May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Slightly Skeptical View on Neoliberal Transformation of University Education
Previously education was mostly about "finding yourself" -- developing understanding of the world
and yourself, as well as developing those set of abilities that you was gifted most. And deciding what
you want to do in the future, within contins of job market and your abilities. Neoliberalism has changed that dramatically. Education now is just in
"investment" into your "entrepreneurial self" to increase your value as "human capital" holder and
this your value in the "labout market." (Symptomatic
Redness -Philip Mirowski - YouTube). That's bullsh*t, but people already brainwashed by
neoliberals from the middle school buy it uncritically.
Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, predatory health care providers, all of them out for
themselves…. Neoliberalism is the philosophy of the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street
titans who gave so much to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign…. They are pretend to belong to so called "creative vlass", but in reality
are self-interested, parasitical, and predatory. Common people are not admissible to this new aristocracy even if they have two
university educations.
In the current circumstances education is no longer the answer to rising inequality. Instead of serving
as a social lift it, it designed to propagate the current status of parents and at least in some cases, became more of a social trap
converting poorer or more reckless (as in specializing in areas were job market is not existent) graduates into debt slaves without
chances to repay the loans. All this is connected with neoliberal
transformation of education. With the collapse of post-war public funded educational model and privatization
of the University education students face a pretty cruel world. World in which they are cows to milk.
Now universities became institutions very similar to McDonalds ( or, in less politically correct terms,
Bordellos of Higher Learning). Like McDonalds they need to price their services so that to receive nice
profit and they to make themselves more attractive to industry they intentionally feed students with
overspecialized curriculum instead of concentrating on fundamentals and the developing the ability to
understand the world. Which was the hallmark of university education of the past.
Since 1970th Neo-Liberal
University model replaced public funded university model (Dewey model). It is
now collapsing as there are not that many students, who are able (and now with lower job prospects and
persistent tales of graduates working as bartenders) to pay inflated tuition fees. Foreigners somewhat compensates for this , but
with current high prices Canada, UK and Europe are more attractive for all but the most rich parents. That means that
higher education again by-and-large became privilege of the rich and upper middle class.
Lower student enrollment first hit after dot-com boom, when the number of students who want to be programmers decines
several times. Expensive private colleges start hunting
for people with government support (such a former members of Arm forces). The
elite universities, which traditionally serve the top 1% and rich foreigners fared better but were also hit. As David Schultz wrote
in his article (Logos,
2012):
Yet the Dewey model began to collapse in middle of the 1970s. Perhaps it was the retrenchment
of the SUNY and CUNY systems in New York under Governor Hugh Carey in 1976 that began the end
of the democratic university.What caused its retrenchment was the fiscal crisis of the
1970s.
The fiscal crisis of the 1970s was born of numerous problems. Inflationary pressures caused by
Vietnam and the energy embargoes of the 1970s, and recessionary forces from relative declines in
American economic productivity produced significant economic shocks, including to the public sector
where many state and local governments edged toward bankruptcy.
Efforts to relieve declining corporate profits and productivity initiated efforts to restructure
the economy, including cutting back on government services. The response, first in England under
Margaret Thatcher and then in the United States under Ronald Reagan, was an effort to retrench the
state by a package that included decreases in government expenditures for social welfare programs,
cutbacks on business regulations, resistance to labor rights, and tax cuts. Collectively these
proposals are referred to as Neo-liberalism and their aim was to restore profitability and autonomy
to free markets with the belief that unfettered by the government that would restore productivity.
Neo-liberalism had a major impact on higher education. First beginning under President
Carter and then more so under Ronald Reagan, the federal and state governments cut taxes and public
expenditures. The combination of the two meant a halt to the Dewey business model as support
for public institutions decreased and federal money dried up.
From a high in the 1960s and early 70s when states and the federal government provided generous
funding to expand their public systems to educate the Baby Boomers, state universities now receive
only a small percentage of their money from the government. As I pointed out in my 2005 Logos “The
Corporate University in American Society” article in 1991, 74% of the funding for public universities
came from states, in 2004; it was down to 64%, with state systems in Illinois, Michigan and Virginia
down to 25%, 18%, and 8% respectively. Since then, the percentages have shrunk even more, rendering
state universities public institutions more in name than in funding.
Higher education under Neo-liberalism needed a new business model and it found it in the corporate
university. The corporate university is one where colleges increasingly use corporate structures
and management styles to run the university. This includes abandoning the American Association
of University Professors (AAUP) shared governance model where faculty had an equal voice in the running
of the school, including over curriculum, selection of department chairs, deans, and presidents,
and determination of many of the other policies affecting the academy. The corporate university
replaced the shared governance model with one more typical of a business corporation.
For the corporate university, many decisions, including increasingly those affecting curriculum,
are determined by a top-down pyramid style of authority. University administration often composed
not of typical academics but those with business or corporate backgrounds had pre-empted many of
the decisions faculty used to make. Under a corporate model, the trustees, increasingly composed
of more business leaders than before, select, often with minimal input from the faculty, the president
who, in turn, again with minimal or no faculty voice, select the deans, department heads, and other
administrative personnel.
Neoliberalism professes the idea the personal greed can serve positive society goals, which is reflected
in famous neoliberal slogan "greed is good". And university presidents listen. Now presidents of neoliberal
universities do not want to get $100K per year salary, they want one, or better several, million dollars -- the
salary of the CEO of major corporation (Student Debt
Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - NYTimes.com)
At the 25 public universities with the highest-paid presidents, both student debt and the use
of part-time adjunct faculty grew far faster than at the average state university from 2005 to 2012,
according to a new
study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning Washington research group.
The study, “The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt
and Low-Wage Faculty Labor,” examined the relationship between executive pay, student debt and
low-wage faculty labor at the 25 top-paying public universities.
The co-authors, Andrew Erwin and Marjorie Wood, found that administrative expenditures at the
highest-paying universities outpaced spending on scholarships by more than two to one. And while
adjunct faculty members became more numerous at the 25 universities, the share of permanent faculty
declined drastically.
“The high executive pay obviously isn’t the direct cause of higher student debt, or cuts in labor
spending,” Ms. Wood said. “But if you think about it in terms of the allocation of resources, it
does seem to be the tip of a very large iceberg, with universities that have top-heavy executive
spending also having more adjuncts, more tuition increases and more administrative spending.”
... ... ...
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual
survey of public university presidents’ compensation, also released Sunday, found that nine chief
executives earned more than $1 million in total compensation in 2012-13, up from four the previous
year, and three in 2010-11. The median total compensation of the 256 presidents in the survey was
$478,896, a 5 percent increase over the previous year.
... ... ...
As in several past years, the highest-compensated president, at $6,057,615 in this period,
was E. Gordon Gee, who
resigned from Ohio State last summer amid trustee complaints about frequent gaffes. He has since
become the president of West Virginia University.
This trick requires dramatic raising of tuition costs. University bureaucracy also got taste for
better salaries and all those deans, etc want to be remunerated like vice presidents. So raising the
tuition costs became the key existential idea of neoliberal university. Not quality of education, but
tuition costs now are the key criteria of success. And if you can charge students $40K per semester
it is very, very good. If does not matter that most population get less then $20 an hour.
The same is true for professors, who proved to be no less corruptible. And some of them, such as
economic departments, simply serve as prostitutes for financial oligarchy. So they were corrupted even
before that rat race for profit. Of course there are exceptions. But they only prove the rule.
As the result university tuition inflation outpaced inflation by leaps and bounds. At some point
amount that you pay (and the level of debt after graduation) becomes an important factor in choosing
the university. So children of "have" and "have nots" get into different educational institutions and
do not meet each other. In a way aristocracy returned via back door.
Neoliberal university professes "deep specialization" to create "ready for the job market" graduates.
And that creates another problem: education became more like stock market game and that makes more difficult
for you to change your specialization late in the education cycle. But too early choice entails typical stock
market problem: you might miss the peak of the market or worse get into prolonged slump, as graduates
in finance learned all too well in 2008.
That's why it is important not to accumulate too much debt: large debt after graduation put you in situation like "all in" play in poker. You essentially bet that in
the chosen specialty there will
be open positions with high salary, when you graduate. If you lose this bet , you became a debt slave for considerable period of
your life.
As a result of this "reaction to the market trends" by neoliberal universities, when universities
became appendixes of HR of large corporations students need to be more aware of real university machinery,
then students in 50th or 60th of the last century. And first student should not assume that the university is functioning for their benefits.
One problem for a student is that there are now way too many variables that you do not control. Among
them:
Will it be a sizable market for graduates for the given specialty in four years from now
(late specialization and attempt to get a job after bachelor degree might help here; in this
case the selection of the master degree specialization can become more realistic).
What will be the general health of national economy on the moment of graduation? Remember
about students who graduated in 2008.
The total price of education (and by extension the size of the debt you get on the day
of graduation from the college).
Whether you become a victim of rip offs sponsored by the university administration. Although
this is a slight exaggeration, but the working hypothesis for student a modern neoliberal university
should probably be "This is a hostile environment ! Beware financial rip-offs". That might
involve gentle pushing you into obtaining worthless specialty or other intricate ways to screw you
based on your lack of life experience, poor understanding of academic environment and natural youth
maximalism. Loading you with loans to the max is another dirty trick. In private universities this
is a new art that is polished to perfection and widely practiced on unsuspecting lemmings.
On the deep level neoliberal university is not interested to help you to find specialization and
place in life where can unleash your talents. You are just a paying customers much like in McDonalds,
and university interests are such they might try to push you in wrong direction or load you with too
much debt.
If there is deep mismatch as was with computer science graduates after crash of dot-com boom, or
simply bad job market due to economy stagnation and
you can't find the job for your new specialty
(or if you got "junk" specialty with inherent high level of unemployment among professionals) and you
have substantial education debt, then waiting tables or having some other MacJob is a real disaster
for you. As with such salaries you simply can't pay it back. So controlling the level of debt is very
important and in this sense parents financial help is now necessary. In other words education became
more and more "rich kids game".
That does not mean that university education should be avoided for those from families with modest
means. On the contrary it provides unique experience and help a person to mature in multiple ways difficult
to achieve without it. It is still one of the best ways to get vertical mobility. But unless parents
can support you need to try to find the most economical way to obtain it without acquiring too much
debt. This is you first university exam. And if you fail it you are in trouble.
For example, computer science education is a great way to learn quite a few things necessary for
a modern life. But the price does matter and prestige of the university institution that you attend
is just one of the factors you should consider in your evaluation. It should not be the major factor
("vanity fair") unless your parents are rich and can support you. If you are good you can get later
a master degree in a prestigious university after graduation from a regular college. Or even Ph.D.
County colleges are greatly underappreciated and generally provide pretty high standard of education,
giving ability to students to save money for the first two years before transferring to a four year
college. They also smooth the transition as finding yourself among people who are only equal or superior
then you (and have access to financial resource that you don't have) is a huge stress. The proverb say
that it is better to be first in the village then last in the town has some truth in it. Prestigious
universities might provide a career boost (high fly companies usually accept resumes only from Ivy League
members), but they cost so much that you need to be a son or daughter of well-to-do parents to feel
comfortably in them. Or extremely talented. Also amount of career boost that elite universities provide
depends on whom your parents are and what connections they have. It does not depend solely on you and
the university. Again, I would like to stress that you should resist "vanity fair" approach to your
education: a much better way is to try to obtain BS in a regular university and them try to obtain MS
and then, if you are good, PHD, in a prestigious university. Here is a fragment of an interesting discussion
that covers this topic (Low Mobility Is Not a Social Tragedy?, Feb 13, 2013
; I recommend you to read the whole discussion ):
kievite:
I would like to defend Greg Clack.
I think that Greg Clack point is that the number of gifted children is limited and that
exceptionally gifted children have some chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical
societies (story of Alexander Hamilton was really fascinating for me, the story of Mikhail
Lomonosov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov
was another one -- he went from the very bottom to the top of Russian aristocracy just on the
strength of his abilities as a scientist). In no way the ability to "hold its own" (typical for
rich families kids) against which many here expressed some resentment represents social mobility.
But the number of kids who went down is low -- that's actually proves Greg Clack point:
(1) Studies of social mobility using surnames suggest two things. Social mobility rates
are much lower than conventionally estimated. And social mobility rates estimated in this way
vary little across societies and time periods. Sweden is no more mobile than contemporary England
and the USA, or even than medieval England. Social mobility rates seem to be independent of
social institutions (see the other studies on China, India, Japan and the USA now linked here).
Francisco Ferreira rejects this interpretation, and restates the idea that there is a strong
link between social mobility rates and inequality in his interesting post.
What is wrong with the data Ferreira cites? Conventional estimates of social mobility, which
look at just single aspects of social status such as income, are contaminated by noise. If
we measure mobility on one aspect of status such as income, it will seem rapid.
But this is because income is a very noisy measure of the underlying status of families.
The status of families is a combination of their education, occupation, income, wealth, health,
and residence. They will often trade off income for some other aspect of status such as occupation.
A child can be as socially successful as a low paid philosophy professor as a high paid car
salesman. Thus if we measure just one aspect of status such as income we are going to confuse
the random fluctuations of income across generations, influenced by such things as career choices
between business and philosophy, with true generalised social mobility.
If these estimates of social mobility were anywhere near correct as indicating true
underlying rates of social mobility, then we would not find that the aristocrats of 1700 in
Sweden are still overrepresented in all elite occupations of Sweden. Further, the more
equal is income in a society, the less signal will income give of the true social status of
families. In a society such as Sweden, where the difference in income between bus drivers and
philosophy professors is modest, income tells us little about the social status of families.
It is contaminated much more by random noise. Thus it will appear if we measure social status
just by income that mobility is much greater in Sweden than in the USA, because in the USA
income is a much better indicator of the true overall status of families.
The last two paragraphs of Greg Clark article cited by Mark Thoma are badly written and actually
are somewhat disconnected with his line of thinking as I understand it as well as with the general
line of argumentation of the paper.
Again, I would like to stress that a low intergenerational mobility includes the ability
of kids with silver spoon in their mouth to keep a status close to their parent. The fact
that they a have different starting point then kids from lower strata of society does not change
that.
I think that the key argument that needs testing is that the number of challengers from lower
strata of the society is always pretty low and is to a large extent accommodated by the societies
we know (of course some societies are better then others).
Actually it would be interesting to look at the social mobility data of the USSR from this
point of view.
But in no way, say, Mark Thoma was a regular kid, although circumstances for vertical mobility
at this time were definitely better then now. He did possessed some qualities which made possible
his upward move although his choice of economics was probably a mistake ;-).
Whether those qualities were enough in more restrictive environments we simply don't know,
but circumstances for him were difficult enough as they were.
I stopped reading after that. I teach at a high school in a town with a real mix of highly
elite families, working class families, and poor families, and I can tell you that the children
of affluent parents are not obviously more gifted than the children of poor families. They
do, however, have a lot more social capital, and they have vastly more success. But the limitations
on being "gifted" are irrelevant.
According to an extensive study (Turkheimer et al., 2003) of 50,000 pregnant women and the
children they went on to have (including enough sets of twins to be able to study the role of
innate genetic differences), variation in IQ among the affluent seems to be largely genetic.
Among the poor, however, IQ has very little to do with genes -- probably because the genetic
differences are swamped and suppressed by the environmental differences, as few poor kids
are able to develop as fully as they would in less constrained circumstances.
All you said is true. I completely agree that "...few poor kids are able to develop as fully
as they would in less constrained circumstances." So there are losses here and we should openly
talk about them.
Also it goes without saying that social capital is extremely important for a child. That's
why downward mobility of children from upper classes is suppressed, despite the fact that some
of them are plain vanilla stupid.
But how this disproves the point made that"exceptionally gifted children have some
chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical societies"? I
think you just jumped the gun...
mrrunangun:
The early boomers benefitted from the happy confluence of the postwar boom, LBJ's Great
Society efforts toward financial assistance for those seeking to advance their educations, and
the 1964 Civil Rights Act which opened opportunities for marginalized social groups in institutions
largely closed to them under the prewar social customs in the US.
The US Supreme Court is made up of only Jews and Catholics as of this writing, a circumstance
inconceivable in the prewar America. Catholics were largely relegated to separate and unequal
institutions. Jews' opportunities were limited by quotas and had a separate set of institutions
of their own where their numbers could support such. Where their numbers were not sufficient,
they were often relegated to second rate institutions.
Jewish doctors frequently became the leading men in the Catholic hospitals in Midwestern industrial
towns where they were unwelcome in the towns' main hospitals. Schools, clubs, hospitals, professional
and commercial organizations often had quota or exclusionary policies. Meritocracy has its
drawbacks, but we've seen worse in living memory.
Of course bad things that happened to you during your university years are soon forgotten and nostalgia
colors everything in role tones, but the truth is that the modern university is a very cruel world.
Now more then ever.Here are some random observations of the subject (See also my Diploma Millspage about high education sharks for which
sucking you dry financially is the main goal ):
The number of talented teachers is very limited. Your chances to get one in a modern university
are pretty slim. And chances of personally interacting with one which in old time was tremendous
source of personal growth for university students are even slimmer. And level of salaries can change
this number only insignificantly as people with an outstanding talent to teach usually try to find
the way into teaching in any case. High salaries attract more careerists and psychopaths, so they
are mixed blessing. Differences of compensation do not automatically translates into differences
in quality of teaching. Please note that in the USSR the entry-level salary of a teacher was on the
same level as the salary of a casher in supermarket (in other words they were semi-starved) and still
the level of education provided was pretty decent. They were really poor by all standards. But social
status of teaching profession was very high and probably due to this people who get into teaching
were by-and-large very dedicated. So complete absence of money stimulus does not completely kills
inflow of good teachers. Moreover, after the USSR dissolved and new Russian state experienced huge
difficulties with paying salaries to government workers, most teachers did not get salary for half
a year or more and still almost 100% of them continued to teach students of daily basis.
The number of talented students is very limitedtoo. This numbercan't be
easily changed by monetary stimulus to teachers or students. Development of a talented student
only partially is dependent on the quality of the teacher and the school as a whole. They to
a certain extent are "self-propelled" and after initial "boost" (often when the interest to the subject
was sparked by contact with talented dedicated teacher in high school who loves his subject, recognized
their abilities and treated them accordingly) do not significantly increase or lower their results
on additional effort or money that are spent on their education. One interesting factor is that presence
of talented students in the class raises the level of other students and they often provide influence
similar to talented teachers.
While family support matters, excessive push typical, for example, for parents of South Asian
students can be detrimental. I attended a school for mathematically gifted children and they
pushed us so hard that none of the students became a professional mathematician, despite obvious
high natural abilities ;-). Most of us got an allergy to the mathematics for the rest of their lives.
The other extreme when student "is on your own" is also bad. Difficulties in college are substantial
and parents support matters a lot. It is a factor success.
There is also a certain number of students who do not respond well to educational effort no
matter how hard the teacher tries. So, paradoxically, requiring certain average level of achievement
for the class essentially redirects teacher effort from more talented students, who are fewer in
number but might benefit from these efforts, toward less capable and/or less motivated, but who are
more numerically significant part of the class and affect the average that is measured.
Motivation is a huge problem for certain social groups. I think tremendous level of family
pressure partially explains higher level of education success of Jewish, Asian and Eastern European
students. Parents, especially first generation emigrant parents often transfer very high level of
expectations typical for their native countries to the child. In Eastern Europe the level of educational
achievement of a child often serves as a stamp of social approval of the parents, so the pressure
can be excessive and hurt the child. Paradoxically, negative stimulus might work well too. One probable
reason that the level of education in the USSR was reasonably high despite overcrowded and poorly
equipped schools was the fact that those male students who failed entrance exam to the university
twice after the graduation from high school (year of the graduation and the next year) were drafted
to Red Army. For urban youth that was essentially a punishment for educational failure as by-and-large
they were pro-western oriented and were afraid to be drafted. For the same reason the fact that the
number of seats at the universities was limited and insufficient to absorb all high-school graduates
created huge competition when parents hired teachers to prepare students to the university entrance
exams spending often the last money they have.
All those attempts to quantify and measure the quality of a teacher are limited and pretty
controversial. Too much zeal in attempt to quantify teachers performance convert those metrics
into something completely opposite -- detrimental to the teaching bureaucratic fetish as most of
average teachers quickly redirected their efforts from teaching toward meeting those often completely
detached from reality criteria. "Number racket" can even kill incentives for better teachers up to
driving them out of particular "obsessed with measurements" school to other educational institutions.
US schools have huge problems with the quality of the curriculum. They are especially
acute in high schools. Attempts to meet demands of the lower half of student population and disadvantaged
students became so pervasive that in certain subjects students no longer get adequate education at
all (only advanced classes provide European level of exposure to physics, chemistry, biology
and history).
The US schools have pathological fear of failure of students. That depreciates the level
and effort of high achievers. SAT further complicates the picture as in no way it is equivalent to
two exams in math (one written and one taken by human examiners -- usually for an hour), written
composition skills exam and an oral exam in physics that is taken by human examiners (university
staff) which is the way students used to pass the entrance exam to the university in the USSR area.
Level of some teachers is really dismal. So dismal that I, as a university teacher, do
not understand how they managed to graduate from the university. I know a high school math teacher
who teaches at the local high school who was/is unable to solve textbook problems she assigned to
students and thus unable to see if the student solved the problem correctly if students' solution
differed from the provided in teacher's supplement to the textbook.
Unions always have negative aspects like any bureaucracy and any professional guild, but it
is less drag of the society then lobbyists for, say, investment banks. The problem of getting
rid of ridiculously bad teachers is solvable with unions. At the same time teacher union do provide
useful protection from the school administrators and litigious parents (there was a sad, but pretty
telling story that some family sued the school when their daughter was not selected as valedictorian
:-), who otherwise are completely unchecked, like old Greek tyrants.
Number of students who graduates from the university is much higher then the number of position
that require such level of education. That lead to devaluation of education with BS becoming
equivalent of high school diploma.
Computers do provide profound influence on education but this influence not always a positive
one. They greatly stimulated structured tests and "tele-teaching". The latter creates some interesting
possibilities and ability to reuse lectures and reach much broader audience (thousands of students
in case of lectures is not a problem). Also attempt to write lecture notes using computer usually
is less efficient then writing them in an old fashioned way with pen or pencil. IMHO transcription
of hand-written notes to computer notes should be a separate step. The main advantage of computer
notes is that they can be searched, but they have several drawbacks -- browsing is more difficult,
highlighting is practiced less consistently and usage became "less personal".
The personality of the teacher as a real human next to you with whom you can talk and real class
that meets each week are important factors in educational success. You lose those factors with tele-teaching.
It became more like tele-preaching :-). A huge drawback of distant learning based on telecommunication
is that personality of the teacher became sterilized and contacts with students way too formal. Essentially
teacher becomes a cartoon on the screen.
Also even one bright student in a physical class often does more then a teacher to stimulate
learning of others. This effect is completely absent in tele-audiences when everybody is
essentially an isolated, atomic unit. That also eliminate large part of fun of being student as network
of human contacts on campus, contacts that you acquire by attending classes together is a vital part
of student life. It also severe important link with teacher -- brightest students is one of the important
channels teachers learn new things :-)
Another important factor that limits the effectiveness of tele-learning is the feedback loop is
much weaker. For example, when with the audience, the teacher can adapt the presentation to the audience
in a way that is more difficult, more expensive or just impossible in tele-teaching environment.
That requires full duplex tele-presence which is a very expensive proposition, that eats quickly
any financial advantages of tele-teaching.
Yes another interesting aspect is that cheating and plagiarism became much more prominent.
There are two factors here.
First of all absence of physical contact lowers moral norms. It became more of a poker game.
And the second is the lure of possibilities created by distant exams: you can never tell who
is taking your remote exam and what they use in a process :-)
Cases when students from online class in real audience in later classes demonstrated C or D-level
of knowledge despite getting high grades in the remote course they just took are more common that
people think.
I can tell you that even for such ideally suited subject for tele-teaching as computer science,
it creates almost as many problems as it solves. So net might be neutral or negative.
Most teachers and Professors in the university are good, honest people who are trying to make some
contribution to science and teach students (difficult things to mix). But not all. One of the most dangerous
feature of neoliberal university are influx of people who represent a toxic mix of teacher, snake oil
seller, careerist and cult follower. They are not teachers but brainwashers, hired guns -- propagandists
masquerading as University professors. That is why we have witnessed such a corruption and politicization
of science and rising proportion of research and theories taught at the universities that are fraudulent.
Previously teacher was a person somewhat similar to a monk. A person who consciously traded the ability
to work in science to the possibility of acquiring material wealth, at least excessive material wealth.
As Ernest Rutherford once
reminded Pyotr Kapitsa "No
one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to
the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:24)
But in neoliberal university way too many teachers/researchers took Faustian bargain when one trades
the academic independence for above average personal wealth, influence, for the power grab. And despite
popular image of scientists and university professors they proved to be as corruptible by money as Wall
Street traders ;-). This is because the sponsors of their research such as big business, non-governmental
organizations (NGO) and government vie to publish reports and results that put the sponsors in the best
light. Good example is relations of
pharmaceutical industry and academia
“The answer to that question is at once both predictable and shocking: For the past two decades,
medical research has been quietly corrupted by cash from private industry. Most doctors and academic
researchers aren't corrupt in the sense of intending to defraud the public or harm patients, but
rather, more insidiously, guilty of allowing the pharmaceutical and biotech industries to manipulate
medical science through financial relationships, in effect tainting the system that is supposed to
further the understanding of disease and protect patients from ineffective or dangerous drugs. More
than 60 percent of clinical studies--those involving human subjects--are now funded not by the federal
government, but by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. That means that the studies published
in scientific journals like Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine--those critical reference
points for thousands of clinicians deciding what drugs to prescribe patients, as well as for individuals
trying to educate themselves about conditions and science reporters from the popular media who will
publicize the findings--are increasingly likely to be designed, controlled, and sometimes even
ghost-written by marketing departments, rather than academic scientists. Companies routinely
delay or prevent the publication of data that show their drugs are ineffective.
...
“ Novartis, stepped in and provided additional funding for development. In 1984, private companies
contributed a mere $26 million to university research budgets. By 2000, they were ponying up $2.3
billion, an increase of 9000 percent that provided much needed funds to universities at a time when
the cost of doing medical research was skyrocketing.”
Historically the scientific community is held together through its joint acceptance of the same fundamental
principles of conducting research (and teaching those results) and ethics. Scientific research is best
practiced in a voluntary, honest and free atmosphere. But this idyllic arrangement as well as scientific
ethics now belongs to the past (
The Corruption of Science
)
“It’s a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is
scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University
of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours.
The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and
might be particularly high in medical research.
...There is immense pressure on scientists to produce results, to publish, to seek glory, or just
to get tenure. Scientists are human beings, after all, and sometimes they approach their field with
preconceptions or biases. Politics certainly comes into play; consider eugenics in the United States
at the beginning of the 20th century, or eugenics in Nazi Germany.
Now we can talk only about the level of political and economical pressure and corresponding level
of corruption on professors and scientists, not so much about presence or absence of corruption in science
and education. What really matters for students is that when they feel that a professor is a scum, they
nevertheless try to imitate. See for example
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia.
Historically the situation started to change even before neoliberal university became a dominant
educational institution. Previously, despite the fact that money for science were in short supply, scientists
maintained a self-discipline. That changed after WWII. Prior to World War II there was little government
financial support for science. A graduate student working on a Ph.D. degree was expected to make a new
discovery to earn that degree. And if somebody else came first he needed to find a new theme and to
restart his work.
But with the advent of NSF scientists started to "propose" directions of research to get funding.
And be sure this instill atmosphere of sycophantism and political correctness. This process accelerated
dramatically since 1980th with the ascendance of neoliberalism as a dominant USA ideology, when greed
became playing significant role in US universities. It should be understood that now the university
professor is no longer is a teacher and a scientist, but predominantly "grants provider" for the university
and that means that he/she is in the first place a political agent, a manipulator on a mission from
the external agent (typically the state via NSF or other agency, see
The
Corruption of Science in America -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net)
For the unwashed masses University professor career still represents the ultimate carrier of truth
for a given discipline, so his opinion have a distinct political weight. And the architects of our neoliberal
world fully use this "superstition". Like we can see with neoclassical economics, economists have
turned into an instrument of cognitive manipulation, when under the guise of science financial
oligarchy promote beneficial to itself but false and simplistic picture of the world, using University
professors to brainwash the masses into "correct" thinking.
Professors literally became a religious figures, and cult members or even cult leaders. The first
sign of this dangerous disease of the modern university was probably
Lysenkoism in the USSR. In this sense one can say that Lysenkoism
represented a natural side effect of shrinking of freedom of the scientific community and growing influence
of political power on science. As by Frederick Seitz noted in his
The Present Danger To
Science and Society
Everyone knows that the scientific community faces financial problems at the present time. If
that were its only problem, some form of restructuring and allocation of funds, perhaps along lines
well tested in Europe and modified in characteristic American ways, might provide solutions that
would lead to stability and balance well into the next century. Unfortunately, the situation is more
complex, made so by the fact that the scientific establishment has become the object of controversy
from both outside and inside its special domain. The most important aspects of the controversy
are of a new kind and direct attention away from matters that are sufficiently urgent to be the focus
of a great deal of the community's attention.
The assaults on science from the outside arise from such movements as the ugly form of "political
correctness" that has taken root in important portions of our academic community. There are to be
found, in addition, certain tendencies toward a home-grown variant of the anti-intellectual Lysenkoism
that afflicted science in the Stalinist Soviet Union. So-called fraud cases are being dealt with
in new, bureaucratic ways that cut across the traditional methods of arriving at truth in science.
From inside the scientific community, meanwhile, there are challenges that go far beyond those
that arise from the intense competition for the limited funds that are available to nourish the country's
scientific endeavor.
The critical issue of arriving at a balanced approach to funding for science is being subordinated
to issues made to seem urgent by unhealthy alliances of scientists and bureaucrats. Science
and the integrity of its practitioners are under attack and, increasingly, legislators and bureaucrats
shape the decisions that determine which paths scientific research should take. There is, in
addition, a sinister tendency, especially in environmental affairs, toward considering the undertaking
of expensive projects that are proposed by some scientists to remedy worst-case formulations of problems
before the radical and expensive remedies are proven to be needed. They are viewed seriously
though they are based on the advice of opportunistic alarmists in science who leap ahead of what
is learned from solid research to encourage support for the expensive remedies they perceive to be
necessary. The potential for very great damage to science and society is real.
Unfortunately a large part of the textbook market in the USA has all signs of corrupted monopoly
infested with cronyism and incompetence to the extent that Standard Oil practices looks pretty benign
in comparison. As the site
MakeTextbooksAffordable.com
states on its font page:
The report found that even though students already
pay $900 year for textbooks, textbook publishers artificially inflate the price of textbooks by adding
bells and whistles to the current texts, and forcing cheaper used books off the market by producing
expensive new editions of textbooks that are barely different from the previous edition.
And some university professors are part of these scheme. Congressmen David Wu sites the opinion of
the publisher in his letter"If a student is paying hundreds of dollars for a book, it's because the professor has ordered the
Cadillac edition". But that might be true only for CS where any professor can easily find a cheaper
high quality substitute from publishers like O'Reilly (and students can do this too, see
Softpanorama Bookshelf actually about finding the best CS book
(and some other) at reasonable prices. In other disciplines like mathematics situation is a real racket:
The cost of a common calculus textbook is over $100 in the USA. This is a blatant, open
rip-off. Economics is probably even worse with some useless junk selling for almost $300 per book.
