of the statements are probably false.

(1) The increase in college tuition has not gone disproportionately or even overwhelmingly to humanities departments. All the major humanities associations have noted a trend toward more adjuncts and fewer tenure-track jobs.

(2) Even if universities eliminated humanities majors, tuition will not go down.  Now, eliminating tenure-track and full-time faculty would have that effect. However, because humanities faculty members tend to be among the lowest paid faculty on campuses and because they have some of the fewest needs for laboratory and equipment, there is some savings. I am suspicious if it would fundamentally change the curve of tuition.

(3) Most professional majors have accreditation requirements that demand that accountants, engineers, doctors, architects, and teachers must have quite a few humanities courses to graduate and be certified. Universities, as a result, cannot eliminate a humanities classes from their curricula.

(4) All college graduates are struggling to find jobs. While it is marginally easier for some business students to find their first job, many graduates from pre-professional programs struggle too. Because of the ebbs and flows of the economy, it is not uncommon that it is nearly impossible to predict four or five years out, which majors will be in demand when one is an incoming freshmen.

(5) Data from the College Boards is pretty clear that Philosophy, English, History and the humanities teach verbal reasoning and writing much better than other fields. I am sure there is other data as well that shows this. One fallacy is that humanities programs teach nothing, but this data suggests that it conclusion is probably false. If we, as a country, want college graduates who can write and use words and language to think clearly, humanities education is essential.

I think there is a crisis in the humanities and one that needs attention. We cannot, however, fall prey to false narratives that posit the humanities as the antidote for all that is wrong with college tuition or employment rates for college graduates. Until we clarify the nature of the crisis, we will be unable to face it.