Koch University
11/05/11 11:28
In a recent article, we discover how far universities are becoming corporations -- this time more blatantly. The Koch brothers have donated money to the economics department at Florida State University -- nothing unusual about that. What is unusual is that the donation comes with a rider: the Koch brothers formed the committee which chooses new hires and can veto any person proposed as a new hire. This rider violates centuries of tradition and academic freedom and further makes universities that much more indebted to corporations.
All of this moves, of course, result from the decreasing spending by the government on education at all levels. I wrote the other day about universities and institutions. An institution has the responsibility to gather external goods to support the practice, which includes finding a supply of money. As the federal government withdraws funds, the institutional aspect of higher education must replace that source of money. Now we see a direct selling of autonomy at the department level to a corporation intent on promoting its idea of government across the United States.
Faculty at the university must resist this move. Students must resist this move. People across the US must resist this move.
The more we sell-out on education, the more we sell the very possibility of democracy.
All of this moves, of course, result from the decreasing spending by the government on education at all levels. I wrote the other day about universities and institutions. An institution has the responsibility to gather external goods to support the practice, which includes finding a supply of money. As the federal government withdraws funds, the institutional aspect of higher education must replace that source of money. Now we see a direct selling of autonomy at the department level to a corporation intent on promoting its idea of government across the United States.
Faculty at the university must resist this move. Students must resist this move. People across the US must resist this move.
The more we sell-out on education, the more we sell the very possibility of democracy.
Comments
Bad Higher Education
27/04/11 11:22
A recent article on n+1 discusses the various abuses in higher education today. These abuses include the following:
1. Student loan debt
2. The financial profit from reshuffling debt the way financiers did with the housing market
3. For profit colleges
4. The fact that a college education means higher debt with no pay increase over the last 20+ years
5. Increase in administrators in college
6. The decrease in full-time faculty
7. The abuse of graduate students
8. The abuse of adjunct faculty
9. The lies and other deceits of colleges in the financial aid process
10. The job-is-everything mentality.
I’ve already spoken about several of these issues on this blog.
What struck me as appalling in this latest article, however, is the reported fact that by 2014, college administrators will outnumber college faculty.
Here we see, again, the new dark times that MacIntyre speaks about in After Virtue. These dark times are marked by the dominance of bureaucrats and managers who, rather than engaging in a practice, try to manage and control practices. Most importantly, such bureaucrats both undermine free agency and subvert the internal goods of practices.
For instance, philosophy, art, French constitute practices with their own internal goods. For philosophy, those internal goods include wisdom, rhetoric, and dialogue. Yet, because of the new system, what’s important in colleges consists, not in producing wisdom, but in producing people with degrees. If you don’t produce the right amount of degrees, then you aren’t worth anything, because degrees mean money -- income.
When we reduce education to income, as we have in this country for so long, we’ve undermined every possibility for freedom at the ground level.
1. Student loan debt
2. The financial profit from reshuffling debt the way financiers did with the housing market
3. For profit colleges
4. The fact that a college education means higher debt with no pay increase over the last 20+ years
5. Increase in administrators in college
6. The decrease in full-time faculty
7. The abuse of graduate students
8. The abuse of adjunct faculty
9. The lies and other deceits of colleges in the financial aid process
10. The job-is-everything mentality.
I’ve already spoken about several of these issues on this blog.
What struck me as appalling in this latest article, however, is the reported fact that by 2014, college administrators will outnumber college faculty.
Here we see, again, the new dark times that MacIntyre speaks about in After Virtue. These dark times are marked by the dominance of bureaucrats and managers who, rather than engaging in a practice, try to manage and control practices. Most importantly, such bureaucrats both undermine free agency and subvert the internal goods of practices.
For instance, philosophy, art, French constitute practices with their own internal goods. For philosophy, those internal goods include wisdom, rhetoric, and dialogue. Yet, because of the new system, what’s important in colleges consists, not in producing wisdom, but in producing people with degrees. If you don’t produce the right amount of degrees, then you aren’t worth anything, because degrees mean money -- income.
When we reduce education to income, as we have in this country for so long, we’ve undermined every possibility for freedom at the ground level.
