Sunday, May 28, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
TWO STATUS QUOS AND A LEFT YEARNING TO GROW: The Political Time of Day
Harry Targ
Therefore, the Trump coalition consists of fractions of capital who will gain from a more muscular and economically nationalist policy agenda, marginalized portions of the so-called “middle class,” sectors of the working class, and portions of all of these whose political learning has centered on the history and consciousness of white supremacy (“make America great again”).
Trump’s major adversaries come from a core sector of the ruling class that has dominated the policy process at least since the 1980s, the neoliberal globalists. In response to the squeeze on profits of the 1970s, the capitalist elites began to promote a dramatic shift in the character of the economy in the direction of “neoliberalism.” Drawing upon an economic ideology with a long history from Adam Smith, to Milton Friedman, to mainstream neoclassical economists of the late twentieth century, every administration from Carter to Trump has engaged in deregulation of economic life, reducing government programs that help the poor and working classes, reducing the rights of unions, and privatizing virtually all public institutions. They “went global,” that is developing a network of economic ties via trade agreements, the globalization of production, and integrating corporate boards. Capitalist elites from every continent began to develop common approaches to national policy via such informal organizations as the Trilateral Commission, meetings of the G7 countries, and the annual World Economic forum.
Paradoxically, while this is a teachable moment as well as a movement building moment, progressive forces are struggling to be organized. In and around the Democratic Party there is a conflict over the vision and the politics it ought to embrace at this time and in the coming period. The Sanders supporters, inside and outside the Democratic Party, have marshalled much support for a progressive agenda: single-payer health care, a green jobs agenda, protecting the environment, tax reform, building not destroying immigrant rights, defending women’s rights, and cutting military spending. With the brutal policies advocated and already instituted by the new Trump administration, progressive democrats and their allies on the left are struggling mightily to articulate a program, and create some organizational unity to challenge Trumpism.
Therefore, the fundamental project for progressives today includes mobilizing against Trumpism while articulating an alternative political and economic analysis of the current state of capitalist development. In concrete terms, this approach means challenging the legitimacy of the Trump administration and its allies in Congress while articulating the perspective that mainstream Democrats, the neoliberal globalists, are part of the problem, not the solution.
May,
2017
The rift
within the Democratic Party was on full display at the California Democratic
Party Convention on May 19 in Sacramento, California. Progressives joined
members of National Nurses United, protesting the Democratic
Party establishment’s
refusal to support (a) single payer health care system. Rather than follow
through with Democratic rhetoric that health care is a human right,
establishment Democrats have responded to voters by scolding and attacking
them. (Michael Sainato, “Tom Perez Bombs Speech, California Dem
Chair Tells Protesters ‘Shut the F* Up’” Observer,
May 20, 2017).
The new Trump administration is embroiled in a series
of crises, with new ones emerging on almost a daily basis. The president is
bombastic, ill-informed, and narcissistic. In response to his critics he
engages in dangerous and unconventional efforts to transform the dominant
narrative about his incompetence. He has authorized ruthless bombings in Syria
and Afghanistan and threatened war against enemies such as North Korea. More
recently, in his diplomatic trip to the Middle East and Europe, he has reached
a deal to sell $110 billion in weaponry to a Saudi Arabian regime which
supports terrorism throughout the Middle East and a devastating bombing
campaign against Yemen. And at home he has appointed cabinet members and advisors
with long histories of white supremacy and anti-Semitism (almost in defiance of
accepted minimal qualifications for public office).
Trump’s core constituency all along has been sectors
of finance capital, insurance, real estate, the military/industrial complex, and
drug companies whose profits have come from domestic investments or sales and
speculation overseas. It also includes portions of small and medium sized
businesses whose viabilities have been threatened, not by big government, but
by the further monopolization of the economy.
In addition, some workers displaced by the underside
of neoliberalism, including capital flight, automation, and trade, have
supported Trump because they saw no positive economic future in a Clinton
presidency. Finally, the Trump constituency includes a percentage of voters who
are ideological legatees of white supremacy. Therefore, the Trump coalition consists of fractions of capital who will gain from a more muscular and economically nationalist policy agenda, marginalized portions of the so-called “middle class,” sectors of the working class, and portions of all of these whose political learning has centered on the history and consciousness of white supremacy (“make America great again”).
Trump’s major adversaries come from a core sector of the ruling class that has dominated the policy process at least since the 1980s, the neoliberal globalists. In response to the squeeze on profits of the 1970s, the capitalist elites began to promote a dramatic shift in the character of the economy in the direction of “neoliberalism.” Drawing upon an economic ideology with a long history from Adam Smith, to Milton Friedman, to mainstream neoclassical economists of the late twentieth century, every administration from Carter to Trump has engaged in deregulation of economic life, reducing government programs that help the poor and working classes, reducing the rights of unions, and privatizing virtually all public institutions. They “went global,” that is developing a network of economic ties via trade agreements, the globalization of production, and integrating corporate boards. Capitalist elites from every continent began to develop common approaches to national policy via such informal organizations as the Trilateral Commission, meetings of the G7 countries, and the annual World Economic forum.
Debt poor countries were the first to be forced to
embrace neoliberal policies, followed by the former Socialist Bloc countries,
then the Western European social democracies, and finally the United States. A
significant portion of this qualitative change in the way capitalism works has
involved increased financial speculation (as a proportion of the total gross
domestic product), dramatic increases in global inequality in wealth and
income, and increasing economic marginalization of workers, particularly women,
people of color and immigrants.
Candidate Donald Trump orchestrated a campaign against
the neoliberal globalists who dominated the political process in the United
States since the 1980s. While he epitomized finance capital, albeit domestic as
well as foreign, and represents the less than one percent who rule the world,
he presented himself as a spokesperson of the economically marginalized. He
attacked the capitalist class of which he is a member. In addition, he blamed
the marginalization of the vast majority on some of their own; people of color,
women, and immigrants.
