Keith Thomas asks: "what are universities for?"

From medieval seminary to the consultancy campus, universities have served the needs of society -, but those needs go beyond economic success or technological advance. . . so begins a thought-provoking commentary published in the Times Literary Supplement, 7 May 2010, in which Sir Keith Thomas, historian and distinguished Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, defends the value of the humanities and arts to society. He argues that universities have always served the needs of society and should continue to do so, but these needs go beyond material success. Currently, in British higher education, the position of non-STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects is seriously being threatened. Thomas argues that the present economic crisis has not diminished the relevancy of the humanities. On the contrary, Thomas asserts that linguistic sensitivity, the capacity to evaluate an argument, an understanding of the past and an awareness of cultural difference remain indispensable for any kind of public activity. Thomas says: The humanities offer an indispensable antidote to the vices which inevitably afflict a democratic, capitalist society. They counter the dumbing down of the media by asserting the complexity of things; and they challenge the evasiveness and mendacity of politicians by placing a premium on intellectual honesty. . .(15). The primary purpose of mass higher education, Thomas argues, should remain the formation of men and women with the intellectual skills, independence of mind and mental flexibility needed by a rapidly changing society. Darrell Ince, a professor with the Open University, has argued that computing courses must engage more with the humanities and social sciences in order to address the fact that most information technology failures are due to human error and management problems (41-42). Thomas asserts: When scientists do research, they aim to find out things which have never been known. But much activity in the humanities is concerned to rediscover and re-interpret what once was known but has subsequently been forgotten. A better word for this is “scholarship”, with its emphasis less on new knowledge then on fresh understanding (15). This argument is relevant to the promotion and development of media literacy. The social networking characteristics of Web 2.0 have broken down barriers between expert and lay knowledge. Clearly, the speed and availability of information technology means that we all have greater access to information than ever before, but can educators assume that students know how to pick their way through the mass of content in a discerning, critical, and ethical manner? The information literate person should be able to apply critical thinking to analyse and evaluate information in the general context of problem solving; reveal the complexity of things; place a premium on intellectual honesty and foster critical thinking about all forms of authority (Thomas 15). While digital media has facilitated knowledge democratisation, paradoxically, disciplinary fields are redefining knowledge within tightly defined professional parameters. Eighteenth century, philosophe embraced the arts and the sciences. Gradually, this unity was lost through nineteenth century materialism. Yet, do not quantum mechanics and metaphysics, for example, share fundamental ideas in seeking to question the nature and essence of existence? Perhaps, now more than ever, there is a need to promote understandings across disciplines if we are to equip ourselves and others with the skills necessary not just to function, but to behave creatively and critically, within a complex information society.

Works cited:
Ince, Darrell. “The Matrix Reloaded.” Times Higher Education, 8 Apr 2010: 41-42.
Thomas, Keith. “What are universities for?” Times Literary Supplement, 7 May 2010: 13-15.