Quillette64%

The Crisis in the Humanities Is Not About Money 60%

By Abraham Wyner0%

6/25/2026, 5:45:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 36.3% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 762 faulty-reasoning hits from 240 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,824 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.70% of the article peer group.

Did the humanities go woke<em>&nbsp;because</em>&nbsp;they went broke? 
That scenario has become one of the more persuasive explanations for the present crisis in the humanities. 
As their enrolments declined and federal funding shrank, and universities began sending money (and, thus, prestige) toward STEM and professional programs, the humanities went looking for support wherever they could find it. 
If serious funders wanted academic work to be framed in the language of social justice, then scholars were willing to adapt accordingly. 
Tyler Austin Harper&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/mellon-foundation-humanities-research-funding/685733/? 
ref=quillette.com">recently made this case</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<em>The Atlantic</em>, arguing that what looked like ideological capture may, in fact, be economic desperation. 
But this account, while helpful, lets the humanities off too easily. 
The humanities did not simply have politicisation imposed on them by administrators or market logic. 
They helped create the intellectual conditions that made politicisation attractive, prestigious, and, eventually, routine. 
A&nbsp;new&nbsp;<a href="https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wpfsx/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2026/06/State-of-Scholarship-Report.pdf? 
ref=quillette.com">report</a>&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;state&nbsp;of&nbsp;scholarship&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;humanities&nbsp;and&nbsp;humanistic&nbsp;social&nbsp;sciences&nbsp;now makes a similar point from inside the academy.&nbsp;The report&nbsp;is careful.&nbsp;It rejects the crude&nbsp;claim&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;humanities&nbsp;are&nbsp;simply&nbsp;corrupt&nbsp;or unserious.&nbsp;But it&nbsp;nevertheless&nbsp;finds, across&nbsp;every&nbsp;field&nbsp;studied, evidence of declining scholarly standards, the drop driven, in part, by the substitution of political criteria for scholarly ones and by a weakening of older ideals of rigour and objectivity. 
But the report is mostly diagnostic. 
What still needs explaining is why those habits became so powerful, and why they proved so professionally useful. 
My answer is that critical theory did not merely politicise scholarship. 
It also made scholarship easier to produce. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 4.2%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Abraham Wyner: 3.3%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias13.3%This article: 22.5%Abraham Wyner: 7.4%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic22.5%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Abraham Wyner: 4.7%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 17.5%Abraham Wyner: 6.8%Quillette: 7.5%Framing Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Abraham Wyner: 1.9%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 4.6%Abraham Wyner: 1.1%Quillette: 9.3%Negativity Bias4.6%This article: 5.8%Abraham Wyner: 1.5%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 15.4%Abraham Wyner: 5.3%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error15.4%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 34.2%Abraham Wyner: 8.5%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias34.2%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 6.3%Abraham Wyner: 2.7%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man6.3%This article: 36.3%Abraham Wyner: 14.6%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority36.3%This article: 7.5%Abraham Wyner: 2.6%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.8%Abraham Wyner: 1.5%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning5.8%This article: 32.9%Abraham Wyner: 23.9%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization32.9%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Abraham Wyner: 1.8%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 7.1%Abraham Wyner: 1.8%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 15.4%Abraham Wyner: 4.1%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question15.4%This article: 16.3%Abraham Wyner: 12.2%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.3%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.9%Abraham Wyner: 0.7%Quillette: 3.2%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.1%Abraham Wyner: 6.8%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote27.1%This article: 2.5%Abraham Wyner: 0.6%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 26.7%Abraham Wyner: 7.8%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice26.7%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 1.9%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abraham Wyner: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

240 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.2%attributed speech218writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTyler Austin Harper • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTyler Austin Harper • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tyler Austin Harper

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Unattributed Quote+60.3 ptsWriter: 21.6%Tyler Austin Harper: 81.8%81.8%Biased Writer Voice-29.4 ptsWriter: 29.4%Tyler Austin Harper: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.3 ptsWriter: 0.9%Tyler Austin Harper: 18.2%18.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.