Resistance
May, 2017
Since the November, 2016 election masses of people
have been mobilizing in a variety of ways against the threatened agenda of the
newly elected president. The women’s marches and rallies of January 21, 2017
and International Women’s Day on March 8 were historic in size and global
reach. There have been huge mobilizations to reduce the use of fossil fuels and
prevent climate disaster, to support immigrant rights, and to provide basic
health care. Many of these manifestations of outrage and fear have occurred as
planned events but also there have been numerous spontaneous acts at
Congressional town hall meetings and even in airports challenging Trump
directives to refuse people entry into the United States.
A multiplicity of groups have formed or increased in
size since January: former Bernie Sanders supporters; anti-racists campaigns;
those calling for sanctuary cities and defending the human rights of
immigrants; progressive Democratic organizations; and women’s mobilizations.
Traditional left organizations, such as the Democratic Socialists of America,
benefiting from the Sanders campaign, tripled in size. And organizations such
as The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood have reported
large increases in financial contributions. The mobilization of millions of
people has bolstered the spirits of progressives everywhere. They feel that at
this point in history a new progressivism is about to be born. But the story is
made complicated by the nature of the opposition to Trumpism.
Oppositions
to Trumpism: Neoliberal and ProgressiveParadoxically, while this is a teachable moment as well as a movement building moment, progressive forces are struggling to be organized. In and around the Democratic Party there is a conflict over the vision and the politics it ought to embrace at this time and in the coming period. The Sanders supporters, inside and outside the Democratic Party, have marshalled much support for a progressive agenda: single-payer health care, a green jobs agenda, protecting the environment, tax reform, building not destroying immigrant rights, defending women’s rights, and cutting military spending. With the brutal policies advocated and already instituted by the new Trump administration, progressive democrats and their allies on the left are struggling mightily to articulate a program, and create some organizational unity to challenge Trumpism.
However, on almost a daily basis stories have appeared
in the mainstream media about Trump’s incompetence and irrational and
ill-informed statements. Most importantly, allegations of the connection
between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian spying, have dominated the
news. As a result, the neoliberal globalist Democrats, activists in the
presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and leaders of the Democratic Party,
have consciously embraced the Trump/Russia connection as the real reason why
their candidate lost the election. By implication, they deny that there was
anything perceived negatively about mainstream Democratic Party policies on
trade, health care, mass incarceration, bank regulation, jobs and wages, and
other neoliberal approaches to policy in the years when Democrats were in the
White House. Clearly, Hillary Clinton was identified with this neoliberal
agenda. But understanding the election outcome through the lens of Russiagate
is a recipe for disaster.
The dilemma for progressives is that opposition to
Trumpism and all it stands for has been and must be a key component of
reigniting a progressive majority. But if it does not address the fundamental
failures of the neoliberal agenda, including challenging neoliberal
globalization, the current stage of capitalism, Trump’s grassroots support will
continue. Working people who ordinarily would vote for more liberal candidates
for public office need to believe that future candidates are prepared to
address the issues, often economic, that concern them.Therefore, the fundamental project for progressives today includes mobilizing against Trumpism while articulating an alternative political and economic analysis of the current state of capitalist development. In concrete terms, this approach means challenging the legitimacy of the Trump administration and its allies in Congress while articulating the perspective that mainstream Democrats, the neoliberal globalists, are part of the problem, not the solution.
This alternative analysis requires a bold challenge
inside the electoral arena and in the streets that calls for radical reforms:
single-payer health care; cutting the military-budget; creating government
programs to put people to work on living wage jobs in infrastructure, social
services, and public education; addressing climate change: and fiscal and
regulatory policies that reduce the grotesque inequality of wealth and income
which has increased since the 1980s.
The tasks are challenging but another world is
possible.Saturday, May 20, 2017
THE THREAT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION CONTINUES
Harry Targ
May 20, 2017
The
new Secretary of Education, Betty DeVos, will be speaking in Indianapolis,
Monday, May 22, 2017, at the American Federation for Children, National Policy
Summit. As a former chair of this Federation she has been instrumental in
marshalling resources in support of school vouchers, charter schools, and
shifting public resources to private schools. According to the Indianapolis
Star, DeVos and her organization played a pivotal role in making Indiana the
state with the largest private school voucher program in the United States. She
is expected to unveil a new round of proposals for federal legislation to
support the further privatization of education.
The
essays below, posted in November, 2015 and January, 2016 provide some
information on the impacts of the school privatization movement on education,
particularly as it impacts African American and other minority and working
class communities.Harry Targ
Introduction
In August, 2015 12 parents in the Bronzeville
neighborhood of Chicago launched a 34 day hunger strike to protest the closing
of a neighborhood high school. Their demands, along with its reopening,
included the establishment of a green jobs oriented curriculum that would train
young people for the needs of the 21st century.
In Seattle, Washington in September, 2015 teachers went on strike to demand fair wages and working conditions in their new contract.
In the summer, 2014 again in Chicago, the
teachers union went on strike to push back against school closings, stagnant
teacher wages, and closed-door policymaking to consciously limit the influence
of parents in the community. This strike had the support of teachers, parents,
and children.
During the spring, 2015, parents all around the state of Indiana were keeping their children home during school days as a mark of their resistance to painful, frustrating, ill-conceived, and misused batteries of tests that state/federal policymakers were imposing on young people.
These are just a few
examples of rising anger at the threat to the tradition of public schooling,
big corporate efforts to privatize schools for profit, the denial of
communities of parents any influence over educational policy, and campaigns to
destroy teachers unions. A key component of the struggle to save our schools
has been to defend the rights of all children to quality education not limited
by race, class, gender, or ethnicity.
The
neoliberal design
In the 1970s powerful
economic and political elites began a sustained campaign to shift more of the
wealth of society from the many to the few. A new policy agenda, sometimes
called neoliberalism or austerity, was initiated that called for a variety of
attacks on government policies that had been instituted over the prior thirty
years.
In general, the
neoliberal policies called for downsizing government (except for the military),
cutting public services and programs to provide for the human needs of the
population, deregulating banks and corporations, and privatizing public
institutions. Roads, libraries, parks, prisons, and particularly schools were
being shifted from public ownership and control to private corporations, mostly
to make a profit. While these policies have encountered public opposition and
have not been fully implemented, they have dramatically affected the quality of
our public life and our communities.
