Yesterday, the above-the-fold headline of the front page of the state’s major daily newspaper read “Liberal arts majors and the Portland tax base.” The headline for the online version of the article was even more direct: “Portland area’s college-educated workers depress metro earning power by choosing low-paying fields, shorter hours.” The story was about an economic study commissioned by the “Value of Jobs Coalition,” which is a collaborative of Oregon’s major business organizations supported by many of the state’s large companies and law firms, and which counts the Oregonian itself as one of its two major media sponsors.
These headlines were greeted with outrage by English majors across the state, and presumably dismayed others who count themselves as interested in “language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archaeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism and theory of the arts or any of those aspects of social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic method,” as the enabling legislation for the National Endowment for the Humanities defines the humanities. For, it is the conclusion of the Oregonian, the report and the coalition that there are simply too many people in Portland who majored in the humanities and the social sciences and too few who majored in business, finance, and accounting. So—the argument goes—because jobs that humanities and social science majors tend to land in are lower paying than those taken by business and finance majors, we have less per capita income, a lower tax base, and less money for important public services like parks and roads. The organizing question, as posed by the Coalition is this: “What changes should our region make to improve wages and income, and therefore quality of life, for our families?”
The study is actually pretty interesting. It appears that—at least among white, college-educated men between the ages of 25 and 54—there actually are more liberal arts majors in Portland than in other major metropolitan regions and that they actually do work fewer hours than similar white educated men in similar regions and that they actually do seem to make less money. I am sure that there are other women, white and of color —who happened to have majored in one of the liberal arts—pecking away on their laptops right now, ready to take issue with the report’s methodology and its focus on white men and their experiences. And I say to those sisters, Bring it! I can’t wait to see what you uncover.
But, I will leave that to them. I was in a rage about this all day yesterday, and I spent a lot of time last night trying to understand exactly what I find so objectionable about the whole enterprise. First, I think it is the headlines. The idea that the state’s major newspaper would suggest that productive, engaged, educated citizens are “depressing” the Metro economy is ridiculous, insulting, and should be walked back.
Second—and for me, probably must centrally—is the dismissal of thousands of years of human experience. Portland Business Alliance president Sandra McDonough is quoted as saying “I’m not going to say that liberal arts majors are bad . . .,” then goes on to explain that the region needs to recruit more college graduates with majors in “finance, management, science, technology, engineering, and math.” My snarky self thought: Really, Sandy? Oh, thank the Lord. Aristotle, Kahlo, Brahms, Twain, and Dickinson are relieved to know that the Portland Business Alliance does not think that the liberal arts are bad.
But that is unproductive now, isn’t it? From a similar but less reactive stance—I would hope that the state’s business leaders are not willing to devalue the curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, and engaged citizenship that can arise out of a rich education in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
But, finally, I also wonder about the foundational questions animating the study. The assumption is that there is a direct and causal relationship between higher income and quality of life. Now, I am not down on people earning money nor am I opposed to well-funded public services. I also do not want Portland to settle for mediocrity. But, I am uncomfortable with the assertion that quality of life for our citizens comes from a closed formula that includes only income and government services. One of the great things about Portland is its informal network of creators and problem solvers. Portlandia aside, Portland is brimming with urban farmers and artisan cheese makers, small clothing designers, and world-class bike builders. It is also wealthy in collective action opportunities like tool libraries and childcare co-ops and supper clubs. There are self-organizing neighborhood coalitions and well-established civic foundations to support parks and schools and libraries.
As humanist and public scholar Harry Boyte conceives of it, the work of citizenship is not simply to support government—or presumably the private economy—but is to co-create society. According to Boyte: “In this view, the aim of democratic politics is people’s self-conscious work of ‘building the commons,’ our common world, material and social culture, that all depend on, from local libraries and schools, community fairs, and collective norms and rituals, to reforming institutions and society as a whole.” Portland—in fact all of Oregon—is rich with examples of citizens co-creating the society they want to live in outside the formal structures of big business or government. I wonder how many of those citizens are “liberal arts majors?” I wonder how many of those engaged, active, productive citizens—like Jefferson—are bringing to bear their experiences with literature and languages and art and botany to public problem-solving, to creating the quality of life we want in our communities.
So, now that I have calmed down ever so slightly about the dismissal of nearly everything I hold dear, I want to leave the “Value of Jobs Coalition” with this caution: Don’t jump to conclusions about what creates quality of life for our families. Yes, recruit and train and grow scientists and mathematicians and finance whizzes. Bring them! But don’t overlook the artists and philosophers and poets. They are doing the people’s work, too. They are bringing citizenship to bear in ways that are invisible if viewed only through formal structures. In networks of their own making, they are changing their neighborhoods, they are improving the world.