But here one needs to see a bigger picture: low quality of recommended textbooks and, especially,
the quality of university instruction makes it necessary buying additional textbooks. Also the ownership
of best textbooks often makes the difference between success and failure in the particular course. In
this sense additional $100 spending for books for each course makes economic sense as the common alternative
is to drop the course, which often means $1K of more loss.
There are several ways to save on additional textbooks that hopefully can somewhat compensate for
the low quality of tuition in a typical university. With some effort a student can often save approximately
50% of the cover price. Again my Links2bookstores page
contains more information.
At the same time if the instructor is weak, or, worse, belongs to "fundamentalists", a category of
instructors that does not distinguish between important and unimportant things and overloads the course
with "useless overcomplexity" additional books are one of few countermeasures against
this typical university-style rip-off. Dropping the course is a difficult maneuver that requires perfect
timing and problems with instructor and the course content usually do not surface during the first month
of the study when you can still do it for free or with minimal damage.
College textbook publishing became a racket with the growth of neoliberalism. And it is pretty dirty
racket with willing accomplishes in form of so called professors like Greg Mankiw. For instance, you
can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under $4.00, while a new 7th edition
costs over $200. An interesting discussion of this problem can be found at
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks'
Tim Taylor on why textbooks cost so much:
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks: High textbook prices are a pebble in the shoe of many college
students. Sure, it's not the biggest financial issue they face, But it's a real and nagging annoyance
that for hinders performance for many students. ...
David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein at National Public Radio took up this question recently on
one of their "Planet Money" podcasts. ... For economists, a highlight is that they converse
with Greg Mankiw, author of what is currently the best-selling introductory economics textbook,
which as they point out is selling for $286 on Amazon. Maybe this is a good place to point out
that I am not a neutral observer in this argument: The third edition of my own Principles of Economics
textbook is available through Textbook
Media.
The pricing
varies from $25 for online access to the book, up through $60 for both a paper copy (soft-cover,
black and white) and online access.
Several explanations for high textbook prices are on offer.
The standard arguments are that textbook companies are marketing selling to professors, not to
students, and professors are not necessarily very sensitive to textbook prices. (Indeed, one can
argue that before the rapid rise in textbook prices in the last couple of decades, it made sense
for professors not to focus too much on textbook prices.) Competition in the textbook market is
limited, and the big publishers load up their books with features that might appeal to professors:
multi-colored hardcover books, with DVDs and online access, together with test banks that allow
professors to give quizzes and tests that can be machine-graded. At many colleges and universities,
the intro econ class is taught in a large lecture format, which can include hundreds or even several
thousand students, as well as a flock of teaching assistants, so some form of computerized grading
and feedback is almost a necessity. Some of the marketing by textbook companies involves paying
professors for reviewing chapters--of course in the hope that such reviewers will adopt the book.
The NPR show casts much of this dynamic as a "principal-agent problem," the name for a situation
in which one person (the "principal") wants another person (the "agent") to act on their behalf,
but lacks the ability to observe or evaluate the actions of the agent in a complete way. Principal-agent
analysis is often used, for example, to think about the problem of a manager motivating employees.
But it can also be used to consider the issue of students (the "principals") wanting the professor
(the "agent") to choose the book that will best suit the needs of the students, with all factors
of price and quality duly taken into account. The NPR reporters quote one expert saying that the
profit margin for high school textbooks is 5-10%, because those books decisions are made by school
districts and states that negotiate hard. However, profit margins on college textbooks--where
the textbook choice is often made by a professor who may not even know the price that students
will pay--are more like 20%.
The NPR report suggests this principal-agent framework to Greg Mankiw, author of the top-selling
$286 economic textbook. Mankiw points out that principal-agent problems are in no way nefarious,
but come up in many contexts. For example, when you get an operation, you rely on the doctor to
make choices that involve costs; when you get your car fixed, you rely on a mechanic to make choices
that involve costs; when you are having home repairs done, you rely on a repair person or a contractor
to make choices that involve costs. Mankiw argues that professors, acting as the agents of students,
have legitimate reason to be concerned about tradeoffs of time and money. As he notes, a high
quality book is more important "than saving them a few dollars"--and he suggests that saving $30
isn't worth it for a low-quality book.
But of course, in the real world there are more choices than a high-quality $286 book and a
low-quality $256 book. The PIRG student surveys suggest that up to two-thirds of students are
avoiding buying textbooks at all, even though they fear it will hurt their grade, or are shifting
to other classes with lower textbook costs. If a student is working 10 hours a week at a part-time
job, making $8/hour after taxes, then the difference between $286 book and a $60 book is 28.25
hours--nearly three weeks of part-time work. I am unaware of any evidence in which students were
randomly assigned different textbooks but otherwise taught and evaluated in the same way, and
kept time diaries, which would show that higher-priced books save time or improve academic performance.
It is by no means obvious that a lower-cost book (yes, like my own) works less well for students
than a higher-cost book from a big publisher. Some would put that point more strongly.
A final dynamic that may be contributing to higher-prices textbooks is a sort of vicious circle
related to the textbook resale market. The NPR report says that when selling a textbook over a
three-year edition, a typical pattern was that sales fell by half after the first year and again
by half after the second year, as students who had bought the first edition resold the book to
later students. Of course, this dynamic also means that many students who bought the book new
are not really paying full-price, but instead paying the original price minus the resale price.
The argument is that as textbooks have increased in price, the resale market has become ever-more
active, so that sales of a textbook in later years have dwindled much more quickly. Textbook companies
react to this process by charging more for the new textbook, which of course only spurs more activity
in the resale market.
A big question for the future of textbooks is how and in what ways they migrate to electronic
forms. On one side, the hope is that electronic textbooks will offer expanded functionality, as
well as being cheaper. But this future is not foreordained. At least at present, my sense is that
the functionality of reading and taking notes in online textbooks hasn't yet caught up to the
ease of reading on paper. Technology and better screens may well shift this balance over time.
But even setting aside questions of reading for long periods of time on screen, or taking notes
on screen, at present it remains harder to skip around in a computerized text between what you
are currently reading and the earlier text that you need to be checking, as well as skipping to
various graphs, tables, and definitions. To say it more simply, in a number of subjects it may
still be harder to study an on-line text than to study a paper text.
Moreover, as textbook manufacturers shift to an on-line world, they will bring with them
their full bag of tricks for getting paid. The Senack report notes:
Today’s marketplace offers more digital textbook options to the student consumer than ever.
“Etextbooks” are digitized texts that students read on a laptop or tablet. Similar to PDF documents,
e-textbooks enable students to annotate, highlight and search. The cost may be 40-50 percent
of the print retail price, and access expires after 180 days. Publishers have introduced
e-textbooks for nearly all their traditional textbook offerings. In addition, the emergence
of the ereader like the Kindle and iPad, as well as the emergence of many e-textbook rental
programs, all seemed to indicate that the e-textbook will alter the college textbook landscape
for the better.
However, despite this shift, users of e-textbooks are subject to expiration dates, on-line
codes that only work once, page printing limits, and other tactics that only serve to restrict
use and increase cost.
Unfortunately for students, the publishing companies’ venture into e-textbooks is a
continuation of the practices they use to monopolize the print market.
JohnH:
My understanding is that there are cases where the professor requires the textbook he wrote
and for which he receives royalties...
In such cases, the publisher and the professor's interests align against the student, who pays
through the teeth.
djb:
good article but i have a real problem with introductory texts on economics
they are completely biased, mostly towards supply side of the debate
meaning, of course, they are wrong
if they just contained that which is undeniably true then ok, or if they presented it as this
school of thought says this and that school of thought says the other, ok,
The Raven:
A general rule of thumb: half the selling price of a book is spent before the first impression
is made on paper. Speaking as a very small publisher, I think the main problem is that the
texts are expensive to produce.
They take a lot of editorial and design effort, so the fixed costs of textbook production are
high, the production costs are often high, and textbook bestsellers are not common, so they
don't usually make it up on volume.
Now, one could, for standard freshman and sophomore texts, aim at lower costs and higher volumes,
but that's not academic publishing, and nothing is going to help with upper-level texts; the market
is just not that big.
Excellent! With a high elasticity of demand, the increase in quantity beats the drop in price.
Unless the marginal cost of printing books is higher than I suspect it is, Mankiw's publisher
is not a profit maximizing monopolist. I'm telling you the best economics is right here and we
don't charge $286!
You'd have to market a book *hard* to get that increase in demand, though. It's not a student-by-student
sale decision; the professors have to be marketed. The other thing about publishing economics
that people outside the industry don't realize: most books don't make much money, so publishers
rely on the good-sellers and the best-sellers for much of their profits. If you've got something
you're pretty sure is going to be in demand, *you mark it up,* because in William Golding's immortal
phrase, "Nobody knows anything."
Over the past 25 or so years, the consolidation of publishing has put the money types more
and more in control of the business. And the money types always want to only market best sellers.
This is sort of like Germany saying that everyone should make money exporting. "That trick never
works."
Now, if anyone wanted to bring the price of an Econ 101 book down, one could do a no-frills
book, small, soft-covered, and strictly monochrome, or perhaps an ebook. (But watch out—only some
ebook readers support mathematics well.) It might cost $50 or so (I'm guessing—I'm not a textbook
publisher.) It would not look impressive, and this might make a problem for marketing, but students
could still learn from it. And—who knows?—it might even sell.
T.J.:
The issue is that textbook publishers release new editions every couple of years. For many
subjects, including economics, this is absurd. Sciences don't change that quickly.
For instance, you can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under
$4.00, while a new 7th edition costs over $200.
Has principles of microeconomics changed that much over the course of 6 years? No, but textbook
companies make a few changes on the margin and charge you hundreds of dollars for a new edition.
Many times, professors require online access codes to supplement their lecture. Therefore, the
student is forced into the newer edition, in which often there is no substantial differences or
major improvements in presenting the material.
When you have that sort of market power, it is easy to achieve economic rents.
pgl -> to T.J....
"Sciences don't change that quickly". One would hope those freshwater books changed after their
utter failures to predict the most recent recession. But they likely haven't.
cm -> to T.J....
There are errata, and some content that the author has in mind doesn't make it into the first
edition, or not at the intended quality/depth. Most people who have never published something
substantial have no idea how much work it is to get non-fiction scientific/technical stuff publication
ready. Not only on the author's part but also editing and proofreading/giving feedback at a collegial
level. (Not meaning to knock down fiction, that's a different set of challenges.)
Bill Ellis:
Two Ideas I would like to see combined. A period of Universal public service that earns a free
higher and or tech education. Something like the GI bill for all.
I think making universal public service a right of passage could help us be a more unified
society. If we have kids from inner city Detroit, rural West Virginia, suburban San Francisco
and the oil fields of Oklahoma working side by side it would open their eyes to each other in
ways that are never experienced by most American kids who are living in communities of institutional
self-segregation.
Having said that.. free education is a no brainer no matter what.
To cover everyone's tuition it would only cost us about forty billion more than the feds already
spend on higher ed. That's a rounding error in terms of our total budget.
We subsidize big oil and gas to the tune of about 50 billion a year.
The maddening thing is that the national debate is not even close to taking Free Ed seriously.
Instead Liz Warren is portrayed some kind of wild eyed radical for proposing a modest cut in interest
rates on student loans and some narrow way to get some forgiveness of debt.
John Cummings:
It is part of the educational industrial complex (which include vouchers and government backed
private school industrial complex)
Educational industrial complex
Military industrial complex
Medical industrial complex
Prison industrial complex
Fred C. Dobbs:
(Evidently, 'It’s Economics 101'.)
Higher education: Why textbooks cost so much
http://econ.st/1yzDU5Z via @TheEconomist
- Aug 16th 2014
Students can learn a lot about economics when they buy Greg Mankiw’s “Principles of Economics”—even
if they don’t read it. Like many popular textbooks, it is horribly expensive: $292.17 on Amazon.
Indeed, the nominal price of textbooks has risen more than fifteen fold since 1970, three times
the rate of inflation (see chart, at link).
Like doctors prescribing drugs, professors assigning textbooks do not pay for the products
themselves, so they have little incentive to pick cheap ones. Some assign books they have written
themselves. The 20m post-secondary students in America often have little choice in the matter.
Small wonder textbooks generate megabucks.
But hope is not lost for poor scholars. Foreign editions are easy to find online and often
cheaper—sometimes by over 90%. Publishers can be litigious about this, but in 2013 the Supreme
Court ruled that Americans have the right to buy and resell copyrighted material obtained legally.
Many university bookstores now let students rent books and return them. Publishers have begun
to offer digital textbooks, which are cheaper but can’t be resold. And if all else fails, there
is always the library.
How to Cut Your Textbook Costs in Half -- or More-Kiplinger
http://po.st/nCZsxY - August 2014
(By renting e-books, donchaknow.)
(Turns out Mankiw's Econ textbook, which
currently costs $289 in hardcover from
Amazon, can be rented in Kindle format
for a mere $173 - for 180 days.)
(Hardcover rental is $70, however.)
Fred C. Dobbs -> to Fred C. Dobbs...
(Wait a second. The Federales fixed
this problem back in 2008...)
Advocates say a new set of federal provisions, aimed at driving down the cost of college textbooks,
should help students this fall. On July 1, (2010) these rules took effect:
Publishers must give professors detailed information about textbook prices, revision histories
and a list of alternate formats.
Publishers have to sell materials typically bundled with textbooks -- such as CDs, DVDs and
workbooks -- separately so students don't have to buy them.
Colleges have to include in-course schedules with required textbooks for each class, including
the book's price and International Standard Book Number, an identifying tool.
The protections, included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, are an attempt to
lessen student debt, said U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on Wednesday.
"The cost of education is of concern not only to students and families but to the nation,"
Durbin said, explaining why the government got involved in textbook prices. "Students are emerging
with more and more debt."
Textbooks have been outrageously expensive for a long time, though some of the prices quoted
in this article were astonishing to me and I used to be in the business. Nothing much has changed.
The complaints and the defenses sound very familiar. Even in the 70s and 80s, publishers groused
about how the used trade hurt their sales and the suggestion was repeatedly made that one way
around the trap was to produce much cheaper texts and make up the difference on volume. Unfortunately,
the numbers never add up for that business plan since the major textbook publishers have huge
sunk costs in the big sales forces needed to support the current model. Anyhow, good cheap books
have long been available for many big undergrad courses if profs want to assign them and don't
mind producing their own tests and other teaching aids. A handful of profs do just that and were
already doing it thirty years ago, but they are a distinct minority.
About the revision racket: the funny thing is that old editions of textbooks are often better
than more recent editions. Market research makes good books worse in much the same way that it
eventually screws up software by the relentless addition of bells and whistles. I'm a technical
writer these days and keep copies of several old classics at hand when I need to brush up: Feynman's
lectures on physics; the first edition of Freeman, Pisani, and Purves on Statistics; the 2nd edition
of Linus Pauling's Intro Chem text; Goldstein on Thermo; and a real museum piece, Sylvaner Thomas'
Calculus Made Easy. Many of these books have been reprinted by Dover and are available for peanuts.
To be fair, the high price for textbooks makes more sense in some fields than in others. The
three or four year revision cycle is absurd for math books since the math remains the same decade
after decade, but texts in areas like molecular biology really do have to be revised frequently
and substantively, a very labor-intensive task. Which is why I give a pass to the Biology editors
and the folks who struggle to update the Intermediate Accounting books with the latest FASB standards.
Can you elaborate on the revision "paradox"? Surely not only in very new fields, the state
of the art progresses, or textbook authors see a need or opportunity to include new material (I
suspect somebody setting out to write a comprehensive text has more ideas what to write about
than can be finished at the required quality in the required time, for the first edition).
How would the subsequent editions be worse, if the new content is driven by the author and
not by external marketing considerations, unless the new material is at the expense of older material
(e.g. #pages limit)?
From my very limited experience, authors who are not in it for making a profit, and who write
for a small market (selling up to a few thousand copies per year is a small market) run into substantial
overhead costs for editing, marketing (i.e. making the existence of the book known to the target
audience), and distribution, and basically have to do the work for free. Some, and perhaps most,
certainly academic, publishers have "charity" programs where they publish small editions where
they at best break even or even cross-subsidize them out of "full rate" publications. Then people
complain about excessive prices for the latter.
Leading Edge Boomer:
Jeebus, $286 for a textbook, from an author who is often wrong lately? I co-authored
a graduate computer science text (low volume = higher cost) that retailed in the low two digits.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I will not comment on the author's merit or lack thereof, but $286 is really in "WTF" territory,
for any textbook.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I once contributed to a book, and the authors/editors decided to collectively waive their royalties
to hit an affordable price (and I suspect it was still a charity deal on the part of the largely
academic publisher). But I got my free copy.
At least for big market textbooks, the motive for revisions is generally financial and
that's as true for the authors as the publishers. In fact, the authors are often the ones
who push for new editions as their royalty checks steadily diminish. In cases where it's the authors
who are reluctant to revise for whatever reason, publishers often sweeten the deal with advances,
grants, or other goodies.
I don't mean to be completely cynical. Authors and editors certainly try to produce a better
product when they put out new editions, and it very often happens that the second edition is better
than the first. Especially in later cycles, however, the changes are usually pretty cosmetic.
The editor in charge of the project solicits advice from users and potential users and comes up
with a list of "improvements" in a process not entirely different than what happens when various
interests in Washington get their pet provisions put in a bill. If you think that professor X
is likely to adopt the text if you go along with his ideas and plug his contributions in the acknowledgements,
the idea is very likely to be irresistible.
The sales force also weighs in. They want feature they can tout; but since real improvements
are hard to come by, that usually means more and more pedagogy: boxes, pictures, computer programs,
and umpteen forms of emphasis. Let me assure you it takes desperate ingenuity to come up with
something new to add to an Intermediate Algebra textbook. "Now with a new way to factor trinomials"
isn't exactly a memorable pitch. Meanwhile, after three or four editions, the author, who
presumably would be the best source of serious innovation for a new edition, is generally bored
to death with the project.
As I said above, there are textbooks that really do need perpetually revision for substantive
reasons; but in most fields what Freshmen and Sophomores need to learn has been known for a long
time. My remarks on revisions also don't apply very well to upper level texts in smaller markets,
in part because students tend to hang on to serious books in their majors so the companies have
less incentive to beat the used book market with new editions.
From what I remember of my university days (in the long distant past), we didn't have text
books (that was for school kids). We had lectures and lists of reading materials (that if we were
lucky we could find in the library and photocopy relvant sections). I did have a copy of Samualson
(relatively cheap). But the emphasis was on a reading a variety of sources. What has changed,
and why?
My own biggest peeve concerns calculus textbooks, especially introductory calculus textbooks.
The material hasn't changed in at least 60 years, if not longer. If it weren't for the current
ridiculously long copyright terms people could just use old ones.
The last time I took the subject our professor went to some lengths to let us use the previous
edition, which was available used. The only real change in the next edition was in the problems.
That is, if a student was assigned "problem 8 in section xxx" having the most recent edition was
the only way to know what the problem was.
I don't see any redeeming value in this.
Bloix:
My son took an intro geology course a few years ago. The textbook price at the school bookstore
was about $125. He purchased the gray market (legal) "international edition" - word for word,
page for page the same, but with a different picture on the cover - over the internet for about
$50.
It's my understanding that this sort of price-differential is common. Mankiw's book appears
to be available in the "international edition" for $60 (soft cover).
Foreword to Brave New World, second edition -- circa 1947
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Here's my abridgement:
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect in
the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. ... Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that
sanity is impossible. ... If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third
alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the
possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a community of
exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the Reservation.
In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian , politics
Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath,
they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as
though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and
intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of
life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the
achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final
End?"
.... and here is the Foreword, in full:
Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you
have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of
behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrong-doing. Rolling in the muck is
not the best way of getting clean.
Art also has its morality, and many of the rules of this morality are the same as, or at
least analogous to, the rules of ordinary ethics. Remorse, for example, is as undesirable in
relation to our bad art as it is in relation to our bad behaviour. The badness should be hunted
out, acknowledged and, if possible, avoided in the future. To pore over the literary
shortcomings of twenty years ago, to attempt to patch a faulty work into the perfection it
missed at its first execution, to spend one's middle age in trying to mend the artistic sins
committed and bequeathed by that different person who was oneself in youth -- all this is
surely vain and futile. And that is why this new Brave New World is the same as the old one.
Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to
rewrite the book -- and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should
probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it
originally possessed. And so, resisting the temptation to wallow in artistic remorse, I prefer
to leave both well and ill alone and to think about something else.
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect
in the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. At the time the book was written this idea, that
human beings are given free will in order to choose between insanity on the one hand and lunacy
on the other, was one that I found amusing and regarded as quite possibly true. For the sake,
however, of dramatic effect, the Savage is often permitted to speak more rationally than his
upbringing among the practitioners of a religion that is half fertility cult and half
Penitente ferocity would actually warrant. Even his acquaintance with Shakespeare would
not in reality justify such utterances. And at the close, of course, he is made to retreat from
sanity; his native Penitente -ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal
self-torture and despairing suicide. "And so they died miserably ever after" -- much to the
reassurance of the amused, Pyrrhonic aesthete who was the author of the fable.
Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that sanity is impossible. On the contrary, though I
remain no less sadly certain than in the past that sanity is a rather rare phenomenon, I am
convinced that it can be achieved and would like to see more of it. For having said so in
several recent books and, above all, for having compiled an anthology of what the sane have
said about sanity and the means whereby it can be achieved, I have been told by an eminent
academic critic that I am a sad symptom of the failure of an intellectual class in time of
crisis. The implication being, I suppose, that the professor and his colleagues are hilarious
symptoms of success. The benefactors of humanity deserve due honour and commemoration. Let us
build a Pantheon for professors. It should be located among the ruins of one of the gutted
cities of Europe or Japan, and over the entrance to the ossuary I would inscribe, in letters
six or seven feet high, the simple words: SACRED TO THE MEMORY OF THE WORLD'S EDUCATORS. SI
MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE.
But to return to the future . . . If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the
Savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would
lie the possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a
community of exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the
Reservation. In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian,
politics Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the
Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New
World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious
and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life
being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by
me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"
Brought up among the primitives, the Savage (in this hypothetical new version of the book)
would not be transported to Utopia until he had had an opportunity of learning something at
first hand about the nature of a society composed of freely co-operating individuals devoted to
the pursuit of sanity. Thus altered, Brave New World would possess artistic and (if it is
permissible to use so large a word in connection with a work of fiction) a philosophical
completeness, which in its present form it evidently lacks.
But Brave New World is a book about the future and, whatever its artistic or philosophical
qualities, a book about the future can interest us only if its prophecies look as though they
might conceivably come true. From our present vantage point, fifteen years further down the
inclined plane of modern history, how plausible do its prognostications seem? What has happened
in the painful interval to confirm or invalidate the forecasts of 1931?
One vast and obvious failure of foresight is immediately apparent. Brave New World contains
no reference to nuclear fission. That it does not is actually rather odd, for the possibilities
of atomic energy had been a popular topic of conversation for years before the book was
written. My old friend, Robert Nichols, had even written a successful play about the subject,
and I recall that I myself had casually mentioned it in a novel published in the late twenties.
So it seems, as I say, very odd that the rockets and helicopters of the seventh century of Our
Ford should not have been powered by disintegrating nuclei. The oversight may not be excusable;
but at least it can be easily explained. The theme of Brave New World is not the advancement of
science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals. The triumphs
of physics, chemistry and engineering are tacitly taken for granted. The only scientific
advances to be specifically described are those involving the application to human beings of
the results of future research in biology, physiology and psychology. It is only by means of
the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically changed. The sciences of matter
can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly
complex and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and psychologists,
they can do nothing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself. The release of
atomic energy marks a great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves to
bits and so put an end to history) the final and most searching revolution.
This really revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in
the souls and flesh of human beings. Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de
Sade very naturally made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar
brand of insanity. Robespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution, the
political. Going a little deeper, Babeuf had attempted the economic revolution. Sade regarded
himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution, beyond mere politics and
economics -- the revolution in individual men, women and children, whose bodies were
henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whose minds were to be purged of
all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional
civilization. Between sadism and the really revolutionary revolution there is, of course, no
necessary or inevitable connection. Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of
his revolution was universal chaos and destruction. The people who govern the Brave New World
may not be sane (in what may be called the absolute sense of the word); but they are not
madmen, and their aim is not anarchy but social stability. It is in order to achieve stability
that they carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate, personal, really revolutionary
revolution. But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate
revolution. Its next phase may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with
prophecies about the future. But it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to
stop fighting altogether, at least to behave as rationally as did our eighteenth-century
ancestors. The unimaginable horrors of the Thirty Years War actually taught men a lesson, and
for more than a hundred years the politicians and generals of Europe consciously resisted the
temptation to use their military resources to the limits of destructiveness or (in the majority
of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihilated. They were aggressors,
of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservatives, determined at all
costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern. For the last thirty years there have been
no conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic
radicals of the left. The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne; and
when he wrote a letter to the the Times , suggesting that the First World War should be
concluded with a compromise, as most of the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor
of that once conservative journal refused to print it. The nationalistic radicals had their
way, with the consequences that we all know --Bolshevism, Fascism, inflation, depression,
Hitler, the Second World War, the ruin of Europe and all but universal famine.
Assuming, then, that we are capable of learning as much from Hiroshima as our forefathers
learned from Magdeburg, we may look forward to a period, not indeed of peace, but of limited
and only partially ruinous warfare. During that period it may be assumed that nuclear energy
will be harnessed to industrial uses. The result, pretty obviously, will be a series of
economic and social changes unprecedented in rapidity and completeness. All the existing
patterns of human life will be disrupted and new patterns will have to be improvised to conform
with the nonhuman fact of atomic power. Procrustes in modern dress, the nuclear scientist will
prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and if mankind doesn't fit -- well, that will be
just too bad for mankind. There will have to be some stretching and a bit of amputation -- the
same sort of stretching and amputations as have been going on ever since applied science really
got into its stride, only this time they will be a good deal more drastic than in the past.
These far from painless operations will be directed by highly centralized totalitarian
governments. Inevitably so; for the immediate future is likely to resemble the immediate past,
and in the immediate past rapid technological changes, taking place in a mass-producing economy
and among a population predominantly propertyless, have always tended to produce economic and
social confusion. To deal with confusion, power has been centralized and government control
increased. It is probable that all the world's governments will be more or less completely
totalitarian even before the harnessing of atomic energy; that they will be totalitarian during
and after the harnessing seems almost certain. Only a large-scale popular movement toward
decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism. At present there
is no sign that such a movement will take place.
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is demonstrably
inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy
Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have
to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in
present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, news- paper editors and
schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific. The old Jesuits' boast
that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the man's religious
opinions, was a product of wishful thinking. And the modern pedagogue is probably rather less
efficient at conditioning his pupils' reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated
Voltaire. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something,
but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of
view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the
other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be
made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be
vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists
will call "the problem of happiness" -- in other words, the problem of making people love their
servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into
existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume that the all-powerful executive and its managers
will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security. But security tends very quickly to
be taken for granted. Its achievement is merely a superficial, external revolution. The love of
servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human
minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require, among others, the following
discoveries and inventions.
First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion -- through infant conditioning and,
later, with the aid of drugs, such as scopolamine.
Second, a fully developed science of human differences, enabling government managers to
assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy.
(Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to
infect others with their discontents.)
Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of
taking pretty frequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something
at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin.
And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which it would take generations of
totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion), a foolproof system of eugenics,
designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In
Brave New World this standardization of the human product has been pushed to
fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extremes. Technically and ideologically we are
still a long way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-morons. But by A.F. 600,
who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that
happier and more stable world -- the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific
caste system --are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual
promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American
cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years,
no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve
months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As
political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.
And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or
conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the
freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to
reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only
fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future.
Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is,
if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose
to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made
the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two
alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having
as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of
civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one
supranational totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos resulting from rapid
technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, and developing,
under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your
money and you takes your choice.
In the foreword to the 1946 edition of his novel, Brave New World , Aldous Huxley anticipated the
continued emergence, perhaps in novel forms, of statist totalitarianism:
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is
demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin
against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the
all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of
slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it
is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda,
news-paper editors and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and
unscientific.
Because, in 1946, the world had yet to witness the horrors of Red China, North Korea, Cuba,
and Cambodia, Huxley guessed wrong that artificial famines, mass imprisonment, and political
executions would go out of fashion. Totalitarianism is impossible without brute violence. And,
from our brave new world of 2021, where Big Tech's promiscuous deployment of tools like
Machine
Learning Fairness and
shadow banning prevent users' exposure to wrongthink, his estimation of propaganda methods
as "crude and unscientific" is badly out of date.
But how chilling is Huxley's prescience about propaganda ministers, news editors, and
schoolteachers training generations of serfs to willingly obey "political bosses and their army
of managers"?
Just like the truism that "generals always fight the last war," Huxley's point that there's
"no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old" calls for both vigilance and
imagination on our part; our next totalitarian enemy isn't limited to patterns of
twentieth-century Nazism or Soviet-style Communism.
For instance, the suffocating blanket of censorship and suppression of free speech, which
seems to defy any constitutional remedy because it's not directly traceable to
government action, remains a problem without an obvious solution. Regardless, it's an open
secret that the corporate executives in media, Big Tech, and Hollywood managing this
suppression are acting on behalf of a single political party -- a party that, due in large part
to that interference and suppression now have near total control of the federal government.
Townhall's Matt Vespa quotes even a liberal reporter, Michael Tracey, warning that the
"absolute authoritarian lunacy" of Twitter's decision to ban President Trump isn't about
"'safety,' it's about purposely inflating a threat in order to assert political and cultural
dominance." Warns Tracey, "The new corporate authoritarian liberal-left monoculture is going to
be absolutely ruthless -- and in 12 days it is merging with the state ." [My
italics].
Glenn Greenwald, another committed progressive, also complains "
that political censorship has 'contaminated virtually every mainstream centre-left
political organization, academic institution and newsroom.'" In October, Greenwald, co-founder
of The Intercept news site,
resigned after they refused to publish his article
about Joe Biden and Hunter's shocking influence-peddling, unless Greenwald first removed
"critical points against the Democratic candidate."
In
reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep
decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around
Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly
for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him "
had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories." Because those lost votes
"would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden," re-electing
Trump, burying those stories was first-degree election interference.
Huxley foresaw this, too:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by
refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion
much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals.
In 2020 alone, news outlets systematically misinformed, or kept uninformed, scores of
millions of voters whose only news sources are either mainstream media or the occasional
de-contextualized sound bite. Corporate news, in addition to disappearing the Hunter Biden
story:
Misreported that opportunistic politicians imposing destructive, arbitrary lockdowns to
stop the spread of the Wuhan virus were only "following the science," while disregarding all
scientific studies showing how lockdowns were ineffective, detrimental, and even deadly;
Misreported for months that Black Lives Matter/Antifa's nightly demonstrations were
"mostly peaceful," while refusing to report on hundreds of BLM and Antifa-organized protests
involving widespread arson, looting, and violence against police and innocent civilians;
Perpetuated the dangerous myth that black men are casually shot down by white police
every day, while ignoring that "statistics "
flatly debunk the false narratives about 'racist white cops' and the 'hunt for unarmed
black men'";
Parroted the Democrat talking point that Trump's allegations of election fraud were made
"without any evidence," while obstinately refusing to investigate well-documented evidence of
pervasive election irregularities in battleground states.
