On last weekend’s livestream, John McWhorter and I spoke with Tyler Austin Harper of the Atlantic about his investigation into the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. With more than half a billion dollars in annual grants and an $8 billion endowment, Mellon is the single most powerful private patron of the humanities in the United States.
The Glenn Show is almost entirely audience-supported, so to those of us who are already full subscribers, let me extend a heartfelt thank you. And if you’re not yet a full subscriber, please consider becoming one. The Glenn Show can only do what it does through the generosity of viewers and listeners. For a mere $6/month or $50/year, you’ll get access to weekly livestreams, monthly Q&A episodes with John McWhorter, access to the full Substack archives, and other exclusive bonus content.
That kind of concentrated capital does not merely support scholarship—it shapes it. Under Elizabeth Alexander’s presidency, Mellon has leaned heavily into funding projects that foreground social justice and activism. No memo need be issued instructing scholars to change their work. When one institution dominates the funding landscape and clearly signals its priorities, rational academics adapt. Proposals are framed differently. Research agendas bend. Over time, the boundaries of the thinkable subtly shift.
Tyler’s reporting makes this case persuasively. But it raises a deeper—and more unsettling—question. Are we witnessing a philanthropic foundation steering the humanities toward activism? Or are we observing a field that has already moved in that direction, leaving Mellon as the last major patron standing—amplifying a trend it did not originate?
Put differently: Is Mellon the cause of the activist turn in the humanities, or is it the equilibrium outcome of that turn? If other philanthropies have quietly exited the space because they no longer recognize their priorities in the humanities, then Mellon’s dominance may be less a takeover than a vacuum filled.
That distinction matters. Incentives do not simply coerce; they reveal. Funding structures tell us what kinds of work can attract durable support. When an entire field depends heavily on one patron with a defined ideological vision, scholars face a choice—resist, adapt, or reframe. Few careers are built on resistance.
I value the humanities deeply. My own intellectual formation depended on them. But intellectual ecosystems are fragile. When funding, prestige, and moral signaling converge in one direction, pluralism narrows. The question Tyler’s reporting leaves us with is not merely whether Mellon is powerful. It is whether the structure of incentives in the humanities has become self-reinforcing—and whether anyone else is willing to underwrite a different vision.