The
Threat to Public Schools
Since the dawn of the
twentieth century the anchor of most communities in the United States, has been
its public schools. Schools help raise, nourish, mentor, and educate the youth
of America. Parents, as best they can, participate in supporting school systems
and provide input on school policy. Teachers and school administrators
sacrifice time and energy to stimulate the talents of young people. And
teachers through educational associations and trade unions organize to protect
their rights in the workplace, always mindful of the number one priority;
serving the children and the community.
Beginning in the 1970s, various special interest groups, many well-funded, began to advocate for the privatization of education. Looking at aggregate data showing some failing school performance, they argued that private corporations, charter schools, could educate children better. They blamed the lack of marketplace competition for waste of taxpayer dollars for poor performance. The arguments ignored the fact that failing schools were schools underfunded by state legislatures and were often in communities where resources were scarce because of inequalities of wealth and income. Most often under-performing schools were underfunded schools: underfunded because of racism and patterns of segregation.
The neoliberal answer
was to shift public funds, formerly from public schools, to private corporate
charter schools. Along with the creation of charter schools, voucher systems
were established by state legislatures and school districts allowing parents to
place their children in any school they could find; often difficult to access
and sometimes far from the child’s neighborhood. The introduction of charter
schools and vouchers began the process of shifting resources from public
education to private schools.
Shifting resources
from the public to the private sector served to destroy adequately performing
public schools and weakened nearby communities.
The data on the shift
from public schools to charters is shocking. For example in Detroit between
2005 and 2013 public school enrollment declined by 63% and charter school
enrollments rose by 53%; in Gary the decline in public schools was 47% and the
rise in charter school enrollment rose by 197%; and in Indianapolis the decline
in public school enrollments totaled 27% and the rise in charter schools was
287%.
This historic transfer
of public funds for education to privatization would often be sped up by local
crises. The biggest crisis in an American community in decades occurred in New
Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck that city in August, 2005. In its
aftermath 100,000 citizens were forced to leave the city because their homes
were demolished. Over 100 public schools were destroyed in the disaster.
Subsequently virtually all those schools were replaced with charter schools,
run by private corporations for a profit, devoid of teachers’ organizations and
parental participation in the revitalization of educational institutions.
Commenting on the New Orleans experience President Obama’s Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan suggested that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing to
happen to the educational system of New Orleans.
The human tragedy of
Katrina was also a metaphor for what was to follow all across the nation:
powerful forces swept away vibrant publicly controlled and accountable
educational institutions, replacing them with new profit-driven,
non-transparent, non-union, corporate schools that did not serve the needs and
desires of the remaining members of the community. Public education is being
uprooted, transformed, and destroyed all across the United States.
To facilitate the
privatization of schools, cities everywhere have begun to close public schools.
Detroit, New York, and Chicago have closed over 100 schools per city in recent
years. Several cities have closed at least 25 schools in recent years. In
Philadelphia, municipal funds for a prison came from the closure of 50 schools.
The impacts of school closings is reflected in the essay “Death by a Thousand
Cuts,” produced by the Journey for Justice Alliance: “Closing a school is one
of the most traumatic things that can happen to a community; it strikes at the
very core of community culture, history, and identity and…produces far-reaching
repercussions that negatively affect every aspect of community life.” www.empowerdc.org/uploads/J4JReport-Death_by_a_Thousand_Cuts
IMPACTS OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
Harry
Targ
The political economy of public sector
failure is wholly ignored when schools are declared failing and threatened with
closure. Further, parents, guardians, community members, educators, and youth
are systematically excluded from decisions to close schools and plans to
redesign their replacements. The cover story about saving communities from
educational crisis grows a bit suspect when the very communities presumably
being saved are kept out of the process--and their children are often denied
admission to the replacement schools. (Michael Fabricant and
Michelle Fine, Charter Schools and the
Corporate Makeover of Public Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 2012, p. 98. These comments were made about New York but are
relevant almost everywhere. ht).
In a
prior essay, I discussed the connections between the neoliberal agenda
characteristic of the changing political economy since the 1980s, the move
toward privatization of public institutions, and the threat to public schools.
In this essay I discuss some impacts of these policy changes in the United States and proposals for mobilizing for policy change in Indiana.
First,
the shift of scarce state budget funds from public to charter schools has meant
a significant decline in resources to maintain and improve public schools. If
funds for new charter schools and increased money for vouchers are transferred
from adequately performing public schools to under-performing charter or
religious schools the changes in educational policy would lead to a decline in
the quality of education provided to all students. For example, in the
2014-2015 Indiana budget, $115 million was diverted by the state legislature
from public education to the growing voucher program.In this essay I discuss some impacts of these policy changes in the United States and proposals for mobilizing for policy change in Indiana.
Therefore,
as money is withdrawn from K-12 public education the traditional schools have
reduced resources with which to do their job. This leads to declining
performance. Then privatization advocates call for further reduction as well as
school closings, rather than increasing resource allocation to public
schools.
Second,
a high percentage of school closings occur in poor and Black communities. These
closings create what the Journey for Justice Alliance calls “education
deserts.” Parents have to find adequate, affordable schools elsewhere in the
cities in which they live. Oftentimes charter schools refuse to admit
particular students because of biased estimates of their probability of
success, disabilities they may have, insufficient English language proficiency
or other reasons. “Charter schools use a variety of selective admissions
techniques, such as targeted marketing strategies, burdensome application
processes, imposing academic prerequisites, and the active discouragement of
less-desirable candidates.” (Journey for Justice Alliance, Death By a Thousand Cuts, May, 2014, pp.11-12). In some cases
parents cannot find adequate schools for their children anywhere near their
community.
The
closing of schools, the struggle for admission to new schools, the increased
class sizes of new schools, the adjustment to a new school culture, along with
the inexperience of new teachers, all impact in negative ways on the
educational experience of children. Education writer, Scott Elliott reported
that of the 18 charter schools operating in Indianapolis in 2015, half of them
had test scores in 2014 that registered a “fail” in state examination of their
children. The failing charter schools served children from poorer backgrounds
and/or were children with special needs such as language training. Several of
these failing charter schools had been operating for several years and some had
been part of national charter networks.
