Reclaiming the Humanities for All: The Judge James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities at Saint Mary’s College of California

Harnessing Digital Humanities to Uphold DEI, Democracy, and Lasallian Values

Saint John Baptist de La Salle championed education as a radical act of inclusion.

A Terrifying New York Times Article

In a frightening new opinion piece from The New York Times (published February 26, 2025), "The Department of Education Threatens to Pull the Plug on Colleges," we learn that the Department of Education is embracing positions poised to undermine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the country. The article details how universities that champion DEI and other inclusive principles—especially those grounded in the humanities—risk facing funding cuts, intrusive policy scrutiny, and heightened public hostility. The fear is that this federal stance will provide more fuel to the anti-humanities movement already gaining momentum in certain political circles, thereby threatening educational programs that strive to recognize and empower a wide range of cultural, historical, and scholarly voices.

This development is terrifying not simply because it might strip essential resources from universities but because it signals a broader ideological push against the foundational principles of higher education. The humanities, which often advocate critical thinking and social awareness, become convenient targets. In the face of that threat, many institutions are increasingly searching for ways to fortify their humanities offerings while preserving the core values of interdisciplinary scholarship and inclusion.

Digital Humanities as a Bulwark Resisting the Anti-DEI, Anti-Humanities Backlash of Trump 2.0

A recent blog post of mine, Digital Humanities as a Bulwark Resisting the Anti-DEI, Anti-Humanities Backlash of Trump 2.0, highlights how programs that fuse humanities with digital tools offer a unique form of protection. They equip students and faculty with methodologies that can reach new audiences, broaden public engagement, and strategically guard against attacks on academic inquiry. Digital humanities creates vibrant research networks, fosters community outreach, and underscores the contemporary relevance of humanistic thought—all of which can serve as a shield when political or ideological storms rage.

In the wake of these dire warnings from the New York Times article and the calls to strengthen digital humanities programs in the bulwark post, the following proposal is now more critical than ever.

1. Proposal: Digital Humanities as a Lasallian Imperative

At a time when the humanities are being defunded, DEI is under attack, and democracy itself is in crisis, Digital Humanities (DH) emerges as both a solution and a strategic intervention. As a Lasallian, Catholic institution, Saint Mary’s College of California (SMC) has a responsibility not only to defend the humanities but to transform them into a force for democratic renewal, social justice, and global engagement.

The Judge James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities, housed in the History Department and California Studies Cluster, presents an opportunity for SMC to:

• Reaffirm its commitment to intellectual freedom, equity, and social justice.

• Leverage digital tools to expand access to education and amplify marginalized voices.

• Reclaim some of the funding and institutional influence that the humanities have lost.

• Bridge the divide between technology, ethics, and humanities-based critical inquiry.

Saint John Baptist de La Salle championed education as a radical act of inclusion, bringing knowledge to those historically excluded from learning institutions. Today, Digital Humanities serves as the most effective tool to enact this mission, ensuring that the humanities remain vital, accessible, and engaged in shaping public discourse, policy, and social justice initiatives.

The Ware Professorship is not just about preserving the humanities—it is about expanding their power in the digital age.

Judge James Ware

2. Honoring Judge James Ware: A Legacy of Justice and Innovation

Judge James Ware, a former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, embodies the intersection of justice, diversity, and technology. His legal career, which included landmark cases on Silicon Valley’s tech disputes and intellectual property rights, reflects precisely the kind of critical, ethically driven inquiry that DH enables.

As a first-generation African American scholar who rose to national prominence, Judge Ware’s legacy aligns directly with SMC’s Lasallian mission of educational equity. Establishing this professorship in his name sends a strong signal that SMC stands against attacks on DEI, academic freedom, and the humanities, reaffirming that:

• A humanities-based education fosters the ethical and analytical skills necessary to defend democracy.

• Digital technology should serve justice and inclusion, not corporate monopolization or surveillance capitalism.

• Catholic social teaching and Lasallian values demand engagement with the most pressing ethical and technological dilemmas of our time.

3. Strategic Alignment: DH, California Studies, and the History Department

California Studies: The Ideal Lens for Digital Humanities

California’s deeply contested history—shaped by migration, race, labor struggles, environmental crises, and technological revolutions—makes it an ideal testing ground for DH applications. The California Studies Cluster positions SMC as a leader in analyzing how the humanities intersect with pressing social, political, and technological issues.