Wisconsin Facts, Unions, and Justice
03/03/11 17:37
Fact Check has come out with some info on Wisconsin’s public-employee unions. It notes that Governor Walker faces a huge deficit in the billions, but also that teachers do not make anything near $100k as has been reported by conservatives. It does not address whether Walker’s proposal would cost money as some have suggested.
It’s great to have a system like Fact Check that investigates these issues in a way that you and I cannot. We have to remember, however, that facts are not the only issues here. More importantly, most, if not all, that I’ve written here defending unions, both for public employees and private employees, stands independent of these facts.
The issues come down to justice. An attack on public unions is an attack on all unions, and an attempt to destroy unions so that government and corporations have more power over the lives of people and can deny basic justice to people -- to you and me. When the employees have already agreed to cut their salaries and contribute more to their pensions, the issue of closing the budget no longer stands. The real issue is, and has always been, the justice that the state owes the employees and the defense of workers everywhere.
Yet, as I’ve insisted throughout my comments, we must turn toward more communal ways of supporting every day work -- like education. We must strengthen our local communities to resist the colonizing tendencies of government bureaucracies and corporate capitalistic imperatives. That remains our primary task in building a just society -- which will always be local first and foremost.
It’s great to have a system like Fact Check that investigates these issues in a way that you and I cannot. We have to remember, however, that facts are not the only issues here. More importantly, most, if not all, that I’ve written here defending unions, both for public employees and private employees, stands independent of these facts.
The issues come down to justice. An attack on public unions is an attack on all unions, and an attempt to destroy unions so that government and corporations have more power over the lives of people and can deny basic justice to people -- to you and me. When the employees have already agreed to cut their salaries and contribute more to their pensions, the issue of closing the budget no longer stands. The real issue is, and has always been, the justice that the state owes the employees and the defense of workers everywhere.
Yet, as I’ve insisted throughout my comments, we must turn toward more communal ways of supporting every day work -- like education. We must strengthen our local communities to resist the colonizing tendencies of government bureaucracies and corporate capitalistic imperatives. That remains our primary task in building a just society -- which will always be local first and foremost.
Wisconsin, Cuts, and Facts
01/03/11 16:12
Wisconsin’s Governor Walker unveiled his budget today which included 1.5 billion in cuts to education and government assistance program while not increasing taxes or laying people off. Walker insists that his budget is necessary and, further, that cutting collective bargaining is necessary to bring the budget into balance. But as a recent AP report shows, Walker’s facts are wrong: public employees do NOT make more than private employees when compared at same levels of employment and education. It is FALSE to compare a public employee’s wage, when said employee often has an advanced degree, to the wage of someone working as a clerk in a big-box store.
With respect to education, Walker “also proposed requiring school districts to reduce their property tax authority by an average of $550 per pupil — a move that makes it more difficult for schools to make up the lost money.” It’s unclear how reducing property taxes for schools that face a shrink budget serves the common good.
More importantly and more a smack in the face to the common person “Walker asked for $82 million in tax cuts, including an expanded exclusion for capital gains realized on investments made in Wisconsin-based businesses. The Legislature previously approved more than $117 million in Walker-backed tax cuts that take effect later this year.” How can one justify such tax cuts when the state is suffering from such dire financial straights? Can anyone continue to doubt that Wlker is at the fore-front of a battle of the rich against the poor?
Walker does not have in the front of his mind the common good of the people, for he continually tramps on the people.
Yet, as I stated in my last post, we face every day the wearing away of human dignity by corporations, corporate politicians, and bureaucracies. What people have to do is come together as local communities and insulate themselves as much as possible from the demeaning and dehumanizing budgets -- budgets which are clearly moral documents -- in order to build opportunities in their local communities for human development. This entails everyone in the community coming together, first, to dialogue and to seek out means to preserving the integrity of the community.
Essential to preserving the integrity of the community is public education. One move I think should be consider is the role Catholic schools do or do not play in the education system and what role they could play? So far, we play a divisive game: public versus private education, rich versus poor. We must move beyond these divides and find common grounds for the community itself.
With respect to education, Walker “also proposed requiring school districts to reduce their property tax authority by an average of $550 per pupil — a move that makes it more difficult for schools to make up the lost money.” It’s unclear how reducing property taxes for schools that face a shrink budget serves the common good.
