I agree that scientists and engineers need a broader understanding of social problems, but I have some concerns about whether humanities classes really do a better job of staving off eugenicist ideas. They might just teach people to express their eugenicist ideas in a more palatable way. Many STEM grads are eugenicist, so are many humanities grads.
Would a history of eugenics or pseudoscience or scientific oppression class help? Maybe? It might raise questions, at least.
Would general "ethics" classes help? Only if they're taught from a specifically anti-eugenics/anti-ableist lens, which... is not guaranteed. I've known people who've dropped out of medical ethics classes because of the sharply pro-eugenics bias of the curriculum.
Because in an ableist society, in an ableist academic institution, every academic field is ableist.
Biology teaches you how to medically exterminate disabled people.
Ethics teaches you how to bypass hard-won consent and confidentiality rules for the greater good of coercing disabled people.
Philosophy teaches you to ask the hard questions about whether disabled people are really people.
Literature teaches you that disabled people are metaphors for abled people's experiences.
Sociology teaches you that the existence of disabled people is a social problem.
Political science teaches you how different frameworks deal with the social problem of disabled people.
Economics teaches you that disabled people are a financial burden on society.
History should teach you why Nazism is bad, but may not teach you to generalize the lesson that other bigoted ideologies that don't directly call themselves "Nazism" are also bad, and, in the vein of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, people who know a little bit about Nazism and eugenics are very eager to explain to disability advocates that Well, actually, the Nazis gave eugenics a bad name, but if we went back to good, pure, American eugenics...
Look, I'm being very negative; I know not all these subjects are always taught in an ableist/eugenicst way. But they sometimes are.
And I just don't see any indication that humanities grads, as a whole, are any less ableist/eugenicist than STEM grads, as a whole. Or that either group is any more or less ableist/eugenicist than non-college-grads, as a whole.
STEM grads working in tech say horrifically ableist things? So do humanities grads working in the education/nonprofit sectors.
Maybe I'm just bitter and cynical because of how many humanities and social sciences people I see who think they're not ableist because they know the right academic, politically correct terminology to express basically the same policy positions as openly eugenicist tech bros. But I don't think humanities professors will solve this one. Dr. Nuriddin does seem really cool, though.