The
Center for Tax and Budget Accountability summed up studies of the impacts of
voucher programs on educational performance: ‘None of the independent studies
performed of the most lauded and long standing voucher programs extant in the
U.S.--Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.--found any
statistical evidence that children who utilized vouchers performed better than
children who did not and remained in public schools.”
Third,
as parent and student protests in Chicago, in various cities and towns in
Indiana, and elsewhere suggest, there is an inverse relationship between the
spread of charter schools and voucher systems and citizen input into
educational policy-making. Historically, while many parents chose not to
participate in school board decision- making, the prerogative existed for
parents, and even students, to provide input into educational policy. It was
assumed that members of communities had the right and the responsibility to communicate
their concerns to school administrators, elected school boards, and teachers.
Most school districts have active parent organizations.
The
documentary Education Inc.
demonstrated cases in which the frequency of public school board hearings was reduced
and meetings were summarily adjourned to avoid debate on controversial issues.
And legislatures, such as in Indiana, have prohibited state executive or
legislative bodies from regulating the “curriculum content” of private schools
that accept vouchers.
Fourth,
the neoliberal design referred to in the prior essay is based upon the
proposition that institutional and policy success is best measured by the
profit accrued to the corporate bodies involved. In the field of education,
neoliberal policies seek to shift accountability from the public to the private
sector; from professional skills to market skills; and from participation by
the professional and union organizations of teachers, parent groups, and
engaged students to corporate executives of private corporations. The
neoliberal design regards educational professionalism and training and teachers advocacy associations as
impediments.
Therefore
the full force of state educational policy includes transferring status,
respect, adequate remuneration from long time public school teachers to
marginalized, under-trained new workers in charter schools. Also, the charter
school movement is avowedly an anti-teacher union movement.
Documentaries
on education such as Rise Above the Mark
and Education Inc. illustrate that
career teachers find demoralizing the repeated and dysfunctional testing of
children, declining resources for their schools, and repeated public statements
devaluing and demeaning teachers. Educational spokespersons in these films
speak in the most glowing terms about the passion to teach, commitment to
children, and talent of staffs under their leadership. School superintendents
in these documentaries also speak about the contributions which teacher unions
make to the enhancement of school performance.
The
sum total of the thirty year effort to transform the educational system under
the guise of “reform” are the following: the tradition of public education is
being destroyed; access to quality education is becoming more difficult and
more unequal; transparency and parent input into policy making is becoming more
difficult; and the attack on professionalism and teachers unions is making it
more difficult to teach.
How
to respond?
The
November 14, 2015 essay and this one only begin to tell the story about the
attacks on the educational process and quality education. Other issues need to
be discussed including testing, evaluations based on dubious metrics, charging
parents for text books, inequitable access to school supplies by district and
by public versus private schools, inadequate funding, the development of
curricula appropriate for a twenty-first century educational agenda, and the
need to combat the “school to prison pipeline” that seems to undergird much of
urban education. Responses to protect and enhance the quality of educational
life for children require the following:Create an educational movement in the state of Indiana that says “enough is enough” to those advocates of so-called education “reform.” That means developing inside strategies that include running and electing legislators and executives who believe in public education. It means lobbying at the State House during the legislative season. It means launching litigation when politicians and educational privateers violate the Indiana constitution’s guarantee that all children have a right to a quality education.
The educational movement must also embrace an outside strategy, building a social movement. It should include education, agitation, and organization. Pamphlets, speakers, videos, and other public fora need to be organized all around the state. Educators and their supporters need to rally and protest so that the issue of quality education is discussed in communities and the media.
And
organizationally, an educational movement should draw upon the militancy,
passion, and expertise of educational organizations around the state that are
already engaged in this work. Strengthening the movement for quality education
is more about bringing existing groups together than creating new ones. That is
the vision of Indiana Moral Mondays and the idea of “fusion politics.” Assemble
those who share common values and a vision and build a mass movement such that
as the old slogan says: “The People United Shall Never Be Defeated.”
What
Specific Policies and Programs to Support?
1.Increasing,
not decreasing, federal, state, and local funding of public education.
2.Prioritizing
the funding of traditionally under-funded schools in economically disadvantaged
communities. Resources should include salaries to encourage experienced
teachers to remain in disadvantaged communities. Funds should provide equal
technologies, including libraries, computers, and other tools, for schools in
lower income communities equal to those provided for wealthier communities.
Resources should provide for language training, math education, and programs in
the arts.
3.Policy-making
bodies in all branches of government should be open and transparent so that
parents, teachers, and students can observe and participate in decision-making.
4.In
school districts where teachers choose to form unions or other professional
associations these organizations should be recognized partners in the
policy-making process.
5.Assessments
of school performance should be determined by teachers, school administrators,
and parents, not politicians or educational corporations. Teachers should not
be forced to “teach to the tests.”
6.The
goal of the educational process should be the full development of the potential
of each and every student irrespective of race, gender, class or other forms of
discrimination.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
THE CRISIS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Harry
Targ
From comments prepared for the statewide meeting of the Indiana American Association of University Professors, April 28, 2017, University of Indianapolis
Prelude to an Historical Analysis
On
Thursday, April 27, 2017, President Daniels, Purdue University, announced to
the university community a dramatic new program that he and the Board of
Trustees had been fashioning in secret for months. Purdue University, a
self-proclaimed world class university, would be acquiring Kaplan University,
one of several controversial for-profit on-line universities that have emerged
over the last twenty years. According to an article in the Lafayette Journal
and Courier:
Daniels said the agreement with Kaplan-an affiliate of Graham Holdings Company-both allows Purdue to fully break into the growing online education sector, which the university wasn’t prepared to do on its own, and to serve more nontraditional students who are unlikely to attend a residential campus (Meghan Holden, “Purdue to Acquire Kaplan University,” Journal and Courier, April 28, 2017).