But Fake News is only as powerful as its consumers are gullible. Knowing that, PJMedia's
Stephen Kruiser was able to predict in advance that a Biden win would be "the complete triumph
of decades of
public education indoctrination ," which is no longer education, anyway, but "more of a
leftist catechism class." Journalist
William Haupt III reports that 12 years of Common Core "has resulted in 51 percent of our
youth preferring socialism to democracy." It's also why "[t]wo thirds of the millennials
believe America is a racist and sexist country and 40 percent agree America is 'the most
unequal society in the world.'" In fact, in 2011 Chuck
Rogér traced this decline to the sixties, when teachers' colleges began churning out
"[s]ocial justice-indoctrinated teachers [who] instill resentment in 'non-dominant' (minority)
children and guilt in 'dominant' (white) children. Judging by the abundance of guilt-ridden
white Americans, the tactic is working its magic well." At present a reported
3,500 classrooms across fifty states are incorporating the New York Times ' specious
1619 Project , which teaches that every accomplishment in America's history came out
of slavery . The purpose of this all this falsified history? Not education, but more
generations of Americans "unable to discern
fact from fiction ."
Now that progressives have complete control of Washington, they'll escalate their lies -- of
commission, and especially of omission -- to gain a tighter and more permanent grip. Still,
Truth remains their real enemy. It explains social media's current blitz of de-platforming
conservatives, trying to drop an "iron curtain," just as Huxley predicted, to separate the
people from undesirable facts.
Likewise, fidelity to truth is our best defense; that, and continuing to refuse their lies.
That's one positive action Solzhenitsyn was able to offer his comrades who felt
powerless against the repressive Soviet system, "the most perceptible of its aspects" being
lies: "Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace
everything, but not with any help from me."
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at trclancy@yahoo.com .
In today's climate of political correctness and economic uncertainty, ad revenue only goes
so far to keep an independent voice like AmericanThinker.com going. If you enjoy our articles,
please consider supporting us with a direct contribution of as much or as little as you can
give. Your donation will ensure that we continue to bring great pieces from our outstanding
columnists.
Yves here. Friend of the site Erasmus e-mailed Lambert and me about his post on Covid
accelerating the conversion of universities from institutions of learning to money generators.
As you'll see, Erasmus has direct experience with some of the pathologies, which extend beyond
colonization by MBAs.
Universities have become far more profit-oriented, and corrupted by administrative bloat and
bullshit jobs (Graeber)/make-work (like "assessment" mandates), as well as by the customer
service mentality of pleasing and placating students to the detriment of standards and solid
education. There are plenty of books about various facets of academe, including satirical
novels. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed are useful, but there are plenty
of silly articles there too, often written by well-intentioned administrators or English
faculty. Parkinson's Law and all his other insights should be rigorously imposed on the whole
mess.
Standards have declined precipitously, which no one admits except curmudgeon tenured senior
faculty. Grade inflation is a related problem. There is cheating and lack of study skills, lack
of attention span, lack of discipline. A Harvard professor, Harvey Mansfield, has denounced
grade inflation publicly, which is excellent, but most cannot do that. The high schools do not
teach much, so students cannot handle college work, and there is a lot of partying and
dysfunction and anxiety and superficial learning, often done in groups. The pseudoscientific
obsession with metrics instead of the hard work of engagement and informed judgment means that
student course evaluations (numbers) are important, and that corrupts the teacher-student
relationship.
On tenure. Tenure can be legally revoked, but it is rare, and usually due to gross
misconduct or something serious. Probably every college and university faculty handbook has a
boilerplate section on emergency situations in which the administration can eliminate academic
departments and lay off tenured faculty – this has happened. It has been rare up to now,
but we will probably see more of it. The Medaille place mentioned in the post is a nothing
school, but it is ominous.
Legally the university is a corporation, and you can usually find the faculty handbook on
its website. Interesting reading. There are business/executive types on boards of trustees who
don't understand and/or don't care about university customs and would love to eliminate all
tenure. It is happening incrementally, with tenured faculty retirements being replaced with
low-wage, contingent adjuncts, lecturers, "clinical" faculty, "assistant teaching professors",
and the like. Gigs instead of stable positions with the traditional ranks: assistant,
associate, and full professor. In the UK a lecturer is a higher status than in the US system.
Germany and France and Italy have their own systems. Of course, as you would expect, the
Italian system (today) is the nuttiest, and unfortunately there is a lot of nepotism there, to
the detriment of serious research and teaching. Italy gave us Vico and Eco and others though,
so there's that.
In my view, it is a massive, systemic fail of the faculty to not stand up to the bad
decisions and greed of administrators and prevent a lot of this. Faculty governance is a
pleasant myth, but faculty have lost a lot of ground over the decades. Some faculty are in
denial and believe that what is customary will prevail. They do not understand the difference
between custom and law. The faculty handbook is a ratified document, in force for making
decisions.
Most faculty are cowards and careerists and sycophants who just want to be comfortable or
gain status with peers, but this neglects the institution. They are politically inept, like the
progressives (as Matt Stoller has observed). Most of them do not know how to get anything done.
They do not understand power. It used to be that mediocre faculty tended to go into
administration, but now there is an expanding administrative class that rules over the budget
and faculty, and this is detrimental to the institution. Tenured faculty have not prevented the
exponential growth in the use (exploitation) of adjuncts for undergraduate teaching. I say this
as a person with a PhD from a public university that has had a unionized faculty for decades.
It didn't make much difference. My institution was the only one in the US charging tuition to
PhD students teaching on its undergrad campuses – taking back money paid for teaching in
the system (extremely low-paid, of course). This is one reason why I will never donate.
Yep, academic freedom is being undermined. It's elusive if one can't pay the rent and is a
gig laborer for an institution run like a brutal plantation.
Yep, teaching is not job training. George Carlin had a few words on this topic –
obedient workers are the desired product of the school system. There are various brilliant
scholars who wrote worthwhile books on teaching, usually forgotten.
One insidious practice I have seen is the notion of "collegiality" being a factor in tenure
decisions. The traditional categories, usually weighted, are teaching, research, and service.
People have been sabotaged and denied tenure due to collegiality issues, which can hide
bullying and nasty dept politics or bigotry. There are legal cases about it. It is vague and
subjective, and there is no way for it to be imposed fairly as a standard. The AAUP has
position papers for various issues on its site, as does the MLA (Modern Language Assn).
Books: Higher Education?, The Last Professors, many others document what has been
happening.
Jacques Barzun foresaw a lot of what is happening in his book The American
University . He dissected the parasitical centers and institutes that infest campuses. He
has a chapter in there on an essay by William James (if I recall) on the "PhD octopus" which
exemplifies the expansion of credentials and degrees. Barzun's book Teacher in America is also
excellent and worthwhile, in my opinion.
Camille Paglia (I know Yves views her work as uneven, but when Paglia talks about academia,
she is perceptive) has written since the 1990s about the intellectual corruption in the
humanities, and many other topics. In fairness, she has been teaching undergraduates for
decades, and she was exiled from having a "normal" academic career because she was and is
outspoken and direct. She is very serious about education and students. She was in the culture
wars. She sees what is happening now.
There was a professor, Richard Mitchell, who wrote a delightful newsletter, The Underground
Grammarian, later published as
books . He also foresaw the coming idiocy. He denounced idiocy coming out of schools of
education, and deconstructed the poor thought in their convoluted prose, which is similar to
administrative prose. There are entire journals devoted to such bloviation.
The brutal economic conditions caused by the pandemic (well, due to lack of support from DC)
are only accelerating processes that were already well underway for many years in US colleges
and universities.
It is not enough to throw money at the problem – there needs to be substantial reform,
and no upper administrator wants to cut off the branch s/he is sitting on. There was great
expansion in the 1960s and 1970s, and some of those places might die out. Neoliberalism
again.
When I look back at the wonderful teachers and professors I have known across multiple
disciplines, and see the tremendous impoverishment of students today, it is heartbreaking.
When I was employed as an economist within the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I was required
to interview authorities in certain occupations and industries for my work. For that reason,
I interviewed people at professional engineering associations, and one or two of them
confirmed for me that the land-grant system (and consequently the GI Bill arising out of
WWII) had given the U.S. a major advantage over other countries. This was because many, many
graduate programs in engineering had sprung up or expanded in the 1950s and 1960s, in large
part because so many more students (than prior to WWII) were now able to attend university,
and the U.S. as a consequence did indeed produce much more "human capital", particularly in
science and engineering.
And, as an economist, I fully agree that the neo-liberal model is destroying all this in
its corrupting the institutions of academia so that they become "profit centers". [Certainly,
the ever-widening maldistribution of wealth and income, as seen in states' decisions to
steadily decrease funding for their public universities, also contributed mightily to this
trend.] But this is what happens in empires: institutions become so corrupted that they no
longer function. The sooner we all realize that the U.S. has become such a polity, the sooner
we might be able to reverse course [although, I admit, I am anything but sanguine].
Not sure if the 1980s British play 'Educating Rita' ever made it across the Atlantic,
though it was made into a film with Michael Caine, so maybe. Rita is a hairdresser wanting to
better herself by attending Open University and has tutorials with a worldweary English lit
lecturer, Frank. The pair gradually get to know each other. At one point, Rita asks Frank if
he could ever be fired from his secure tenure. His response is that the only sackable offence
would be 'buggering the bursar'.
How times change.
A great film that as well as a great book. I have some of the author's – Willy
Russell – other works and when you read about his early life, you realize that Rita's
story is really his own story in disguise. But that era of ordinary people achieving higher
education may be gone now. Mark Blyth once remarked that if today's education system was
around when he was young, that he would have ended up as just some yobbo hanging around the
streets of Glasgow.
Yes, indeed. There are (small) legions of us provincial, working class kids who lucked out
by growing up in the UK in that magic quarter century or so (~'45–'75) when, if you did
well enough in O- and A-levels to secure an offer of a place at uni, all expenses were paid
direct, and you got a living allowance on top! (£375 p.a. -- sounds like a pittance,
but, with care, and not too much beer, you could save on it).
I'm with Mark Blyth -- not in Glasgow -- but without that visionary national social policy,
I'd have been in the same boat, in another northern town.
Great movie. MIchael Caine, Julie Walters, Michael Williams – what a wonderful cast.
Saw it my junior year of HS and just loved it. Still a big fan of Dame Julie.
A big negative effect of this is the quality of research. At one time university research
was trusted as valid. Now money has corrupted it to the point a lot of the research is
questionable and not trust worthy.
True. Credit most of this to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, along with the substantial
decrease, adjusted for inflation, in federal support (NSF, NIH) for essential, fundamental
scientific research during the neoliberalization of all things. Gresham's Law in action, the
bad money did drive out the good.
But even outside the big money areas, research has become a race to publish as much as you
can, irrespective of quality, to get the right metrics for you and your institution. There
are profit-making companies whose sole job is to act as F***b**ks for academics, signing them
up and encouraging them to obsessively pore over how many people have read their work and how
many, um, "likes" they have received.
Thank you very much for this, Erasmus. Most especially citing Jacques Barzun. (Another
darn book for me to read as Lambert would put it. Ha!) It all seems spot on to what I have
personally witnessed in my little college town since the late 80's. I would like to add John
Ralston Saul to the list of folks to read/listen/watch on this subject too.
One more author, the late Canadian writer Robertson Davies who has much to say about the
decline of the University as a teaching/scholarly institution.
As someone who just retired from the community college system in Ontario, all of this
rings true to me. Especially the cowardice of full-time faculty (it isn't called tenure in
the college system in Ontario, but effectively that is what it is). Voting for pay increases
contract after contract while the holes in the collective agreement just kept getting bigger
and bigger year after year. Old timers protecting their bank accounts and youngsters living
under the delusion that things would stay the same, not wanting to rock the boat.
And yes the bloat of administration. And the contracting of private sector consultants to do
everything from re-decorate to write curriculum. Assessments done by outside firms so that
the college didn't own the data and was therefore not subject to Freedom of Information
requests. More and more administrators who know or care nothing for education. Bloated grades
and high school graduates who arrive incapable of doing the work – and thus a whole new
wing of non-academic support personnel created to help them succeed.
This post also brought to mind IM dr's comments of the other day the about the know-nothing,
unmotivated residents he is encountering at his hospital. I came across many nursing students
who needed remedial math and science help to get by in their college level courses. And
watched this play out in real life – once when my father was in the hospital, I
listened while two young nurses tried to figure out the drip rate for an IV for a new drug
prescribed by the doctor. The IV bag was a different strength than what was prescribed so
they needed to do some figuring. I had to intervene and have them call the doctor as they
were clearly hopeless at the math required to determine the correct drip rate. So, indeed
neoliberalization is not just hurting bank accounts, the crapification of our educational
institutes is now having detrimental effects in many parts of our society. It is scary.
I'm currently working in the Ontario community college system (on contract) and see little
hope of improvement. Full time faculty (i.e. tenured) have little incentive to rock the boat
because they are comfortable and secure – this is in spite of the fact that many are
left-leaning and consider themselves champions of social justice. Contract faculty (i.e.
adjuncts) are too cowed to speak out because it could mean non-renewal of teaching contracts.
Better to put your head down and hope you eventually win the full time lottery.
The strike three years ago ended up being the longest ever, and then went to arbitration
that resulted in no improvement for contract faculty (aside from superficial gestures). Most
full time faculty I spoke to were begrudging participants. Some complained about the five
weeks of pay they gave up to be on strike. A couple examples: One guy was disappointed
because he was expecting 2017 to be the first year he made six figures, until the strike.
Another told me he had to delay a bathroom reno. Boohoo, I thought sarcastically, but I held
my tongue because, you know, solidarity.
Meanwhile, things will only get worse. The pandemic is accelerating a shift to more online
learning, and has given the colleges an excuse to freeze full time faculty hiring. Will be
looking for a way out of the mess in 2021
You're right about that last strike. It was long and, in the end, pointless. I was a
faculty librarian for most of my career and decided to try my hand at admin before I retired
and had just become a low level manager when that strike happened. Being on the admin side I
was shocked by the disdain for faculty openly expressed by many administrators. Between that
us vs. them status quo and the faculty unwilling to rock the boat, I don't see things
changing for the better, ever. I had a 5 years-to-retirement plan when I got the management
gig. I only lasted 3 years, just couldn't take the nonsense anymore. Lucky for me I could
afford to go. Good luck to you!
I wanted to comment separately but the mentioning of the two nurses inability to calculate
the drip rate is a combination of insufficient education as well as lack of training.
I see education as providing the knowledge as well as furthering the ability to understand
the nature of things. Training would refer to the ability to better and more efficiently
deploy this knowledge by strengthening the pathways (brain and flesh muscles) that enable the
realization of any objective/task.
Somebody in the post that started this discussion also tried to emphasize the role of
training and I totally agree that it is important. A deep level of professionalism does
involve mastering of the knowledge and having the ability to skilfully deploy that
knowledge.
An example at limit: Stephen Hawkins had the brains, but in the end, he did rely on some
very smart, skilled young ones, that were able to carry on many of the calculations necessary
for his theorizing. Oh, the graduate student, the other lab rat of the research
environment.
I agree that some on the job training is required but those nurses were on their own on
the floor, they should have known how to calculate the drip rate. Nursing education is not
pure theoretical learning, they get a lot of hands on 'training' along with their math,
science and anatomy curriculum and should arrive on the job with those skills and abilities.
That said, I agree that on the job training is an important aspect of work and one that we
don't do anymore. Now it is 'orientation and 'on boarding' by HR, company propaganda for the
most part. One of my early part time jobs was a cashier in a grocery store. We were toured
through every isle, seeing what was where. We learned how to identify produce (there were no
stickers on fruit in those days). We actually had to go through the produce dept before every
shift to see what was on sale and what seasonal produce was available so we could identify it
and ring it in properly. We were even taught the proper way to open a roll of coins! Unroll
carefully, do not bang on side of coin drawer at risk of coins falling everywhere if you were
wondering ;
I know of a university student in a teacher's ed program who asked the professor for help
on an upcoming test: "I don't understand this adding fractions thing." No trace of
embarrassment. Nor was the professor fazed. This is normal. This potential future teacher
cannot add 2/3 + 1/2.
Many faculty have problems with writing. I'm not talking English as second language (ESL)
problems – those I can understand – I'm talking native speakers who don't know
how to use a comma.
Grading student writing, I decided to ignore most grammar errors. On the one hand, many
ESL students were flat-out incapable of assembling correct sentences. I didn't particularly
blame them: but I couldn't let them off the hook while penalizing native speakers (assuming I
could even determine who was who, probably a no-no). On the other hand, many native speakers
were at least as bad. I basically had a choice: fail half of them on English or grade them on
the course content. I graded them on the course content.
There's an attitude problem too. There are students employed to edit writing for
publication. When their errors are caught and corrected, they rise up in rebellion. "That's
how I like to do it." "You need to respect my positionality."
Dictionary.com: "Positionality is the social and political context that creates your
identity in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status." Like my child in
public school, I suppose they are being taught novel pronouns, but not English grammar; how
many genders there are, but not how to count them. The consensus on multiplication tables
with other parents I've talked to: learn them on your own, or not at all. (What happens to
the kids of the often working class parents who haven't the time, patience or ability to do
that?)
Universities are changing mottoes and mission statements. It's no longer about finding
truth. It's about changing the world. My fear is that they will succeed.
This is the story I heard from someone not familiar with the term, who had no idea it was
an idpol thing. The main thing though is the sensitivity: whether they try out some
ridiculous claim like that, or just act huffy or hurt, the students feel it's not ok to be
corrected.
Students' sensitivity to correction is at unbelievable heights. I once explained the
difference between a tattletale and a whistleblower to a student who called himself the the
latter, saying, "I ain't no whistleblower" when he clearly meant tattletale. I was smiling
and clearly not giving him 'heck' but his angry reaction was as though I had just yelled and
called him stupid. I was shocked. That was quite a few years ago, it has only gotten worse. I
can't even remember how long ago I was told that teachers shouldn't correct work with a red
pen because it is considered too harsh! I don't understand how things have changed so much
and it is not as though kids are particularly happy at school. They're constantly talking
about all the stress they're under. I say this as someone who understands that the world has
changed and there's is much to be stressed about, but still, it is school for goodness sake.
I had a math teacher in high school who used to throw chalk at us when we were wrong and I am
pretty sure I had way more fun in school than kids today.
Some of my favourite teachers were mean. One took positvie evil glee in calling on
students for answers and humiliating them when they got them wrong. But he was equal
opportunity: the better the student, the harder he tried, until he got what he wanted. When
one survived the attack and got it right (which was probably most of the time), he played all
disappointment. Every right answer came with a flash of pride.
The effect was to make us study hard and build camaradarie. He was a dedicated teacher who
truly loved his students, and I think we loved him back.
In my experience, there are few things more discouraging than praise for mediocre work.
The best teachers make you work for it: but when you suceed (if you're just not very
talented, success can be something others might consider minor), you own it, and it's worth
it.
Today, a teacher like would probably be called up on abuse or something. But I bet his
students would stand by him.
It occurs to me that this dynamic of humiliation, pride, failure, triumph and camaradarie
are only possible in a physical classroom.
As an introvert who is happy to read a book, I have long wondered why we spend so much on
classes. This social and emotional framework is the best example I can think of of something
a book or a video (or a Zoom call) cannot replace.
Of course universities are trying hard to commodify instruction. They want a course to be
a package they can own, deliver, and reuse, while charging an arm and a leg. So the trend of
draining all potential unpleasantness from education (even if in the long run it results in
more stress) indirectly works to their advantage, making it even less likely that they
would reverse course.
There is a bright side to this: In 30 years no weapons designs will be possible because
nobody will be able to do the figuring and manual writing without getting into duelling over
where the decimal goes and which symbols to use. :p.
I think I posted Part 1 of this community college look at the state of higher ed in the
comments to this week's earlier post about universities. Here's part two, which looks at some
different marketing strategies and my college's choice of a "Buy 9, get the 10th free"
model.
As a side note to the piece posted above–I wonder how much universities are even
related to the ideas of learning and scholarship anymore. Where I live, the flagship for the
state of Kentucky has a $2 billion+ budget that spans running healthcare/hospitals and Top 10
basketball programs to accumulating a surprisingly large cache of city and state real
estate.
Scholarship (mostly by Ivy and Ivy-adjacent trained scholars who have zero intellectual or
emotional understanding of their city and region) is just how they get the tax breaks.
Nice to see that North of Center has returned. The first iteration was an excellent
counter to the local cheerleading in Lexington. Regarding the University of Basketball, yes,
it has a huge budgetary footprint. Twenty-plus years ago something called the Research
Challenge Trust Fund (RCTF) was implemented as part of an initiative to make UK a Top-20
Public Research University by 2020. Fine. When it was pointed out that would require running
three times faster than those ahead of UK who were not standing still (UCLA, Michigan,
Berkeley, Wisconsin even Florida and Georgia), crickets. And after all that money was spent
UK is still the University of Basketball. But even that seems to be in disarray. Just the
other day the Wildcats were taken absolutely apart by Georgia Tech. Oops.
Long but a good look at the asininity of the University of Basketball's plans, from the
first iteration of North of Center , is also a good summary of what neoliberalization
of everything education has produced: https://noclexington.com/wages-of-a-top-20-education-nougat-re-post/
Sadly for us lowly peeee-on$, for decades The Noble Liberal Cla$$ has exalted their Tomes
of Truth! & had pretty much nothing but contempt for the hard work of actually making
stuff work. They have done a stellar job of looking out for themselves.
"There was, thus, a turning point, which had not yet reached a clarity of options. No
country moves forward more by ideas than America. And one of the problems of 1972 was that
the idea system had become clogged by its own excessive outpourings. American intellectuals
had written the Constitution, engineered turn-of-the-century reform, provided Franklin
Roosevelt with his blueprints of reorganization, armed America with marvels of technology
during th Second World War. They had been rewarded with a gush of approval, with an
outpouring of funds, private and public, that had all but choked off fresh ideas – like
a garden over-seeded and over-fertilized. The American idea system poured out paper after
paper, study after study, learned investigation after learned investigation on the race
problem, the urban problem, the environment problem, the television problem, the violence
problem, the identity problem, until clear thinking was suffocated by the mattress of
scholary investigation."
Prologue – The End Of The Postwar World, xxviii
The Making of The President 1972, Theodore H. White, published 1973.
[Background – White's first "Making of the President 1960" won him a Pulitzer Prize.
He grew up on Boston, went to Boston Latin & then Harvard, and was in Nationalist China
during WW2 working for Time or Life? magazine.]
Irony or paradox: banner ads accompanying this article on viewers right on my computer
feature an ad for the sole four year university in the great state of Wyoming UW. Go
Cowboys!
NB Wyoming made a strategic decision scores of years ago to have a single University, to
gather any of the scarce resources for higher ed into a single grantee/ beneficiary.
So, let me get this straight. Navigation of this system is considered to be the
"meritocracy" and those who manage to do it are deserving of their riches while the rest of
us deserve our precarious and part-time gig work? Just checking.
Same thing happened to me back in the 1980s. I found that my university economics degree
qualified me for such lofty positions as dishwasher, cashier, and shelf stocker.
Color me as someone who is VERY skeptical of higher education.
An unlucky histologist here. I enjoyed my degree program and wanted to go into pure
biotechnology research. To my chagrin I found out that most of the much-vaunted STEM fields
particularly the S and E portions of it were being destroyed in the private sector by a
combination of gig work, offshoring and insourcing with cheap guestworkers from overseas.
This was part of process that has been happening since the Regan era.
Now, I work in retail at a pet store with the only thing my degrees have gotten me is
several thousand dollars in student loan debt which I am still paying off in my meager
income. I honestly do not think that my job prospects are going to improve for the forseeable
future. I am 36 and most R&D companies consider anybody older than their early-30's to be
over-the-hill.
In all honesty, if I knew then what I know now after graduating from high school I would
not have bothered with college. After all, few people work in their intended fields after
obtaining their degrees and you will be shackled with student loan debt that you may never
pay off. Many of my coworkers also have advanced degrees in various subjects but many of us
have resigned ourselves to being retail wage slaves for the rest of our lives. Retirement is
probably out of the question for many people younger than Gen-X.
Likewise, I watched as my father had his tenured position as a university professor at the
University of River Falls in Wisconsin instantly snatched away retroactively by governor
Scott Walker. My father had been tenured for ten years and after Walker got rid of tenure for
all public university professors within the state, many universities in Wisconsin responded
by firing all of their older full-time faculty and replacing them with adjunct staff.
My father was made an offer by the president of the university to be hired as an adjunct
the following semester. It would have been a one-semester position for $12,000 and no
benefits or promises of returning to the school next year. There was no way my parents could
live off of that so they were forced to sell their house and move to Missouribecause of the
low cost of living there. My father now works as a manager at an Ace Hardware store as that
was the only job he could find at 65 and being at academia all of his career.
So sorry to hear what happened to you and your family. The word disgusted does not even
begin to cover it. Not surprised that Scott Walker's name comes into the mix though. There is
no thought here about building up capacity in countries like the US and making use of talent.
The sheer amount of talent and abilities going to waste must be staggering. Must be because
most managers do not think much past this financial quarter.
' and [a] after Walker got rid of tenure for all public university professors within the
state, [b] many universities in Wisconsin responded by firing all of their older full-time
faculty and replacing them with adjunct staff.'
This is total fantasy. Scott Walker was a disaster but neither 'a' nor 'b' ever
happened.
Moreover, there is no such place as 'the University of River Falls'. And, in the UW
system, 'the president of the university' does not make contract offers to individual faculty
or academic staff members at the constituent campuses.
Scott Walker did indeed get rid of tenure for public university professors within the
state as part of a 2015 budget deal just like he got rid of the right of collective
bargaining for public employees in 2011. During his terms, Walker tried to systemically
destroy higher education and the careers of academic faculty while in office.
My father was not given a "formal" offer by the UWRF president, it was an email circulated
to all of the liquidated professors that they would be given priority hiring for the adjunct
positions that their jobs were being replaced with.
As someone with experience in higher ed, and a couple of humanities degrees, Camille
Paglia's criticisms of the humanities cut so deep, so great to see her referenced here.
Thanks for that – I always enjoy listening to Paglia. Her criticism of the
postmodernists as 'word choppers' is spot on. I think that may be one of the worst results of
neoliberalism – destroying the meanings of words to the point it becomes difficult to
communicate at a societal level. And while the rest of us argue over what the meaning of 'is'
is, the criminals in power are robbing us blind.
Neoliberalism has also done a number on numbers. The article notes the overliance on
assessments, presumably 'data driven' ones. We have had two successive school superintendents
in my area who have openly admitted that math is not their strong point and yet they rely
heavily on data driven assessments and will produce metrics for everything. I don't believe
they have a clue what they're looking at. Our current superintendent was publicly embarrassed
a couple years ago when a parent who does understand math pointed out at a well attended
school board meeting that the grading software he relied on was a complete joke in dramatic
fashion. As an accountant, I'm well aware that numbers can be manipulated to make them seem
like they mean pretty much whatever the manipulator wants them to mean. Silicon Valley has
made billions preying on people who don't understand math to the point where we have
unnecessary software for everything, tracking and monetizing every little action we make, and
we are obviously at this point not the better for it.
I absolutely identify with the lousy data nonsense.
In my work, I often had to work with the Institutional Effectiveness Office, which should
be called the "Statistics Office".
I respect them and their knowledge, but often, these offices are tasked with producing
data for whatever pet project is being promoted by administration at the time. That's why I
saw tons of turnover happen in that area, plus constant stress and alcoholism in the
director. Lots of race-based statistics making that had to represent that the institution was
failing to be accommodating to students of color on one hand, but also succeeding in every
metric on the other. No wonder the poor woman turned to drink. "Let's bake a cake using
flour, but it has to be keto-friendly."
It's unfortunate that this is hosted by Peterson. He starts the interview off by asking
about "Neomarxism" which starts the whole thing off on the wrong foot. I don't expect I'm
going to hear about the corrupting influence of Capitalism and money in universities.
Yeah, you have to accept that he's there if you're not a Peterson fan (I like him but many
don't), but the interview does come across as Peterson interviewing her, and trying to
understand her ideas, rather than him overwhelming the conversation with his usual.
I some – not few – aspects, Peterson is a hack. And he'll embrace the paradigm
of the overseers, as long as he will have the ability to monetize his continuous gospel.
I've never really listened to or read much by Peterson before but about halfway through
the interview it started getting pretty clear why he is widely disliked.
Paglia is uneven – at one point she's arguing that historically men and women never
shared labor duties and my grandmother who milked a few dozen cows by hand twice a day along
with my grandfather, and then went in and did all the housework too would surely disagree
– but she hits the nail on the head on a lot and plus is always a hoot.
On top of all that, the raw material that universities must work with -- high school
students -- is about to become much, much worse due to the coronavirus, at least in the US.
They will have even fewer study skills, and much more mental illness. Those who can afford it
may add another post-graduate year before college to compensate, but there are very few such
programs; community colleges should start them.
My cousin is an English teacher in a rural area, economically challenged. He was telling
me that the kids are getting stupider by the day. He is watching the assignments handed in
degrade in quality.
The older I get, the more I realize that learning is not about facts, but understanding
how you yourself can learn new things. School is as much about the habit of learning as it is
the content and we now have an entire cohort of kids whose habits have been undone.
By design. grades, grades, grades. That's all there is. taking time to enjoy learning,
something I have worked on, has led to lower grades because it requires time and going
outside of the textbook and homework. Kids are able to enjoy what they learn if given the
opportunity, yet from a young age it never presents itself. The advent of tech dominated
lives and short attention spans makes it all worse too.
The quality of work has dropped off a cliff. The kids are fried, and they do not think
they will be/should be held responsible for their actions or work.
Administrations are just doing a collective CYA exercise, because the failure rates have
tripled.
Parents don't know what to do. At this point probably the most productive thing a parent
can do with a remote/hybrid learning student is watch them work. Just watch them. See what
they are doing, and how many distractions they have in their lives. One of the advantages of
grade school environments is that the distraction is removed (for the most part) during class
time. Not anymore.
This is slightly tangential, but I was 7/8 years old in 1967, and I remember noticing all
the popular culture things I had to be current on (the Monkees, etc), and I specifically
thought that the powers-that-be are making up all these things to pay attention to so that we
aren't paying attention to the things that actually matter. I was OK when I was a little
kid.
I spent a year as a "Career Coach" at an absurdly priced East Coast university. My job was
a mix of office hours, hosting events for students/alumni/hiring managers, and creating Excel
and Bloomberg training classes (there weren't any).
It was fun for a bit, until I realized the students had no concept of how competitive
finance is. Everybody that came to me had big plans for a career on Wall Street –
that's nothing new. However, hardly any of them were going to get a look – their grades
were middling, their communication skills needed work, and not nearly enough evidenced
critical thinking skills (although on a conference call a hiring manager explicitly stated
they're not looking for that. Sigh).
And then I made a presentation to the Alumni Committee, and that's when I realized how
this school is run. It was littered with wealthy PE and sell-side people, and the mantra was
they wanted more alumni in the business. Why? Ego. It doesn't matter that they're ready or
qualified, just get'r done or I'll donate elsewhere.
My brother has a PhD in History and taught for several years. He had to leave because he
couldn't support his family. He was also very discouraged by student apathy and all the
administrative BS.
I think this excellent post is part and parcel with the Great Inflation of the past 40
years. All the provosts and new layers, new buildings, coordination with private business,
grade inflation, sports entertainment and the big contracts, all the bells and whistles that
are entirely unnecessary for LEARNING.
Most faculty are cowards and careerists and sycophants who just want to be comfortable
or gain status with peers, but this neglects the institution. They are politically inept,
like the progressives (as Matt Stoller has observed). Most of them do not know how to get
anything done. They do not understand power.
