Even as they try to convince students that an English degree does have some market value, English professors often mock the valid concerns of students and their parents. This is the second reason that students are averse to English: many professors [when they aren’t “interrogating” or “deconstructing” the very concept of “the real world”] openly express their loathing for the real world. They emphasize that the system which so many prospective students want to climb is morally indefensible—one that is concerned only with money, and one that embodies the legacy of a Western tradition that is racist, capitalist, misogynist, colonialist, xenophobic, and homophobic (and any other nasty “-ist” or “-ic” you can imagine). The professors aren’t trying to scare off students. But if someone keeps unwittingly telling you that your concerns and interests are misplaced, vain, and stupid… well, it follows that you might keep your distance.

There used to be something called the “literary canon.” As Matthew Arnold explained, it consisted of “the best of what’s been thought and said.” In short, the canon was the collection of texts that were excellent and worthy of study—it served as the foundation of a particular (Western) intellectual tradition and a way of life. Historically speaking, English professors were held to be the guardians of that tradition—their expertise was rooted in their unique ability to assess which works should be included. Further, as critics and interpreters, they had a special ability to unlock these texts for others. In essence, they offered a secret knowledge to students—a transcendent wisdom that was beyond the grasp of other disciplines.

But for the last 40 years or so, attacking the very existence of a canon has been a central project of English departments. Canonicity, they decided, was simply one more form of covert bigotry that sought to “marginalize” the voices of writers and thinkers who did not conform to the values and beliefs of “dead white males.” At first, the lesson was that some deserving writers had been unfairly excluded from the canon (true). But eventually, the lesson became that any claim that one text is inherently superior to another is a form of oppression (false).

By “deconstructing” the canon, English professors ultimately deconstructed the very grounds of their claim to intellectual authority. If no text is better than any other one, and if the matter of interpretation is the sole, subjective province of the individual, what do we need English professors for? Is it any coincidence that the decline of English accelerated as the attacks on the canon intensified? Basically, the discipline decided that it would deliberately refuse to teach students the transcendent wisdom that they wanted to learn.

This is why distinguished faculty like Greenblatt (quoted in the New Yorker piece) are now telling us that English departments need to focus more on analyzing TV shows. He’s about 20 years late to this revelation. Any survey of English syllabi will show an insatiable appetite for cultural ephemera: zombie movies, Harry Potter, and graphic novels.

Today, English departments are essentially telling students that we don’t have anything very important to teach them. We shouldn’t blame them for taking us at our word.