History Department: A Rigorous Academic Home for DH

The Ware Professorship will be housed in the History Department, ensuring that Digital Humanities projects remain historically grounded and socially impactful. The faculty member will collaborate with Ethnic Studies, Religious Studies, Politics, and Environmental Science, fostering interdisciplinary inquiry.

Digital Humanities: A Vital Tool for Ethical Engagement

DH empowers scholars and students to use AI, machine learning, and digital archives to expose suppressed histories, visualize patterns of systemic injustice, and create public-facing research projects. Whether through AI-driven textual analysis, GIS mapping of demographic change, or archival digitization of civil rights records, DH represents a humanities-based technological intervention in an era of rising authoritarianism and inequality.

4. Digital Humanities as a Strategy for Democracy and DEI

Reclaiming Humanities Funding and Influence

The defunding of the humanities is often justified through the false narrative of practical irrelevance. Yet the humanities are foundational to democracy, ethical decision-making, and critical thought. DH bridges the gap between humanistic inquiry and digital technology, making the humanities:

• Scalable – DH projects reach larger, public audiences beyond academia.

• Interdisciplinary – DH integrates seamlessly with STEM fields, AI, and data ethics.

• Public-Facing – Digital projects democratize access to previously inaccessible histories and knowledge.

The Power of AI: Rewriting Access to Knowledge

AI is already reshaping the knowledge economy. DH ensures that these tools are used to expand, rather than limit, access to education and democratic participation.

• AI can surface erased voices, analyze millions of historical records, and expose hidden biases in public policy.

• AI-generated text, speech-to-text technology, and automated translation tools can make humanities research accessible across linguistic and socioeconomic barriers.

• By positioning SMC at the forefront of ethical AI use in the humanities, DH makes the humanities indispensable to 21st-century learning.

The Archival Shift: From Silencing to Amplification

For centuries, archives have been instruments of power and exclusion. DH reverses this by reclaiming archives as tools for inclusion, resistance, and public memory.

• Decolonizing Historical Narratives – DH makes possible the recovery of erased histories (Indigenous, Black, LGBTQ+, diasporic).

• Expanding the Public Record – AI-powered digitization democratizes access to knowledge, removing traditional institutional barriers.

• Reframing Knowledge as Democratic – DH asserts that history belongs to all, not just elite institutions.

These arguments align with my work on DH and democratic renewal (see Revisiting DH: Progress Since 2017) and the role of narrative in shaping climate politics (see Crisis Narratives, Climate Change, and the Politics of Storytelling).

5. Raising Funds & Bolstering SMC’s Profile

Targeted Donor Engagement

• Tech Industry Leaders – Appeal to AI ethics advocates & digital democracy proponents.

• SMC Alumni – Engage graduates working in law, journalism, education, and civil rights.

• Social Justice Foundations – Leverage funding from organizations promoting DEI, climate justice, and digital access.

Strategic Fundraising Initiatives

• High-profile public lectures

• Digital humanities research collaborations with Bay Area institutions

• Community-based digital storytelling projects

6. The Ideal First Occupant: Dr. Eric Anders

Dr. Eric Anders (Ph.D., Psy.D.) is the ideal scholar to inaugurate the Ware Professorship. His work in psychoanalysis, digital humanities, archival justice, and social ethics bridges critical theory, digital technology, and Lasallian values.

His background as a veteran and pro bono clinician aligns with SMC’s social justice mission, ensuring that DH remains engaged with real-world crises in democracy, mental health, and education equity.

7. Conclusion: SMC’s Stand for the Future of the Humanities

The Judge James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities is a bold response to the crises facing DEI, democracy, and the humanities. By fusing historical scholarship, digital innovation, and Catholic social teaching, SMC can redefine the role of the humanities in the 21st century.

This is not just about preserving the humanities—it is about transforming them into a powerful force for justice, education, and democracy at a time when these values are increasingly under threat.