More importantly and more a smack in the face to the common person “Walker asked for $82 million in tax cuts, including an expanded exclusion for capital gains realized on investments made in Wisconsin-based businesses. The Legislature previously approved more than $117 million in Walker-backed tax cuts that take effect later this year.” How can one justify such tax cuts when the state is suffering from such dire financial straights? Can anyone continue to doubt that Wlker is at the fore-front of a battle of the rich against the poor?
Walker does not have in the front of his mind the common good of the people, for he continually tramps on the people.
Yet, as I stated in my last post, we face every day the wearing away of human dignity by corporations, corporate politicians, and bureaucracies. What people have to do is come together as local communities and insulate themselves as much as possible from the demeaning and dehumanizing budgets -- budgets which are clearly moral documents -- in order to build opportunities in their local communities for human development. This entails everyone in the community coming together, first, to dialogue and to seek out means to preserving the integrity of the community.
Essential to preserving the integrity of the community is public education. One move I think should be consider is the role Catholic schools do or do not play in the education system and what role they could play? So far, we play a divisive game: public versus private education, rich versus poor. We must move beyond these divides and find common grounds for the community itself.
5 Rules for Education: Maybe
24/02/11 12:58
In an article for Time online, Rotherman offers five changes for fixing education which have nothing to do with collective bargaining. These five changes are
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.
- Fixing tenure
- More evaluations of teachers
- Removing last in, first out rules to also include quality of teachers
- Inflexible salary schedules
- Getting rid of forced transfers and bumpings.
While some of these changes might be useful, none of them address real issues of practice and “quality.” (Quality is a funny word that deserves its own post at some point.)
When I speak of practice, I refer, first off, to that notion I’ve already discussed in this blog: a goal-oriented activity with goods that can only be gained from practicing the activity and whose practice extends human potentiality. Whether teaching is a practice I’ll leave to the side for the moment. What is clearly a practice are those things that teachers are responsible for training the young in:
- music
- art
- mathematics
- reading
- writing
- science
- sports
Each of these activities have their own goals, whether that might be to produce something beautiful, or to learn more about biological life, for instance. Further, the practice of these activities entails goods that we cannot get otherwise: learning how to blow a flute to produce an “F#” or communicating one’s thoughts clearly in one’s own voice. Finally, by engaging in these practices, we extend our own potentials as human beings: we learn how to listen to music more carefully or learn to recognize quality of art, etc.
Yet, we see that many students, once they’ve graduated from high school cannot read, cannot write, know little of biology, or can’t even balance a checkbook. This is often -- and I want to be careful to emphasize this point -- this is often NOT the fault of teachers in over-crowded schools with the lack of resources, nor is it the fault of labor unions, or, more generally, of collective bargaining. Many things can change about education in America.
The first thing, though, if we really want to educate our children to lead fulfilling lives -- and by this I do not mean the lives of acquisition which is mere slavishness -- then we have to address our whole approach to education in this society. Having discussions about this is a first step, one which local communities can have regardless of what happens at the level of the nation, the state, or the union.
I would encourage everyone to begin this discussion sooner rather than later.
March for Schools
21/02/11 13:22
Follow the link below to get information for marching to support schools.
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
Ohio and Education: SB 5, 2011
11/02/11 10:25
The Examiner reports that Ohio Senate Bill 5 will end collective bargaining for public employees. Republican Governor Kasich said it’s necessary to allow transparency to the public so they can see where they’re taxes are going. Of course, that’s hog’s wash. It’s an excuse that he would deny in many other cases where transparency is necessary. What SB5 does is remove autonomy from public employees.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
I’ve reported already on how state governments are trying to undermine public unions. Private unions now only account for 7% of the workforce. The only real unions in the United States are public unions, and these are coming under attack in state after state. Public employees covered under the union in Ohio include firefighters and teachers. By undermining these necessary public employees, government officials are undermining any remnants of the common good that remain in America. That is, they are destroying the social fabric that allows communities to flourish which are necessary for individuals to flourish.
If Kasich were truly concerned about transparency, then he would allow all the people who have a concern in this matter have an effective -- by which I mean, deciding -- voice in the decision as to whether it goes forward. But that would be a step toward real democracy which would undermine the system of bureaucracy and capitalism that got him elected.
