To the editor:
Jonathan Eburne calls the National Endowment for the Humanities’ posting of the executive orders regarding the promotion of gender, equity and environmental justice ideology an act of “capitulation” equivalent to “the ideological extension of a political party” (“An Open Letter to the NEH,” Feb. 28, 2025). I share his critical stance toward the executive orders and the spirit driving them. But his accusation against the NEH is unfair and normalizes a dangerous misreading of the scope of the orders that higher education must avoid.
The NEH chair and staffers are federal employees, bound to obey government directives. To refuse compliance would invite immediate termination of the agency’s talented, experienced staff and call the future of the agency into question. With them would go vital funding and stewardship for the humanities that sustains faculty, students, state humanities councils and members of the public.
To be clear, these orders apply across the federal government, and nothing in them is specific to the NEH. They do not apply to research and teaching; one (EO 14173) includes a carve-out for institutions of higher education.
By treating NEH projects as falling under the scope of the orders, Eburne implicitly assents to the notion that research and teaching are equivalent to promoting ideology. This is indeed the guiding belief in Florida, and it is shared by the current administration.
In fact, “promoting ideology” is not an accurate definition of scholarly or scientific inquiry, including the important work of teaching and doing research on gender, equity and the environment.
It is crucial that we stand up against attempts to define academics as promoters of ideology and thus as untrustworthy stewards of knowledge, or, as the vice president has put it, dedicated to “deceit and lies, not to the truth.” It’s malicious abuse of language designed to undermine people’s confidence in academia and in expertise in general. The right strategy is not to accept a bad definition—it’s to call out the definition as wrong and reject the labeling while these orders are litigated in the courts.