The
campus community was stunned by the announcement which it learned about through
a hastily called special meeting Daniels assembled with selected faculty and an
e-mail announcement to the faculty. Some of us, including members of the Purdue
chapter of AAUP were asked to respond to this dramatic new development in The
Chronicle of Higher Education. I was quoted as follows:
Faculty should have input on
educational policy matters ….Issues to be addressed should particularly include
the academic integrity of whole degrees offered on-line... One
would assume, since issues of staffing, developing credit, connecting with the
traditional Purdue campuses are all issues of relevance to faculty who should have been consulted and
informed.
Another
Purdue colleague, David Sanders referred to the “Walmartization” of higher
education, the provisioning of quick cheap degrees. “When speed and cost become more important than quality, faculty are
going to object.” (Eric Kelderman,”Purdue Faculty and Students React Warily
to Kaplan Deal,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, April 28, 2017).
The
dramatic developments at Purdue University highlight a number of issues that
bear upon the mission and purpose of AAUP as a protector and advocate of
faculty and the integrity of higher education in general. Among the questions
that should concern us are the following:
1.Who
makes decisions involving higher education?
2.What
is and should be the standards and vision of higher education?3.What role do and should faculty play in higher education?
4.Are there changes occurring in the realm of economics and politics that are threatening our vision of quality education and the long-standing principle of “shared-governance” in matters of educational policy-making?
An Historical Analyses
According to Clyde Barrow, (Universities and the Capitalist State:
Corporate Liberalism and the Reconstruction
of American Higher Education. 1894-1928, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990) the
modern university had its roots in the period of rising capitalism after the
Great Depression of the 1870s to the 1890s when mergers created an economic
system in which a few hundred corporations and banks came to dominate the
entire U.S. economy. Interlocking directorates of corporations and banks
created a system of financial speculation, concentrated wealth, and a
capitalist state. The capitalist state through pro-corporate and banking
regulations, the allocation of tax and other benefits for the wealthy and
powerful, and military mobilizations,
such as President Cleveland’s use of the United States army to crush workers
during the Pullman strike of 1894, helped create twentieth century monopoly
capitalism.
Higher education, once
dominated by theological pursuits, was refashioned to serve the needs of modern
capitalist society. The need for scientific and technical skills coupled with a
trained work force stimulated the establishment of educational institutions
that could produce credentialed graduates who would serve the capitalist
system. Also theoretical work and classroom education was required to educate
the young to celebrate the blessings of the economic system and the conduct of
the government. Young people learned about the desirability of market
economies, the country’s long tradition of democratic institutions, and the
manifest destiny of the United States as it conquered the North American
continent and established a global empire from the Philippine Islands, to Cuba,
to Central and South America.
Barrow provides data
to show that members of university Boards of Trustees, the key decision makers
in these institutions, came largely from big corporations, huge banks, and law
firms which served big business. Some universities from the Midwest and South
were led by trustees who represented regional manufacturing and finance
capital, but their outlook and interests paralleled those from the major
universities of the Northeast and the major state universities. There were
never representatives of broader citizens groups such as labor unions on these
boards.
During the early
twentieth century, Trustees worked to establish an administrative class that
could carry out the day-to-day operations of the university and manage the
faculty who were the producers of the mental products the university was
assigned to produce. Managerial procedures were adopted to control mental labor
in the classroom and the laboratory. Metrics were institutionalized to evaluate
the rates of productivity of the faculty; from measuring enrollments,
publications, and the rankings of the university.
Federal and state
governments and foundations funded the construction of a national university
system that would serve the interests of twentieth century capitalism. Major
foundations generated studies, did surveys, and made recommendations that found
their way into institutions and policies of both public and private
universities. During periods when domestic crises, such as depressions, and
international ones, such as World War I, stimulated critical analyses from
universities, faculty were disciplined or fired for challenging the economic
system or state policy. The educational mission was to serve the interests of
the capitalist elites and the state, not to provide a venue for critical
thinking and debate about issues important to society.
Barrow summarized his
findings about higher education:
Individual institutions were developing into centralized corporate bureaucracies administered according to nationally standardized measurements of productivity and rates of return on investment. The entire educational enterprise was being restructured within these standards as a production process that was increasingly integrated into local or regional markets for labor, information, research and professional expertise. The process was more and more a planned undertaking directed by the federal government. The construction of a national ideological state apparatus oriented toward solving the problems of capitalist infrastructure, capital accumulation, and political leadership within a capitalist democracy was well under way. (123)
This description of
the emergence of the modern university system about one hundred years ago bears
resemblance to the wrenching changes that are occurring in higher education in
the twenty-first century. First, the further consolidation of capitalist class
power in higher education in the current century comes in the aftermath of the
Great Recession that began in 2008. United States capitalism continued its
transformation from manufacturing to finance as rates of profit from the latter
declined. Financial speculation led to banking failures and the collapse of the
housing market. Consumer demand shrunk due to rising structural unemployment and
falling real wages. And the cost of state support for the provision of
education and various social safety nets programs rose. Economic crisis was
used to justify austerity policies that included significant reductions in
support for higher education.
Second, the economic
shocks were used by Boards of Trustees, and their advisers in think tanks and
political organizations, to demand increasing efficiencies in the production
and teaching of knowledge. Programs that could not be justified as good
“investments” became vulnerable. The humanities disciplines had to be justified
by their use value to the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) disciplines.
Third, metrics have
become omnipresent. Colleges and universities are using quantitative
instruments to measure “creativity,” “critical thinking,” “personal
satisfaction,” “teacher effectiveness,” and faculty “productivity.” University
administrators strongly imply that if the activities at their institutions are
not measurable in the narrow numerical sense, they should not be supported.
Finally, as the
experience of academic critics one hundred years ago of child labor, anti-union
policies, World War I, and financial speculation suggests, the nature of debate
in the university is circumscribed. University policies, in response to
organizations of professors and students, have expanded rights to “academic
freedom” and have provided some job security through tenure. But attacks on
tenure (which is a right to job security that all workers should enjoy if they
perform their duties) are spreading as the twenty-first century “reconstruction
of American higher education” proceeds.