Moreover, by undermines teacher’s unions, it undermines real education. Education is necessary for true democracy, which involves participation in discussions about the common good. So, Governor Kasich gets two birds with one stone: undermining unions and education, eliminating any true mark of democratic reform. As Catholic Social Teaching has held for over 100 years, unions are necessary parts of extending democratic voice to workers who otherwise lose autonomy in the current bureaucratic state and capitalistic markets.
Moreover, Kasich is pushing to remove the pension funds of public employees. These pensions funds were paid into by the employees in exchange for not paying into social security. By denying this earned income, Kasich both steals from what workers have morally earned and robs them of any retirement monies because they cannot draw social security. It’s an abuse of the person to reshuffle money from the workers who earned it to the big businesses who want it. For where do you think the money will go: into state coffers to entice “businesses” to come to Ohio to supply (minimum wage) jobs.
Stand with me to support public unions in Ohio and across the nation.
Education's Value
03/02/11 13:33
Stanley Fish’s recent post echoes concerns that I’ve voiced on this blog about education, especially in the United States under Obama. As a matter of fact, many people have been commenting about education in the US and its goals. Many of these questions center around the goal of education: is it to just get a job or is it for something more?
We must realize, I think, that the idea that education’s end goal was employment comprises a very recent understanding of education. Understanding this recent turn proves important, for what it heralds is the role of the capitalistic economy’s influence on our everyday lives. Schools today are, as Alasdair MacIntyre has been saying for a long time, producers: they produce workers for the system, dividing them into those who will be managers, those who will work in the service industry, and those who will remain unemployed and, thus, always on the margins of society. They train people to be cogs in a machine.
This evolution of our schools need not be inevitable. We can change it. Of course, when unemployment remains around 10% (while really being closer to 20%) and when we see jobs shipped over seas, and we see the US falling behind in many areas, our greatest fear is about the economy and getting a job. This fear serves the power interests and the system well, but it also comes out of our shared human nature. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, providing material support for our lives underlies the other needs we have -- including needs for self-realization and democratic participation.
The problem today, however, is that if we do not grasp our democracy and insist on participatory democracy, we will never be able to satisfy our real needs of jobs. We can do this at the local level, of course, by insisting that local school districts give the rights education to our children. We can do this in our own families by insisting to our children that education is not about getting a job but about living a fulfilling life and being a citizen. We can emphasize the point by showing that getting a job is not about what you know but who you know, and that most of what we need to know to perform a job we learn on the job.
But to do any of this, we have to begin to have these conversations in our local communities and with our friends and family. We have to resist the race to the top unless that race involves an education that addresses the whole person.
We must realize, I think, that the idea that education’s end goal was employment comprises a very recent understanding of education. Understanding this recent turn proves important, for what it heralds is the role of the capitalistic economy’s influence on our everyday lives. Schools today are, as Alasdair MacIntyre has been saying for a long time, producers: they produce workers for the system, dividing them into those who will be managers, those who will work in the service industry, and those who will remain unemployed and, thus, always on the margins of society. They train people to be cogs in a machine.
This evolution of our schools need not be inevitable. We can change it. Of course, when unemployment remains around 10% (while really being closer to 20%) and when we see jobs shipped over seas, and we see the US falling behind in many areas, our greatest fear is about the economy and getting a job. This fear serves the power interests and the system well, but it also comes out of our shared human nature. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, providing material support for our lives underlies the other needs we have -- including needs for self-realization and democratic participation.
The problem today, however, is that if we do not grasp our democracy and insist on participatory democracy, we will never be able to satisfy our real needs of jobs. We can do this at the local level, of course, by insisting that local school districts give the rights education to our children. We can do this in our own families by insisting to our children that education is not about getting a job but about living a fulfilling life and being a citizen. We can emphasize the point by showing that getting a job is not about what you know but who you know, and that most of what we need to know to perform a job we learn on the job.
But to do any of this, we have to begin to have these conversations in our local communities and with our friends and family. We have to resist the race to the top unless that race involves an education that addresses the whole person.
Education and Egyptian Protests
02/02/11 10:53
Think out Loud interviewed two Egyptians today about the protests going on there. They shed much light on what’s going on in Egypt.
For instance:
1. The army is really in control. The Egyptian army is its own society, with its own malls and resorts, etc. While the Egyptian army has stated that it will not interfere with protestors, it has allowed government thugs into the protest area, which led to violence. It’s clear, then, that the army is playing a waiting game, trying to decide where they want to throw their support.
