The author defends the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) against Jonathan Eburne's claims that its compliance with federal executive orders is a capitulation to political pressures. The article argues that NEH, as a government agency, must comply with federal directives to preserve its staff and funding. The author contends that these federal orders are not unique to NEH and importantly do not bind research or teaching. The defense emphasizes the importance of distinguishing scholarly inquiry from ideology to maintain academic integrity and credibility.
To refuse compliance would invite immediate termination of the agency's talented, experienced staff and call the future of the agency into question.
By treating NEH projects as falling under the scope of the orders, Eburne implicitly assents to the notion that research and teaching are equivalent to promoting ideology.
It is crucial that we stand up against attempts to define academics as promoters of ideology and thus as untrustworthy stewards of knowledge.
The NEH chair and staffers are federal employees, bound to obey government directives. They face immediate termination if they refuse compliance.
Collection
[
|
...
]