I know this is tangential to the thrust of the article but I wish the writer had given
examples of the evaluation of progressives?
1. I wonder who the writer would define as progressives. For example Neera Tanden is
billing herself as a progressive but that is to laugh.
2. Maybe someone at NC could explain?
Matt never responds to me on Twitter or I'd go ask him. In fact I did do that.
I think Bernie (who is a Progressive), did an excellent job of speaking truth to
power as well as organizing a movement. The fact that the powers that be ganged up on him to
stomp on the movement is the reality of entrenched power these days. That is why I'm
advocating for the formation of a new national party. The historical analogy I'm using is the
anti-slavery movement. I would ask that people find everything they can and study up on that
segment of American history as to how to proceed against today's entrenched neo-liberals.
Bernie did a fantastic job right up til they ganged up on him right before Super Tuesday.
From then until he conceded, had he been more politically 'ept', he would have used the power
he had from the support of many millions of people to demand a concession or two before
conceding. Such as Medicare for All, a 2d round of stimulus, police reform, or something. But
he didn't, instead he conceded and then campaigned harder for Biden than Biden did for
himself. Pretending that he would get his 'good friend Joe' to actually do something
progressive if asked nicely.
I think this is what the author is getting at, the failure to play hardball LBJ style to
get some compromise deals done whenever possible. And you don't have to look only at 'real'
progressives. If you look at the faux progressives like Nancy Pelosi etc., they have for many
years started at the middle and allowed conservatives to call the tune. This is deliberate on
behalf of donors/bribers, but some pundits still think it's because of ineptness.
Thanks for the bit of analysis. And too, I just had my second cup of tea so I'm more wide
awake now.
You're 100% correct about Bernie-he's never been one to dig in when the opposition mounts
a concerted attack. That really makes him much like the other members of the Democratic party
who are more adept at slugging it out in intramural sporting events with other Dems than they
are with taking on the true opponents in the GOP and big business. And in fact the blood
thirsty cheerleaders who are on the outside of government (at least officially); those are
who we should all be pushing on in a steady and consistent manner until we force them to
yield.
You're right too about Bernie conceding to not make waves-he did that with Hillary. So he
tries to avoid real confrontations when he needs to take a stand. Even when its not fun. So
there's a time to fight and a time to join. Bernie's too easily swayed to be a joiner.
Someday another Bernie Sanders type will come along and do what he did not-run as an
independent and shred the Democratic Party: even if it means losing a battle to the GOP in
order to win the larger war. Again, looking back at the formation of the Republican Party-the
leaders gave up on the Whigs and that party finally died off but the new party-headed by
Lincoln, carried the torch.
Good luck with getting a third party running in the US. Since it is the states legislation
that operationalize elections, you will probably find out that a third party to be put on the
ballot (not for president, but for representatives), in many a state would need more
supporters and signatures than there are democrats and republicans combined. Mobilizing such
numbers is a daunting task that would be possible only if more than 50% of the population
were to be unemployed AND HUNGRY.
And if that were to happen, other legal technicalities would be brought up.
And then the NSA, FBI, State Police, and the local sheriff would also be brought in. A lot
of male candidates would start o be accused of childhood pornography, etc., etc., etc
Perhaps it's not just universities. Cities now compete with each other on the quality of
their school systems. In my town a functional but aging 1960 high school was just replaced
with a billion dollar megaplex complete with stadium, basketball "arena," and fully equipped
performing arts center. This spare no expense approach is apparently seen as necessary to
compete with charter schools and private schools not to mention other towns.
Which is to say that the neoliberals have introduced competitive pressure into the
government/nonprofit world while seeking to reduce or eliminate it in the business world. I
have no idea whether this change in culture is turning out better students but it almost
seems as though these institutions have taken on a life of their own with education somewhere
down the list.
The competition is everywhere, I think. Government jobs are tough to come by, in fact
anything that offers benefits and a stable wage is tough to get, and this was before the
pandemic hit. There are a lot of people with advanced degrees and not nearly enough jobs.
But at least the Nation got sports entertainment this year.
Few years ago had to go north of Manhattan, nyc over the East River to yonkers anyway
beyong 208 st stop on the Ind. Anyway was chocked at the Columbia U stadium on the east river
it would have severly embarassed the Union HS in Tulsa, Ok. And that stadium is being
remodelled an embellished, with skyboxes no doubt. Have to drive by and see.
from CanCyn, as seen with my own two eyes: And yes the bloat of administration. And the contracting of private sector consultants to
do everything from re-decorate to write curriculum. Assessments done by outside firms so that
the college didn't own the data and was therefore not subject to Freedom of Information
requests. More and more administrators who know or care nothing for education. Bloated grades
and high school graduates who arrive incapable of doing the work – and thus a whole new
wing of non-academic support personnel created to help them succeed.
Like Lampreys.
and cocoman, seeing the other part, with my bold:
the more I realize that learning is not about facts, but understanding how you yourself
can learn new things. School is as much about the habit of learning as it is the content and
we now have an entire cohort of kids whose habits have been undone.
imo -- the desire to Learn and acquire Knowledge must be developed first–any
benefit–tangible or intangible–emanates from that center. It is not
Performative.
Yeps and absolutely. Curiosity and interest in the world are driven out early. And you
can't really learn without them. Give me the wonder of a wide eyed child over the apathy and
need to conform of teens and young adults with their focus on their phones and social media
any day.
To be honest, there has always been a trend in American education towards teaching
"Facts", and "Procedures" rather than teaching "free-form"reasoning. At least within
Engineering.
The ideal seemed to be to have a few really bright experts like Feynman figure out optimal
solutions, then "communicate" their Thinking and Reasoning into checklists, nomographs,
tabulated values and flowcharts for the lesser talents to follow. I believe it was considered
to be some kind of efficient allocation of talent, not that "one didn't want too much
thinking around the place".
The Electrical Code in America is prescribing how to reach the design goals, the European
one is the opposite, stating the goals, and not how to get there. Many, many discussions will
flow from that in a multinational project!
With "digitalisation" of course anything that can be packetised as binary choices will be
boosted enormously by being very easy to digitise and once digital, costs nothing to
distribute. Driving a tsunami of "rote learning" and "rote thinking" within all academic
fields, meeting "the requirements" is what moves one forward, not understanding.
Exemplified with essay grading "AI", where Just mashing keywords into the text is what
triggers the "learning objective", which now is The Grade and not The Writing and Making a
Coherent Argument.
IMO, this way of learning allows too many to succeed. People with "frontal-lobe issues",
expressed by weak self regulation, lack of internal motivation and brains glitching out when
corrected, instead of maturing and then making progress, we now have "Gamegate" minds showing
up "early" at university level!
Then they can use their credentials to move on into positions where they have authority
and a budget.
I've followed this at first hand in universities in several countries. It's
heartbreaking.
At least it is for me, but apparently not for lots of others. Why?
It has to do, I think, with what you think a university (or any form of education) is
actually for. In Britain, which I know best, education of any type has always been seen by
the ruling class as a ticket to a better life, and a means of preserving their privileges,
but never as an end in itself. They sent their children to "public" (ie private) schools less
for the education than to make social contacts and acquire a cachet which would financially
benefit them for the rest of their lives. It was thus an investment with a promised return.
The more intelligent of the ruling class's children would go to Oxford or Cambridge, again
less for the education than for the fact of having been there and getting to know people.
They would then be best placed to get high-paying jobs in the City, or elsewhere in the
Establishment, so that the ruling class could perpetuate itself.
For the rest of us, especially those who studied humanities rather than subjects like law
and medicine, education was an end in itself, and a way to escape from our origins into a
better world. Fifty years ago, my Head of Department welcomed new students by posing the
hypothetical question, Why Study Literature, as opposed to say, Engineering? It was, he said,
a self-justifying activity. Such statements were as common then as they are unthinkable now.
And more widely, successive governments then believed that an educated population was better
than an uneducated one. But those were the days when the newly-elected Labour Prime Minister
was a grammar-school educated economist who believed in technology. Twenty-five years later,
the newly elected Labour leader was a public-school educated lawyer who believed in God.
So what happened was that British elites, for whom education was first and last an
individual financial investment, wrested back control of education from the more progressive
forces of the postwar boom years. Above all, if individuals had to pay for their education,
if failing their exams was a disaster, and if a degree was a minimum passport to anything
like a decent life, elites could be assured of generations of servile, well-behaved students,
unlike the bolshy lot that I was part of.
Finally, this wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been for parallel social trends after
the 1960s. The mindless worship of the individual, the infantilisation of young people and
the move from seeing higher education as a privilege that had to be earned to a commodity
that could be bought, has combined with the mangerialisation of institutions to produce
something like a perfect storm. In my experience, students are less mature, intellectually
and personally, less well-educated, more demanding of support and comfort, more frightened of
failing and generally less well suited to university education than even twenty years ago.
And the sterile managerialism and the cancerous growth of "administration" has actually
exacerbated the problem. In the circumstances it's surprising that things are not worse than
they are.
Not every country has suffered to the same extent. France, with its effectively free
education, and its tradition of Republican education as a liberating device, was better until
recently. But even there the poison is seeping in, as anglo-saxon management and grievance
politics have started to take over French universities. The reaction of French student unions
to the virus has been to demand better treatment, less to learn, less to write, more free
time, and of course lower requirements for "vulnerable and marginalised groups" etc. etc.
And the end of all of this? Societies where people have worthless degrees, where they
can't actually do the jobs they've been recruited for, where the best teachers leave, where
the quality of teaching declines (never mind research) and the spiral goes ever downwards. As
I said, it's heartbreaking.
In an engineering program decades ago, several of my professors openly expressed contempt
at the lack of demands being placed on current students, with far too little time spent in
classes and out of class work, and the ridiculous notion of grading on a curve,(Thinking a
bit, these were all in the Physics department) at a time when incoming students were warned
not to try to hold part time jobs and to expect to spend at least 40 hours per week on work
outside of class. My student experience confirms that this trend started a long time ago.
'Erasmus' mentions in passing the late (d. 2002) lamented Prof Richard Mitchell. I
subscribed to The Underground Grammarian back in the day and I will always remember an
observation from Ben Jonson that Mitchell quoted as a sort of epigram:
Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
This pool includes both tenured faculty and career faculty and OAs who fall into the PERS
tier1/tier2 buckets. Current new hires come in at tier 4 – a very different
critter.
Those who remember the IBM "voluntary transition" buyouts of the 90s will recognize the
strategy. This undercuts tenure, may reduce some departments in ways that are not
recoverable, and reduces pension liability since the sweetener here is a one time payout for
health insurance rather then PERS support.
The target pool are skeptical but the long term health of the UO is also dicey.
These "retirement" buy-outs are happening in the California community college system (~1
million students). They are offered to both administrators and tenured profs alike. Cutting
costs is imperative when the incoming high school enrollment is down an average of 7-8%; AND
International (Chinese) enrollment (high fee students) is more than 50% lower. My local
community college has a $4M shortfall. (That's huge, actually.)
Faculty members have lobbied for tenured backfill of their lost positions. Only five
positions have been approved; but not yet funded. The faculty is now predominately adjuncts
(gig workers) at 70%. Yet people still strive for that Ph Ed. (which is shortened to PhD in
their resume' and administrative title).
I expect the educational game will return to normal as the emergency vaccines prove
effective over the Spring and Summer. My college is planning on in-person instruction Fall
2021.
I'm more well-known around these parts for attempting to demystify Big Tech's functional
machinations thanks to being a tech worker this past miserable decade, but I actually left
the industry over the summer. In an attempt to switch careers I enrolled in a US undergrad
state program that is well-regarded for remote learning and girded myself for jumping on the
undergrad wagon in my upper 30s. I had gone to a non-university school in my 20s for
something utterly unrelated to tech – fashion design – and had a tech support job
through that round of school. When I left in 2011 it made more sense to stay in tech than
make clothes. Earlier this year it seemed to make more sense to learn soil science or botany
remotely while doing lesser-grade tech work remotely.
Unfortunately I barely lasted two weeks because the remote learning experience – my
own several years of working remotely and 2020's exceptional pandemic/political fireworks
aside – was so bad I was immediately infuriated at the cost and teaching style that I
knew I would not be able to complete years of it, it would not train me for a job in any way,
and I would be better served to get out ASAP and avoid the debt.
Years of tech work has acutely attuned me to recognizing the software fabric behind any
technical implementation, and the schools that were all recognized as remote learning leaders
prior to the pandemic are firmly built on big tech's toolset. I'm less bothered in this
specific case by the security/data issues inherent there than the understanding of how
colossally bloated and sh!tty the apps running the schools (Canvas in the front, Gainsight in
the back for student admin, Google Apps for document, a patchwork for branded tech services
for things like authentication, library services, collaboration) – because that means
multiple layers of the school are dependent on the bloat inherent in those tech platforms
that make their ecampus work. That means it will never get better, it will never get cheaper,
and it will always get worse year over year as bigger teams have to be hired by school admin
to keep up with the sales quotas issued by all those tech services they're using.
And then the classes themselves were in some cases links to Youtube videos of history
documentaries made for tv, for discussion in the Canvas forum app. I thought I was going to
faint from rage the first time I saw it and then I realized this is just how it is now. If my
goal is to do more meaningful work with soil and plants I can get there by planting a garden
and designing some open source hardware for monitoring in my spare time. I don't know how to
really comment effectively on what universities used to be – I know before I went in I
thought they were still more-or-less a place where you went to learn and contribute to the
body of human knowledge – fashion school was set up like an oldschool dressmaker's
academy, we cut patterns and sewed and were judged on the quality of our work rather than
lecture. But what I experienced was not in any way job training or teaching how to learn or
think critically. It was standard big tech marketing magic laid over a combo powerpoint and
commenting module-making application, and i was expected to pay tens of thousands for the
privilege. No.
If you're in an area where there's Master Gardener certification, go for it. Although it's
a location-specific curriculum, the training is excellent. Link:
Yeah the apprentice-style model is vastly superior to teaching any kind of trade or
skilled handiwork. For something like plant science I expected a lot of organic chemistry
transitioning into greenhouse labs (that I'd be able to do in person after the pandemic
ended). Imagine my disappointment to find that most upper level botany and plant biologist
'jobs' available now are computational (genomics). Years of learning to code for Big Tech and
saving to leave for the verdant groves of academe only to find out that even the plant
sciences are being driven to the software mines.
edit to add: probably the most revolutionary act one can do now is refuse to learn to code
and reject the entire premise for software eating the world
Yet, I have found working as a coder useful for the same reason you have: I easily
recognize the [family blog] in using software where it isn't needed and is actually
harmful.
I agree that higher education is failing. Sports, buildings, administrators, and social
life is much more important than the over-priced "education" that students get. I teach
forestry at a very small college in a rural state that has been struggling financially for
years mostly due to poor management and a focus on athletics. The college has been saddled
with a tremendous amount of debt to renovate buildings and build new buildings (for
athletics) despite declining enrollment. It surprises me that the college was able to sell so
many bonds. I surely wouldn't buy any.
I've been leery of the online classes and entire programs that are online. How can the
majority of students learn online? I know most of my students don't like online because they
don't learn as much. I think that online classes are mostly bull****. Sure they might work
for some motivated learners but most college kids don't fit into that category. When the
history of our time is written online classes will be amongst TV, air conditioning, video
games, fast food, cars, and neoliberalism that led to our demise.
The thing that really gets me about higher education is all of the assessment and
accreditation that can apparently be so easily gamed by the colleges. There is a large
consulting industry to help colleges meet the criteria. The amount of critical thinking and
review that goes into the accreditation process is minimal. It is more about creating a
narrative that the college is meeting the criteria than actually self-reflecting on how do we
improve.
I know that many college students aren't learning very much while they are at our school.
Yet those students are eligible for sports and even get scholarships. All the while other
students are paying full tuition and working hard to pass their classes.
In our program we try to hold the line. We have expectations for our students. We make
students do homework, papers, lab reports, lab activities, readings, projects, etc. we make
students go out in the field even when it is cold or rainy. I'm always amazed to hear from
students that professor X just has 4 tests in his/her class. That is shameful. Students have
to interact with faculty and have to engage with the material. They have to think about what
they are learning. They have to practice what they are learning. They have to demonstrate
what they have learned. Not just pick one out of four answers on a multiple choice test.
COVID should be a wake up call to higher education. Colleges need to cut out the BS (
admin, sports, etc) and focus on rigorously preparing the next generation. They will face
challenges greater than any in the 20th century.
The part about making students go out into the field even when it's cold and rainy brought
a smile to my face. Because, no matter how bad the weather, the trees have to stay outside
and cope with it.
Just some further observations from someone who has been in the trenches and is still
trench-adjacent (lots of family and friends who are/were teachers or academics)–with
apologies for length:
I taught for 10-ish years as an adjunct at a couple of public universities in the Midwest
(science and social sciences). Over that time I saw a precipitate decline in students'
ability to reason, learn, and communicate verbally.
By the end, I found them incapable of basic "if then" logical inference and they had
little understanding of analogy. If I taught them that A + B = C, then asked on a test C
– B = ?, they were totally lost. Their only learning skill was (poor) memorization, and
they appeared to experience not just frustration but almost an existential terror when
encountering subjects that either had no single answer, or where they were asked to discover
the answer.
My closest friend, one of the few who actually managed to secure a tenure-track position*,
was recently telling me how she has to stay absolutely au courant with political correctness
and rigorously self-police her own language because a single offended student could end her
career. A slip up as slight as addressing a group as "you guys" is all it could take to tank
her life's work.
*I don't know of a single one of my former colleagues who has secured a tenure-track job
unless they were (1) engaged in quantitative, scientific research or (2) male. If you're
female and in the humanities/social sciences, I guess you better learn to code.
She has commented many times that her students can be ruthlessly judgmental and their
judgments do not take context into account. This is how they've been trained to be from early
childhood: totally literal, nuance-free memorizers of "content" and generators of "metrics,"
trusting in any so-called authority figure to give them "the answers" (so long as that
authority doesn't use forbidden words), willing and eager to prove their own worth by
policing their fellows Perfect Orwellian employees and citizens.
Are the universities broken or are they working as intended? I actually hope it's the
former.
Their only learning skill was (poor) memorization, and they appeared to experience not
just frustration but almost an existential terror when encountering subjects that either had
no single answer, or where they were asked to discover the answer.
Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. It was promoted as a way to improve
struggling schools, but it was soon clear the real payload was cutting public school funding
for schools whose students did poorly on tests. This quickly created a 'teach to the test'
k-12 public school evironment. So 10 years ago, say, students entering college were products
of at least 7 or eight years of high-stakes, k-12, teach to the test teaching and
memorization demands. Teaching was in too many cases replaced with rote drill; a change made
necessary for public schools not to be docked funding and for teachers to keep their jobs.
Silicon Valley digital education companies made money, of course. I think this form of
teaching has had a very negative effect on students and teachers. It seems like a way to
destroy what's best in public k-12 education. (The rationales used to pass NCLB were based on
questionable international testing metrics.) My 2 cents.
And the Common Core curriculum, largely funded by the Gates Foundation, explicitly
rejected teaching context, instead focusing on sterile "close reading" of excerpts. Kids are
barely reading short stories, let alone novels, in high school anymore. Increasingly, the
kids don't have the attention span or cognitive stamina to do it.
As a commenter stated in Lambert's column about academia last week: "You educate humans
and train animals". Turning that around, if you train humans, but don't educate them, what
you will get are animals.
"The university is a corporation" can easily be turned into "the university is an
extension of corporations" which is at the heart of why there's no learning. The courses,
especially econ, business, and other FIRE precursor departments have their curriculum
basically laid out by the largest local employers and wall street players. So now everyone is
learning tailored curriculum that ignores fundamentals and denies criticism in favor of
trends and profitable models. No one like to learn this, it is boring, time consuming, and
inapplicable in daily life unless you are at work for one of these places. This leads the
average student, who is made abundantly clear they need a 3.5 or above to land a job at one
of those places (the only well playing jobs), to do anything possible to get the grade
including cheating and streamlining studying to answer specific questions as opposed to
understanding concepts. I myself have done this because the material is so boring and I
merely want to get the grade and get out of the class.
Tack on the relentless pursuit of career centers, recruitment fairs, and emails with the
subjects like "is your resume interview ready" every other day, it is an assembly line for
turning students into corporate drones. Yet almost all students recognize it to some degree
and either through economic, cultural, or familial pressures know its alm sot impossible to
have a stable life without giving in, hence widespread depression and anxiety on campuses.
I'd say upward of 80% of the student population has one of these at any given time.
Higher education does have problems and it is not organized to tackle this situation.
Everybody is absorbed with their own problems and responsibilities. It is easier just to
contend with your immediate situation and put off the long-term and global problems. The
government is in the best position to respond to this society-wide problem, but we haven't
seen this kind of leadership in a long time. The demise of American education probably
started under Reagan.
One factor in the financial problems of colleges might be the wars and the bailouts. Does
giving vast sums of money to the banks and military make everyone else poorer? That is my
suspicion.
This is an issue which has been discussed over a long time. One could start with Pitirim
Sorokin's " Social and Cultural Mobility " (1959), followed by Neil Postman's "
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology " (1993) and " The End of
Education: Redefining the Value of School " (1996) and, then, Christopher Lasch's "
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy " (1996). The concepts in these
books could then be combined with Clark Kerr's analysis in " The Uses of the
University " (1963). IMO such an exercise would show why the present situation, explained
in detail by Benjamin Ginsberg in " The Fall of the Faculty and the Rise of the
All-Administrative University and Why It Matters " (2011) was inevitable. Further
cogitation might also show the part non-deplorable elites played/play in this saga.
Best post on higher ed I have read in recent memory, and I have read a lot of them.
IMHO, cultural and organizational problems like these (and to this list I'd add the growth
in student debt) are frequently the result of economic mistakes (misallocation of resources,
ridiculous subsidies, etc.) We might as well admit it: in this case, the mistake is that
there are too damned many universities in the US.
So Erasmus can recommend "reform," and he or she is correct, but the only reform that
would make a difference is one that changes the economics. My recommendation would be for the
Feds to get out of the student loan businesses and require the universities to make and hold
the loans themselves. (Maybe the feds could stay in the game with needs-tested grants, or a
program to buy down the interest rates.)
Wah-la! Fewer universities. Fewer slacker students wasting their money and ours. Better
focus among the schools and the students that remain. Lesser burden on the taxpayer.
Major pain for faculty, I know, but there is major pain now, especially among
underemployed and indebted graduates. Adjustment always hurts.
Extra bonus: Nice real estate available to retirees.
PS My Dad, a career K-12 superintendent, said that there is no such thing as higher ed,
it's just later ed.
So Erasmus can recommend "reform," and he or she is correct, but the only reform that
would make a difference is one that changes the economics. My recommendation would be for
the Feds to get out of the student loan businesses and require the universities to make and
hold the loans themselves. (Maybe the feds could stay in the game with needs-tested grants,
or a program to buy down the interest rates.)
Maybe but first you have to change the economics that life in America without a college
degree for most is cruelty stacked upon misery. Pretty much every other developed country
treats non-college grads better than we do.
Agreed but part of the point is that American misery is gradually extending to more and
more of us and a college "education" is no prophylactic. Given a choice between
minimum-wage-slavery-or-unemployment without debt, and with, I'd take the former. Most people
would; we can read Hobbes and Proust on our own. Fewer worthless degrees and less educational
debt are a loss to no one except the higher ed institutions themselves. The revolution may or
not arrive; but in the meantime perhaps we can get our universities to stop lying to us about
what we'll get in exchange for our dollars and our years and our hopes. And we can save our
subsidy dollars, if any are left, for real bargains or the truly needy.
I wonder if paying students a salary could change some of the negative dynamics. Being a
student is somewhat like working at a job, but without renumeration, at least in the
immediate term. It would allow teachers to demand more from the students and probably reduce
or eliminate grade inflation.
This is a painful subject for me and there is much that resonates in the post and in a
number of the comments (the decline of secondary education, reducing universities to
garbage-in-garbage-out; the insolubility of treating students as customers while employers
who call the shots want them to be products; the political naivete and cowardice of faculty
who have abdicated university governance) . I have lived through the "rock and a hard place"
dilemma between sticking with an academic career or taking the package, as one's university,
indeed one's entire national system of universities, is ground into the neoliberal dust (I
chose the hard place and learned to code).
There were a few comments under Lambert's original post from University of Chicago alumni.
I am one as well (BA Economics class of 1982). The College of the University of Chicago was
an incredible place in the late 1970s. There were fewer undergraduates than law school or MBA
students, fewer even than some large suburban high schools. In my final year I had classes
with fewer than a dozen students. It cost my parents and I very little (with financial aid
and low interest loans). I started off determined to get to law school or get an MBA, but I
was a student willing to be malleable, to be formed and produced by teachers who believed
that inquiry was self-justifying and who controlled a core curriculum that included Marx,
Freud, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Marcuse I don't know what's on the core curriculum these days. I
think they teach you how to code.
Perry Anderson has a long historical perspective on the UK going back to Atlee's Labour
government in the 1940s in a recent New Left Review. In a section on the vicissitudes of the
intelligentsia (if that's what it can even be called anymore after the Blair era), I was
struck solidly in the chest by this summary. In Blair's early years, Anderson writes:
"[In the Academy], hopes that [New Labour policies] would repair the damage left by the
Thatcher period were soon gone, as it became clear that, on the contrary, the new regime was
going not only to accept, but extend it, with still more far-reaching measures of managerial
control and marketization. By the end of the New Labour era, the universities had been
battered thrice over. First, with deep spending cuts and subjection of scholarship to crudely
quantified targeting of output under Thatcher; then by imposition of corporate management
systems, inflating bureaucracy at the expense of teaching and research; then by the
introduction of fees converting students into customers, and of public -- sc. market --
'impact' as a criterion of promotion and funding. No other country in the advanced capitalist
world saw a reduction of higher education to commercial logic so extreme. What was the
reaction? Within the academy, a single scholar, Stephan Collini, published two books of
eloquent protest, each well received; outside it, a single independent researcher, Andrew
McGettigan, produced two books dismantling the economics of the changes, each well
documented.* Neither to the smallest visible effect. The intelligentsia on the receiving end
of two decades of brutal neo-liberal assault lifted scarcely a finger of collective
resistance to it. Finally, after twenty-five years, when even its pensions were cut, token
strikes (absences of a fortnight at a time), bungled by the union, ignored the majority of
university teachers, and shutting down not a single campus, began in fits and starts in 2018,
petering out fruitlessly in 2020 -- all belated, all confined to narrowly economic issues,
none raising broader structural questions."
* Stafan Collini, What are Universities For? , London 2012, and Speaking of
Universities , London 2017; Andrew McGettigan, False Accounting , London 2012, and
The Great University Gamble , London 2013.
Why did I quit? It wasn't because of the transparent stupidity of inflating bureaucracy at
the expense of teaching and research, the transparent stupidity of treating students as
customers, the transparent stupidity of the 'employability' cross-curricular themes. And it
was not about the sycophants, the cowards, the dysfunctional union, and the complete absence
of organised pushback. The last straw was the 'impact' thing. I remember sitting in an
"impact case study session" looking an ass dean across the table in the eye while we were
literally being taught how to fudge and make shit up on our case studies, surrounded by young
lecturers earnestly taking notes. It felt like a hopeless, intellectually bankrupt place to
be.
We could start all over with mutual aid societies, as Lambert suggested, but we would need
to take over the libraries and the labs first.
Given how all the factories that weren't shipped to China were sold pennies on the dollar,
I'm sure you could get the library and labs cheap, as long as someone's bonus was tied to
it.
I was going to set this as a reply to Alexandra
, but then it seemed a good response to JWP just below, Edward, and more up top. So yes,
Alexandra, the universities and other educational institutions are working as intended, at
least since 1971. That was the year that Lewis Powell wrote this memorandum (text courtesy of
his alma mater, Washington and Lee University) at the request of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor
Jr., who was education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, the original Big Business
lobby. The program was accepted and carried out, funded by old-money tycoons like Richard
Mellon Scaife and the cough-drop Smiths, as well as those johnny-come-lately oligarchs, the
Kochs. They founded and funded business-oriented think tanks, speakers bureaus (available to
college campuses and the 'rubber-chicken' circuit of Rotary, Lions, and other small-town
service clubs, or really. They starteded magazines and, eventually, ALEC -- yes, that
ALEC .
I was going to set this as a reply to Alexandra
, but then it seemed a good response to JWP just below, Edward, and more up top. So yes,
Alexandra, the universities and other educational institutions are working as intended, at
least since 1971. That was the year that Lewis Powell wrote this memorandum (text courtesy of
his alma mater, Washington and Lee University) at the request of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor
Jr., who was education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, the original Big Business
lobby. The program was accepted and carried out, funded by old-money tycoons like Richard
Mellon Scaife and the cough-drop Smiths, as well as those johnny-come-lately oligarchs, the
Kochs. They founded and funded business-oriented think tanks, speakers bureaus (available to
college campuses and the 'rubber-chicken' circuit of Rotary, Lions, and other small-town
service clubs, or really any group. They started magazines and, eventually, ALEC -- yes,
that
ALEC .
First i want to thank YVes for the ability for me to run my mouth freely about the
following:
In my mid 20s i quit my full time job to go back to college and finish my accounting
degree, as that was supposedly better than a factory job with retirement. I wasn't totally
blinded by teenage optimism. This is a big ten school. The professors all went on and on
about the starting pay, and not to be tempted by leaving a firm too soon chasing that even
bigger money. They laughed it off like everyone had such opportunity. They brought in former
students to talk about this. Then when it came to the material, professors constantly waved
off further lecture and questions about several topics, stating "you will learn that once you
get working in a firm". Then when testing time came, the tests were overly complex and
detailed. Materials were reviewed beforehand. But testing, like the grading, is being based
on a curve. So while i was getting Cs & Ds on tests, i would end the class with a 3.0-3.5
final grade. I feel they were whittling us out to get only the smartest (maybe not fastest,
but quickest to adapt) students, while not really teaching everyone in the class. Heck it was
really a ranking for their benefactors, the top 4 firms. (Funny story, Arthur Anderson's name
was everywhere one year. Then the next year it disappeared). Most professors were former
employees who still maintained their connections in the firm.
I went there to get a great education from a top business school. But my intentions were
never to go work at the Top 4 and spend half my time living in one town, while traveling the
country the rest of the time.
I can only imagine what it's like now. I was attending in 2003-2006. Half my accounting
professors were former alumni that had been teaching there for decades. Then the other ones
were younger persons who spent the majority of their time doing research.
Institute for College Access & Success (Ticas) has just released its
annual report on what college graduates owe in student debt . The latest: 62 percent of
college seniors who graduated from public and private nonprofit colleges in 2019 had
student-loan debt averaging $28,950, slightly lower than the previous year. Still, the rise in
graduates' student-debt burden has far outpaced inflation over the 15 years Ticas has been
tracking it.
Fall enrollment has
plunged , some colleges are shuttering operations, revenues across the entire higher
education industry are collapsing, and the shift from physical to virtual education due to the
virus pandemic could prick the next bubble: the student housing debt market.
Our warning about the coming implosion of the higher education industry (see here
from 2014) , as a whole, has become louder and louder over the last six-plus years as the
student debt bubble has recently swelled to more than $1.6 trillion. Years ago, no one at the
time, could've forecasted a virus pandemic would doom colleges and universities.
Credit rating agency Moody's recently downgraded the entire higher education sector to
negative from stable, and the American Council on Education estimates colleges and universities
will experience a $23 billion decline in revenues over the next academic year.