To forestall these
trends, faculty and students, as Barrows suggests, need to understand that
“education has been and remains a contested terrain.” Most educators believe that the primary
purpose of the university is or should be to stimulate a “marketplace of
ideas.” However, the history of higher education, he says, is really about how
the university can serve the preservation and enhancement of the capitalist
state.
The
Crisis of Higher Education
The crisis of higher
education involves the efforts of economic elites and politicians to transform
education to serve the twenty-first century needs of the larger economy and
polity, and not necessarily, the citizenry at large. Barrow provides us with a
useful paradigm from which to assess developments in all public institutions
including colleges and universities. Power and control resides in Boards of
Trustees and political elites and to a lesser extent university administrators.
Their lens on educational policy is shaped by unfolding economic and political
interests.
If we continue the
narrative from the time period Barrow studies, we can identify the growth in
higher education with the post-war United States economy, sometimes referred to
as the “golden age.” After World War II economic priorities shifted to
stimulating manufacturing, mass production and consumption, creating consumer
and military demand, the expansion of education, and the provisioning of
opportunities for higher education. Higher education became affordable for middle
class Americans. War veterans had access to education via the GI Bill. Whole
educational systems were constructed in big states like New York and
California. Systems of community colleges were established to provide
opportunities for poorer and part-time students. The size of faculties
increased dramatically. Professional associations and journals increased to
facilitate credentialing of new generations of faculty. And in response to
uprisings in the 1960s over war, racism, and student rights universities
expanded educational programs to overcome traditional “canons” of scholarship
and education that left out the examination of the experiences of masses of
people (particularly people of color, women, workers, immigrants). The post-war
economy boomed and so did higher education.
However, economic
stagnation (nationally and globally) began
in the 1970s. Rates of profit declined. Consumption could not match production.
Governments no longer could allocate sufficient resources to fund public programs
(a political problem) and those who were critics of the modern social
democracies marshalled their wealth and political muscle to challenge the vary
premises of public policy.
By the late 1970s,
Democrats as well as Republicans began to endorse government policies
(internationally and domestically) that called for declining government support
for social programs; deregulating finance, manufacturing, and markets; and the
privatization of public institutions and programs. The policy agenda and this
latest phase of capitalism was called neoliberalism. Some commentators refer to
the economic policies adopted in the era of neoliberalism as “austerity.”
Below the political
radar the billionaire Koch Brothers established The American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC) in the early 1970s to support client state legislators,
create “expert” think tanks on various policy issues, write model legislation
on subjects as varied as health care, labor issues, creating charter schools,
and transforming higher education. The neoliberal agenda, as was said, was
endorsed to varying degrees by both political parties, and was most effectively
institutionalized in state governments. Indiana in the era of Governors Daniels
and Mike Pence was a model for applied neoliberalism.
Sometime in the late
1980s I heard Rush Limbaugh celebrate on his radio show the neoliberal
victories that had been achieved but he declared that the one institution “we”
had not been able to shape and control was the university. And that has been
the project of endorsed by ALEC, state legislators, rightwing advocacy groups,
and university administrators all across the nation.
As an essay by Anthony
Paul Farley in a recent issue Academe
suggests:
Recent struggles over higher education have
taken place on the terrain of austerity, where a new ‘business’ model of higher
education has called for the dramatic reduction of labor costs through such
means as the elimination of tenure and the replacement of full-time academics
with adjuncts. The idea of higher education as a public good has, it seems,
very little purchase in the discourse of austerity.
Everything that can be measured is measured.
Money becomes the measure of all things. This metaphysics of austerity has
consequences for things not measurable in monetary terms. If the value of an
academic discipline cannot be measured in such terms, then it does not exist.
Starving the Beast: Cutting Support for Higher Education
Purdue University
President Mitch Daniels testified March 17, 2015 before a subcommittee of the
House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce on what he calls
higher education reform. He also spoke during that week to the American Council
on Education and the Brookings Institute. A centerpiece of his recommendations
was “income share agreements” whereby students partner with investors,
particularly alumni, who would provide funds for their education in exchange
“for a small share of the student’s future income.”
Daniels was touting
this idea in addition to new cost-saving policies at Purdue University, such as
offering three-year degree programs, using different metrics rather than course
hours to measure student preparation, and tuition freezes. He has also urged a
reduction in costly federal regulations.
Although some of
Daniels’ proposals and programs at his home university have merit, the
conversation he and other administrators around the country are having about
rising tuition and the accumulation of years of debt ignore the major reason
why costs and tuition are rising. In addition to the cost of higher education
attributable to increased faculty salaries; layers of new administrators; the
creation of new luxury amenities to attract students (housing, food, and
recreational facilities), tuition has risen because state government financing
of higher education has not kept pace with expenditures.
The Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities issued a report on May 1, 2014 (“States Are Still Funding
Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels”) which provides data to show that
higher education funding remains below 2007-2008 pre-recession levels in 48 of
50 states. This means, according to CBPP: “the large funding cuts have led to
both steep tuition increases and spending cuts that may diminish the quality of
education available to students at a time when a highly educated workforce is
more crucial than ever to the nation’s economic future.”
CBPP reports that
since 2007-2008 state spending on higher education is down 23 percent, or
$2,026 per student. Tuition increases have been substantial in public colleges
and universities from fiscal year 2008 to 2014 ranging from $253 in Montana to
$4,493 in Arizona. In Indiana tuition
increased by $1,191 during this period. CBPP notes that in 1988 colleges and
universities received 3.2 times more of their revenue from state and local
governments than from students. That ratio declined to about 1.1 times more
from government supports than tuition in 2013. Put another way the report
states:
“Nearly every state
has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years--with the most drastic
shift occurring since the onset of the recession…Today, tuition revenue now
outweighs government funding for higher education in 23 states…”
Not surprisingly
Daniels’ idea that students find a rich supporter in exchange for future
student earnings came from proposals made by free market advocate Milton
Friedman in the 1980s. Friedman, the University of Chicago economist, was the
most significant descendent of so-called “free market” economists who believe
as did President Reagan that “government was not the solution; government was
the problem.” From the vantage point of 2015, the privatization of all
education, including higher education, is on the agenda of wealthy
conservatives such as the Koch Brothers and the powerful state legislative
lobbying organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC
funds state politicians who support the elimination of public institutions,
such as education.