2. The Egyptian people still have a say. They can wrest some control from the army by standing firm.
3. Violence erupted only after government thugs were allowed amongst the protestors. This confirmed by CNN who interviewed some of the pro-Mubarek “demonstrators” who reported that they were paid to support Mubarek. Why? We must ask this since Mubarek said he would step down. More is going on then we see, obviously.
What I think proves hopeful, though, is something else the guests on Think Out Loud shared. They talked about how good the education system in Egypt is. Here we have the true source of the ability of the people to come together and make demands: education. Education, as MacIntyre points out, has the function of training people to ask questions, questions about the system. So any form of education -- even one like that in the United States that focuses on preparing some for careers in business and others for careers in service -- always has an underlying potential -- the potential for freedom. This cannot be an education from above -- which is important. Revolutionary education comes from learning about one’s tradition -- cultural, religious, scientific. Then people must use that education to ask questions about themselves, happiness, and their own society.
If we have hope for the future, it lies in education.
For instance:
1. The army is really in control. The Egyptian army is its own society, with its own malls and resorts, etc. While the Egyptian army has stated that it will not interfere with protestors, it has allowed government thugs into the protest area, which led to violence. It’s clear, then, that the army is playing a waiting game, trying to decide where they want to throw their support.
2. The Egyptian people still have a say. They can wrest some control from the army by standing firm.
3. Violence erupted only after government thugs were allowed amongst the protestors. This confirmed by CNN who interviewed some of the pro-Mubarek “demonstrators” who reported that they were paid to support Mubarek. Why? We must ask this since Mubarek said he would step down. More is going on then we see, obviously.
What I think proves hopeful, though, is something else the guests on Think Out Loud shared. They talked about how good the education system in Egypt is. Here we have the true source of the ability of the people to come together and make demands: education. Education, as MacIntyre points out, has the function of training people to ask questions, questions about the system. So any form of education -- even one like that in the United States that focuses on preparing some for careers in business and others for careers in service -- always has an underlying potential -- the potential for freedom. This cannot be an education from above -- which is important. Revolutionary education comes from learning about one’s tradition -- cultural, religious, scientific. Then people must use that education to ask questions about themselves, happiness, and their own society.
If we have hope for the future, it lies in education.
Higher Ed and Jobs
03/01/11 13:51
On Think Out Loud today, the guests discussed plans to change funding for higher education in Oregon. The guest commented on a variety of interesting issues, including how legislators deal with funding higher education. It should be common knowledge by now that legislatures both in Oregon and across the United States, as well as throughout the industrialized world, have cut back on funding for the last 30 years, if not more. Rising tuition rates coincide with decreased government funding of “public” education. What was more surprising to me was the claim that, in Oregon, at least, legislatures have gone into the university funding system and removed tuition money to make up for depleted government resources. In other words, if the state government faces a financial short fall, they have been known to take the money that students have paid in tuition to make up for that shortfall.
This action violates any number of moral principles, and I would think should violate a number of legal principles, but, I take it, does not.
We are all going to have to decide what to do about higher education -- you and I, the tax payer and the people who rely on this education for our futures. We will have to open up our minds on how we think about this though. If we only focus on funding education -- getting the cheapest bang for the buck -- we are going to be selling ourselves and our society short. We are going to be selling our children and grandchildren short.
We have to discuss the purpose of education.
Unfortunately, the education we’ve been provided at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels have been inadequate for preparing us to engage in the debates necessary for these discussions. We can tell this in part because educational funding does not begin with a discussion of the purpose of education for a free society. It begins with one and only one goal -- getting people to jobs.
Don’t get me wrong: getting a job is important for everyone. Each and every human being has a right by virtue of being a human being of work, work paid at a living salary to support themselves in their families in humane living conditions. Education and work, however, should not be tied together in the way that it is sold to us.
I say “sold” advisedly. When I lived in Kentucky, the government instituted the slogan “education pays.” When we cheapen education in this way, we are being sold a bill of goods, because education is not about getting a job. Anyone who has ever held a job knows this, because we know that you learn what you need on the job. What education must do is prepare us to enter any job we want so that we can learn in that situation, so that we can adjust to new and changing circumstances, and so that we can live in changing and challenging times.