Addendum: Possible Criticisms and Responses

Primary Criticism: Judge Ware’s Commitment to Law and Justice Over Self-Promotion

One potential criticism of this initiative is that Judge James Ware himself has consistently emphasized that his priority is always the law and justice, not self-promotion. He has built his career on principled service rather than seeking recognition, and some may argue that naming a distinguished professorship after him risks overshadowing his commitment to impartiality and justice by placing his legacy at the center of an initiative designed to advance broader educational and social goals.

Response: The Best Way to Serve Justice Is to Ensure Its Future

While Judge Ware’s humility and dedication to justice are widely respected, declining this opportunity would, in effect, be putting personal modesty ahead of the long-term promotion of the very principles he has spent his career upholding. By lending his name to this initiative, he is not engaging in self-promotion but creating a platform to secure funding for work that directly advances justice, equity, and democratic education.

If he were to refuse this honor, it would remove a critical fundraising opportunity that could support underrepresented students, advance DEI, and reinforce the humanities as a bulwark against anti-democratic forces. Judge Ware’s reluctance to center himself is admirable, but in this case, his name carries weight that can attract donors, raise awareness, and ultimately fund initiatives that align with his life’s work.

In essence, the choice is not between remaining humble or promoting justice—it is between allowing a powerful initiative to be funded or letting an opportunity for meaningful impact slip away. By accepting this honor, Judge Ware would be using his influence in the most ethical way possible: ensuring that the pursuit of justice continues long after his career on the bench.

Other Possible Criticisms of the Judge William James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities Initiative (With Responses)

The Judge William James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities is a bold and strategic proposal that aims to defend the humanities, advance DEI, and integrate digital humanities with contemporary social justice efforts. However, like any ambitious initiative, it is not without potential criticisms. Below are possible objections, along with responses that clarify how the initiative addresses these concerns and strengthens its case.

1. Financial and Feasibility Concerns

• High cost and sustainability – Establishing an endowed professorship requires significant donor funding, and some may question whether allocating funds to a humanities initiative is the best investment given other institutional needs (e.g., STEM expansion, financial aid, infrastructure).

  • Response: Many liberal donors are looking for ways to counter the attack on the humanities and DEI. A high-profile initiative that actively resists these trends will attract significant philanthropic interest, especially from tech-sector donors concerned with ethical AI and digital justice.

    
    

• Long-term funding risks – Even if initial funding is secured, ongoing financial support (for faculty salary, research grants, programming, and administrative costs) could be challenging to maintain without sustained donor commitment.

  • Response: The Ware Professorship will be positioned as a fundraising focal point, engaging alumni, philanthropic organizations, and progressive donors who view the humanities as essential to democracy. Additionally, digital humanities projects are often eligible for grants from national foundations and tech partnerships.

    
    

• Competition for limited resources – Some may argue that existing faculty lines and programs are already underfunded, and that adding a new endowed position could divert resources from current humanities programs rather than strengthening them.

  • Response: Rather than diverting resources, this initiative seeks to expand them. By securing external funding, it will provide new opportunities for collaboration, interdisciplinary research, and student support, rather than drawing from existing budgets.

    
    

2. Political and Ideological Criticism

• Too politically charged – The proposal explicitly frames itself as a response to anti-DEI and anti-humanities trends, which could be seen as overly political or partisan rather than as a neutral academic initiative.

  • Response: The political reality is that the humanities are already under attack. Many donors and institutions recognize this and want to invest in strong, values-driven programs. This initiative provides a compelling opportunity for those who wish to actively support the humanities in the face of defunding efforts.

    
    

• Perceived exclusivity of DEI focus – While the proposal aims to amplify marginalized voices and democratize humanities education, some may argue that it prioritizes certain political or ideological perspectives over others, potentially alienating those who view DEI initiatives as exclusionary.

  • Response: The humanities have always been about broadening knowledge and fostering critical inquiry. Digital humanities, by its nature, enhances access to diverse histories and perspectives, ensuring that more voices—not fewer—are included in scholarly and public discourse.

    
    

• Concerns about digital humanities as a disciplinary shift – Some traditional humanities scholars may resist the increasing influence of digital methodologies, viewing DH as a departure from traditional humanistic inquiry rather than a continuation of it.

  • Response: Digital humanities does not replace traditional humanistic methods—it expands them. From archival preservation to AI-driven text analysis, DH allows scholars to explore humanistic questions in new and more expansive ways. This initiative ensures that traditional humanities values are carried into the digital era rather than being left behind.

