The Teaching of Humanities and Other Trivian^ ^ T T umanities” is Western society’s name for thenJL JL academic expression of its fundamental values.nThere are other branches of learning — medicine, law,nengineering, and business, all of which benefit from thenhumanities — but only the “liberal arts” reflect a society’snsoul, central beliefs, highest aspirations, and ultimately itsnculture. Yet during the last half-century America hasnwitnessed the degradation of the ideal expressed by anhumanisdc curriculum.nSuch has been my convicHon since the late 1950’s when,nafter a decade of teaching, I wrote The Future of Education.nMy view of American education was so dim that I nevernconsidered writing another book on the subject. Why indeedntry to “improve” and even discuss something sonhopelessly mediocre, something resembling not so muchneducadon as conditioning and brainwashing? Though Inhave continued to teach, I have never been stimulated in annAmerican classroom, never felt that ineffable excitementnthat contact with informed intelligences or simply eagernminds always brings.nThe anti-elite often argues that nowadays classroomninstruction counts for less than the pop culture absorbednfrom magazines, concerts, museums, and television. This isntrue insofar as classroom instruction, with its audio-visualnaids and other tricks, has become a poor shadow of what itnshould be. But classroom teaching, with its irreplaceablenrelationship between human beings, remains central tonlearning. Unfortunately, I only find it done successfullynabroad.nIn this country, the poverty of the classroom has notnchanged since 1950, the year I began to teach. Like-mindednfriends try to convince me that the situation in the schoolsnhas worsened. Except for manners and security, it is onlynjust as bad. Those raw intelligences I do still occasionallynfind have been corrupted by the criminally lazy habitsnacquired in high school from frivolous courses and unculturednteachers. But students in the 50’s were just asnThomas Molnar’s latest book is Twin Powers: Politics andnthe Sacred.n24/CHRONICLESnby Thomas Molnarnnnunprepared and uninterested as they are today, and myncolleagues, then and now, have endlessly debated at futilenmeetings such questions as, “Why do we teach?” andn”What is excellence?” I told one man back in 1951 that henshould not be teaching if he doesn’t know why he chose thenprofession — end of discussion.nI have always believed that teaching is a vocation secondnonly to the priesthood. But in the academy all I have foundnis hypocrisy, silly slogans, ideological conformity, and anthinly disguised greed for money that is wrapped innhigh-sounding jargon. I know of no profession as conformistnand cowardly as teaching. How can an educator transmit thenlove of knowledge and respect for moral intelligence?nAnguished colleagues ask me how to avoid being given badngrades by students (the grades received from little ignoramusesnmay blacken their files and block promotion), butnwhen I tell them simply to refuse to play such a humiliatingngame, they recoil in horror as if I had suggested that theyncommit a crime. (These are the people who condemnnRussians and Germans for not standing up to their totalitarianngovernments.)nAmerica is interested mainly in money-making and itsnauxiliary occupations such as publicity and the media;npurely cultural education is something extra and is regardednas a luxury. We want schools to teach “excellence” as wenwant our cars to have a shiny finish. But we borrow the wordnfrom business, not from culture, knowledge, refined literaryntaste, and philosophical conversation. Are there outstandinglyncultured citizens? Of course there are. But onlynbecause at age 25 or 35 they understood that the system hadncheated them all along. They work hard to catch up. Quite anfew succeed, but they know better than to return to thenclassroom to teach. Even the best professors would leave if itnwere not for tenure and other, often lavish, benefits.nStudents, colleagues, and the academic atmosphere are notnthe reasons they stay.nWhat about the Jacques Barzuns, the Allan Blooms, andnthe other ritual pleureuses who, at regular intervals, bemoannthat education, and with it the “house of the intellect,” is innhopeless disrepair? Johnny can’t read (not even as a Harvardn