close
close

Professors and the press must fight anti-intellectualism • Tennessee Lookout

The fall semester is about to begin and promises a lot. I have been teaching on a college campus for over 40 years and this is my favorite time of year. The new students are taking library tours, attending their first lectures, and enjoying all the wonderful cultural and intellectual events that take place on a campus. The only minor annoyance is a virulent form of anti-intellectualism that has long been at play in some right-wing circles.

Richard Hofstadter published a thorough review in his 1963 book Anti-intellectualism in American lifeOne prominent issue is Tennessee's Butler Act, which banned the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools, leading to the infamous Scopes “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. Our state did not repeal the Butler Act until 1967, and some regressive forces still argue about natural selection and the evolution of forms.

In 2018, Professor Matthew Motta of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities analyzed some national opinion polls and found that anti-intellectualism is associated not only with rejection of expertise and scientific consensus, but also with support for political movements such as Brexit and politicians such as the late George Wallace and Donald Trump. That same year, Israeli researcher Orly Kayam examined Trump's language in media interviews and debates in 2016. Trump spoke at the level of a fourth or fifth grader, while most of the other candidates spoke at the level of a ninth grader. Kayam concluded: “This study suggests that Trump uses poor readability and simplicity of language as a rhetorical strategy to gain popularity, in line with the trend of anti-intellectualism.”

Polls have shown that anti-intellectualism is associated with politicians such as the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, seen here addressing a joint session of the Alabama Legislature in the Old House Chamber of the Alabama State Capitol on May 7, 1963. (Alabama Department of Archives and History)

We all endured four years of a simplistic Trump administration that ignored scientific facts on everything from climate change to virus control. Then we endured more denial on everything from election results to court rulings. Trump supporters in state legislatures are now passing nonsensical laws designed to restrict “divisive concepts” or demonize diversity and inclusion efforts for all. Online, they are complemented by trolls attacking professors as agents of indoctrination instead of fulfilling our real role: encouraging critical thinking in young adults who are perfectly capable of judging ideas on their merits.

The more responsible among us recognize that as a nation we lag behind many other developed countries in the percentage of adults with college degrees. Many parents know that their college-educated children earn 86 percent more than those whose highest qualification is a high school diploma. Over the course of a person's lifetime, that difference grows to about $1.2 million. A better-educated population is simply good for each individual graduate and for the nation as a whole.

Universities offer more than just qualifications. They help young people develop valuable life skills. They demonstrate the interconnectedness and power of ideas. They expand our understanding of the world through research, often scientific research linked to valuable facilities such as national laboratories.

Adam Waters and EJ Dionne Jr. have written an article reminding us that Donald Trump has been anti-intellectual and even anti-factual and anti-truth during the campaign and in administration. During the 2016 campaign, Trump grumbled, “The experts are terrible. [about foreign policy]. Look at the mess we're in with all these experts.”

Two other authors, Michael McDevitt and Patrick Ferrucci, have rightly pointed out that academics and journalists must combat criticism of the press as elitist. They write: “If we admit, however, that anti-intellectualism is a growing problem in politics, then the remedy for journalism is not to infuse its style and interpretive schemes with a down-to-earth sensibility… [seeing matters] as a failure of the press to validate public frustration. Expert journalism — an 'elite' journalism without apologies — would better capture the essential concerns of rural America.”

In other words, don't boast. Do your job and don't be afraid to defend science and facts, even if the conclusions may seem uncomfortable to some.

Get the morning's headlines straight to your inbox

You may also like...