3. Institutional and Academic Integration Challenges

• Interdisciplinary fit within existing departments – The initiative envisions collaborations across multiple disciplines, but some departments may resist integrating digital humanities into their curricula, particularly if it is seen as competing for faculty positions or resources.

  • Response: The Ware Professorship is designed to complement existing disciplines rather than replace them. By fostering interdisciplinary projects, it will create bridges between history, political science, environmental studies, and technology, strengthening rather than threatening traditional departments.

    
    

• Faculty and administrative buy-in – Some faculty members may be skeptical of administrative priorities, especially if they fear that digital humanities will be used to justify further defunding of traditional disciplines like philosophy, history, and literary studies.

  • Response: This initiative is about reinforcing—not replacing—core humanities disciplines. By showing that the humanities are essential to AI ethics, data governance, and digital justice, the Ware Professorship will help solidify the humanities’ relevance rather than diminish it.

    
    

• Balancing research and public engagement – There could be concerns that an endowed digital humanities professor would be expected to focus too much on public-facing initiatives at the expense of scholarship.

  • Response: The Ware Professorship will support both rigorous scholarship and engaged public programming. Many DH projects already bridge these priorities by producing peer-reviewed research while also making knowledge accessible to broader audiences.

    
    

4. Risks of Technological Dependence and AI Integration

• Ethical concerns about AI and digital humanities – While the initiative highlights the use of AI, digital archives, and applied research, some may question whether AI should be deeply integrated into humanities work, particularly given concerns about bias, surveillance, and ethical AI governance.

  • Response: This is precisely why the humanities need to be part of AI discussions. Without ethical oversight from humanists, AI tools risk reinforcing biases and misinformation. The Ware Professorship will position SMC as a leader in responsible AI integration in the humanities.

    
    

• Over-reliance on technology – While digital tools can enhance accessibility, some critics may worry that excessive reliance on digital humanities risks marginalizing traditional humanities methodologies.

  • Response: DH does not replace traditional methodologies—it provides additional tools for research and education. Textual analysis, close reading, and archival research remain central, with digital tools enhancing, not replacing, these practices.

    
    

• Concerns about the digital divide – While the proposal emphasizes equity and democratization, reliance on digital tools could unintentionally reinforce educational disparities, as not all students and communities have equal access to advanced technologies.

  • Response: Digital humanities can actually help bridge these divides by creating open-access resources, ensuring that more people—not fewer—can engage with high-quality humanities research. Additionally, the Ware Professorship can support training programs to increase digital literacy.

    
    

5. Fundraising and Donor Alignment Concerns

• Challenges in attracting donors – Some may be hesitant to invest in humanities initiatives, especially those perceived as politically divisive.

  • Response: Many liberal donors are looking for ways to push back against attacks on the humanities, DEI, and academic freedom. This initiative provides a clear and tangible way to do so.

    
    

• Risk of corporate influence on curriculum – If funding comes from tech companies or corporate sponsors, critics may argue that the professorship risks being shaped by corporate interests rather than maintaining academic independence.

  • Response: Ethical partnerships with tech companies and philanthropists can be structured to ensure academic independence while still securing vital funding for digital humanities research and education.

    
    

• Competing fundraising priorities – The college may already be fundraising for other priorities, making it harder to secure donor support for a humanities-focused initiative.

  • Response: This initiative will not compete with existing fundraising efforts but will attract new donors who are specifically committed to defending the humanities and academic freedom.

    
    

Conclusion: Addressing Criticism and Strengthening the Case

These criticisms are valid concerns, but they can be addressed through careful implementation:

• Framing the initiative as a practical necessity rather than a political statement.

• Emphasizing its economic and institutional benefits, including external funding potential.

• Ensuring a balance between scholarship and public engagement.

• Expanding funding sources to include a broad base of progressive and tech-aligned philanthropists.

• Positioning digital humanities as a continuation, not a replacement, of traditional humanities inquiry.

By proactively addressing these concerns, the Judge William James Ware Distinguished Professorship in Digital Humanities can be successfully positioned as an essential, forward-looking investment in the future of SMC, the humanities, and democratic education.