To the Editor:
“Stop Corporatizing My Students,” by Beth Ann Fennelly (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 15), is a heartfelt reminder that humanistic studies are critical to developing thoughtful, compassionate and functional citizens. Yes, developing skills to make a living is essential, but, as Ms. Fennelly writes, learning to “fail better” and dream must come first, “for a while anyway.”
During a time of immense technological change, war and political division, nothing is more important than having the intellectual confidence to challenge what you see, hear and read with thoughtful questions. Humanistic study provides young students with an opportunity to develop their intellectual confidence.
We should want our students to graduate intellectually and emotionally confident. That confidence is the foundation for success in the workplace. Too often, we think that skills solve problems, but, in fact, problem-solving starts by asking the right question first.
I taught undergraduates and graduate students for over 25 years, and nothing lights up a classroom more than a student who, for the first time, steps forward to address a problem with their newfound intellectual confidence.
Nao Matsukata
Bethesda, Md.
To the Editor:
As I apply for college, a constant question in my mind is whether I should major in a lucrative STEM field or in a “useless” humanities field. I want to expand my worldview, “dream, try, fail, try harder, fail better” in a humanities field, but college costs are prohibitively high.
My education should make me a better person, an educated citizen, not just a better part of some machine. We recognize that high schools should be offering a full education, yet we deny the same for expensive universities.
It cannot become the privilege of the wealthy to study the humanities and become fuller people in college.
Toby Shu
Englewood, Colo.
To the Editor:
In 1978 I graduated from college with a degree in philosophy. One might consider this a useless degree. Yes, it took me three years after graduation to figure out what I really wanted to do with my life, but I then got a master’s degree in marriage and family therapy. I have had a successful career in private practice as a psychotherapist for 40 years and have founded and run an online school for professional continuing education as well as a nonprofit organization.
I use the thinking and listening skills that I learned in my philosophy classes every single day in both my private practice and my other businesses. I learned discipline and time management by going to class every day and completing assignments in a timely manner. The writing skills that I had to develop as well have been invaluable to me and my career.
I also believe that the critical thinking skills learned in liberal arts programs protect democracy and freedom.
Christina Veselak
Wayne, W.Va.
To the Editor:
As an astrophysicist, I study distant denizens of the dark universe. Similar to Beth Ann Fennelly’s experience as a creative writing teacher, people often point out that my work is useless. I usually smile and say, “I completely agree, but some of the most useless endeavors are among the most important.”
Rebecca Oppenheimer
New York
The writer is a curator and a professor of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.
Tuberville’s Blockade, and a Problem in the Senate
To the Editor:
Re “Military Promotions Approved After Tuberville Lifts His Blockade” (front page, Dec. 6):
There must be a collective sigh of relief within the Beltway, and most certainly at the Pentagon, now that Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, has dropped his blockade of most military promotions over the policy of abortion access for military personnel.
While this senator’s action was certainly reprehensible, the Senate did not even attempt to address the real issue. It’s the Senate’s archaic rules that give an individual senator the power to put a hold on any nomination.
The real issue is why an individual senator has such dictatorial power. Interestingly, neither party is willing to open that Pandora’s box because all senators relish it. That is the real problem.
Subir Mukerjee
Olympia, Wash.
Living With Grief
To the Editor:
Re “It’s OK to Never ‘Get Over’ Your Grief,” by Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 3):
For those of us who lost a parent or sibling in childhood, the idea that we should one day be over our grief is not just hurtful, but harmful as well.
I applaud this guest essay and would point out that encouraging people to move past their grief is particularly bad for kids who may blame themselves when they can’t. People who don’t understand this are usually those who have yet to live through the loss of someone they depended on for self-definition.
Dr. Slawkowski-Rode correctly blames Freud for our continued psychological approach to loss, but after Freud lost his daughter Sophie, even he changed his thinking on grief. Unfortunately, his earlier writings were already widely read and would go on to influence generations of clinicians.
For people who have grown up grieving, loss is part of who we are. We can no more “get past it” than erase ourselves.
Ann Faison
Pasadena, Calif.
The writer is the host of the podcast “Are We There Yet? Understanding Adolescent Grief” and is the author of “Dancing With the Midwives: A Memoir of Art and Grief.”
Ethical Issues Raised by a Gilgo Beach Murders Documentary
To the Editor:
Re “Outcry Follows True-Crime Deal for Wife of Gilgo Beach Suspect” (front page, Nov. 29):
That Peacock, the streaming service owned by NBCUniversal, is paying the family of an alleged serial killer for participation in a documentary series about the murders, and had to outbid other avaricious media companies equally eager to capitalize on the public’s insatiable appetite for true-crime programming, the more salacious the better, is as disturbing as it is unsurprising.
Until very recently, true-crime stories were relegated to scripted movies and television productions, not because studios and networks had taken the moral high ground, but because documentaries historically did not garner high enough TV ratings or pull in large enough audiences to theaters to make it profitable to produce them.
Streaming has changed all that. It’s a bottomless pit, in constant need of content, the cheaper and the more likely to attract audiences the better. Unscripted programming, in particular documentaries, fits the bill perfectly.
Lost in all of this are the victims’ families, who not only stand to be retraumatized by the documentary series but will also see the family of the alleged killer, as well as their attorneys, reportedly being paid large sums of money. They also worry, with justification, that the documentary series might affect the trial.
NBCUniversal and its fellow media services should stop doing such programming out of a sense of decency, but obviously won’t. It’s up to viewers to give them a reason they’ll immediately understand: Stop tuning in.
Greg Joseph
Sun City, Ariz.
The writer is a retired television critic.