Claim The National Endowment for the Humanities NEH should be funded entirely by private foundations Reason The National Endowment for the Humanities cost the US government over 160 million every year In a period of fiscal restraint and political polariza

The debate over how public funding should be distributed has always been a polarized and partisan one. There are many who argue that if the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is privately funded, public funding can be freed up for more “urgent” needs. However, this is a shortsighted policy recommendation and the NEH should continue to be publicly funded to ensure the integrity and advancement of the field of arts and humanities.

First and foremost, the debate on what constitutes as an “urgent” need is similarly as polarizing and partisan as the debate on how to allocate public funds. Some might believe military funding to be urgent, while others might believe that social security nets are more urgent. As such, who is to say that arts and humanities are not urgent needs? Investment in STEM research and industries have never been called into question, as society traditionally values STEM fields more than art and humanities. As such, shouldn’t the advancement of arts and humanities be similarly urgent, as it allows us to understand society, culture and human behavior on a deeper level. Additionally, $160 million a year isn’t a significant chunk of the government’s budget. With yearly budgets in the $3 trillion to $4 trillion range, $160 million is only 0.004% of the total budget. As such, not only is the NEH budget relatively insignificant to the entirety of government spending, but if “urgency” is the main reason the NEH should be defunded, there are surely other larger inefficiencies that can be remedied.

Another reason why the government should continue to publicly fund the NEH is to ensure the advancement of the field of arts and humanities. Private funding is not gauranteed or stable, thus funding for the field might be at the mercy of market fluctuations, political ideologies or social sentiment. For example, the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which refocuses American history through the lenses of slavery, has been widely controversial. The project has been widely praised and criticized, depending on your political ideologies. Regardless of whether you agree with it, the 1619 Project still furthers discussion about race in America. While the 1619 Project was privately funded, similar research projects might benefit from government and public funding instead of being at the whims of political ideologies of private foundations. By ensuring government funding for the NEH, we can also ensure the advancement in the field of arts and humanities. This not only helps enrich the field of studies but also enrich the souls of society as a whole.

Last but not least, public funding for the NEH benefits the entire population. In general, research projects and studies that receive private funding have limitations as to the publication and use of discoveries from the findings. For example, if an archeological expedition was funded by a private foundation, that same foundation can lay claim to any new discoveries and charge for its exhibition or use. In contrast, since publicly funded projects are for the benefit of the whole public, citizens can get access to new discoveries and publications as soon as possible. Thus, in order for art and humanities to benefit all citizens equally, the NEH should continue to receive funding from the government.

Opponents might argue that the NEH is not an “urgent” need and that it should be defunded so that other sectors can be given more focus. As previously discussed, what constitutes as an urgent need is vague and vary base on your political ideology. Since NEH benefits the society as a whole, public funding provides value for the entire population, thus providing a legitimate return of investment. If limited funding was the true problem, other methods to increase the government’s budget can be discovered, such as raising taxes on the rich or coming down on tax havens.

In conclusion, the NEH provides society with many benefits. As such, the government should continue to publicly fund the NEH in order to ensure its integrity and the advancement of arts and humanities.