During the summer break, Washington University faculty have been actively discussing a newly released report—commissioned jointly by the chancellors of WashU and Vanderbilt University—that examines the current state of humanities and humanistic social science scholarship. The report was led by Paul Boghossian, a philosophy professor at New York University, and was authored by 10 independent scholars not affiliated with either university.
According to the report’s authors, humanities and humanistic social science scholars have increasingly prioritized goals such as “anti-racism, feminism, and decolonization,” which the authors contend diverge from the traditional academic mission of pursuing knowledge for its own sake.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
We will never send spam or annoying emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
Following the report’s release on June 5, university provost Mark West issued a communication to faculty emphasizing that the report applies broadly to the field rather than specifically to WashU, and framing it as an “opening for dialogue.” The message also noted that WashU plans to facilitate structured conversations with faculty regarding the report in the fall, with additional information to follow.
A university representative declined to answer inquiries about faculty responses to the report or the compensation provided to the commissioned scholars.
West’s communication appears to have had limited impact on the backlash. Scott Ross, an anthropology lecturer at WashU, disputes the administration’s characterization of the report as a conversation starter. The 30-page report specifically highlights anthropology as a discipline particularly prone to politically or socially motivated scholarship.
“Starting a conversation doesn’t involve declaring people’s work invalid and biased,” Ross explains to SLM. “The report reads as fundamentally critical, which doesn’t establish a constructive scholarly dialogue for me.”
In response to the Provost’s communication, both WashU and Vanderbilt’s local chapters of the American Association of University Professors released a combined statement opposing the report as a biased and ideologically motivated critique of academic work.
“The report clearly does not meet the standards of scholarly impartiality and objective investigation that it advocates for,” the statement declares. “Historians, literature scholars, and anthropologists are unfairly targeted while the authors overlook their personal stance against social justice-focused research.”
Ross contends that the report selectively highlights controversial moments from recent anthropology to argue that anthropologists prioritize social justice. “They picked specific examples and labeled them as examples of bias, but these are part of ongoing scholarly debates,” Ross notes.
Several of the anthropologists referenced in the report as producing biased scholarship have told Inside HigherEd that the report distorted their research.
Beyond external critics, a prominent WashU faculty member has publicly expressed concerns about the report. Dwight A. McBride, who serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity & Equity and is a distinguished professor of race and literary studies, published a piece in Inside HigherEd arguing that the report conflates increased diversity among scholars and new scholarly questions with a deterioration in academic rigor.
“The authors raise concerns about politicization in scholarship,” McBride observes. “However, they don’t adequately consider whether what appears political might actually reflect a broader and more inclusive approach to understanding knowledge.”
Interestingly, WashU’s significant role in commissioning the report has been diminished in some national media coverage, despite the fact that both chancellors jointly initiated the project. Recent coverage has labeled it the “Vanderbilt report” and prominently displayed Vanderbilt’s branding.
Marlon Bailey, who holds positions as professor and chair of African and African American studies and professor of women, gender, and sexuality studies at WashU, has raised objections to the report’s approach and its failure to engage with the scholars it criticizes. “Frankly, our undergraduates could produce higher quality work than this,” Bailey tells SLM.
“I encourage all faculty to distance themselves from this, whether their work is in humanities or humanistic social sciences,” Bailey states. “We should be having a conversation that involves the faculty at both universities whose names are on the report—WashU and Vanderbilt—rather than using this report as a starting point. The report lacks legitimacy.”
SLM was unable to locate any WashU faculty who have publicly endorsed the report, though scholars at other institutions have supported it. At the University of Florida, philosophy professor Brandon Warmke posted on X that some objections to the report are “deliberately misleading.”
“The concern isn’t about examining race or poverty,” Warmke stated. “The concern is about predetermined conclusions, political uniformity that undermines intellectual discourse, and low-quality scholarship that receives approval due to its political alignment.”
