Earlier today I posted on Steven Mintz’s categorization of university professors. Read it here and figure out where you fall in Mintz’s taxonomy.
Mintz’s categorized professors as part of his larger thoughts on how to make universities less anti-intellectual. Here is a taste of that post:
The academy is one of the few places where intellectualism can thrive—where individuals can grapple with complex, abstract ideas and foster a culture of questioning assumptions, engaging in rigorous analysis and debating central issues. Without intellectualism, education becomes focused solely on vocational skills and professional training instead of cultivating independent, critical thinking.
The decline of intellectualism in higher education has far-reaching consequences. As it fades, we see a growing trend toward overspecialization and shallow learning. Many academics become deeply specialized in narrow fields but lack engagement with interdisciplinary thought, literature, history, the arts or ethical inquiry. This hyperspecialization creates technical experts but fewer thinkers who can integrate knowledge across disciplines or engage in big-picture thinking, solving problems that cross traditional boundaries.
As universities align more closely with market demands, the educational experience becomes transactional. This shift prioritizes producing graduates with marketable skills for immediate employability, sidelining the development of intellectual curiosity. In the long term, society faces a workforce skilled in task execution but less capable of adapting to or ethically addressing global challenges.
The erosion of intellectualism also impacts academic discourse. When the pursuit of knowledge is marginalized in favor of short-term goals like publishing, tenure or funding, research becomes jargon-heavy and overly specialized, often with little relevance to society. This trend also leads to grade inflation and diluted curricula, further undermining the quality and prestige of higher education.
Intellectualism, traditionally rooted in the humanities, fosters deep reflection on human nature, aesthetics, morality and societal values. However, the rise of STEM and business-oriented disciplines has marginalized the humanities, which are seen as less practical or financially beneficial. As a result, critical insights into the human condition, ethics and social progress are devalued.
The decline of intellectualism feeds into broader societal trends of anti-intellectualism, where expertise is dismissed and deep knowledge is undervalued. This is evident in the rejection of scientific consensus, the rise of conspiracy theories and general skepticism toward intellectual authority. When universities fail to prioritize intellectual rigor and thought leadership, they contribute to a public climate where expertise is less respected and dialogue becomes less informed.
The loss of intellectualism in the academy weakens not only universities but also the social fabric. Intellectualism fosters inquiry, critical thinking and ethical reflection—all of which are essential for a functioning democracy and a thoughtful society.
And this:
Reviving intellectualism will require conscious efforts to value broad-based inquiry over mere technical expertise. Campuses must resist a narrow focus on careerism, overspecialization and a market driven curriculum and foster an environment that encourages intellectual risk taking. They must build intellectual communities and treat teaching as an intellectual, not merely as a practical, endeavor. Above all, they should emphasize the intrinsic importance of ideas, curiosity, the arts and critical engagement—pursued for their own sake rather than immediate practical returns.
Restoring intellectualism in higher education is about more than simply promoting the humanities or encouraging interdisciplinary study. It is about re-establishing the university as a sanctuary for deep thought, critical inquiry and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. Intellectual curiosity must be reignited to ensure that students are not just passive recipients of job training but active participants in the intellectual life of society. In a world where the ability to interpret, analyze and critique is power, colleges must once again embrace intellectualism as central to their mission.
Intellectualism remains vital—not just for individual fulfillment, but for the collective well-being of society. Colleges are the one institution dedicated to ideas. Let’s not forsake that responsibility.
Read Mintz’s entire post at Inside Higher Ed.
The STEM push is a response, at heart, to the lack of American born scientists, engineers, doctors, computer scientists and the like being produced in the United States. Our economy and our national defense depends on people with these kinds of expertise. But why should the students perusing STEM education not also be required to be acquainted with the humanities? Often academic institutions list becoming a lifetime learner as a end goal of education. There must be ways in which we can train students for technical and scientific pursuits that include learning how to be a better human being.