So long as we continue to discuss funding education without looking at humanizing education, however, we shall never achieve those goals. We will only end up in the movie Idiocracy.
This action violates any number of moral principles, and I would think should violate a number of legal principles, but, I take it, does not.
We are all going to have to decide what to do about higher education -- you and I, the tax payer and the people who rely on this education for our futures. We will have to open up our minds on how we think about this though. If we only focus on funding education -- getting the cheapest bang for the buck -- we are going to be selling ourselves and our society short. We are going to be selling our children and grandchildren short.
We have to discuss the purpose of education.
Unfortunately, the education we’ve been provided at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels have been inadequate for preparing us to engage in the debates necessary for these discussions. We can tell this in part because educational funding does not begin with a discussion of the purpose of education for a free society. It begins with one and only one goal -- getting people to jobs.
Don’t get me wrong: getting a job is important for everyone. Each and every human being has a right by virtue of being a human being of work, work paid at a living salary to support themselves in their families in humane living conditions. Education and work, however, should not be tied together in the way that it is sold to us.
I say “sold” advisedly. When I lived in Kentucky, the government instituted the slogan “education pays.” When we cheapen education in this way, we are being sold a bill of goods, because education is not about getting a job. Anyone who has ever held a job knows this, because we know that you learn what you need on the job. What education must do is prepare us to enter any job we want so that we can learn in that situation, so that we can adjust to new and changing circumstances, and so that we can live in changing and challenging times.
So long as we continue to discuss funding education without looking at humanizing education, however, we shall never achieve those goals. We will only end up in the movie Idiocracy.
Education and the Common Good
30/12/10 15:43
Stanley Fish comments on the proposed legislation in the UK that would change the way higher education is paid for and how money is allocated to different disciplines in higher education. One might wonder whether we need yet another article decrying the fate of higher education in the contemporary world. One might also wonder why this blog would once more comment on the plight of higher education in the contemporary world. We know my position, right? And we know what’s at stake, right? Then let people make their decisions.
While some truth attends to the idea that a lot has already been said -- maybe even too much -- I think Fish points out something inadvertently and, seemingly, without realizing it, but something that proves very important to the conversation. Fish writes
“Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good — as a good the effects of which permeate society — but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit. “It is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely . . . on public funds collected through taxation from people who have not participated in higher education themselves.” No one who has not been to a university has any stake in the health or survival of the system.”
Higher education is no longer seen as a public good. Another way of saying this is that higher education is no longer seen as a common good. In fact, the very notion of common good has lost any real meaning in the contemporary world. Money constitutes the only common good, and that because it comprises something common between every one’s private good.
The common good, however, cannot be understood simply as the sum of every private good in society. Education exemplifies this point.
Educators fear, especially those of us in the humanities and social sciences, that privatizing education will entail that certain disciplines -- those that are not seem to correspond on a one-to-one basis with money and jobs -- will disappear through lack of funding. Imagine, though, what society would be like if this scenario truly resulted. The world would be without studies in literature, in philosophy, in psychology, or in political science.
So what, someone might ask, what good do those do us anyway? Or, maybe, someone will respond, no, philosophy doesn’t depend on being educated in philosophy.
Yet, we generally judge those societies without literature and without philosophy to be less valuable than those with literature and philosophy. Literature, philosophy, and political science, among other fields of knowledge, constitute real common goods -- goods that people share, that cannot be privatized, and that make society better just from being part of the culture. A society without them -- a people without them -- are impoverished and less human.
The real question, then, in the debates over higher education is a question about the common good -- whether there is any such common good, and what responsibility we as a society have to support that common good -- even if it produces no utilitarian results for us.
While some truth attends to the idea that a lot has already been said -- maybe even too much -- I think Fish points out something inadvertently and, seemingly, without realizing it, but something that proves very important to the conversation. Fish writes
“Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good — as a good the effects of which permeate society — but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit. “It is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely . . . on public funds collected through taxation from people who have not participated in higher education themselves.” No one who has not been to a university has any stake in the health or survival of the system.”
Higher education is no longer seen as a public good. Another way of saying this is that higher education is no longer seen as a common good. In fact, the very notion of common good has lost any real meaning in the contemporary world. Money constitutes the only common good, and that because it comprises something common between every one’s private good.
The common good, however, cannot be understood simply as the sum of every private good in society. Education exemplifies this point.