Bloomberg outlines the increase of virtual education in a virus pandemic has resulted in an
abundance of empty dorms at colleges and universities, creating a $14 billion headache for the
student housing debt market.
"West Virginia State University, already hit with a 10% enrollment drop, plans to give
money to a school foundation so it can meet its bond covenants for residence hall debt. A
community college in Ohio is using part of a $1.5 million donation for a financially-strapped
student housing project. And officials at New Jersey City University, which serves largely
first-generation and lower-income students and has recorded years of deficits, are prepared
to shore up a dorm there," Bloomberg said.
The squeeze on university finances comes as the National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center
warned about a 16% drop in first-year undergraduate students enrolled for the fall
semester. This means new revenue streams are quickly drying up for overleveraged colleges and
universities.
"The limiting factor is some of these schools themselves are facing uncertainty with many
of their revenue streams," S&P Global Ratings analyst Amber Schafer said in an interview.
"It's a matter of not only willingness, but if they're able to support the project."
"Typically, privatized student housing debt is paid off by the revenue generated by the
dorms -- meaning there's little recourse for bondholders if things go south," Bloomberg said.
With occupancy rates already declining as coronavirus cases are surging, well, this could be
bad news for colleges and universities heading into 2021.
"Borrowers have begun revealing how empty residence halls are as the pandemic spurs many
campuses to keep classes online. According to the school foundation that sold the debt, West
Virginia State University's dorm is 71% full, putting it about 20 percentage points from
where it needs to be to satisfy debt covenants. Other privatized student housing projects,
like two on Howard University's campus, are virtually empty due to online-only instruction
there," Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg warns: "Privatized dorms are struggling the most given that they weren't
structured to withstand 20% to 30% drops in occupancy -- or no students at all."
"West Virginia State University may have to step in to help student housing bonds at risk
of violating a debt service coverage ratio, Moody's warned this month. The historically-black
college faces "considerable" challenges in backstopping the bonds, Moody's said.
The nearly 290-bed residence hall with rents of $3,881 per semester was just 71% occupied
this fall, while it needed to be about 92% occupied, said Patricia Schumann, president of the
university foundation that sold the debt. Schumann said the university is projected to
provide a $75,000 payment in January. In the meantime, she said the school was working to
bolster its financial position and boost recruitment and donations.
"We're not standing still," she said.
Ohio's Terra State Community College, which has more than 2,100 students, was downgraded
deeper into junk over the risk posed by a dorm owned by a nonprofit, given that the school
"appears to provide an unconditional guarantee" to meet the debt obligations, Moody's said.
The project was financed through a bank note.
The dorm's occupancy fell to 62%, and the college is using a previously-received donation
to cover a shortfall in project revenue amounting between $500,000 to $600,000, the ratings
company said in a report this month.
At New Jersey City University, a student housing project financed though a separate entity
will likely miss a required debt service coverage ratio. The public school having to step in
to help the bonds would be a challenge, but a surmountable one, said Jodi Bailey, the
university's associate vice president for student affairs. The student housing bonds aren't a
debt of the university, so the school would be choosing to provide financial support,
according to bond documents .
The school is working to cut expenses related to the dorm. "Is it a harder year? Most
definitely," she said.
The student housing bonds, issued by West Campus Housing LLC in 2015, were
slashed deeper into junk in September by S&P, which said in a report that residence halls'
occupancy there had fallen to 56% so the school could accommodate social-distancing
guidelines," said Bloomberg.
To summarize, plunging enrollments, resulting in falling occupancy rates for dorms, is a
debt bomb waiting to go off for many overleveraged colleges and universities that are panicking
at the moment to divert enough funds to service debts, as the usual revenue streams, that being
rent checks from students, are nowhere to be found as virtual learning keeps young adults in
their parents' basements and out of dorms.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If occupancy rates continue to slide through 2021, then we must revisit what we said months
before the virus pandemic began in the US:
The rich understand that capitalism is a game of musical chairs. It's systemic class warfare
conducted on a grand scale to discourage solidarity across lines that might otherwise threaten
the system, and with each market re-set arranged by the Federal Reserve, more of the country's
resources fall into wealthy hands.
Examining what happens when a society favors old money over new and breaks all the rules to
make the world safe for finance, author Jeanne Haskin predicts increasing volatility and
violence in the United States if we do not significantly change course.
For a preview of what lies ahead for the U.S., the author takes us for a quick exemplary
trip through Central America.
A society that is reared on competition will face unsettling
challenges to authority if it doesn't set certain functions outside the arena of battle, via
systematic enrichment of the affluent minority that has always had the power to topple and ruin
the system.
Today's preoccupation with America's revolutionary history is not just a piece of theater.
At the heart of America's outrage is an inability to lash out and demand redemption from the
source of its distress because the pain is inflicted, not by hatred, but by the fundamental
lack of stability built into our way of life.
Now that a fifth of the population is suffering job loss, foreclosures, or exclusion from
employment due to prejudice, poor credit, a lack of skills or education, a glut of competition
and insufficient opportunity, the failure to provide for the helpless majority means the system
is at an impasse. Because the system can't or won't perform, the Tea Party's rise was
preemptive with all its implied violence and 'real' American theater as the means to channel
our anger into voting out Obama so reform can proceed unimpeded...with all its inherent
dangers.
After reviewing some foreign examples that erupted in the environments of colonialism and
post-colonialism, neoliberalism, militarism and oligarchies, the author filters through the
head-spinning social and political noise that stands in for responsible debate in America
today. Ms. Haskin's richly documented essay sees a bonfire prepared as social tensions are
increased and inter-group pressures are encouraged to mount. So much for "One nation..."
Title Pagev
Table of Contentsxi
Introduction1
Chapter One- Unearthing the Bones7
Chapter Two- Instilling the Illusion of Choice19
Chapter Three- Political Strategizing23
Chapter Four- Behavioral Economics27
Chapter Five- Favoring Old Money over New33
Chapter Six- Making the World Safe for Finance39
Chapter Seven- The Colonial History of Belize51
Chapter Eight- Belize -- Party Politics and Debt65
Chapter Nine- Belize -- Recommendations of the IMF83
Chapter Ten- Nicaragua 1522–193991
Chapter Eleven- Nicaragua -- The Somoza Dynasty107
Chapter Twelve- Nicaragua -- Opposition to the Sandinistas119
Chapter Thirteen- Nicaragua -- Implementing Neoliberalism133
Chapter Fourteen- El Salvador -- The Military and the Oligarchy151
Chapter Fifteen- El Salvador -- The War and Its Aftermath165
Chapter Sixteen- Honduras -- Land of Instability179
Chapter Seventeen- Honduras -- The Impact of the Contras191
Chapter Eighteen- Fast-Forward to a Volatile USA205
Bibliography227
Index25
Harvard and Yale are set to respond this week to a series of legal challenges accusing them
of racial bias against Asian and White applicants during the admissions process, according to
Bloomberg .
The universities will respond to two of those challenges to 'race-conscious admissions,'
while two more make their way through the legal system against other universities. The
controversy could make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled over 40 years ago in
its Bakke decision that race is a valid factor in creating a diverse student body.
While the decision has been reaffirmed over the years, it's possible that the 'conservative'
majority Supreme Court will strike Bakke down .
"Sandra Day O'Connor basically opined that we could have another 20 years or 25 years of
affirmative action programs, but that they would not go on forever," said conservative Linda
Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity. " And yet we do see them going on forever
," she added.
O'Connor speculated in 2003 that the race-based consideration wouldn't go on 'forever.'
17-years later, it's still happening.
" We're now talking about kids who are getting into college on the basis of some racial or
ethnic preference who are the grandchildren of people who first got those preferences. "
The Justice Department has
threatened to sue Yale unless it agrees to stop considering race . " Unlawfully dividing
Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division ," the
government wrote to the university in August. Yale, which has
vowed to "vigorously defend" a process "endorsed repeatedly by the Supreme Court," is due
to respond this week.
On Wednesday, Harvard goes before a federal appeals court
over a case that it engages in "racial balancing" by holding Asian-American applicants to a
higher standard than other minority groups. Harvard denies discriminating and won the case in
federal district court last fall. -
Bloomberg
The Harvard suit and two other pending lawsuitsagainst the University of North Carolin and
the University of Texas were brought by activist Edward Blum - a longtime foe of affirmative
action and founder of Students for Fair Admissions. The Justice Department filed in the Harvard
case in support of the group , claiming that the school's admissions process is " infected with
racial bias ."
Making a review by the Supreme Court even more likely is that there are now four challenges
in four states against both public and private universities, meaning that conflicting rulings
from different appeals courts would call for the higher court's opinion.
"That's what they want," said Audrey Anderson, former general counsel at Vanderbilt
University. "They want it to go to the Supreme Court because the justices who upheld
affirmative action are not on the court anymore."
Amid the flurry of court papers, a July study by the Education Trust , which advocates for
educational opportunities for disadvantaged students, found that African Americans and
Latinos continue to be underrepresented at 101 of the country's top public universities and
that their representation has even regressed in many instances over the past two decades.
"I know that there's folks who are against affirmative action, of all backgrounds," who
believe "that we are there, and it's not needed, and maybe there's even some
over-representation or over-emphasis on race that we need to correct for," said Tiffany Jones , senior director
of education policy at the Trust. That perception, she said, "is contradicted by the data and
the research and the information about who has access to higher education." -
Bloomberg
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Last year, US District Judge Allison Burroughs found that Harvard didn't set quotas or give
undue consideration to race when reviewing applicants, and instead weighed race as one of over
200 factors which includes socioeconomic background, areas of study and letters of
recommendation, according to the report.
Blum, on the other hand, says that the evidence in the Harvard case "compellingly proved
Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants," and that "We assert the
district court erred in its analysis of this evidence and, surprisingly, virtually ignored
Harvard's own internal studies" that he says showed bias.
student life is reduced to a pixilated screen and the college experience is stripped of its
self-realizations and rites of passage...
The question now is whether and to what extent those changes will persist beyond the current
crisis.
Will this mass experiment with online education turn more students on to lower-cost online
degrees, or will it only make the in-person experience of college life seem all the more
valuable?
The pandemic is a monkey wrench dropped into the middle of our cobbled-together
public-private higher-education machine, freezing it up and, just possibly, breaking it.
Financially, colleges need to be open. Their operating budgets depend on tuition revenue,
and schools need students on campus to be spending money in the bookstore or the dining hall or
on sporting events. So there are a few different scenarios floating around right now for fall
instruction. One is a hybrid of virtual and in person. This seems to be the most popular
scenario, where colleges have larger classes being virtual and smaller classes in person in
large spaces where they can better socially distance. We heard of a college considering turning
an on-campus ballroom into a large classroom where students can be better spread out. They're
also looking at adjusting the residential model. Dorms are pretty small, and they're densely
populated. We've heard of schools that are considering buying up local hotels or even casino
spaces in order to give students single rooms so they can better spread out.
(27) In another televised beauty pageant, a high school girl was asked to explain a quote
by Confucius. In response, she said: "Confucius was one of the men who invented
confusion."
(29) An article in Forbes magazine stated that "America's Millennials Are Among the
World's Least Skilled". Specifically, they are short on literacy, numeracy, ability to follow
simple orders, poor at solving problems.
Free speech is not a dimmer switch, its on or its off – you can’t have it both ways. Cancel culture is a reincarnation of
Stalinist purges, or McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large, and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters. ..."
"... the government severely punishes employers whose employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers. ..."
"... The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" ..."
"... Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview included an inaccurate claim from Peake ( based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants. ..."
"... Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over, ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. ..."
"... The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely clear-cut in real-world instances ..."
"... This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by example. ..."
"... These concepts are capable of apparently endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power. ..."
"... Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career ..."
"... it is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right. ..."
"... Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority, hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. ..."
"... As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an apparently racist epithet. ..."
"... It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to render a region ungovernable. ..."
"... The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell, the more you'll need. ..."
"... Whether justified or not, a significant minority of Americans, across multiple lines, are fearful that their political opinions could endanger their jobs; this suggests the problem might be more than just people getting "bent-out-of-shape that they can't be raging bigots" . ..."
"... Purveyors of what-aboutery will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples. ..."
"... My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is 1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2) They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to face criticism as a consequence of their role. ..."
"... In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances (e.g., a lost war) ..."
"... Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past history, and is starting to infect others around him. ..."
"... As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes infected with political cultism. ..."
"... Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened, ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak. ..."
Racism from my perspective, looks like an unwillingness to evaluate people on an
individual basis, whether it's from sloth, contempt or disability and it's a terrible look
for an intellectual.
JQ @ 1: The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other
contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large,
and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters.
I know of a
case where a famous chip designer got up at a conference and said "none of you people talking
about Itanium [Intel's ia64 chip that was the future of microprocessors once upon a time]
actually think it's going to succeed -- why don't any of you admit it?"
Within moments he was
covered in PR and lawyers basically taping his mouth shut. When I worked in global enterprise
IT, I didn't post blog comments (neither political nor technical) b/c it was clear that
there would always be the possibility of career repercussions for making statements that
would have post-hoc repercussions
Companies censor their employees speech before-and-after-the-fact for lots of reasons,
sometimes political. This is a fact of life, and you're very right to point out that if
people actually cared about this [as opposed to getting bent-out-of-shape that they can't be
raging bigots] they'd support strong unions.
This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will.
Employment at will may contribute, but a larger part of the problem is that the US laws
around free speech are odd. Technically, the government cannot regulate speech at all (with
very limited exceptions, not relevant here.) In practice, though, what has happened (via
so-called "antidiscrimination" law) is that the government severely punishes employers whose
employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together
here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers.
The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline
right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular
approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" means that it is severely punished by government, at second-hand.
One thing that might be useful is distinguishing "cancel culture" as a phenomenon from
cancellation more narrowly defined as a tactic . So many of the discussions I've seen
recently about the issue seem content to operate at the big-picture level, asking whether
such a thing as cancel culture even exists (the New Statesman approach) or (if it
does) whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Focussing in on actual cases, and thinking
about who (precisely) benefits from individual instances, might instead help us think about
the specific function of cancel culture, and the role that language plays in it.
Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a
tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent
Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview
included an inaccurate claim from Peake (
based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake
subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on
George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants.
Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over,
ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. This, to me, is a fairly clear instance of
cancellation at work, but it would be inadequate to leave it at that. The complete lack of
commensurability between the transgression and the outcome would be incomprehensible without
asking how RLB's cancellation fits into Labour Party politics; that is, the function of
cancelling in this specific instance. Absolutely no one I know thinks this tweet proved
Long-Bailey was genuinely antisemitic, or that it was even the primary reason she was
demoted. Instead, it's been broadly (and, I think, correctly) interpreted as a signal from
the Starmer wing of the party that the Corbyn faction with which RLB is aligned has no future
in Labour. Cancellation, in this case, is a naked piece of power politics: a way of getting
political opponents out of the way.
The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling
listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely
clear-cut in real-world instances. In fact, there's a kind of homeopathic logic at work,
where the more tendentious the attribution is, the more cut-through it often seems to have.
This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to
demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by
example. ("If RLB got cancelled for this , then how little would I need to do
to suffer the same fate?") As Jonathan Dollimore has pointed out, there's a certain in-built
"linguistic imprecision" in many of the terms that cancellation depends on, and it's from
that imprecision that the capacity for intimidation or fear generation stems from.
These
concepts are capable of apparently
endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or
diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power.
Anon For Obvious Reasons 07.30.20 at 5:31 pm (
23 )
I find this deliberately misleading. "Cancel culture" in practice refers to the idea that
you shouldn't be ostracized by your peers, friends, or professional field for holding and
voicing ideas that are essentially mainstream.
Everyone thinks that if you insult someone with a racial slur, there should be
consequences.
But after that, what should be the proper "bound" that discourse should not cross? I would
argue that "any idea which can be studied rigorously" and "any idea held by a reasonably
broad cross section of society" is clearly within the bound, and we do ourselves a huge
disservice by refusing to countenance ideas in those sets. Further, as a commenter above
notes, most people in the world are not left-wing activists. Setting the norm that you
shouldn't be friends with/work with/hire/buy from people with ideas you find acceptable, but
which are not extreme, will be and has been a disaster for gay people, atheists, and many
others.
Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there
are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of
their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career. The Shor example comes up
because, as Matt Yglesias pointed out yesterday, it is so obviously ridiculous to lose your
job for linking to a paper in APSR by a prominent (young, black) political scientist, and yet
there really are many people in that world, progressive political campaigns, who would
refuse to work with you if you hired Shor . It wasn't just his boss or "workplace
protections" – he was kicked out of the listserv that is the main vector for finding
jobs in that sphere, and his new employer remains anonymous on purpose!
And yes, this is not just a lefty thing. I'm sure that right-wing media sites, and church
groups, and the rest all have similar cases. Trump clearly "canceled" Kaepernick, with the
NFL's help. Yet we all agree that is bad! And in the sphere many of us are in, academia, it
is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right.
Trader Joe 07.30.20 at 2:17 pm @ 17 -- Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist
are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority,
hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. Obviously there is little expression which may
not have adverse consequences.
As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the
inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting
is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an
apparently racist epithet.
This didn't start yesterday. There is a certain spillover into popcult as students emerge from academia into the outer, also declining world and repeat the
patterns which they have observed. Numerous stories are available, but I'll spare you. Anyway,
Mr. Taibbi has been ranting well, and you can go there.
Surprising to see so little emphasis on social media as the main catalyst. Tribalism is
the driver of "engagement" online, and if righteous anger at the out-group gets the clicks,
so be it. Consider how any Twitter post can become a tiny gleaming tableau, a battle flag, an
allegory of sin or virtue. Context and interpretation cannot be arbiters, and must only serve
the self-evident cause of loyalty to one's synthetic tribe. Faith and bad faith merge; that's
just optimal use of an app's system of influence. "We shape our tools and then our tools
shape us".
It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the
technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to
render a region ungovernable. This does not imply that the region's current government is a
good one. It does not imply anything about the group's views, except that debating them is
not likely to be on the agenda when they visit your village. There will no doubt be some
unpleasant people among the casualties; perhaps that counts as a silver lining.
The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell,
the more you'll need.
"But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the
issue is raised " here is one attempt to tabulate
cancellations, at least on the left identitarian side; I am not endorsing any particular
example. (NB: Sophie Jane in this case, not Sophie Grace.)
I would be curious about whether Henry approves of the
suppression of speech as much as the OP does.
Purveyors of what-aboutery
will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a
living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even
Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples.
There have been occasions in my life when I have justly and rightly experienced adverse
consequences as a result of things that I have said. The proposition that nobody should ever
experience adverse consequences as a result of statements made is utterly indefensible.
Discussions over "cancellation" can make things unnecessarily difficult because it's a
very hard term to define- exactly how badly does your public reputation have to be before you
are cancelled. All too often debates turn into "well so and so wasn't cancelled because they
still have a job/they still have a platform/they're still living their life." (Although your
post does avoid this by describing it in terms of an attempt instead of outcome) So to avoid
ambiguities that attend "cancellation", I prefer "opprobrium"
My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is
1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2)
They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive
should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules
somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to
face criticism as a consequence of their role.
I support this anti-opprobrium position because being shamed publicly is extremely
painful. I would rather lose a limb than be widely publicly shamed and reviled, and I think a
lot of people feel the same way, so, by the golden rule and all of that
In terms of the position you outline it seems to me that we're going to agree on a lot of
issues. Pre-meditated use of racial slurs, for example. But I think there are a lot of
instances of cancel culture that we won't agree on.
Here's some people I think have been unfairly subject to vast amounts of pubic opprobrium
that some people would call cancel culture:
The p**nstar ( I won't spell it out because I'm at work) who killed herself in part
because of the criticism she received when tweeted out (homophobically) that she didn't want
to work actors who had done gay male scenes. While criticism would have been appropriate, the
torrent of backlash she received was disproportionate.
The woman who went to the Washington Post's cartoonist party in blackface in a very
misguided but not malicious attempt to satirize blackface and subsequently lost her job when
the Washington post named her in their paper. Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints – for many different things.
Glenn Greenwald over the age difference between him and his partner
Now I'm picking cases of opprobrium that came from the left broadly construed, because I
think of this as an internal conversation on the left. However, one thing that frustrates me
about this debate is that no one is acknowledging that the right are masters of excessive
opprobrium. Some examples:
Steven Salaita
Diane Abbott
Norman Finklestein
Matthew Bruenig
But maybe my position amounts to a silly apolitical wish that people would be nice to each
other, unless there's a very, very good reason not to.
Chris: An interesting case can be made in favor of cancel culture if we start thinking of
most political cults including communism, fascism, maga-Trumpism and other types of fake
populism as pandemics.
For starters, there is the testing. A positive test result is indicated by
(a) the talking
points or analysis are exclusionary toward one or more social groups that are being "othered"
based on any common aspect other than political actions that are unethical by some
well-defined criterion; the extent indicates the severity of the symptoms, and
(b) the
speaker or commenter is repeating someone else's talking points or writing rather than their
own attempts to understand the issue; the extent indicates the degree of infectiousness.
In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social
defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the
political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the
immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances
(e.g., a lost war).
Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of
boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of
influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the
infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past
history, and is starting to infect others around him.
I am not in complete agreement with the above political cults-as-pandemics theory, but it
has some compelling aspects in exceptional situations. Normally, the
political-economic-cultural discourse is sufficiently healthy that the standard "cure for bad
speech is more good speech" response is sufficient. Commenters above such as Peter Dorman are
assuming that the "body politic" has a healthy and undisrupted immune system, but I would
argue that is far from being the case right now; the U.S. is afflicted by oligarchic
politics, highly unequal and quasi-feudal economics that make appeals to the free market
laughable, and by standard of living deterioration in a large number of inner urban areas as
well as mid-tier and small cities. So the patient is immuno-compromised and additional
interventions are called for.
As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only
cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of
right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to
war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in
the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes
infected with political cultism.
The important thing is to know when to apply cancel culture
(and other resistance measures including mass disobedience) to left-wing movements that are
"infected". Post-1989 Eastern Europe is a good example, though now it is right-wing pandemics
that are taking hold. That is, cancel culture is not just for Lost Cause racism and
proto-fascism, but for all political movements that cross the border into cultism and
"othering".
Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as
an affront.
I don't think this is fair. As EB says @22:
The (wealthy, high profile) signers of the Harper's letter were not complaining on their
own behalf; they were complaining on behalf of the millions of people with no power or
money who are also threatened with mobbing if they voice divergent (not racist, not
transphobic, not misogyist) views.
JK Rowling is pretty hard to cancel; she has a mountain of cash, and her books are still
selling. But people who don't have a mountain of cash are going to look at examples like
children's author Gillian Philip, who appears to have been "let go" by her publisher after
being targetted by a cancellation campaign for tweeting "#ISTANDWITHROWLING", and think very
carefully about whether they can afford to stick their head over the parapet. Personally,
I've made a number of comments on Crooked Timber which I don't think were at all outside the
bounds of acceptable discourse – certainly not in the same category as the racist
speech you refer to (and at least one moderator must have agreed, because they were posted)
– but which I simply couldn't risk making without a pseudonym.
I often detect a bit of motte-and-bailey in the anti-anti-cancel culture argument. The
outer bailey is something like "cancel culture isn't the problem it's made out to be; it's
just how norms of acceptable behaviour are worked out these days"; the motte is "it's okay to
deplatform hardcore racists and holocaust deniers".
Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened,
ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in
translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient
conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak.
Often this is done with the assistance of the false-flag social media "activist" accounts
that right-wing agitators use to pick away at fault lines on the left.
Even when there are no serious real-world consequences this tends to create a narrow,
stifling intellectual environment, which is what a large part of the opposition to "cancel
culture" is trying to prevent. You do realise, don't you, that Crooked Timber's willingness
to acknowledge heterodox views, on certain subjects, from the broad left puts it radically
out of step with most of the "progressive" Western Internet?
(There are other parts where cancel-culture tactics are used against different targets,
such as apostates and feminists in general (not just the wrong kind of feminists), which
hopefully we can all agree is not good.)
Basically, I don't think it's an adequate response to critique of cancel-culture to pick
out the cases where relatively mild tactics were used against acceptable targets, without
acknowledging that the critique is much broader than that.
Where will America's productivity miracle come from?
Public education is not teaching students what they need to know to compete in the global
economy.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, math scores of U.S. students rank
30th in the world. The East Asian peers of today's American students will eat their lunch in
the growth industries of tomorrow.
Here's where Black Lives Matter has a real opportunity.
The protests. The riots. The calls for reparation payments. Social justice wealth transfers.
White privilege taxes. All the nonsense. Where's the strategy? Where's the long-range
'strategery'?
No doubt, those selling BLM T-shirts in Walmart parking lots are exercising gumption. But
it's not gonna cut it. Moreover, like bingo winnings, reparation payments will be quickly
squandered while the unhappiness remains.
And as far as we can tell the BLM movement is empty of ideas and without
direction.
lay_arrow
chubbar , 14 minutes ago
"If BLM was strategic"?????? Holy ****, if they were strategic they'd be making damn sure
that testing, like SAT scores, were no longer accepted as proof of accomplishment or
learning. Oh, wait?.......
Let's all agree, blacks don't want a "head to head" test, EVER.
I don't give a crap what they say, they don't want to be judged on MERIT, they love the
skin color test. That way they can always claim racism instead of ability.
libtears , 40 minutes ago
The BLM Movement is definitely empty of ideas and clear leadership. Their supposed goals
are all over the map from day to day. They are rudderless mobs of filthy vagrants and
criminal elements make up most of their movement.
What's going on which is credited to BLM has nothing to do with black people for the most
part. Commies have co-opted this movement and are engaging in anarchy to take down the system
of government. They will do whatever they want at all costs because they believe they have
the moral high ground. They are radicals just like people call them.
The best thing that could happen is for these loser mayors and governors to enforce the
law against these mobs of filthy scum.
How can you even reason with a mob of idiots that don't even have one, if not a hierarchy
of leadership and clear goals that they agree upon?
These people are taking a page out of the Bolshevik book on revolution. And they're much
weaker than the Bolsheviks, mentally and physically. One good thump on the head and these
b!tches are crying.
The longer the public allows teaching institutions to promote BLM the worse this sh!t is
going to get.
...
JaxPavan , 42 minutes ago
The Ford Foundation gave BLM $100 million to engage in terrorism. Who do you think bought
all those ultra high end looting vehicles?
quanttech , 39 minutes ago
Indeed, the BLM organization is primarily funded by mostly white-run corporations and
foundations. The money rules.
HopefulCynical , 22 minutes ago
And WHO is in control of the Ford Foundtion? WHO?!
Meanwhile, great line from an infosec researcher and teacher here in San Francisco about
whether university classes will reopen:
Sam Bowne @sambowne Jul 26
Q: "When will this class be offered?" A: "Difficult to say, because there's a critical budget
crisis at the college, city, state, and national level, and most if not all the officials at
every level appear to be corrupt, incompetent, and insane."
There might be some extremely smart tradesmen, but exception does not justify the rule.
Colledge is a nessesary step for a smart people to mature and obtain a wider worldview as well as
some specific skills
Young male tradesmen I've met are the smartest of the bunch. Most of them have high test
scores and could easily go to college, but they see the writing on the wall. They,
rightfully, see no point in wasting 4 years of their life for a low paying office job in an
environment of outright discrimination. I know several kids that finished highchool in 3
years and are making real money at the age of 18 with no debt involved. They don't have to
worry about the system being stacked against them because none of the affirmative action
types want to do actual work anyway.
1. There is no "real money" -- this is all fiat currency and the gravy train is ending
very soon.
2. Trump supports H1B visas being extended to "essential trades". These young men will be
pushed out of these fields within 3-5 years by Indians and legalized aliens, DACA recpients,
etc. My colleagues at my university think tank who advise our Republican Senator on public
policy are advocating for explicitly this.
3. Unionized trade workers average between 84-97IQ nationally on the Stanford-Binet test.
They are the definition of "Low IQ", which is what I asserted they were.
It's hilarious hearing democrats say "no-one is above the law" as they cheat the system becoming multi millionaires via
insider trading and selling their influence.
Over these last few weeks Tucker has been one of the few people to stand up to the mob and refuses to give in. Tremendous
respect for people who refuse to give up their dignity.
Funny how the visa-free map from before the COVID-19 pandemic is roughly equal to the
extent of the American Empire itself.
And the loss of foreign students signifies much more than the mere loss of income for the
American universities: it also means the loss of grip over the provinces' regional
elites.
Most of the foreign students in the USA are sons and daughters of the regional elites.
They live the American way of life, get westernized, and go back to their countries (which
they will likely rule) with a liberal ideology ingrained in their minds. They are the rough
equivalent to what the hostage was during Antiquity. To lose 263,000 hostages in less than
one year would be a devastating blow to American diplomacy.
One commenter mentioned a brain drain in relation to foreign students no longer coming to
America but I guess the brain drain will occur when out of work professors start heading off
to other countries like China in search of work.
4.0 out of 5 stars
Mosquitoes,
Fever, and America
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2009
Verified Purchase
Over three generations ago Hans Zinsser wrote "Rats, Lice and History" telling the
story of lice and men (sorry) and the typhus Rickettsia.
He founded the literary genre marked by the examination of disease, history, and having tripartite titles; Recent
examples: Guns, Germs, and Steel; Viruses, Plagues, and History.
Though Ms. Crosby did not call her book "Mosquitoes, Fever, and America," "The American Plague" nicely continues the
tradition of this fascinating venue.
The subtitle (why must books so often have subtitles now?) claims this to be "The Untold Story of Yellow Fever, The
Epidemic That Shaped Our History", which is more than a bit of a reach - Especially, given the existence of the very
similarly themed and titled adolescent's book "An American Plague: The True and Terrifying Story of the Yellow Fever
Epidemic of 1793" (2003) by Jim Murphy (which, whatever your age, is also worth reading).
It is arguable that the subtitle means only to refer to the Memphis outbreak, but that single event did not "shape our
history," it was the repeated outbreaks of Yellow Jack beginning with those in the northeast ports in 1699 that truly
did change the history of all of North America. The subtitle is simply annoying marketing hyperbole - though such an
unfounded, untrue, claim did nearly make me put the book back on the shelf unopened. Which would have been a shame, as I
enjoyed the book greatly.
"(The) American Plague" details the impact of an outbreak of Yellow Fever (YF) in Memphis, Tennessee (the author's home)
in the year 1878, and follows with an in-depth examination of the subsequent discovery of the means of transmission,
prevention, vaccination, cause, and sad lack of cure for the disease.
This book also traces the origin of the disease, and reviews how it likely came to the Americas from its home in Africa
as a consequence of the slave trade. The occurrence of YF epidemics in Europe (perhaps even dating back to the mid
500's) is not discussed, which is forgivable given the focus of the book, though the fact that 300,000 people perished
from YF in Spain in the 1800's makes it clear that YF was (is) a scourge far beyond America's shores.
The author brings to life the horror and uncertainly of epidemic disease at the dawn of scientific medicine. She
recounts the difficulty of seeing the true nature of a disease though the conflicting overlay of current knowledge and
cultural belief (a current example: autism).
Further, she points to the mendacity of businessmen who may have, in their efforts to prevent disruption of commerce by
quarantine, allowed this outbreak to spread from New Orleans to Memphis in the first place. She briefly touches on the
ethics of human, of animal, and of self, experimentation. It is not a simple book, though it is clearly, if at times
unevenly, written.
Unlike most popular science books, she includes an extensive source bibliography that points to precisely where her
material has come from. This is a very welcome addition. Over all, this is a solidly written, well researched and
interesting book. I strongly recommend it.