Naomi Klein, author of
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, argued
that during periods of economic or political crisis, changes have been
introduced to weaken government and the maintenance of public services. The
CBPP data suggests that the deep recession of 2008-2011 was an occasion for
ALEC and the politicians and educators they support to reduce resources
available for higher education. Despite the long history of government support
for higher education, public schools from kindergarten through high school,
libraries, roads, and police and fire-fighting services, the recession offered
the occasion for influential and wealthy elites to pressure for policies that
reduced state financial support for public services and a shift toward their
privatization. In addition universities became even more dependent on big
corporations, banks, and the military.
Finally, tuition increased and students had to pay a higher share of the
cost of their education.
Throughout much of
U.S. history public education, including higher education, has been seen as a
public good. The land grant system of public higher education was instituted in
1862. From then until the recent recession, public colleges and universities
educated large percentages of the young and generated much of the scientific and
technical knowledge that stimulated the U.S. economy, based on substantial
public support and low student tuition.
After World War II,
returning veterans became eligible for free higher education under the GI Bill.
The program led to the training and credentialing of a whole generation of
young people who went on to become educators and researchers, and also consumers of products
manufactured after the war. The so-called economic “golden age,” from 1945
until the 1970s, was driven by research and development initiated by GI Bill
recipients. These college graduates became members of the largest middle class
in American history.
As Bob Samuels author
of Why Public Higher Education Should Be
Free put it:
“I actually believe that we should and could
make all public higher education completely free. We’re currently spending
around $185 billion on higher education annually—which includes spending on
for-profit schools, which have very low graduation rates and high debt rates,
as well as on merit aid for wealthy students. Given current enrollment, I
estimate that it would cost about $155 billion to fund public colleges and
four-year institutions completely. My argument is instead of funding the
individuals, we should just fund the institutions directly” (quoted in Rebecca Burns, “Why Can’t College
Be Free?” In These Times, June 13,
2014, http://www.inthesetimes.com).
However, advocates of
“higher education reform” at least those collaborating with economic and political
elites who advocate policies depriving government of financial resources,
sometimes called “starving the beast,” envision a day when all public
institutions are privatized. There is much evidence that the privatization of
education will increase gaps between rich and poor and may leave the latter
with inferior educations. The Daniels plan will rely on wealthy benefactors to
support students while tuition costs continue to rise and those who still seek
a college education will continue to accumulate a lifetime of debt.
Without a return to
affordable publicly supported higher education, large proportions of young,
intellectually curious, and talented students may be deterred from pursuing
higher education which will have negative consequences for the entire society.
Additional Negative Consequences to Higher Education
of the Neoliberal Paradigm
STEMIn a 2015 article Lindsey Russell, an ALEC Director of its Education Task Force, wrote an essay entitled “STEM-Will It Replace Liberal Arts?” In it he reports Bureau of Labor Statistics projections that from 2012-2022 there will be a growth of 13 percent in the STEM related workforce. As a result he poses the question reflected in the title of his article. His answer, although he does not say so directly is a qualified “yes.” He does quote a Forbes magazine article that suggests that STEM graduates need “critical thinking skills” to pursue their careers. These skills, the article asserts, along with those in communication, are what a Liberal Arts education can provide. In an interesting statement he says about STEM and Liberal Arts:
“STEM is the present and the
future, and STEM related fields are projected to grow by more than 1 million by
the year 2022….Liberal arts education may seem irrelevant today, but it is
necessary if America’s youth are to become successful members of today’s
STEM-dominated workforce.”
However,
some empirical studies challenge the claims about preparing for a
“STEM-dominated workforce.” Such analyses, and claims about shortcomings in the
American educational system, go back as far as the Soviet Union’s launch of
“Sputnik.” In a 2014 volume, Michael
Teitelbaum (Falling Behind? Boom, Bust
and the Global Race for Scientific Talent, Princeton Press) challenges the
periodically claimed view that the United States is somehow “falling behind” in
the production of scientists and engineers and in his words, “advocates of
these shortage claims have had a nearly open field in politics and the media.”
In
addition, in a Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly
Labor Review, May 2015 article entitled, “STEM Crisis or STEM Surplus? Yes
and Yes,” the following conclusions are reached based upon extensive research:
*Since
the STEM labor market is heterogeneous there are both shortages and surpluses
depending on the particular job market segment.”
*In
the academic market there are noticeable oversupplies of Ph. D’s.*In some sectors of government jobs there are shortages of STEM-trained personnel.
*In the private sector, there are some areas were STEM demand is great, in others
where oversupply exists.
*Levels
of oversupply or demand vary by geographic region.
Perhaps
the most damning statement on STEM training and jobs comes from an article by
Hal Salzman, “STEM Grads Are at a Loss,” US
News, Sept. 15, 2014 declaring that: “All credible research finds the same
evidence about the STEM workforce: ample supply, stagnant wages and, by
industry accounts, thousands of applicants for any advertised job.”
While
debates continue about the need to prioritize STEM in the educational process,
a more important discussion should involve the substance and role of what
usually is called “the Liberal Arts.” Should Liberal Arts be seen as only a
training ground for honing critical thinking and communications skills or does
the Liberal Arts project go much deeper?
Henry
Giroux, Professor of English and Cultural Studies, McMasters University,
Hamilton, Ontario, posted an essay he called “Neoliberal Savagery and the
Assault on Higher Education as a Democratic Public Space,” on September 15,
2016 in which he claimed that political pressures to change and marginalize
Liberal Arts had its roots in the theory and practice of neoliberal ideology,
an ideology based on a crude vision of markets, privatization of public
institutions, and the reduction of all of social life to commodification.
