“The Heart of the Matter,”the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences（AAAS）,deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America.Regrettably,however,the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010,leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by“federal,state and local governments,universities,foundations,educators,individual benefactors and others”to“maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education.”In response,the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.Among the commission’s 51 members are top-tier-university presidents,scholars,lawyers,judges,and business executives,as well as prominent figures from diplomacy,filmmaking,music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable.Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry,the report supports full literacy;stresses the study of history and government,particularly American history and American government;and encourages the use of new digital technologies.To encourage innovation and competition,the report calls for increased investment in research,the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century,increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day.The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages,international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
Unfortunately,despite 2?years in the making,"The Heart of the Matter"never gets to the heart of the matter:the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits.Sadly,the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing“progressive,”or left-liberal propaganda.
Today,professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine,and sometimes legitimate,intellectual investigation.
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education.Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are
推理判断本题考查对作者情感态度的推理判断能力。根据题干可定位到文中第五段。教授们的态度主要通过两个层面体现出来的。这两个层面体现在第五段一个由while引导的长句中，理解好这个长句是解题的关键点。while之前是一个层面，while之后是一个层面。该题主要考察while之后第二个层面的理解。在while之后讲到讲授们将保守或经典的自由理念（比如自由市场和自力更生）排除在常规之外，甚至排除在合理的学术研究之外。由作者的语气可判断出作者对教授们对待classical liberal ideas的这种做法持负向态度，比对四个选项，只有B项中的“bias”体现出了作者对教授们做法的负向态度，故为正确答案。选项A与原文态度相反，故排除；而选项C中的“cautious about”是对原文“conservative”一词理解不到位设置的干扰选项。选项D是将while前后出现的两个信息嫁接到一起，设置的不符合文意的干扰项。