I also strongly recommend that you consider that the World Health Organization estimates that YF still kills 30,000
people a year. Most of these deaths could be prevented by vaccination and by mosquito control. Over the past few years
Yellow Jack has been re-emerging and spreading in the western hemisphere. This spread is, as Ms. Crosby shows that to a
degree the Memphis epidemic was, a political failure marked by primacy of business interests and of underfunded and
inadequate public health measures.
"... This lady is sitting there lying trying to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going ..."
The bottom line is, they want to take away any problem solving skills that might build character, because someone might get
hurt! Victimhood culture run amuck.
Mathematics is the cornerstone of all forms of trade, communications, home economics and every other aspect of life. Truth
is they're dumbing everyone down to control populations!
I have Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and I'm 62-years old. I have never once cared about the history of mathematics,
other than a curiosity. Knowing the history of mathematics never helped me once to solve an ordinary second order differential
equation.
When a person lies while giving an interview they should be shocked or something. This lady is sitting there lying trying
to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going. She has
already lost the argument deflected and differed responsibility when confronted with the legitimacy of the paper.
Go exercise healthy body makes a healthy mind not the other way around.
"... I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to make any significant come-back. ..."
"... What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures on income. ..."
"... There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. ..."
"... More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$). ..."
"... the planet cannot comply with our economic model's dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US (and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will be less affordable to peoples outside of the US. ..."
"... I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading! ..."
"... All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back. ..."
"... Make no mistake, what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle," as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle ..."
"... We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going. ..."
I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to
make any significant come-back.
The world's economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something "productive,"
it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction. During times of contraction it's a game of acquisition rather
than expanding capacity: the sum total is STILL contraction; and the contraction WILL be a reduction in excess, excess manufacturing
and labor.
What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures
on income. China is self-sufficient (enough) other than energy (which can be acquired outside of US markets). Most every other
country is in a position of declining wealth (per capita income levels peaked and in decline). And manufacturing continues to
increase its automation (less workers means less consumers).
There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated
tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. One has to look at this in The Big Picture of what it means, and that's that
the US population is aging (and in poor health).
More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward
creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of
the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to
mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$).
Lastly, and it's the reason why global trade is being knocked down, is that the planet cannot comply with our economic model's
dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always
has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US
(and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will
be less affordable to peoples outside of the US.
And here too is the fact that other countries' populations are also aging. Years
ago I dove into the demographics angle/assessment to find out that ALL countries ramp and age and that you can see countries'
energy consumption rise and their their net trade balance swing negative- there's a direct correlation: go to the CIA's Factbook
and look at demographics and energy and the graphs tell the story.
I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic
curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find
electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading!
All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D
or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back.
MANY years ago I stated that we will one day face "economies of scale in reverse." We NEVER considered that growth couldn't
continue forever. There was never a though about what would happen with the reverse "of economies of scale."
Make no mistake,
what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle,"
as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle.
We will never be able to replicate the state of things
as they are. We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita
income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that
have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going.
Cue bono? Not black people (actually she is an Indian, which until recently was a caste
society). Is she a victim of "affirmative action" policy and occupies a position for which there
are more worthy academically candidates. University is not sinecure, at least it should not
be.
How good is she as an academic? Is she mentally stable?
The decision of Cambridge University to promote her after such an idiotic tweet creates
several additional questions.
Petition against Prof Priyamvada Gopal now off line. Additionally I noticed earlier today
that the comments given on the site voicing why they were signing had all been removed, but not
on other petitions. As of yesterday evening these comments were peaceful, and not personal,
just things like 'because it is racist' and 'do I even need to give a reason'?
The petition had nearly 25,000 signed supporters earlier today, and new signings were
flooding in at over 1/sec when I checked.
In addition in an affront to common decency the University/College promoted her whilst
they had stated earlier they were aware of the controversial nature of her tweets.
Her original tweet was deleted by Twitter as a breach of community guidelines. She also
reports that, in spite of senselessly provoking people at a delicate time with racist tweets,
that the extremely racist responses she got from some far right people was being looked at by
the Police.
All in all this establishes a systematic problem. Being deliberately vague means you cannot
use context as a defence, and the context of all her tweets shows some extreme patterns of
thinking against certain groups that casts very considerable doubts on the validity of such a
defense. Moreover, context hasn't been a defence when others have been prosecuted for far less.
Nobody, including Cambridge academics, should be above the law.
To those people that think that what she said was justified because she was trying to
defend BLM from supposed alternative movements, all she in fact did do was to achieve the
opposite of that.
If one wishes to convey complex ideas a teacher of English in her position *must know* that
this requires a long form medium to provide argumentation, and that Twitter is no such place to
do it due to its character count. But taking in all the other comments she has made, its very
clear the double standards and overall bias that really does amount to overt prejudice.
At the very least she is so contradictory, immature and incompetent as to make a mockery
of her college and for that reason at minimum, she should lose her job. I'm sorry to say that
as well.
But something about this whole episode feels like a jumping the shark moment. I don't think
this is going away all that easily.
Conservatives got #CancelYale trending on Twitter and targeted liberals like Hillary Clinton in their effort to troll the left,
calling for the Ivy League school to change its name because it's named after a slave trader .
I'd never ever been on the
campus, even though I only lived only two miles away. I went to that university out of ignorance. I
thought that wanting to study sociology was enough – I'd read a book about St Ann's, the part of
Nottingham where I lived, authored by two researchers who had worked at the university. The book was
called Poverty: The Forgotten Englishman and was based on research about poverty in Nottingham during
the 1960s. It was written the year I was born, and I recognised my community in it; I wanted to study
sociology, because I wanted to represent and fight for that community.
On that first day, two things happened. During the initial welcome speech, the vice chancellor
welcomed all of the students to Nottingham and told them to enjoy the city and the university, but
warned them that there were some areas of the town to avoid, that were not so welcoming –
"Don't
go to St Ann's,"
he said. Which, as it was where I lived and the reason why I was at the
university, was going to be more than a little difficult for me. I remember being devastated and not
feeling welcome at all.
Later that day, I sat in my first lecture. It was about women and work and the lecturer talked
about how choice for working class women was never a
"real choice"
and that the idea of
"choice"
meant different things to different groups of people. I sat there and a wave of relief
poured over me – not because I had learned something new, but because what I had suspected all of my
life was being validated: that surely my poor status in life couldn't entirely be my own fault.
I realised from that day forwards that we working class people – whether we are black, white, men,
women, transgender or no gender, Muslim, Christian or atheist – had something in common. Being
working class meant you were individually held responsible for what you think is your failure. I later
found out that the way the structure of our society is built is that working class people suffer
unfair disadvantages, while the middle class benefit from equally unfair advantages.
Twenty years on from that first day at university, I've learned so much more about how society is
structured and I have tried in any and every way to support other working class people to get into
university so they, too, can have that knowledge that it's not their fault.
However, along that long route from student to lecturer, from no qualifications to a PhD, I have
had some incredible experiences and students, but also some soul-destroying, awful experiences.
One university I worked at refused to let young working class people from my estate, who were part
of a community football club, use the university's sports' pitches as they were concerned they would
come back
"at night"
, presumably to rob, or steal or worse. I was heartbroken. I knew those
kids and felt so ashamed that I had thought that this would be ok, and they had been so excited about
going onto the posh, manicured football pitches.
Over the last twenty years, I have met and had emails and messages from hundreds of working class
students and lecturers who have thanked me for speaking about working class experience at university.
But they also told me their own harrowing stories, such as being asked about
"their poverty"
in seminars, about sitting in lectures as professors have accused their communities - the places where
they and their families live - as being dangerous/racist/stupid/violent/ignorant/criminal; take your
pick, it's all been said. The prejudices that working class students, workers or lecturers suffer at
these middle- and upper-class institutions are legion. And they only dare speak openly about it when
they are together.
When I think about all of these instances of symbolic violence, of being passed over, and of having
your work scrutinised in a way that I know is not done to the middle class in higher education... When
I think about the awful and depressing conversations I've had to have with working class students who
have sought me out to talk about how difficult it is to for them to sit in those lectures, to have
their accents constantly commented on, to be asked
"what school they went to"
, and who don't
understand the sly smirks and looks they get when they give the answer
When I think about those things I realise just how tired I am, and I have to ask myself: am I
really doing the right thing by encouraging other working class people to put themselves through this
toxic, anti-working class environment? I'm sad to conclude that I am probably not.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... State universities have a much larger enrollment (the California State system has 23 campuses with an average of 22K students each) and the elites have featherbedded the Ivies, so both will survive, even if the former have some belt-tightening. ..."
Professor/Administrator in California State University here. I'm on the campus team trying
to respond and thus reading everything current in Higher Ed on this. The conclusion is that
high end and low end will be OK, but private colleges in the middle are screwed.
Students go to college for four reasons:
a) signalling;
b) networking;
c) skills acquisition; and
d) parties
With instruction online, b) and d) disappear. The elite universities can coast because of
a) and endowments, the lower cost state universities like mine are seeing enrollment
*increase* because, in a recession, many students on the line about attending college choose
c) over unemployment. And as our tuition is only $7K ($12K for out-of-state/international),
plenty of the cash-strapped middle class will dial down to us.
But expensive, tuition-driven (eg little endowment) private colleges are going to be hit
very hard if they can't offer the whole traditional in-person experience. Most of these have
announced that they will be meeting in-person, but the unspoken assumption is that they are
lying to their prospective students, and will pull the football away at the last minute.
The media will dwell on "the death of higher education" at length, because these were the
colleges that many of them went to.
But the reality is that their share of the pie is relatively small. State universities
have a much larger enrollment (the California State system has 23 campuses with an average of
22K students each) and the elites have featherbedded the Ivies, so both will survive, even if
the former have some belt-tightening.
To label 'd' partying is unfair. D is being with their peers, building their first
independent relationships, falling in love.
Mine will be a soph in UC system, and is processing the announcement from the school
yesterday that only some students will have classes, the rest will be online. They all read
that to mean STEM majors will get the in person experience.
He and his friends are all deciding whether they will bother or take a term or two off --
because zoom school sucks. Or, as he put it, "why would we pay $20,000 for me to rent an
apartment in Santa Cruz and attend Phoenix University?" Universities may find students not
willing to waste resources on distance learning. Especially if there's no job at the end of the
rainbow.
BUT if he skips a term, what to do in that time? Jobs hard to come by and risky.
I feel for the kids. Unlike that family blogger Joe Biden.
Re small biz and recovery: my employer got some PPP money, although the impact has not hit
our magazine in a big way. Yet.
But we, like other business-niche publishers, made a good bit of money from conferences and
such live events. Partly, it's direct earnings, but there are other ways live events fueled our
biz. I believe Institutional Investor had basically ditched publishing for the conference
business. We hadnt gone that far (we weren't that good at it).
Also, the boss is drooling over the idea that he can ditch the monthly rent for our
manhattan offices. Our ship is so tight that I do not worry about getting laid off, only that
the entire enterprise could go under. So far that's not happening, but past performance
etc.
I'm not as certain as you are that big name unis will not suffer too. I think this is them
believing their own PR.
Harvard is already trying to get employees to take early retirement. And in a long
interview, Larry Summers went on in a long Business Insider interview about how universities
(clearly including Harvard) should close down entire operations that were losing money. He
advocated that Harvard should largely abandon live instruction and instead should become a
MOOC, since it could easily get 20 million students.
Another issue with all types of education is that lots of students, especially foreign students, depend very heavily on
restarats temp jobs and casual hospitality work.
4. Colleges will have a lot of trouble this fall . First, they are losing nearly all their
full-freight-paying Chinese students, between concern over US Covid-19 risks, Administration
hostility, and travel restrictions. That alone is a big blow.
On top of that, some are planning to reopen but MIT's announcement yesterday, that
it will not allow all students to return to campus, probably represents a new normal.
Well-placed MIT alumni read the university's decision as driven significantly by a desire to
protect faculty and staff; I hear from sources with contacts at other universities that
administrators that they see no way to put kids in dorms without running unacceptably high
Covid risks.
Remember, even though kids almost never die of Covid-19, but there is a risk of serious
damage. 1/2 the asymptomatic cases on the Diamond Princess now show abnormal lungs. And
remember those cruises have half the people on board as crew, and the crew skews young. College
is a lot less appealing if you don't stay in a dorm.
Just as diminished activity in central business districts has negative knock-on effects to
nearby business, so to do hollowed-out colleges and universities have for their communities,
as described in more depth in a recent Bloomberg story .
The coming college semester is a big question mark. The influx of students is entangled with real estate,
shopping and the biggest in my town, restaurants and bars. Not to mention the college sports season which
supported so many AirBnB's here.
They are starting the year early here (UNC Chapel Hill) and ending it early as well, on Thanksgiving! And
up to 1000 new students will be learning from home instead of coming to campus.
Big question mark -- MIT's president Reif yesterday noted that
"At least for the fall, we can only
bring some of our undergraduates back to campus."
and
"Everything that can be taught effectively
online will be taught online."
Courses are comparatively easy, but labs, research, and sports look doubtful if/when case counts start
marching up again.
The toxicity that Matt writes about isn't just due to Trump - it's due to the left
abandoning traditional liberal values in favor of political correctness and identity
politics. This new Red Guard of ideological purity is the natural - shocking - evolution of
that....
1984 -- The writer of Truth rewrites history to fit whatever they want. Read the book.
That's the news media today. A warning leftists: Stalin and Hitler controlled the media. It's
not TRUMP controlling the media. Or ignoring the truth. And it should scare the hell out of
every American.
Crazy times indeed. It is reminiscent of the Hollywood Terror. A tipping point will come
when enough people are sickened of their arbitrary and capricious cultural fascism.
Mr. Taibbi fires a warning shot to alert us that the "instinct (in the American media)
to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has been in
evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon." I would say not "since" -- that vile
instinct has merely been more in evidence. The media's fear and hatred for diversity of
opinion, for the freedom of speech, has doubtless worsened ...
Exclusive access to the elite universities is the key for reproducing the "new
aristocracy"
Notable quotes:
"... Meritocracy is supposed to function best when an insecure 'middle class' constantly strives to secure, preserve and augment their income, status and other privileges by maximizing returns to their exclusive education. But access to elite education – that enables a few of modest circumstances to climb the social ladder – waxes and wanes. ..."
"... Most middle class families cannot afford the privileged education that wealth can buy, while most ordinary, government financed and run schools have fallen further behind exclusive elite schools, including some funded with public money. In recent decades, the resources gap between better and poorer public schools has also been growing. ..."
"... Elite universities and private schools still provide training and socialization, mainly to children of the wealthy, privileged and connected. Huge endowments, obscure admissions policies and tax exemption allow elite US private universities to spend much more than publicly funded institutions. ..."
"... technological and social changes have transformed the labour force and economies greatly increasing economic returns to the cognitive, ascriptive and other attributes as well as credentials of 'the best' institutions, especially universities and professional guilds, which effectively remain exclusive and elitist. ..."
"... Welcome to cosmetic meritocracy to go along with your cosmetic democracy. And in America, you can have as much of either you can afford to buy ..."
"... I think several high cost colleges like U.C.Berkeley are replacing the SAT and ACT tests with the important Bank Balance test. (joke!) ..."
"... School maybe, but then admission to University was absolutely done on merit. at least where I grew up, in Romania, the admissions were based on multiple written exams, were completely anonymized, and there were two independent markers. If the grading of the two markers diverged by more than one point, another one was brought to check. ..."
"... I would argue that a real education is one that liberates the student to become a free citizen, to become someone who can think for herself or himself. ..."
Yves
here. Meritocracy is a pet topic, or perhaps more accurately, a pet peeve. This 2007 Conference
Board Review article explains why meritocracy is unattainable , so the whole
idea was always problematic.
Chinese mandarins, who won their positions via performance on the imperial examination, are
an early, if not the first, example of a meritocratic system. Napoleon standardized education
throughout France with the explicit goal of making it possible for poor but bright boys to be
identified and further schooled to become bureaucrats.
This article includes issues regularly discussed in comments, such as how higher education
has come to be mainly about credentialing. It provides a high-level, accessible discussion of
how whatever value the idea of meritocracy had in theory, it has become perverted in
practice.
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, who was United Nations Assistant
Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the Wassily Leontief Prize for
Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. Originally published at the Inter Press
Service
How often have you heard someone lamenting or even condemning inequality in society,
concluding with an appeal to meritocracy? We like to think that if only the deserving, the
smart ones, those we deem competent or capable, often meaning the ones who are more like us,
were in charge, things would be better, or just fine.
Meritocracy's Appeal
Since the 1960s, many institutions, the world over, have embraced the notion of meritocracy.
With post-Cold War neoliberal ideologies enabling growing wealth concentration, the rich, the
privileged and their apologists invoke variants of 'meritocracy' to legitimize economic
inequality.
Instead, corporations and other social institutions, which used to be run by hereditary
elites, increasingly recruit and promote on the bases of qualifications, ability, competence
and performance. Meritocracy is thus supposed to democratize and level society.
Ironically, British sociologist Michael Young pejoratively coined the term meritocracy in
his 1958 dystopian satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy. With his intended criticism rejected as
no longer relevant, the term is now used in the English language without the negative
connotations Young intended.
It has been uncritically embraced by supporters of a social philosophy of meritocracy in
which influence is supposedly distributed according to the intellectual ability and achievement
of individuals.
Many appreciate meritocracy's two core virtues. First, the meritocratic elite is presumed to
be more capable and effective as their status, income and wealth are due to their ability,
rather than their family connections.
Second, 'opening up' the elite supposedly on the bases of individual capacities and
capabilities is believed to be consistent with and complementary to 'fair competition'. They
may claim the moral high ground by invoking 'equality of opportunity', but are usually careful
to stress that 'equality of outcome' is to be eschewed at all cost.
As Yale Law School Professor Daniel Markovits argues in The Meritocracy Trap, unlike the
hereditary elites preceding them, meritocratic elites must often work long and hard, e.g., in
medicine, finance or consulting, to enhance their own privileges, and to pass them on to their
children, siblings and other close relatives, friends and allies.
Gaming Meritocracy
Meritocracy is supposed to function best when an insecure 'middle class' constantly strives
to secure, preserve and augment their income, status and other privileges by maximizing returns
to their exclusive education. But access to elite education – that enables a few of
modest circumstances to climb the social ladder – waxes and wanes.
Most middle class families cannot afford the privileged education that wealth can buy, while
most ordinary, government financed and run schools have fallen further behind exclusive elite
schools, including some funded with public money. In recent decades, the resources gap between
better and poorer public schools has also been growing.
Elite universities and private schools still provide training and socialization, mainly to
children of the wealthy, privileged and connected. Huge endowments, obscure admissions policies
and tax exemption allow elite US private universities to spend much more than publicly funded
institutions.
Meanwhile, technological and social changes have transformed the labour force and economies
greatly increasing economic returns to the cognitive, ascriptive and other attributes as well
as credentials of 'the best' institutions, especially universities and professional guilds,
which effectively remain exclusive and elitist.
As 'meritocrats' captured growing shares of the education pies, the purported value of
'schooling' increased, legitimized by the bogus notion of 'human capital'. While meritocracy
transformed elites over time, it has also increasingly inhibited, not promoted social
mobility.
A Different Elite
Thus, although meritocrats like to see themselves as the antithesis of the old
'aristocratic' elite, rather than 'democratize' society through greater inclusion, meritocracy
may even increase inequality and further polarize society, albeit differently.
While the old 'aristocratic' elite was often unable to ensure their own children were well
educated, competent and excellent, meritocrats – who have often achieved their status and
privileges with education and related credentials – have often increased their
significance.
Hence, a meritocratic system – seemingly open to inclusion, ostensibly based on
ability – has become the new means for exclusion, which Chicago University Professor
Raghuram Rajan attributes to the digital revolution.
Meritocrats have increased the significance of schooling, with credential attainment
legitimizing growing pay inequality, as they secure even better education for thus own
children, thus recreating and perpetuating inequalities.
Recent public doubts about, and opposition to rising executive remuneration, MBA education,
professional guild cartels and labour remuneration disparities reflect the growing
delegitimization of ostensibly meritocratic hierarchies and inequalities.
High Moral Ground
To add insult to injury, meritocratic ideology suggests that those excluded are undeserving,
if not contemptible. With progressive options lacking middle class and elite support, those
marginalized have increasingly turned to 'ethno-populism' and other 'communal' appeals in this
age of identity politics.
Unsurprisingly, their opposition to educational and economic inequalities and
marginalization is typically pitted against the ethnic 'Other' – real, imagined or
'constructed' – typically seen as 'foreign', even if domestic, as the 'alien within'.
Markovits argues that meritocracy undermines not only itself, but also democratic and
egalitarian ideals. He insists that meritocracy also hurts the new 'meritocratic' and
'technocratic' elite, hoping to recruit them to the anti-meritocracy cause, perhaps reflecting
his appreciation of the need to build broad inclusive coalitions to bring about social
transformation.
"Progressives inflame middle-class resentment, and trigger elite resistance while demagogues
and charlatans monopolize and exploit meritocracy's discontents. Meritocratic inequality
therefore induces not only deep discontent but also widespread pessimism, verging on
despair."
Reducing Inequality Possible
In the US and elsewhere, tax policy, other incentives and even Covid-19 will encourage
replacing mid-skilled workers with automation and highly skilled professionals, e.g.,
facilitated by the growing use of artificial intelligence applications.
One alternative is to reform labour market as well as tax policies and regulations to
promote more skilled, 'middle-class' employment. Those introducing new technologies would then
be motivated to enable more productive, higher income, middle-class employment.
A more open, inclusive and broader educational system would also provide the workforce
needed for such technologies. Thus, the transitions from school to work, which have tended to
increase inequality, can be transformed to reduce inequality.
Rather than de-skill workers to be paid less in order to become more profitable,
'up-skilling' workers to be more productive can also be profitable. For example, an Indian
cardio-thoracic hospital has trained nurses for many routine medical procedures, allowing
specialist doctors to focus on tasks really requiring their expertise.
At relatively lower cost, using workers who are not fully trained doctors, but are paid and
treated better, can cost-effectively deliver important healthcare services at lower cost at
scale. Such innovations would strengthen the middle class, rather than undermine and erode
it.
New Labour talked about a meritocracy.
A classless society where anyone could get to the top through their own hard work, drive and
ambition.
In a meritocracy those at the top do get their on their own merit and deserve their
rewards.
In a meritocracy those at the bottom are there through their own lack of effort and others shouldn't feel responsible for
them
But what happened?
We adopted meritocratic ideas, but never created a meritocracy.
What does a meritocracy look like?
1) In a meritocracy everyone succeeds on their own merit.
This is obvious, but to succeed on your own merit, we need to do away the traditional
mechanisms that socially stratify society due to wealth flowing down the generations.
Anything that comes from your parents has nothing to do with your own effort.
2) There is no un-earned wealth or power, e.g inheritance, trust funds, hereditary titles.
In a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for all. We can't have the current two tier
education system with its fast track of private schools for people with wealthy parents.
3) There is a uniform schools system for everyone with no private schools.
New Labour's meritocratic vision won a landslide victory in 1997, they just never followed
through to actually create that meritocratic society where everyone has equal
opportunity.
All we got were the meritocratic ideas.
Those at the top got there on a playing field tilted in their favour, but they swan around
thinking they got to the top in a meritocracy.
The poor suffer the legacy of New Labour's meritocratic ideas with people thinking we live in
a meritocracy and the poor are poor through their own lack of effort.
This is the worst of both worlds, meritocratic ideas without a meritocracy.
In a proper meritocracy you wouldn't be able to use your money to ensure your children
succeeded.
(Even someone like Boris can become Prime Minister, if you can afford the 30k a year fees for
Eton.
Look at Trump, inherited wealth personified.)
When you can't guarantee your own children's success, you are going to be a lot more
concerned with the well being of those lower down the scale as that is where your own
children might end up.
+1000! Exactly. My favorite example (from NC?) is schools. By de-funding education (55%
reduction in funding for higher education since 1972), public policy has made even public
universities dependent on tuition (gosh! I wonder why it's been rising) or student loans
(double gosh!) for an ever-growing portion of their budgets. Professors can't flunk the
incompetent with impunity, then, since it might impair the financial viability of the
institution that employs them.
A sensible society understands enhancing its human capital has merit in and of itself, so
directs resources to it beyond what tuition students can pay.
Meanwhile, no study validates merit pay for teachers, charter schools, and testing as ways
to improve educational outcomes. What does correlate with those outcomes? Answer: childhood
poverty rates.
This is a lot of BS when examined outside the unquestionable assumptions of the US
situation.
In the US you have locally funded and geographically segregated schools, which in a
rational world should be an absolute scandal that is a topic of constant discussion until the
situation gets fixed. Instead people are taking it for granted as they only way things could
be.
Well, if you are only allowed to go to the school in your neighborhood, which in turn is
funded by whatever the tax base is the immediate vicinity, then of course a system based on
educational achievement will very quickly cement existing inequalities into inherited class
differences.
A problem with a very simple solution -- fund public schools at the federal level and fund
them equally, and also ban all private schools.
That is what the USSR did back in the days, and it did in fact achieve very high level of
social equality and mobility. It works. All that is needed is to properly identify the problem and work toward addressing it.
Going after the idea that those who are best educated should be the ones doing the
decision making in society is not going to solve the problem and will in fact hurt society in
the long run.
Then there is the problem of wealth inequality, which is in fact a separate one from that
of status. There is no reason why social status has to be so tightly correlated with wealth.
It has not been at many times and in many places throughout history.
And we are once again fighting the wrong battle if we go after "meritocracy" instead of
the more concrete mechanismS that create wealth inequality.
Again, in the USSR there was no wealth inequality because the system redistributed very
effectively and prevented accumulation of excess wealth by individuals. And before someone
screams "but that was communism", we only have to go back to the situation in the 1950s in
the US when you had a 90% top income tax rate and the various loopholes that exist now for
hiding wealth derived from the wonders of financialization did not exist.
"That is what the USSR did back in the days, and it did in fact achieve very high level of
social equality and mobility. It works. "
Except that there still were better and worse schools (for various reasons), and party
members were better able to place their kids. Not to mention, that being a party member
meant a better post-school placement of your kids int he first place, and goign to the uni
w/o party membership in family as pretty hard.
And re the wealth distribution – hahahahah. Again, if you were a high-placed party
official (which was not based on meritocracy, but on massive political infighting), you did
not have to worry about "official" wealth. Because a lot of "state" assets were yours to use
as you wished (depending on where in the hierarchy you were).
So you had your 90% of non-communist party members (in mid 80s, party membership was about
10% of populatin), then your 10% of party members, of which you had your 1% and 0.01%
respectively.
For every kid from the ghetto placed in a technical school, after lowering admission
requirements, one fewer high testing child is placed.
U.C. Berkeley is no longer requiring SATs because they are "racist".
The affect of this is to elevate the status of the very privileged even higher and to
create strife and infighting among the middle class and lower middle class.
It's not at all clear that affirmative action is at odds with merit, though it is clearly
at odds with the credentialing (grade point averages, and all the resume padding) that one
sees on the resumes of the PMG progeny. My neck of the academic woods is full of PMC grinders
who don't really have much to offer and could use way more people with real life
experience.
Which gets to the real problem with meritocracy: it is only concerned with
ranking/allocation of of jobs, not the overall structure of the job market. If good jobs were
less rare, there would be less infighting about who got to fill them, more social mixing, and
we would all have an easier time dispatching the "meritocrats" who don't contribute.
The education system in the USSR was definitely meritocratic. There were 'special' schools
with advanced curriculum (I studied in one) and you needed to pass exams to get into one.
Likewise the admission to universities was also based on examinations and the alumni of these
elite schools and universities were overrepresented in the Soviet and then Russian elite
Yes, and it was based entirely on examinations. None of the "we ask for SAT but mostly
decide based on subjective crtiria" BS that results in 75% of the undergraduate slots at the
likes of Harvard going to children of alumni and the wealthy (which is mostly the same thing)
BS, but a clear cutoff based on exam scores alone. I myself have passed through that exact
same system too, so I know very well its virtues (and deficiencies too).
Perhaps even more importantly, kindergartens and primary schools provided as equal
educational opportunities as possible. There were no private schools so when the time to pass
those exams came, everyone was on as equal footing as possible, they had gone through the
same classes together. Unfortunately, there was an exception -- the offspring of high party
officials could bypass these barriers, which was deeply unfair and caused quite a bit of
resentment, but other than that it was a true meritocracy.
Yes, it was still not a system in which where you were born played no role. The children
of university professors will on average be academically far ahead of the children of
agricultural workers, just by virtue of the environment they grew up in. There is no way
around that other than taking kids away from their parents and raising them communally.
But it is important that everyone has the opportunity to rise through the ranks and that
starts from the bottom of the educational pyramid.
We are stubbornly avoiding having that discussion though, instead we talk about how we
should be giving preferential treatment to women and minorities when they are in their 20s
and applying for jobs and positions. It is almost as if the latter serves the purposes of
preventing us from talking about the former
That's not true. Party members had access to special schools for their own kids. Often
these schools weren't "officially" special, but very often in a district there was a school
that got more funding, first pick of teachers etc. and party members had preferential
acceptance to those. As I say, it often might not have been an official party line (although
I believe there were some schoold reserved for party member kids), but was a common local
party office practice.
I say this as someone who went through the system and actually had the advantage (which I
did not understand until I was much older) as a grandson of an important party functionary
and anti-nazi hero. It even managed to beat the fact that my uncle (from the other side of
the family) emigrated to the US, which was often a fatal hit to anyone's college/uni dreams
in the rest of the family.
School maybe, but then admission to University was absolutely done on merit. at least
where I grew up, in Romania, the admissions were based on multiple written exams, were
completely anonymized, and there were two independent markers. If the grading of the two
markers diverged by more than one point, another one was brought to check.
I know children of really big party wigs that couldn't get into university under these
circumstances
Or you needed to be a kid of a high-enough placed party hack, although in most cases, they
didn't bother to put their kids there, as they could get them a job they wanted w/o the
school. I _know_ (because I have seen it first hand numerous times) that who the parents were
and who they knew played an important role.
That all said, the school system was way less about credentials than the US one. And also,
because hard-science schools were not seen as a way to a (guaranteed large) career
advancement, the people who went there were most people who really wanted to do it, not
taking it as a soft option.
The career advancement path were the various "economic" schools, as that with a right set
of connections would more or less guarantee a very cushy top job.
This country doesn't value home grown STEM graduates.. if it did it wouldn't be
undercutting them with H1-B's. So you would have to start there and show kids that getting
into STEM is seen as equally valuable as getting an MBA.
IP-laws are the source of some/much of current inequality, those IP-laws are most
definitely a political choice and they most definitely are not automatically benefitting the
meritocratic. Sometimes they do, often they don't.
But as always this is seen as the 'cure':
Rather than de-skill workers to be paid less in order to become more profitable,
'up-skilling' workers to be more productive can also be profitable.
More training, more education ..
The de-skilling is done to jobs which might, but does not have to, lead to de-skilling of
workers. The stage is set to reduce the work-load and share the work, the de-skilled work is
designed to make workers easily replaceable so the 'skill-shortage' stopping a reduction of
the hours worked is not as valid of an excuse as it was 40 years ago.
The author does acknowledge the role that governments and legislation has but for some
reason reducing the hours worked by an individual and sharing the work is not seen as a valid
option. But then again this kind of futurists believe that in the future then there will not
be enough resources to house and feed the retired.
Another view might be that in the future there will be enough resources to house and feed the
retired but those resources might, due to political choices , be spent on luxury for the few
leaving homelessness and starvation for the rest.