Metrics and Infantilization
At
Purdue University and elsewhere administrators have advocated and enforced the
use of metrics to measure the quality of the university, the “products” that
are being produced, the level of “satisfaction” graduates had with their
educational experience, feelings of job satisfaction among faculty, years taken
to graduate, quality of jobs attained by students, employer satisfaction with
graduates, trends in grades and probably others. In addition increasingly only
certain professional journals are ranked high enough to warrant faculty
promotion and references from only selective universities warrant consideration
in tenure/promotion cases.
Therefore
in virtually every phase of the education process there has been a radical
transformation from qualitative to a reductionist and narrow empiricist set of
university assessments. University administrators use the metrics provided by
polling organizations to justify the neoliberal policies they endorse. As the
section above suggests, the shift to prioritizing STEM education is defended on
the basis of some empirical research to the exclusion of findings that would
suggest a different set of educational policies. Numbers have replaced analysis.
The
shift to metrics has been accompanied by the socialization of administrators,
faculty, and students to reflect on their own performance in terms of the
numbers. Numbers of articles rather than their quality become primary. Grades
over knowledge acquired becomes prioritized. Numbers of students enrolled in
classes, distribution of grades, amount of use of new technologies are all part
of the reduction of education to the simplest common denominator. And in recent
years, new university bureaucracies have been created to help “mentor” faculty
and students to better perform to the metrics. The intellectual curiosity, the
passion for knowledge, the encouragement for faculty and students to pursue
those questions that enticed them into intellectual work are diminished as
everyone is reduced to performing by the numbers.Impacts on Faculty
Along
with putting roadblocks in place for faculty to form unions, there has been a
growing attack on the tenure system. Tenure means job security. Tenure means
that faculty cannot be arbitrarily fired. Tenure means that after going through
a period of performance and rigorous review, faculty have some job protections.
And tenure means that faculty, in a work setting in which the free flow of
ideas is vital, are protected from controversy in their teaching and research.
Abolishing tenure is a high priority in higher education.
And,
of course, there has been a qualitative decline in the percentage of college
and university classes taught by tenure or tenure-track faculty and a
concomitant rise in courses taught by graduate students and adjuncts. As state
legislatures reduce financial allocations of resources, universities hire low
paid adjuncts, often on a course-by-course basis at extraordinary savings. Of
course, if an adjunct gets to teach four courses at more than one university,
her/his time is spent traveling with little time to keep up with relevant
literature and do research which in the long run reduces the chance for
securing tenure-track employment.
And
finally, returning to the new Purdue/Kaplan story: it is assumed by Boards of
Trustees, spokespersons for ALEC, corporate executives, and politicians turned
university administrators that on-line education is just fine. Although on-line
education may have a place in the matrix of a total academic career, the
appropriate mix of campus and on-line coursework; interpersonal/electronic
contact; and reading versus videos and power points on computer screens needs
to be discussed all across the campus. Particularly, the Kaplan model of
on-line education, even for the millions of non-traditional students, requires
critical scrutiny.
The
Bernie Sanders proposal for free higher education for all should be part of
public policy debate. Also, programs of additional support for regional
campuses and community colleges, extension programs, extended hours on campuses
for course offerings and other programs to meet the needs of non-traditional
students might be part of a discussion of educational opportunities. It may be
that several approaches in the long run might better serve the educational
needs of non-traditional students than
new collaboration with for-profit on-line firms with dubious performance records.
What Next?
In a 2010 essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus made a series of proposals to address some of
the crises of higher education today. They began by noting that tuition for
public and private colleges had doubled compared with a generation ago. Rising educational
costs required parents to commit large financial outlays, second only to house
mortgages, to their children’s education. Alternatively students have had to
take out loans that will burden them for their entire lives.
Among the proposals these authors made were the following:
-Institute free higher education for all who seek it.
-Maintain course requirements that lead to knowledge in history, the arts, sciences, and reasoned discourse.
-Provide secure full-time teaching jobs for every classroom. Eliminate the system of staffing classrooms with graduate students and temporary adjuncts who receive one-sixth the pay of the regular faculty.
-Pay presidents and other administrators salaries commensurate with public employees, not CEOs of Wall Street banks and corporations.
While our wealthiest and most powerful institutions-- corporations and banks, the military, and the health care system-- have come under some scrutiny in the new century, until recently higher education has remained hidden behind a wall of mystery even though everyone pays lip service to it as the hope for the future.
With enduring economic stagnation coupled with rising gaps in the distribution of income and wealth, education is offered as an escape route from poverty. We need to broaden public discussion about our assumptions concerning higher education; assessing its costs, accessibility, educational quality, and workplace security.
And for faculty the task is to organize effective
political/lobby groups to defend the ideal of the university. In every college
and university setting discussions should be organized about the strengths and
weaknesses of the neoliberalism policy agenda, with particular emphasis upon its
consequences for higher education.Among the proposals these authors made were the following:
-Institute free higher education for all who seek it.
-Maintain course requirements that lead to knowledge in history, the arts, sciences, and reasoned discourse.
-Provide secure full-time teaching jobs for every classroom. Eliminate the system of staffing classrooms with graduate students and temporary adjuncts who receive one-sixth the pay of the regular faculty.
-Pay presidents and other administrators salaries commensurate with public employees, not CEOs of Wall Street banks and corporations.
While our wealthiest and most powerful institutions-- corporations and banks, the military, and the health care system-- have come under some scrutiny in the new century, until recently higher education has remained hidden behind a wall of mystery even though everyone pays lip service to it as the hope for the future.
With enduring economic stagnation coupled with rising gaps in the distribution of income and wealth, education is offered as an escape route from poverty. We need to broaden public discussion about our assumptions concerning higher education; assessing its costs, accessibility, educational quality, and workplace security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Bookshelf
CHALLENGING LATE CAPITALISM by Harry R. Targ
Read Challenging Late Capitalism by Harry R. Targ.
-
Harry Targ Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) A Presentation at Fort Lauderdale, Occupy Labor Outreach, Marc...
-
From Upton Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University (lulu.com) Table of Contents Introduction Chapter On...
-
Revisiting Peace Research in the 21st Century: Reflections on an Interdisciplinary Field with a Mission Posted on July 30, 2018 by peacea...