Advice | How studying the humanities helps humanity
To the editor:
“Stop Corporatizing My Students,” by Beth Ann Fennelly (guest essay opinion, nytimes.com, November 15), is a heartfelt reminder that humanistic studies are critical to developing thoughtful, compassionate, and functional citizens. Yes, developing skills to earn a living is essential, but as Ms Fennelly writes, learning to ‘fail better’ and dreaming must come first, ‘at least for a while’.
In a time of enormous technological change, war and political division, nothing is more important than having the intellectual confidence to challenge what you see, hear and read with thoughtful questions. Humanistic study offers young students the opportunity to develop their intellectual self-confidence.
We should want our students to graduate intellectually and emotionally confident. That trust is the basis for success in the workplace. Too often we think that skills solve problems, but in fact, solving problems starts with asking the right questions.
I have taught undergraduate and graduate students for over 25 years, and nothing brightens a classroom more than a student stepping forward for the first time to tackle a problem with his newfound intellectual confidence.
Nao Matsukata
Bethesda, MD.
To the editor:
As I apply to college, a constant question in my mind is whether I should study a lucrative STEM field or a “useless” humanities field. I want to expand my worldview, ‘dream, try, fail, try harder, fail better’ in the field of humanities, but the cost of studying is prohibitively high.
My education should make me a better person, an educated citizen, and not just a better part of some machine. We recognize that high schools should offer a full education, but we deny the same for expensive universities.
It cannot become the privilege of the rich to study the humanities and become fuller people in college.
Toby Shu
Englewood, Colorado.
To the editor:
In 1978 I graduated from college with a degree in philosophy. You might consider this a useless degree. Yes, it took me three years after college to figure out what I really wanted to do with my life, but then I got a master’s degree in marriage and family therapy. I have had a successful career in private practice as a psychotherapist for 40 years and have founded and run an online school of professional continuing education and a non-profit organization.
I use the thinking and listening skills I learned in my philosophy classes every day, both in my private practice and in my other companies. I learned discipline and time management by going to class every day and completing assignments on time. The writing skills I had to develop have also been invaluable to me and my career.
I also believe that the critical thinking skills taught in liberal arts programs protect democracy and freedom.
Christina Veselak
Wayne, W.Va.
To the editor:
As an astrophysicist I study distant inhabitants of the dark universe. Similar to Beth Ann Fennelly’s experience as a creative writing teacher, people often point out that my work is useless. I usually smile and say, “I completely agree, but some of the most futile attempts are among the most important.”
Rebecca Oppenheimer
New York
The writer is a curator and professor of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.
The Tuberville blockade and a problem in the Senate
To the editor:
On “Military Promotions Approved After Tuberville Lifted its Blockade” (front page, December 6):
There should be a collective sigh of relief within the Beltway, and most certainly at the Pentagon, now that Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, has dropped his block on most military promotions over the policy of abortion access for military personnel.
While this senator’s action was certainly reprehensible, the Senate did not even attempt to address the real issue. It is the Senate’s archaic rules that give an individual senator the power to block any nomination.
The real problem is why an individual senator has such dictatorial power. Interestingly, neither party is willing to open Pandora’s box because all senators enjoy it. That’s the real problem.
Subir Mukerjee
Olympia, Wass.
Living with sadness
To the editor:
Re “It’s OK to Never Get Over Your Grief,” by Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode (guest essay opinion, December 3):
For those of us who have lost a parent or sibling in childhood, the idea that we will one day have to get over our grief is not only painful, but harmful.
I applaud this guest essay and would like to point out that encouraging people to move past their grief is especially bad for children who may blame themselves when they can’t. People who don’t understand this are usually those who are still coming to terms with the loss of someone they depended on for their self-determination.
Dr. Slawkowski-Rode rightly blames Freud for our ongoing psychological approach to loss, but after Freud lost his daughter Sophie, even he changed his view of grief. Unfortunately, his earlier writings were widely read and would influence generations of physicians.
For people who grew up grieving, loss is part of who we are. We can no more “pass it by” than we can erase ourselves.
Ann Faison
Pasadena, California.
The writer is the host of the podcast ‘Are We There Yet? Understanding Adolescent Grief” and is the author of “Dancing With the Midwives: A Memoir of Art and Grief.”
Ethical issues raised in a documentary about Gilgo Beach Murders
To the editor:
Re “Outcry follows true crime deal for wife of Gilgo Beach suspect” (front page, November 29):
That Peacock, NBCUniversal’s streaming service, is paying the family of an alleged serial killer to participate in a documentary series about the murders, and had to outbid other greedy media companies equally eager to capitalize on the public’s insatiable appetite for true crime programming, the more salacious the better, is as disturbing as it is not surprising.
Until recently, true-crime stories were relegated to scripted films and television productions, not because studios and networks had taken the moral high ground, but because documentaries historically did not get high enough TV ratings or attract large enough audiences to theaters. it is profitable to produce them.
Streaming has changed all that. It is a bottomless pit, where there is a constant need for content; the cheaper and the more likely it is to attract the public, the better. Unscripted programming, especially documentaries, fits this picture perfectly.
Lost in all of this are the families of the victims, who will not only be re-traumatized by the documentary series, but will also see the alleged killer’s family, as well as their lawyers, reportedly get large sums of money. They are also, rightly, concerned that the documentary series could influence the trial.
NBCUniversal and its fellow media services should stop such programming out of decency, but obviously won’t. It’s up to the viewers to give them a reason they immediately understand: stop tuning in.
Greg Joseph
Sun City, Ariz.
The writer is a retired television critic.