[karatestomp]

Humanities programs issue a license for unlimited and liberal use of the term when you're admitted. Along with some others like "hegemon". Sprinkling those sorts of words in sentences when appropriate (and, if inept, when not) is part of code-switching to "humanitese".

[agar]

Hmm, this kind of snarky response doesn't really add to the discussion. Why slam humanities programs now, when it's those very skills that will be needed to address many of the societal issues we face today?

Do you disagree that social workers, therapists, child care advocates, educators, economists, and yes - even historians, writers, and artists - will be arguably more important than scientists, engineers, and mathematicians when it comes to issues like stemming racism?

Maybe you don't like the word "systemic." How would you describe fundamental issues that cross economic, social, political, and legal lines?

[karatestomp]

I didn't slam a humanities education in my post—I applied one. Poorly, perhaps.

> Maybe you don't like the word "systemic."

I do, though. :-)

I intended to communicate that "systemic" is a very common word in certain (largish?) circles, maybe providing insight into its recent mainstream prominence. Since it was a short comment I took some liberty with the tone. I'd hoped the (rather gentle) "snark" would read ironically against the content, but may have missed the mark.

If you think that post meant I dislike the word "systemic" or hold it in contempt, you should try an academic literary critic's paper on their very favorite and most-highly-regarded novel. (Ooooh, more sick humanities burns based on semiotics and the sociology of academia! The hits keep on coming!)

[izzydata]

I kind of like the word pervasive or entrenched. Personally I don't feel like the term systemic makes a lot of sense in the context it gets used. It doesn't sound as serious though which I imagine is part of the point.