McDonalds was a pioneer at the movement for de-skilling workers. When they first opened up
you actually had people at the back peeling bag after bag of potatoes. Eventually they were
able to replace the potatoes with bags of frozen fries which took no skill at all to use.
They actually spent a huge amount of effort at de-skilling work there so that workers could
be easily replaced and had no skills that they could bargain higher wages for.
I would argue that a real education is one that liberates the student to become a free
citizen, to become someone who can think for herself or himself. This is what used to be
called a liberal arts education. Vocational training may certainly be important, but ought
not be confused with education. Vocational training is perhaps best left to the institutions
that actually will employ the individual. An education in liberal arts prepares the student
to learn how to learn. But we are not the employees of society. We are citizens.
Indeed, stefan, that is entirely the point, and ought to be the goal. Society is only as
good as the quality of education given to all its members, not just the elite. This country
has forgotten how important education is to the stability of the state, education from the
first steps in public schools, so that when time comes to go on with that education at more
sophisticated levels, all minds (all minds!) whatever the parents' station in life, have the
ability to go where their talents take them. We know how to do this; it's not rocket
science!!
I say we know how to do this. But it is clear – this country is not doing it. And it
is not doing it on purpose.
That is something to be out on the streets protesting against. One of the many, many
things.
Maybe, but if you could tell in advance which kids are going to need it, it would be a lot
cheaper and waste less of people's time to do advanced degrees for only the best and
brightest. For most people, hitting the workforce at the tender young age of 31, for example,
has a certain reproductive cost, not to mention lost income. It isn't for everyone.
Also, in my experience, education just gets your foot in the door. Once you get there, it
is quite likely you are the worst guy on the factory floor (for some definition of factory)
-- the greenhorn -- and whether or not you do well will eventually boil down to quality of
work or maybe management potential. In this regard, some will shine and other will not, and
at the end of the day, in a meritocracy those are the ones that will do well. In this
environment, at least in most fields, the advance degree is quickly forgotten in the absence
of law enforcing strict hierarchy (e.g. medicine).
I'll add that orthodox Christianity does not endorse "salvation by works" (i.e.
meritocracy). The orthodox position is "salvation by grace [i.e. gift]" A wise man once told
me "Christianity is just Judaism for gentiles"
I discovered the idea/Ideal of a Liberal Education around fifth grade. That's what I
wanted, due to the influence of Jefferson, Emerson, Whitman and Nietzsche(yes, i was rather
strange as a child).
But as the Schooling continued, I was continually frustrated by the all but hidden fact that
this was not what American Education was for,lol.
This frustration extended all the way into the college experience I got accepted(with a GED,
no less) to Oberlin, Brown, etc but was told we didn't have the money so a state school it
was which turned out to be a High School with ashtrays..and an indelible focus on "Getting a
Job".
Registrar actually laughed when I said i wanted to major in Philosophy ""what good is
that?"
35 or so years later, and I got my Liberal Education, on my own .and it's had zero(if not a
negative) effect on my work-life.
we've raised up a generation or 3 of technicians and micromanagers and ladder-climbers who
don't have the smash to Think, except in very narrow terms. A favorite trope-like example:
"Biology"= "specialisation", not just in Beetles or even a specific Family of Beetles but on
a specific Species of Beetle with little regard for the world that Beetle is embedded in.(I
knew a guy like this. knew all about June Bugs)
While i understand the utility of specialisation, this laser focus has negated the ability
for so many to "Think Outside the Box" or to obtain a broader perspective of our complex
world.
State College, for me, was all about "Networking" and learning how to kiss ass and say "Yes
Sir" .not about becoming a Citizen let alone a Better Human
I hated it,lol.
It took a long time to be able to articulate it and that articulation is still wanting.
But the critique of "actually existing Meritocracy" is a good place to begin.
It's not really "Meritocratic", at all.
Just another justification for privilege and inequality and the status quo(world without
end).
I don't think specialization = narrow mindedness. A long time ago at the university I made
the progression from philosophy to anthropology to genetics/cell biology and of course my
graduate thesis answered a very specific question (about the extracellular effects on
collagen synthesis.) It is a fact that that rapidly growing knowledge requires people to
specialize in deeply understanding parts of that knowlege. But I have never stopped reading
philosophy (existential), Dostoevsky's novels, along with political reading. Specialization
is not the reason for people's horizons to be so narrow. It's the societal shift toward
disregarding anything that cannot be immediately monetized. It's also the disregard for
teaching all students the tools for critical thinking.
I stated that specialisation is necessary it just feels like(30 years on, mind you) that
there was a narrowness that was encouraged. The opposite of a "Liberal Education", where one
expands and learns to Think.
I'm also biased, because i went to two community colleges, and a state school that was famous
for Criminal Justice, and for being neighbors to a bunch of prisons,lol.
I'm certainly glad, for instance, that there are people who specialise in Grasshoppers,
cancer meds and soil biota.
But we long ago stopped encouraging big picture broadness .and i think that lack is rather
acute, at the moment.
My Da Vincian Renaissance tendencies were quite actively discouraged, over my entire primary
and secondary school experience to the point that i hated school from 3rd grade on(a
remarkable achievement, in retrospect). I had, therefore, high hopes for college which were
similarly dashed, due to the sort of ineffable culture of the place.
again, i admit that all this may be merely a function of place and time .as well as of my own
anomalousness and expectations.
I might feel differently if i had been allowed to go to some of the real colleges i managed
to get accepted to(but, Amor Fati, and all,lol would i be me without all that BS?)
Forget sham meritocracy. What's the value of *actual* meritocracy, when the underlying
activity -- say, investment banking -- is worthless or injurious?
Are prisons repositories of merit, because they hold the most active and determined of
criminals?
Running through an endless gauntlet of test-taking in order to have something approaching
a stable, non-precarious life does not sound like a very pleasant society either, even if it
is sufficiently "meritocratic." Neither does constantly chasing credentials. You get all
these wasteful arms races. This was the type of society that the Hunger Games depicted: a
never-ending, unremitting competition, with the stakes being just the ability to ensure one's
basic survival. It sounds awful, even for the "winners".
Life on this planet is a never-ending, unremitting competition, with the stakes being just
the ability to ensure one's genes survival.
This is true across a spectrum of geographic and temporal scales. The plants in the yard?
And endless evolutionary game of attracting pollinators at the expense of others while
simultaneously engaging in chemical warfare with their neighbors.
The trap is the thought that we should be able to do better. I think the Romans probably
showed the limit of what was possible, everything else has just been a remake with different
stage props.
We've spent 2000 years or so basically knocking around the limits of what humanity is
capable of achieving in terms of societal structure. Lots of technological advances made and
to be discovered, but the parallel attempts on the societal side seem to end up being
inherently unstable.
I can't see how the plants in your backyard are a good model for any society. We do not
need to savagely compete by starving our neighbors, for instance, to get food or shelter. Any
scarcity of the basic necessities of life are pretty much induced.
Competition is instead over quality of life, social status, and most importantly, who gets
to decide. It is here where so-called meritocracy is supposed to be an "objective" measure
(but really, that there can be an objective measure of merit is where the idea fails, and
proves itself to be a Utopian value that really only the successful "meritocrats" can
embrace).
I think the real trap is in thinking we can't do any better (and your thought that
we haven't progressed farther than the Romans is telling). And in in the age of falling life
expectancy, incomes (for the bottom 90%), and social mobility, I would go so far as to say
such an idea forecloses on the reality that shared progress has actually happened.
Crab-in-a-bucket scenario: other crabs prevent that venturesome one from escaping.
Meritocracy, current version scenario: escaped arthropods act as guards to let in
only their own preferred candidates.
The latter has been in use at any number of companies, where the wrong kind of
applicant just isn't acknowledged. No need to write down any rules, as those unspoken
ones will do just fine. That can lead to a type of in-breeding with associated dysfunctions,
and relies heavily upon the upstream provider filtering mechanisms, such as they are. Game
those mechanisms in various ways and see the results populate, or pollute, the downstream
pools.
in the US our "meritocracy" is akin to the old saying;
"those who win in a rigged game too long ,get stupid"
We are stuck as a society because so many of the positions of authority are filled by
people , who may be "smart" in some sense . but are really just stupid.
Whatever the dynamic that enables a certain type of mindset and worldview, to rise within the
power structures , as they are is utterly insane and a serious flaw in the system.
the evidence of this is look who will be "running the free world" . today, and after the next
election all choices point to zero.
Look at our form of capitalism . we allow banks to create our money out of nothing . then
they can fund wall street speculation and corporate behemoths who dictate the playing
field(through control of the political class) all business must play on. and so the lives and
fortunes of the people and the planet and all of its life forms must endure.
the question of how stupid are we .. pretty damn stupid.
We can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism all day long – but we
don't have capitalism – we have crony capitalism.
We can discuss whether or not meritocracy is a good thing – but our "meritocracy" is
in fact massively rigged.
That said, a society has got to have some way to select leaders. If it doesn't select
based on some kind of merit, what's the alternative? Accident of birth? Random lottery?
Footraces?
Actually, I think random lottery of a group of citizens would be much better than a
president. Make the group big enough that a citizen has a good chance of assuming office at
least once in their average lifespan. Renumeration should be median of income. A democratic
executive body.
This would probably make the US more agreement capable.
Having worked in academia for 25+ years (and counting), I really can't agree with equating
the capability and/or competence with level of education. Just doesn't happen.
We have a rule of thumb: the more PhDs are involved in a project the more confused and
messier it'll be for us to sort out and make to work. If professors are involved, even we
can't sort it out.
Of course there are exceptions: some people can retain their common sense and competence
regardless of higher education. They just don't tend to climb very high in the academic
meritocracy.
Yes but for purposes of this discussion they are the same thing since TPTP have decided
that in our complicated society with so many millions of citizens credentials are a the way
to separate "the wheat from the chaff." There was a time when you had a lot more self made
men (and they were men) but our ossified economic system now makes that less likely. A
country where individualism was once the hallmark has been turned–elite
division–into a homogenized, fearful "safe space."
For the rest of us there is at least the internet where individualism can still thrive.
They are trying to stamp that out.
There are many legacy "socialist era" policies (free basic education, subsidised basic
healthcare, high ownership of public housing, well-functioning utilities and public transport
and public services that in spite of being ostensibly privatized are actually owned by a
state-owned enterprise – Temasek Holdings) that still keep things from becoming too
nasty. But we've been heading the same direction as you all.
That's because despite being semi authoritarian Singapore couldn't resist marketisation.
Doesn't make any sense to include market value of land in the price of public houses if the
government owns that land and you essentially rent it from them. Or the recent electricity
market privatisation. Just gets to show you that democratic or authoritarian, governments are
out of ideas.
OK, but then the alternative is . not very obvious.
I think in fact that the problems people have with meritocracy are more to do with the
"cracy" than the "merit" part of the term. After all, there are only three possible ways of
choosing people to fill positions and run organisations. The first is patronage, favouritism,
family and wealth, which has been the rule for most of human history, and was the only way to
make career in Europe until relatively recently. You might accidentally get a person of
ability appointed to an important job, but you obviously couldn't guarantee it. The second is
selection by lot, which worked OK in Athens for certain jobs, but is hard to generalise. The
only other option is competitive selection by merit, depending on the qualities needed for
the job, and for promotion. All modern states have ultimately gone for the third option.
When people say that they don't approve of meritocracy, then, they don't usually mean that
they want a return to the days when government positions were in the personal gift of
Ministers. They mean one of two things. First, that selection by merit doesn't always work
well or fairly, because the selection criteria can in practice favour candidates from
wealthier or more educated backgrounds, second that meritocracies can themselves become
hereditary, selecting people like themselves, just as patronage systems used to do. It's also
true that success in one field can generate a sense of individual and collective arrogance
and a belief that you are qualified to do anything. All of these are very valid criticisms
(and all can be addressed to some extent) but none of them is an argument against the
principle of merit-based selection. It's also important to remember that "merit" here really
means just "most suited"; It's not a value judgement or the equivalent of the keys to a
selective club.
Yes, this is the key problem. But I would suggest two other possibilities that also exist:
A) wide acceptance to entry-level positions, lots of training/assessment and promotions from
within, and promotion by seniority (above a threshold of competence) – a scheme which
has ups and downs and is probably not a good fit anymore for a world in which long term
employment with one employer is not the norm; and B) democratic control with promotion
determined from below (by those to be managed) rather than above. All the evidence suggests
that good management is a function of getting the best out of your subordinates (true
leadership), not all the fact BS around star performers.
The big problem with merit is that many jobs have no suitable pre-employment or even
current employment merit indicators (think of K-12 teaching, where test scores are used to
judge reading and math teachers but there are no comparable measures for teachers of any
other discipline), and the ones that are used can be gamed, and so merit becomes conflated
with credentials or test scores, which have limited real-world applicability. Another
example: in the old days, you could become a lawyer through "apprenticeship," which allowed
lots of talented people to become lawyers without the gatekeeping of law schools. It is
impossible to argue that the profession is now better with than it was in those days.
Anyone familiar with the notorious Kingsley Davis and Wilbur Moore stratification theory?
The theory attempted to legitimize economic and political stratification (i.e. inequality) in
modern societies by using quasi-Parsonian notions of meritocracy. There are standard
rebuttals to the Davis-Moore theory and this article sounds as though it has attempted to
regurgitate some of those rebuttals.
Also, however much merit one has, that should not allow her/him to steal from the
lessor-so via the use of what is, due to government privilege, the PUBLIC'S credit but for
private gain.
In other words, those with merit should not have to steal from the poor, should they?
Kinda of diminishes their triumph, doesn't it? Knowing their success is built on
oppression?
NFL wide receivers; NBA centers; MIT physics PHDs; University of Texas Petroleum
Engineering grads.
"Meritocracy legitimizes, deepens inequality"
"Meritocracy" based on gatekeeping (lawyers, civil service rules that say "must have a a
BA"; 7 years to become a physical therapist) these are, in my opinion , bad. I want to
measure outputs not inputs. And that means those hardworking, always dependable high school
girls who always turn in perfect homework (an input unconnected to knowledge) may have a high
class rank but I'll take the kid with the bad attitude, bad clothing and lousy social skills
who gets in the 98% percentile in the SAT Math exam (an output) every time (unless I'm hiring
people to be TV weathermen and weather girls- I like cute too).
What would happen in the NFL if we demanded a masters degree in wide receiver studies from
a state accredited university? Fewer blacks; fewer drug bust and girl friends beaten up and
fewer amazing catches.
Some of this rings with class warfare hogwash. I am very far from a conservative, but even
I must resort to that old saw in this case. Anyone who has worked in the same field or
company for 20 years will eventually come to realize that in time at the workplace the
academic degree is like so much kindling used to start a bonfire, and what really matters in
the long run is the contribution you make in your chosen field over that time. This can
hardly be lost on a bunch of academics nurturing their own career over decades so I must only
conclude that such an edgy interpretation is intended to make waves. Degrees don't matter for
sh__ once leadership figures out you don't know what you are doing. The best shine no matter
how much muck you throw on them.
Where education matters is getting your foot in the door in the first place. If you can't
manage that, then you may be a really great auto mechanic, rising to the top of your field,
but failing to really make the same splash as you might have from being a mechanical engineer
or chemist. Nonetheless, in almost any industry there is a need for smart competent people to
help make sure the endeavor doesn't go off the rails and those will do well. Maybe they can
afford to send their kids, who may be smart too probably, on to a better school.
It isn't about justifying inequality. It is about getting the best people in the right
places to produce he best outcomes. Consult your Napoleon. When good outcomes are needed, and
we aren't just writing papers, good people are essential.
It depends what those meritocrats are doing. MBA s are a good example. Plus nothing
original and creative comes out of a culture that prioritises corporate career building over
other aspects of human beings. That's why you see the children of these meritocrats are so
shallow and boring.
Recall, it was just days ago that
we pointed out Cornell professor and friend of Zero Hedge Dave Collum was publicly shamed
by Cornell for daring to express the "wrong" opinion about current events on social media. Now,
there's a second Cornell professor coming under fire for his critique of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson has challenged any student or faculty
member to a public debate about the Black Lives Matter movement after he says liberals on
campus have launched a "coordinated effort" to have him fired from his job. At least 15 emails
from alumni have been sent to the dean, demanding that action be taken, according to Fox News
.
"There is an effort underway to get me fired at Cornell Law School, where I've worked since
November 2007, or if not fired, at least denounced publicly by the school,"
Jacobson wrote on Thursday . "I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am
racist."
Jacobson founded the website Legal
Insurrection and says he's had an "awkward relationship" with the university for years as a
result. The recent outrage comes as a result of two posts he recently made on his site:
"Those posts accurately detail the history of how the Black Lives Matters Movement started,
and the agenda of the founders which is playing out in the cultural purge and rioting taking
place now," Jacobson said.
He recently wrote on his blog: "Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being
the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce. For over 12 years, the Cornell cat did not pounce.
Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired, including
threats and harassment, it always came from off campus."
"Not until now, to the best of my knowledge, has there been an effort from inside the
Cornell community to get me fired," he says.
"The effort appears coordinated, as some of the emails were in a template form. All of the
emails as of Monday were from graduates within the past 10 years," he continued. Jacobson's
"clinical faculty colleagues, apparently in consultation with the Black Law Students
Association" drafted and published a letter denouncing 'commentators, some of them attached to
Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.'"
Cornell
responded , backhandedly defending the Professor's right to his own opinion:
"...the Law School's commitment to academic freedom does not constitute endorsement or
approval of individual faculty speech. But to take disciplinary action against him for the
views he has expressed would fatally pit our values against one another in ways that would
corrode our ability to operate as an academic institution."
"This is not just about me. It's about the intellectual freedom and vibrancy of Cornell and
other higher education institutions, and the society at large. Open inquiry and debate are core
features of a vibrant intellectual community," he stated.
"I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing
to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement, so that I can
present my argument and confront the false allegations in real-time rather than having to
respond to baseless community email blasts."
"I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist, and I greatly resent any
attempt to leverage meritless accusations in hopes of causing me reputational harm. While such
efforts might succeed in scaring others in a similar position, I will not be intimidated,"
Jacobson concluded.
"... Old saying: A Recession is when your neighbor loses their Job. A Depression is when you lose your Job. ..."
"... A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business. ..."
"... There's a documentary about Wal-Mart that has the best title ever: The High Cost of Low Cost ..."
"... Globalism killed the American dream. We can buy cheap goods made somewhere else if we have a job here that pays us enough money. ..."
You can't just move to American cities to pursue opportunity; even the high wages paid in
New York are rendered unhelpful because the cost of housing is so high.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was vilified and ultimately murdered when he was helping organize
a Poor People's Campaign. Racial justice means economic justice.
A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and
do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into
buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb
thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business.
Nailed it. As a millennial, I'm sick of being told to just "deal with it" when the cards
have always been stacked against me. Am I surviving? Yes. Am I thriving? No.
When the reserve status of the American dollar goes away, then it will become apparent how
poor the US really is. You cannot maintain a country without retention of the ability to
manufacture the articles you use on a daily basis. The military budget and all the jobs it
brings will have to shrink catastrophically.
...and sometimes you CAN'T afford to move. You can't find a decent job. You certainly
can't build a meaningful savings. You can't find an apartment. And if you have kids? That
makes it even harder. I've been trying to move for years, but the conditions have to be
perfect to do it responsibly. The American Dream died for me once I realized that no matter
the choices I made, my four years of college, my years of saving and working hard....I do NOT
have upward mobility. For me, the American Dream is dead. I've been finding a new dream. The
human dream.
This is a very truncated view. You need to expand your thinking. WHY has the system been
so overtly corrupted? It's globalism that has pushed all this economic pressure on the
millennials and the middle class. It was the elites, working with corrupt politicians, that
rigged the game so the law benefited them.
This is all reversible. History shows that capitalism can be properly regulated in a way
that benefits all. The answer to the problem is to bring back those rules, not implement
socialism.
Trump has:
- Ended the free trade deals
- Imposed Protective tarriffs to defend American jobs and workers
- Lowered corporate taxes to incentivize business to locate within us borders.
- Limited immigration to reduce the supply of low skilled labor within US borders.
The result? before COVID hit the average American worker saw the first inflation adjusted
wage increase in over 30 years!
This is why the fake news and hollywood continue to propagandize the masses into hating
Trump.
Trump is implementing economic policies good for the people and bad for the elites
Krystal Ball exposes the delusion of the American dream.
About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of
morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show
leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can
predict what is going to happen.
It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive
news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the
country's most important political newsmakers.
Got my degree just as the great recession hit. Couldn't find real work for 3 years, not
using my degree... But it was work. now after 8 years, im laid off. I did everything "right".
do good in school, go to college, get a job...
I've never been fired in my life. its always,
"Your contract is up" "Sorry we cant afford to keep you", "You can make more money collecting!
but we'll give a recommendation if you find anything."
Now I'm back where i started... only
now I have new house and a family to support... no pressure.
I doubt that the opinion below is right, but it creates certain concerns about treatment of
Great Britain behaviour in India as cruel and ruthless colonialism, at least on initial stages.
One interesting nuance that British brutality was almost matched by several other players during
this period.
asymmetry of the relationship between India, or its various provinces, to be more
accurate, and the GB.
Agreed but the Europeans wanted a way to the Indies (East Indies – a territorial
description in those days which included South Asia and South East Asia all the way to
Indonesia.) Indeed it was Indonesia which was the first prize (spices) which the Dutch got.
India was the second best price, some spices yes but most importantly garments. And they
Western Europeans (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, British, Danish [very small players])
wanted a way to the Indies to beat the monopoly of this trade by the Muslims and Venice. And
when Constantinople fell to the Turks, this desire to find an alternative route increased
further. I did not ask the Turks to conquer Constantinople. The whole colonial Empire chapter
of mankind started thanks to the actions of the Turks.
a bit of eastern civilization to the savage people of these dismal islands.
Savage people? Abu Taleb Khan's book on British Society gives the opposite picture.
The eastern devil had also a little chance to gang up with the worst segments of the
British ruling class to suck even more blood from its indigenous slaves. Had he made it,
then Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah would have been awarded by haveing a nice statue of him erected
in every major town of GB.
The East India Company itself stamped out all such corrupt practices with time. That is
why Robert Clive was sent for a second time.
The British came to India to trade. But rivalry with other European powers especially the
French led to the conquest of India. The earliest conquest of Indian regions of India by the
English was primarily because of rivalry with France. It was originally France which started
interfering in Indian affairs forcing the British to do the same in response out of fear of
losing trade rights in India. Before that the English policy was to not interfere in local
affairs much but just concentrate on trade. India for a while (especially) South India was
going more French than British. However French ambitions depended on one person Joseph
François Dupleix, a Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of.
However the French East India Company Directors lambasted Dupleix to not waste energy on
conquests and empire buildings but concentrate on trade.
Must add that many Indian powers like Hyder Ali of Mysore were friends of Dupleix, unlike
the French East India Company directors, the local powers were not complaining about his
actions.
And how can we forget the Maratha Empire. It were the Maratha raids which would give the
best help to the conquest and expansion of the British Empire in India. Marathas raided and
decimated Bengal. They looted it out by their heavy taxation of Chouth (1/4th taxation i.e.
25% of the conquered/raided ) as well as killed many. So heavy were the impact of these
Maratha raids, that the fierce Rajput Kings themselves voluntarily signed an alliance with
the British East Indian Company for protection. Travancore Kingdom in South India signed a
similar treaty with the English to save them from Tipu Sultan's invasions. Also must add that
Nawab Shiraj Ud Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal crushed the Borgees, Maratha raiders who would
raid and kill and rape and loot Bengal. One must add that a Peshwa (Prime Minister of the
Royal Maratha Bhosle Family but defacto rulers) of the Marathas tried to stop all this
raiding but before he could take any action in Bengal he had to return to Pune (the capital
of the Peshwas and Maratha power center).
And what about Nader Shah the brave Sultan of Iran. Nadir Shah looted out of India
multiple times of what the British East India Company earned in India till the mutiny.
During the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were brutally killed by
Iranian troops and as many as 10,000 women and children were taken as slaves, forcing Indian
Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah to beg Nader Shah for mercy.
In response, Iranian Emperor Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Indian Emperor Mohammad
Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the
fabled Peacock Throne to the Iranian emperor. The Peacock Throne, thereafter, served as a
symbol of Iranian imperial might. It is estimated that Nader took away with him treasures
worth as much as seven hundred million rupees. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader
also looted the Koh-i-Noor (meaning "Mountain of Light" in Persian) and Darya-ye Noor
(meaning "Sea of Light") diamonds. The Iranian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May
1739, but before they left, he ceded back to Muhammad Shah all territories to the east of the
Indus which he had overrun. The booty they had collected was loaded on 700 elephants,
4,000 camels, and 12,000 horses.
I let us not even start about Ahmed Shah Abdali, the Lord of the Afghans who had his
own lootings in India. The British East India Company got peanuts compared to the above
two Empires. LOL.
You think Iranian Emperor Nadir Shah, would feel guilty about slavery? LOL. Imagine a
bunch of pussyboy leftist SJWs & anti fa thugs going to manly Nadir Shah's court and
calling him evul because he enslaved people. Nadir Shah would roar with laughter so hard, the
SJWs/anti-fas would collectively pee in their pants. He would probably keep the male SJWs
& anti fas as nautch boys and females would be forced into his harem or distributed to
his courtiers.
British Empire had its own Jew lobby just like how Jews control America today.
But the people whos topped that evil trade were all British Protestant missionaries. No
Indian Baniya or Parsi or Bengali cared about the Chinese dying. Do you really think the
typical Indian baniya trader would give a rats ass about the deaths of chinkis (East Asians)
or Goras (Whites) or Kalus (Blacks)? They would not Giva a f ** k. The Jews definitely did
not care about Chinese dying. It were evul Whitey Anglos who led a campaign to stop this
trade.
The opium trade faced intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart
Gladstone. As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it "most infamous and atrocious"
referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular . Gladstone
was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars and ardently opposed to the British trade in
opium to China. He lambasted it as "Palmerston's Opium War" and said that he felt "in dread
of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China" in May 1840.
Gladstone criticized it as "a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its
progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace,".
In the 1890s, the effects of opium use were still largely undocumented by science.
Protestant missionaries in China compiled data to demonstrate the harm of the drug, which
they had observed. They were outraged that the British Royal Commission on Opium visited
India but not China. They created the Anti-Opium League in China among their colleagues in
every mission station, for which the American missionary Hampden Coit DuBose served as the
first president. This organization was instrumental in gathering data from
Western-trained medical doctors in China, most of whom were missionaries. They published
their data and conclusions in 1899 as Opinions of Over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in
China. The survey included doctors in private practices, particularly in Shanghai and Hong
Kong, as well as Chinese who had been trained in medical schools in Western countries.
In England, the home director of the China Inland Mission, Benjamin Broomhall, was an
active opponent of the opium trade; he wrote two books to promote banning opium smoking:
Truth about Opium Smoking and The Chinese Opium Smoker. In 1888 Broomhall formed and
became secretary of the "Christian Union for the Severance of the British Empire with the
Opium Traffic" and editor of its periodical, National Righteousness. He lobbied the
British Parliament to stop the opium trade. He and James Laidlaw Maxwell appealed to the
London Missionary Conference of 1888 and the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 to
condemn the trade. As he lay dying, the government signed an agreement to end the opium trade
within two years.
China's Opium War Was 'Completely Indian Enterprise', not British: Indian Author Amitav
Ghosh
At this juncture he found that the first opium war in China was an Indian undertaking. "
The first opium war (was) planned in India, it was financed by Indian money, it was fought
with Indian soldiers. But it has all completely vanished from our historical memory ,"
Ghosh, whose third book of Ibis series 'Flood of Fire' is all about migration in the 1830s,
told IANS.
" The putting together of the expeditionary force took place in India. The British
naval ships for the expedition were accompanied by 50 supply ships, all provided for by Parsi
merchants in Bombay (now Mumbai). From top to bottom, it was a completely Indian enterprise;
all the wherewithal for it came from India," he added.
What role did India Inc play in the opium trade war?
They [Indian companies] played a pioneering part. In large parts, the opium war was
financed by Indian money – by old Bombay money. Many of t he big Indian families made
their money in opium. This is equally true about America.
Many American companies and families have made their money in opium -President Franklin
Roo sevelt's family, t he C a l v i n Coolidge family, Forbes family from where you get the
current secretary of state, John Kerry, even institutions like Yale and Brown. Singapore and
Hong Kong wouldn't exist today without opium.Essentially opium was the most important
commodity of the 19th century.
Are companies hesitant to acknowledge their past connections to opium?
Very hesitant . Jardine Matheson was one of the most important opium trading companies in
the 19th century. Their closest partner was Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy, who built half of
Bombay. To this day, Jardine Matheson does not like this connection mentioned. In fact,
they've been known to threaten journalists. Similarly, people who've been trying to work with
papers of various Indian companies find it very difficult to access documents. Let me just
say it tactfully that several companies don't like this to be spoken of in public.
Would it have been difficult for companies to hide their past if there was social media at
that time?
The opium war was a very modern war. It was sold to the British government by
merchants. They collected money and sent William Jardine to London to bribe politicians into
starting this war. It's a collusion between the State and the private sector, which
benefited not only from the policies of the opium trade, but also from the whole war being
sub-contracted to them, in terms of provisions, supply ships etc. It was the template of the
Iraq war. First, you pick up something, drum it up by publishing some articles about it, the
people will get worked up, then you start the war. You keep hidden what is actually
happening.
There is one War that is being waged on the populace of the world , especially in the West,
and it's the War on Knowledge, Truths and Common Sense. Ask a previous forged history
question to a person who has read extensively Alternate Websites like Unz Rev. , ICH, the
Late Robt. Parry etc. and then ask someone who hasn't – and the war on knowledge, truth
is quite visible. When the Author shows his history lessons from the British Educational
system, { the same as the American ones } with regards to the India history, the Brits are
always in the right . But real knowledge and truth are just the opposite. The so called
History Websites I used to read are 50% BS, and so are their Professors that are writing for
them.
I can't explain, but you can certainly feel in the air that the October Revolution
and the USSR still haunt the American people - from Alabama to California; from North
Dakota to New York.
I think that, deep down, every American knows they are a capitalist empire - it's "popular
wisdom", as they say.
Agreed. You had to have lived from 1949 to now, i.e., the Cold War. *Everyone* in that
period remembers certain things: the Kennedy assassination, Khrushchev pounding his shoe in
the UN, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Airlift, the Vietnam War (and the opposition to
it). Maybe not clearly, but they remember it was in their history.
Most people under 50 only remember things from the 1970's on. Economically, things only
started going bad in the 1970's with the oil crisis, the Nixon corruption, then the '80s,
'90s. Then 9/11 and the bogus "War on Terrorism" takes over for the last twenty years.
The conflict between the Soviet Empire and the US Empire pretty much controls how the US
perception was created. The media had a hand in it, too. In the '50s everything was "Ozzie
and Harriet" (does anyone even remember that show existed?) In the '60s it was "Father Knows
Best." In the '70s it was Archie Bunker - the first sign of a change. In the '80s it was
"Cheers". In the '90s it was "middle class black" shows like "Fresh Prince". You can see the
progression just from Google searching "TV icons" of each period.
There's never been any reality in 20th Century US history, at least since WWII ended.
A strange mixture of Black nationalism with Black Bolshevism is a very interesting and pretty alarming phenomenon. It proved to
be a pretty toxic mix. But it is far from being new. We saw how the Eugène Pottier famous song
International lines "We have been naught we
shall be all." and "Servile masses arise, arise." unfolded before under Stalinism in Soviet Russia.