Educators fear, especially those of us in the humanities and social sciences, that privatizing education will entail that certain disciplines -- those that are not seem to correspond on a one-to-one basis with money and jobs -- will disappear through lack of funding. Imagine, though, what society would be like if this scenario truly resulted. The world would be without studies in literature, in philosophy, in psychology, or in political science.
So what, someone might ask, what good do those do us anyway? Or, maybe, someone will respond, no, philosophy doesn’t depend on being educated in philosophy.
Yet, we generally judge those societies without literature and without philosophy to be less valuable than those with literature and philosophy. Literature, philosophy, and political science, among other fields of knowledge, constitute real common goods -- goods that people share, that cannot be privatized, and that make society better just from being part of the culture. A society without them -- a people without them -- are impoverished and less human.
The real question, then, in the debates over higher education is a question about the common good -- whether there is any such common good, and what responsibility we as a society have to support that common good -- even if it produces no utilitarian results for us.
Conservative and Liberals in the Academy
23/12/10 17:04
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/were-all-conservatives-now/
Stanley Fish, in an article about higher education, claims that the people on the left and the right want the same thing in education: an education that leads to enlightenment. When liberals decry the corporate take-over of higher education through the reduction of taxes that support higher education or the move to privatize education and conservatives condemn predominant liberal-slant of higher education programs, they both reference the same ideal of the university. This ideal, for Fish, is that of university which seeks to “expand its knowledge . . . to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment.”
I find Fish’s take questionable. I have not been around as long as Fish, and hope someday that I will be, but I’ve been to a number of higher institutions. None of them have been particularly left-leaning. The programs which would tend to be left-leaning, the women’s studies programs or the African-American programs, are generally underfunded, do not offer majors, and are staffed by professors in other departments. Maybe my experience is selective, and I hope so. We need more diversity in higher education, not less.
Which brings me to the heart of my disagreement with Fish’s take. A system which turns to private dollars for education cannot support the ultimate goal of expanding knowledge, of ridding the current fields of knowledge of their errors, or of increasing enlightenment. Isn’t it time to stop and wonder why the increase in relativism in higher education coincides with the increased privatization and corporate manipulation of higher education. Relativism belongs, not only to the left, but as much if not more to the right. Relativism removes the possibility of establishing firm moral grounds and opens the door to corporate interests to influence research and teaching.
I’m not rejecting Fish’s take altogether. I’m simply suggesting the story he offers is too simplistic and the parallels he draws between the left and the right with respect to higher education need more careful thought. Only a higher education funded by public -- not private -- dollars can really answer the important questions here, and that seems to be the main difference between the conservative the liberal takes on these basic issues.
Stanley Fish, in an article about higher education, claims that the people on the left and the right want the same thing in education: an education that leads to enlightenment. When liberals decry the corporate take-over of higher education through the reduction of taxes that support higher education or the move to privatize education and conservatives condemn predominant liberal-slant of higher education programs, they both reference the same ideal of the university. This ideal, for Fish, is that of university which seeks to “expand its knowledge . . . to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment.”
I find Fish’s take questionable. I have not been around as long as Fish, and hope someday that I will be, but I’ve been to a number of higher institutions. None of them have been particularly left-leaning. The programs which would tend to be left-leaning, the women’s studies programs or the African-American programs, are generally underfunded, do not offer majors, and are staffed by professors in other departments. Maybe my experience is selective, and I hope so. We need more diversity in higher education, not less.
Which brings me to the heart of my disagreement with Fish’s take. A system which turns to private dollars for education cannot support the ultimate goal of expanding knowledge, of ridding the current fields of knowledge of their errors, or of increasing enlightenment. Isn’t it time to stop and wonder why the increase in relativism in higher education coincides with the increased privatization and corporate manipulation of higher education. Relativism belongs, not only to the left, but as much if not more to the right. Relativism removes the possibility of establishing firm moral grounds and opens the door to corporate interests to influence research and teaching.
I’m not rejecting Fish’s take altogether. I’m simply suggesting the story he offers is too simplistic and the parallels he draws between the left and the right with respect to higher education need more careful thought. Only a higher education funded by public -- not private -- dollars can really answer the important questions here, and that seems to be the main difference between the conservative the liberal takes on these basic issues.