During summer break, Washington University faculty members are actively debating 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. Paul Boghossian, a philosophy professor at New York University, led the committee, and the 10 scholars who authored the report come from institutions other than WashU or Vanderbilt.
The report’s authors express concern that humanities and humanistic social science scholars have shifted their focus toward goals such as “anti-racism, feminism, and decolonization,” arguing these pursuits diverge from the disciplines’ fundamental commitment to knowledge production.
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, WashU Provost Mark West issued a letter to WashU faculty emphasizing that the report is not specific to WashU and framing it as an “opportunity for dialogue.” The letter also notes that the university plans to facilitate structured conversations about the report with faculty in the fall, with further details to follow.
A university spokesperson declined to answer inquiries regarding faculty reactions to the report or the compensation provided to the commissioned scholars.
Despite West’s letter, campus criticism remains strong. Scott Ross, an anthropology lecturer at WashU, challenges the administration’s characterization of the report as an opening for productive discussion. The report specifically highlights anthropology as a field where scholarship frequently reflects political or social justice motivations.
“Starting a conversation by telling people their work is illegitimate and biased isn’t really productive,” Ross tells SLM. “The report reads as a direct attack, and that’s not how I see genuine scholarly dialogue among colleagues.”
Following the Provost’s correspondence, the American Association of University Professors chapters at WashU and Vanderbilt jointly released a statement criticizing the report as a biased and politically charged attack on scholarly work.
“The report fails to meet the standards of objectivity and impartial investigation it purports to uphold,” the statement asserts. “While historians, literary scholars, and anthropologists face unfair criticism, the authors themselves show clear political prejudices against scholarship focused on social justice.”
Ross contends that the report’s authors selectively cited recent anthropology controversies to paint anthropologists as driven by social justice agendas. “They picked specific instances and presented them as egregious examples, but these are really just part of an ongoing academic discourse,” Ross explains.
Several anthropologists referenced in the report as examples of biased work have told Inside HigherEd that the report’s authors distorted their research.
Though these scholars are not from WashU, a prominent WashU academic recently voiced his concerns about the report’s conclusions. Dwight A. McBride, who directs the Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity & Equity and holds the position of distinguished professor of race and literary studies, published an essay in Inside HigherEd arguing that the report incorrectly equates greater diversity among scholars and new intellectual questions with a deterioration in scholarship quality.
“The report questions whether scholarship has become overly political,” McBride observes. “It fails to consider whether what appears political is actually the result of a broader and more inclusive conception of knowledge production.”
Interestingly, WashU’s role in the report has faded from public discourse even though both chancellors jointly commissioned it. For instance, recent coverage has referred to it as the “Vanderbilt report” and has predominantly displayed Vanderbilt’s branding.
Marlon Bailey, a WashU professor who leads the African and African American studies program and also teaches in women, gender, and sexuality studies, raised concerns about the report’s research approach and its failure to include or consult with the scholars it critiques. “Not to disparage students, but my students could produce something superior to [this report],” Bailey shares with SLM.
“I urge faculty across all disciplines to oppose this report,” Bailey says. “We should initiate a meaningful conversation that includes the faculty members at WashU and Vanderbilt whose names appear on this report—not based on this flawed document. The report lacks legitimacy.”
SLM found no WashU faculty members who have publicly endorsed the report, though scholars at other institutions have supported it. Brandon Warmke, a philosophy professor at the University of Florida, posted on X that some critiques of the report demonstrate deliberate misunderstanding.
“The issue isn’t scholarship about race or economic disparities,” Warmke stated. “Rather, it’s that predetermined outcomes dominate discussions, that enforced ideological uniformity undermines intellectual discourse, and that inferior scholarship gets overlooked because it aligns with the preferred political perspective.”