We also saw Lysenkoism in Academia before, and it was not a pretty picture. Some Russian/Soviet scientists such as Academician Vavilov
paid with their life for the sin of not being politically correct. From this letter it is clear that the some departments
already reached the stage tragically close to that situation.
Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with the broader Marxist doctrine.
Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living
under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man
"Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with
faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his
followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting
the advance of the new modern Marxism."
The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory
Notable quotes:
"... In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. ..."
"... any cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders . Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques. ..."
"... The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians ..."
"... Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. ..."
"... If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? ..."
"... Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position , which is no small number. ..."
"... The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is. ..."
"... The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. ..."
"... Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession. ..."
"... Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations. ..."
"... The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes , carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed. ..."
"... MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing? ..."
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely,
and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job,
and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity
of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative
narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice
system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of
the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and
white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself,
such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject
a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders
. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the
form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should
be vigorously challenged by historians . Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration
of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and
our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email.
Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi
Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion
of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However,
if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it
is anti-black .
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see
that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated
at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple
jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation
that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt .
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian
Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish
Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of
Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed
in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority
myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to
silence and oppress discourse . Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are , common
to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently
exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is
being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position.
Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those
of us in a precarious position , which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative , and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the
administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear
danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my
job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message
is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires
explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence.
This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the
point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention
of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders . Home invaders like George Floyd . For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality
of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart.
For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical
claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent
rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively.
Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform
white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to
point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation
is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation
is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention,
and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter,
an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately
redirected to ActBlue Charities , an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates.
Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American
cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis
itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat
administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden
statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics
which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election
campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence . This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement
for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent
in academic circles . I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this
damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes
, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves
in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves,
many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity.
Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking
the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal
political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth , we can regard ourselves as
a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at
harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically
segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly,
to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively
racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global
political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was
a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at
her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children , playing no part in their
support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer,
a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors .
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his
name to virtual sainthood . A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department,
corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA,
he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise . Americans are being
socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist . A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying
with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid,
as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color . My family have been
personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The
humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM , that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life,
is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward
in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively
on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating . No other group in America is systematically
demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping
and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites.
If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely
be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional
promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda
and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his
disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death
and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything
other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end .
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she
is free. play_arrow
Blacks will always be poor and fucked in life when 75% of black infants are born to single most likely welfare dependent mothers...
And the more amount of welfare monies spent to combat poverty the worse this problem will grow...
taketheredpill , 37 minutes ago
Anonymous....
1) Is he really a Professor at Berkeley?
2) Is he really a Professor anywhere?
3) Is he really Black?
4) Is he really a He?
LEEPERMAX , 44 minutes ago
BLM is an international organization. They solicit tax free charitable donations via ActBlue. ActBlue then funnels billions
of dollars to DNC campaigns. This is a violation of campaign finance law and allows foreign influence in American elections.
CRM114 , 44 minutes ago
I've pointed this out before:
In 2015, after the Freddie Gray death Officers were hung out to dry by the Mayor of Baltimore (yes, her, the Chair of the DNC
in 2016), active policing in Baltimore basically stopped. They just count the bodies now. The clearance rate for homicides has
dropped to, well, we don't know because the Police refuse to say, but it appears to be under 15%. The homicide rate jumped 50%
almost immediately and has stayed there. 95% of homicides are black on black.
The Baltimore Sun keeps excellent records, so you can check this all for yourself.
Looking at killings by cops; if we take the worst case and exclude all the ones where the victim was armed and independent
witnesses state fired first, and assume all the others were cop murders, then there's about 1 cop murder every 3 years, which
means that since has now stopped and the homicide rate's gone up...
For every black man now not murdered by a cop, 400 more black men are murdered by other black men.
taketheredpill , 46 minutes ago
"As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used
to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude
that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black ."
It is the RATIO of UNARMED BLACK MALES KILLED to UNARMED WHITE MALES KILLED in RELATION TO % OF POPULATION. RATIO.
RATIO. UNARMED.
BLACK % POPULATION 13% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 37%
WHITE % POPULATION 74% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 45%
Is there a trend of MORE Black people being killed by police?
No. But there is an underlying difference in the numbers that is bad.
>>>>> As of 2018, Unarmed Blacks made up 36% of all people UNARMED killed by police. But black people make up 13% of the (unarmed)
population.
There's a massive Silent Majority of Americans , including black Americans, that are fed up with this absurd nonsense.
While there's a Vocal Minority of Americans : including Democrats, the media, corporations and race hustlers, that wish to
continue to promulgate a FALSE NARRATIVE into perpetuity...because it's a lucrative industry.
Gaius Konstantine , 57 minutes ago
A short while ago I had an ex friend get into it with me about how Europeans (whites), were the most destructive race on the
planet, responsible for all the world's evil. I pointed out to him that Genghis Khan, an Asian, slaughtered millions at a time
when technology made this a remarkable feat. I reminded him the Japanese gleefully killed millions in China and that the American
Indian Empires ran 24/7 human sacrifices with some also practicing cannibalism. His poor libtard brain couldn't handle the fact
that evil is a human trait, not restricted to a particular race and we parted (good riddance)
But along with evil, there is accomplishment. Europeans created Empires and pursued science, The Asians also participated in
these pursuits and even the Aztec and Inca built marvelous cities and massive states spanning vast stretches of territory. The
only race that accomplished little save entering the stone age is the Africans. Are we supposed to give them a participation trophy
to make them feel better? Is this feeling of inferiority what is truly behind their constant rage?
Police in the US have been militarized for a long time now and kill many more unarmed whites than they do blacks, where is
the outrage? I'm getting the feeling that this isn't really about George, just an excuse to do what savages do.
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
George Orwell
You know that the reason he is anonymous is that Berkley would strip him of his teaching credentials and there would be multiple
attempts on his life...
Ignatius , 1 hour ago
" The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The
message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence
requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly
is."
A former fed who trained the police in Buffalo believes the elderly protester who was hospitalized after a cop pushed him
to the ground "got away lightly" and "took a dive," according to a report.
The retired FBI agent, Gary DiLaura,
told The Sun
he thinks there's no chance Buffalo officers will be convicted of assault over the
now-viral video showing the
longtime
peace activist Martin Gugino fall and left bleeding on the ground.
" I can't believe that they didn't deck him. If that would have been a 40-year-old guy going up there, I guarantee you they'd
have been all over him, " DiLaura said.
" He absolutely got away lightly. He got a light push and in my humble opinion, he took a dive and the dive backfired because
he hit his head. Maybe it'll knock a little bit of sense into him, " added the former fed, who trained Buffalo police on firearms
and defensive tactics, according to the report...
It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is]
demoralization ; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number
of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of
the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American
students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals)
are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system.
You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. T hey are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain
stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you
prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other
words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need
another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting
in favor and in the interests of United States society.
Yuri Bezmenov
American Psycho , 16 minutes ago
This article was one of the most articulate and succinct rebuttals to the BLM political power grab. I too have been calling
these "allies" useful idiots and I am happy to hear this professor doing the same. Bravo professor!
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it will
be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has gone
on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that will
crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984 and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment).
Already many families are opting out of sending their recent high school graduates off to
college as a potential second wave COVID-19 crisis looms. Many students are no doubt thinking
it's
a good time for a 'gap year' .
This is a trend likely to only grow, especially given the degree to which universities stop
actually educating in Literature, History, Science, Business, Math, and the Classics - and
instead focus on dubious and
highly elastic concepts like "privilege" and "systemic racism".
UPDATE.3: From a professor in the comments section:
I am a full professor in the humanities at a major private university. Everyone on this
blog would likely recognize my name if I published it here.
I've decided that at this point my life–I am in my late 50s–that proactively
fighting is just not worth it for me. Over a decade ago I suffered a severe depressive
episode after a student at my school sought to destroy me online by publishing, without my
permission, a kindly penned private note to her. (It involved a "woke" topic. But I'll just
leave it at that). In any event, it seemed like hell for about two weeks, suffering night
terrors, severe insomnia, excruciating brain zaps in the middle of the night, etc. I could
have turned her into the provost's office for violating the university's honor code. But I
knew if I did that I would create my own Streisand effect. Thus, I thought to myself, just
suffer for a little while and it will go away. It did. But the episode changed me
immensely.
So, with BLM and its insane sycophantic Jonestown-like disciples, I will not go out of my
way to cause trouble, such as asking my university president difficult questions, boycotting
the school's required diversity training, and so forth. However, I will not lie, and I will
not confess things I do not believe. That, of course, may be enough to attract negative
attention from "the Woman." (Take note: it's not "the Man" anymore). So be it. I have a nice
chunk of change in savings, retirement, and investments, and I am confident that I can find
work at lower ranked institutions that would be more than happy to hire me. So for me, it's
not a question of money or finding work. It's the emotional toll. I want to continue writing,
doing first rate scholarship, and try as best I can to contribute to my discipline.
As far as my students go, I will continue to teach in a "Benedict Option" way, trying the
best I can to "strengthen the things that remain" (Rev. 3) and pass on to them the best that
has been thought, believed, and lived in Western Civilisation. My experience has been that
students are hungry for such direction, but you have to present it to them in a way what
meets them where they are at. You cannot presuppose anything. For this reason, I have found
creative ways to introduce them to ancient and modern ideas that do not directly address
contemporary concerns. As they say, I try to find "the thin edge of the wedge" and pound
away, using self-deprecating humor, personal anecdotes, and a sense of joy in my teaching.
(Don't ever, I mean ever, underestimate the attractiveness and power of exhibiting love for
one's students). This results in them letting their guard down. (We used to call it in the
old days "being open minded." Back then "being closed minded" was considered disgraceful. Now
it's an essential qualification for employment at the New York Times. Go figure). On the
other hand, I will not compromise in my lectures or acquiesce to altering my curricular plan
to meet the non-academic demands of the Office of Diversity and Equity (if such demands in
fact arise, though they have not yet). I realize that I can not avoid them forever, that at
some point they will likely try to force me to confess my allegiance to their bizarre Uncivil
Religion. At that point, I will be among my blessed predecessors, including Socrates, Jesus,
St. Peter, St. Paul, and Dante. What an honor.
One weapon in the arsenal of progressives has been, for generations, popular media. (How
many were encouraged by Lennon's "Heaven" to leave the faith? How many people did U2 get to
join amnesty International?)
I wonder whether it might not be useful to assemble a catalog of art/media that (a) is
universally acknowledged as genuinely good, decent, and true, and (b) tends to undermine
some of the worst excesses of the woke.
These should be works that do not in any obvious way present themselves as
"conservative" or even as proposing what you would call specific policy positions; instead,
they would model resistance to the sort of compulsory conformity that we are dreading.
I'll start the list:
A Man for All Seasons (1966 film), specifically for Thomas More's thoughts concerning
silence and the freedom of conscience.
The militants have chosen the most sympathetic states, governors and mayors for these
protests, riots, arson, assault, etc and most recently urban takeovers but success against
pacifist mayors and governors breads hubris and conceit and over confidence. Eventually
they are going to try this in a less sympathetic state and the national guard or the
military will be called in to secure the areas possibly with real bullets and with a
totality of securing Baghdad or Kabul. The domestic terrorism laws and treason laws will be
dusted off and applied to those arrested.
As with allmost everything that occurs as a university, the purpose of the commencement
speech is not to provide a service to the students, but to make the institution's faculty and
staff feel important...
...It should be noted that most students who attend commencement ceremonies couldn't care
less who the celebrity speaker is. Most of them are there because they like the ritualistic
aspects of it, and virtually no one remembers what is said at commencement speeches in any
case.
The fact that most students (i.e., paying customers) just want to "feel graduated" by going
to these ceremonies should be a tip to the faculty that speakers should be non-controversial.
But, because these administrators want attention and influence, they often insist on bringing
in controversial political figures and causing even more grief for their customers, as if four
years of over-priced classes and social conditioning wasn't enough.
The fact colleges and universities couldn't care less about the people who pay the bills was
reinforced all the more this year when most universities shut down as a result of the COVID-19
panic. Most higher education institutions insisted on charging students full price even though
"college" was reduced to series of Zoom meetings and online assignments. Obviously, that's not
what most students paid for. College administrators, of course, were adamant that the students
keep paying through the nose for services not rendered
...
Fortunately, some of the more intelligent university trustees have already done away
with it altogether. Cep notes:
As Jason Song of The Los Angeles Times noticed, current Washington and Lee President
Kenneth Ruscio explained in 2009: "The wise and fiscally prudent Board determined that in
future years our graduates and families should rest easy knowing that if they had to endure a
worthless Commencement address, it would at least be inexpensive," meaning the president
gives the only speech.
Tennessee Patriot , 4 minutes ago
Best example I ever heard of describing a graduation ceremony:
Imagine you are sitting there in the hot sun, wrapped in a shower curtain, listening to
someone read a NYC Phone book for 3 hours.
I had to do that for HS, two Bachelor's Degrees, a Masters, two daughters & two out of
7 Grandbabies.
No thanks. Highly overrated ********. If it was up to me, they can mail it to me and lets
go straight to the party afterwards.
Handful of Dust , 1 hour ago
" I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and
clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Joe Biden, referring to the Kenyan at the beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary
campaign, Jan. 31, 2007.
"He's like magic. Some day they'll be calling him The Magic *****!"
Yen Cross , 1 hour ago
The longer these kids are away from their indoctrination camps, the better.
Bear , 1 hour ago
"As many colleges struggle with tight budgets" ... what a crook, they have so much money
they can pay their professors 250,000 to toe the line and they a support staff of thousands
... America's most corrup institution (after the FED)
Too bad, but # blacklivesmatter per
its core organization @ Blklivesmatter just torpedoed itself,
with its full-fledged support of # defundthepolice
: "We call for a national defunding of police." Suuuure. They knew this is non-starter, and tried a sensible Orwell 1984
of saying,
Uhlig now faces a social media campaign, led by a prominent University of Michigan economist, to get him booted as editor of the
Journal of Political Economy . Here is another leader of the professional lynch mob:
I am calling for the resignation of Harald Uhlig ( @ haralduhlig
) as the editor of the Journal of Political Economy. If you would like to add your name to this call, it is posted at
https:// forms.gle/9uiJVqCAXBDBg6 8N9 . It will be delivered by end of
day 6/10 (tomorrow).
To: The editors of the Journal of Political Economy and President of The University of Chicago Press We, the undersigned,
call for the resignation of Harald Uhlig, the Bruce Allen and Barbara...
There has been a rash of firings of editors this week. One interesting thing - judging by the publications listed and by the
cringing, groveling apologies given by these editors, they are liberals who are being eaten by up-and-coming radicals. It's like
the liberals had no idea what hit them.
I used to worry the future would be like "1984". Then the Soviet Union fell, things seemed OK tor awhile. After 9/11, I worried
the future would be like "Khartoum". But now, it looks like it is going to be a weird combination of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers"
and "Planet of the Apes".
Now seeing reports on Twitter that the Seattle Autonomous Zone now has its first warlord. America truly is a diverse place.
You have hippie communes, religious sects, semi-autonomous Indian reservations, a gerontocracy in Washington, and now your very
own Africa style fiefdom complete with warlord.
I really am sorry. This must be so depressing to watch as an American.
Arizona State journalism school retracts offer to new dean because of an "insensitive" tweets and comments - by insensitive
we mean, not sufficiently zealous and not hip to the full-spectrum wokeness. Online student petitions follow, and you know the
rest of the story.
This is madness. The true late stages of a revolution where they start eating their own.
Those tweets above (and countless others like them) just demonstrate the absolute intellectual and moral rot that now reigns
in academia. I saw one yesterday by an attorney for a prominent activist organization who said he couldn't understand why the
Constitution isn't interpreted as "requiring" the demolition of the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia, and others like it. I'm
having a harder time understanding how he ever graduated from an accredited law school.
Forget "defund the police," perhaps "defund universities" would be the best place to start healing what ails contemporary culture.
The rot started there, not only with the "anti-racist" (as opposed to "mere" non-racism) cant, it with gender ideology (Judith
Butler), Cultural Marxism, etc. When "pc" first became a common term in the early '90s I thought it passing fad. We now see the
result of the decades long radical march through the institutions bearing fruit, and it's more strange and rotten fruit than ever.
Woke leftists are the people who believe in the myth of aggregate Black intellectual parity with Whites and Asians the least.
That's why they constantly do absolutely everything in their power to juke the statistics, like allowing Black students to not
have to take exams, which is really just an extension of this same principle at work in "affirmative action."
The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge--100,000,000 people were murdered
in the name of extreme egalitarianism across the 20th century. When leftism gets out of control, tragedy happens.
I have no idea why you believe hard totalitarian methods aren't coming. I'm not sure what the answer is. We can expect no help
from the Republican party. That much is certain. A disturbing number of people have not yet awoken from their dogmatic slumber.
Who is Amy Siskind going to call to arrest Tucker Carlson and bring him to a tribunal? The defunded police?
It seems to me that the left has gone about this bassackwards. First you ashcan the Second Amendment, THEN you take away their
First Amendment Rights. You most certainly do not go around silencing people with political correctness, then go around announcing
your intention to kulak an entire group of very well-armed people. But that's just my opinion...
Rod, I disagree that a "soft totalitarianism" is what awaits us if these barbarians are allowed to run around unopposed. The
notion of human rights is a product of the religion they despise, so I see no reason why they would respect this ideal when dealing
with vile white wreckers of the multi-cultural utopia they have envisioned.
"... This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic socialism," and so on. ..."
"... Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation and the regulation of private monopolies? ..."
"... Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude" via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt for the power of suggestion. ..."
"... "My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World . ..."
"... As Marx explained, the dynamics of state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and enforces capital's dominance. ..."
The global crisis is not merely economic; it is the result of profound financial,
sociological and political trends described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley.
The unfolding global crisis is best understood as the convergence of the dynamics described
by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley. Let's start with Franz Kafka , the writer (1883-1924) who most
eloquently captured the systemic injustices of all-powerful bureaucratic institutions--the
alienation experienced by the hapless citizen enmeshed in the bureaucratic web, petty
officialdom's mindless persecutions of the innocent, and the intrinsic absurdity of the
centralized State best expressed in this phrase: "We expect errors, not justice."
If this isn't the most insightful summary of the current moment in history, then what is? A
lawyer by training and practice, Kafka understood that the the more powerful and entrenched the
institution and its bureaucracy, the greater the collateral damage rained on the innocent, and
the more extreme the perversion of justice.
We are living in a Kafkaesque nightmare where suspicion alone justifies the government stealing from its citizens, and an
unrelated crime (possessing drug paraphernalia) is used to justify state theft.
As in a Kafkaesque nightmare, the state is above the law when it needs an excuse to steal your car or cash. There is no
crime, no arrest, no due process--just the state threatening that you should shut up and be happy they don't take everything you
own.
All these forms of civil forfeiture are well documented. While some would claim the worst
abuses have been rectified, that is far from evident. What is evident is how long these kinds
of legalized looting have been going on.
When the state steals our cash or car on mere suspicion, you have no recourse other than
horrendously costly and time-consuming legal actions. So you no longer have enough money to
prove your innocence now that we've declared your car and cash guilty?
Tough luck, bucko--be glad you live in a fake democracy with a fake rule of law, a fake
judiciary, and a government with the officially sanctioned right to steal your money and
possessions without any due process or court proceedings-- legalized looting .
They don't have to torture a confession out of you, like the NKVD/KGB did in the former
Soviet Union, because your cash and car are already guilty.
This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power
grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic
socialism," and so on.
Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it
controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of
the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of
Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation
and the regulation of private monopolies?
What is the EU bureaucracy in Brussels but the perfection of a stateless State?
As Kafka divined, centralized bureaucracy has the capacity for both Orwellian obfuscation
(anyone read those 1,300-page Congressional bills other than those gaming the system for their
private benefit?) and systemic avarice and injustice.
The convergence boils down to this: it would be impossible to loot this much wealth if the
State didn't exist to enforce the "rules" of parasitic predation.
Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude"
via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required
to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt
for the power of suggestion.
"My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of
governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I
described in Brave New World .
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."
As prescient as he was, Huxley could not have foreseen the power of mobile telephony, gaming
and social media hypnosis/addiction as a conditioning mechanism for passivity and
self-absorption. We are only beginning to understand the immense addictive/conditioning powers
of 24/7 mobile telephony / social media.
What would we say about a drug that caused people to forego sex to check their Facebook
page? What would we say about a drug that caused young men to stay glued to a computer for 40+
hours straight, an obsession so acute that some actually die? We would declare that drug to be
far too powerful and dangerous to be widely available, yet mobile telephony, gaming and social
media is now ubiquitous.
... ... ...
Last but not least, we come to Marx. As Marx explained, the dynamics of
state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both
financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and
enforces capital's dominance.
Marx also saw that finance-capital would inevitably incentivize over-capacity, stripping
industrial capital of pricing power and profits. Once there's more goods and services than
labor can afford to buy with earnings, financialization arises to provide credit to labor to
buy capital's surplus production and engineer financial gains with leveraged speculation and
asset bubbles.
But since labor's earnings are stagnant or declining, there's an end-game to
financialization. Capital can no longer generate any gain at all except by central banks
agreeing to buy capital's absurdly over-valued assets. Though the players tell themselves this
arrangement is temporary, the dynamics Marx described are fundamental and inexorable: the
insanity of central banks creating currency out of thin air to buy insanely over-priced assets
is the final crisis of late-stage capitalism because there is no other escape from
collapse.
Having stripped labor of earnings and political power and extracted every last scrap of
profit from over-capacity (i.e. globalization) and financialization, capital is now completely
dependent on money-spewing central banks buying their phantom capital with newly printed
currency, a dynamic that will eventually trigger a collapse in the purchasing power of the
central banks' phantom capital (i.e. fiat currencies).
When there is no incentive to invest in real-world productive assets and every incentive to
skim profits by front-running the Federal Reserve, capitalism is dead. Paraphrasing
Wallerstein, "Capitalism is no longer attractive to capitalists."
We can see this for ourselves in the real world: if "renewable energy" was as profitable as
some maintain, private capital would have rushed in to fund every project to maximize their
gains from this new source of immense profits. But as Art Berman explained in Why the
Renewable Rocket Has Failed To Launch , this hasn't been the case. Rather, "green energy"
remains dependent on government subsidies in one form or another. If hydropower is removed from
"renewables," all other renewables (solar, wind, etc.) provide only 4% of total global energy
consumption.
Japan's stagnation exemplifies Marx's analysis: Japan's central bank has created trillions
of yen out of thin air for 30 years and used this phantom capital to buy the over-valued assets
of Japan's politically dominant state-capitalist class, a policy that has led to secular
stagnation and social decline. If it weren't for China's one-off expansion, Japan's economy
would have slipped into phantom capital oblivion decades ago.
Kafka, Orwell, Huxley and Marx called it, and we're living in the last-gasp stage of the
cruel and unsustainable system they described. So sorry, but investing your phantom capital in
FANG stocks, Tik-Tok and virtual-reality games will not save phantom capital from well-deserved
oblivion.
Not a bad article. Much of the rest of the world is in the same situation as the US, so it's
going to reorganize itself at about the same time as the US does. Your Russia has already
reorganized itself, events may force that again, but I'd hope not. Russia has suffered
enough, in my opinion.
Suggested reading:
Caldwell, _The Entitlement Society_ -- effect of Civil Rights legislation on the US.
Caldwell suggests that implementing Civil Rights as interpreted by the Judicial Branch is
physically impossible and has been a proximate cause of the situation Saker describes.
Copley, _Uncivilization_ -- The US situation of megacities destroying their hinterlands is
not limited to the US, but is worldwide. Copley considers this a strategic weakness should
there be a central war, but the current situation suggests that the weakness may make cities
unable to get resources needed for urban survival even without a central war.
Martin von Creveld, "The Fate of the State', _Parameters_, 1996 (search Google Scholar for
original article). Shows that decline is not limited to the West, but is a retreat of
civilization worldwide, both in terms of a reduction of civilized territory and in terms of
governmental control/legitimacy within governmental boundaries. So far, the decline von
Creveld described in 1996 has continued unabated. Few predictions in the field of strategic
analysis have been as successful.
Levinson, _The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World
Economy Bigger_, In passing, Levinson recounts how the cities lost their natural monopoly on
shipping and manufacturing to container ports and distributed manufacturing.
Harper, _The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (The Princeton
History of the Ancient World) _. Demonstrates that social failure was not responsible for the
fall of Rome, but that physical factors (disease, end of the Roman Climate Optimum was). Club
of Rome, _Limits to Growth_, was an early attempt to find physical limiting factors for
industrial societies.
US Lawmakers Propose Total Ban On STEM Visas For Chinese Students by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2020 -
10:45 As the White House prepares to
eject Chinese graduate students with ties to the PLA, three US lawmakers are taking things
a step further - proposing a bill which would ban mainland Chinese students from studying STEM
subjects in the United States .
Two senators and one House member said on Wednesday that the Secure Campus Act would bar
Chinese nationals from obtaining visas for graduate or postgraduate studies in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. Students from Taiwan and Hong Kong would be exempt ,
according to
SCMP .
"The Chinese Communist Party has long used American universities to conduct espionage on the
United States," said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), one of the bill's sponsors, adding "What's worse
is that their efforts exploit gaps in current law. It's time for that to end."
"The Secure Campus Act will protect our national security and maintain the integrity of the
American research enterprise."
The proposed legislation comes as diplomatic relations have fractured between the world's
two largest economies. The fissures started to show during a trade war that has been rumbling
on for almost two years and have only widened amid accusations about the handling of the
Covid-19 disease outbreak , and the treatment of ethnic minority groups in China.
Hong Kong is the latest flashpoint after Beijing drew up a national security law that
Washington says tramples on the city's mini-constitution. The US threatened retaliation over
the move.
-SCMP
The bill will also tackle China's efforts to recruit talent overseas through their Thousand
Talents Program , an operation launched in 2008 by the CCP which seeks out international
experts in scientific research, innovation and entrepreneurship. It proposes that participants
in China's recruitment of foreigners be made to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act (FARA) , and would prohibit Chinese nationals and those participating in China-sponsored
programs from receiving federal grants or working on federally funded R&D in STEM fields
.
Any university, research institute or laboratory receiving federal funding would be required
to attest that they are not knowingly employing participants in China's recruitment programs -
a list of which the US Secretary of State would publish.
US law enforcement and educational agencies have raised red flags about undisclosed ties
between federally funded researchers and foreign governments. A crackdown has included
indictments and dismissals.
In January, Charles Lieber, 60, chairman of the chemistry and chemical biology department
at Harvard University, was arrested and charged for lying about his involvement in the
Thousand Talents Programme .
-SCMP
Meanwhile, earlier this month a professor at the University of Arkansas who received
millions of dollars in research grants, including $500,000 from NASA, was
arrested and charged with one count of wire fraud.
According to the FBI, Ang failed to disclose that he was getting paid by a Chinese
university and Chinese companies in violation of university policy. He is accused of making
false statements while failing to disclose his extensive ties to China as a member of the
"Thousand Talents Scholars" program.
63-year-old Simon Saw-Teong Ang is the
director of the school's High Density Electronics Center, which received funding from the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD) and
NASA. Since 2013, Ang has been the primary investigator or co-investigator on US
government-funded grants totaling over $5 million, according to the
Washington Examiner .
In November, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations chaired by Sen. Rob Portman
(R-OH) released a
109-page bipartisan report which concluded that foreign nations "seek to exploit America's
openness to advance their own national interests," the most ambitious of which "has been
China," according to the Examiner . According to the report, Chinese academics involved in
their so-called 'Thousand Talents' program have been exploiting access to US research labs
.
Backlash
According to SCMP , members of the US scientific community see the US as unfairly targeting
Chinese colleagues , and that the campaigns will discourage talented individuals from pursuing
studies at US universities.
"While we must be vigilant to safeguard research, we must also ensure that the US remains a
desirable and welcoming destination for researchers from around the world," wrote members of
60 groups - including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the
Federation of American Scientists, in a 2019 letter to science policy officials.
The US lawmakers' proposal follows China's March decision to revoke the press credentials
for US journalists from three major US newspapers - declaring five US media outlets to be
foreign government proxies. In February, the Trump administration labeled five Chinese state
media groups as "foreign missions" (via SCMP ).
I
had long heard rumors from academicians about how "online teaching is a nightmare," "online
teaching ruined my life," "online teaching sucked the brains out of my head," "online teaching
is a new and insidious form of labor degradation," and the like.
I foolishly tended to write these complaints off as hyperbole, saying "it can't be that
bad."
No more. I get it now. The COVID-19 era, which turned my formerly in-person adjunct class
into an online course, has been instructive.
If anything, by my experience, online teaching is worse than anything I had heard or read.
It has been a nightmare.
Online teaching the first time through became a health menace for me this spring. It has
been lethal, both mentally and physically, to have been hit with a massive requirement of
extra, unpaid online labor, requiring energy I didn't have for hours and hours of typing,
typing, typing, into a computer screen and calling, calling, and calling tech people and
internet providers and computer companies on the phone.
Unpaid and extra new online tasks and madness? Oh, indeed :
... ... ...
# Hours writing comments on papers via Track Changes. (Yes, grading papers is part of the
job, but the online method of doing this has been a big time-adder for me. Track Changes is new
to me as an editor [though not as a writer] and [for me at least] far more time-consuming than
marking and writing with a red pen. It also gave me an intimate new look at how shockingly
awful many students' writing skills are, something that has added considerably to the amount of
time I have spent doing comments.)
# Hours and hours spent trying to somehow make Zoom work via XXX.edu (this after my wife and
numerous friends told me that private Zoom was "super-hack-able").
# Hours spent filming Panopto video lectures that were erased until I got the hang of the
idiosyncratic process (this had me nearly in tears during the second week).
# Hours spent trying to edit a couple of Panopto videos that had been marred by household
and neighborhood noise and interruptions.
# Hours spent taking my computer down to sit outside the (closed) University of Iowa library
in effort to hijack its powerful Wi-Fi to upload videos after Zoom (seemed to have) crashed my
upload capacity (exactly why that crash occurred in Week 6 is still a mystery).
# Hours spent trying to explain to students how D2L works (as if I really knew).
Especially taxing have been he hours I've spent emailing with students like X1, who was
angry over the creation of Facebook group for the class and who told me (no joke) that I have
no right to comment on his failure to copy-edit his paper because he found a typo in one of my
many group emails.
Another good soul-crushing online time-suck was student X2, who handed in a paper brazenly
stolen from an online Website (with a few small word changes). He denied his plagiarism and
then confessed by saying that "I frankly think that writing papers is a waste of time
."
(I would have reported X2, but I decided not to since I could not stomach yet more time
typing, typing, typing into a computer screen, as would have been required if I'd gone to
Academic Integrity.)
It gets worse. I have also now spent hours and hours responding to false charges lodged
against me online (how else?) by (an) unnamed student(s) and sadly taken seriously by a
university dean. One such charge claims that I am "unreachable." That is nonsense: I have made
my XXX.edu email and two of my private emails fully available to all students. I check each one
of these email accounts twice daily.
Another bogus charge claims that I gave a bad and punishing grade to a student's online
comment because I disagreed with it. That is sheer nonsense. Online comments have no "grade" in
my class. And I have explained again and again to students (and I reiterated my explanation
quite clearly in the instance in question) that there is no grading penalty for disagreeing
with me or any of my assigned authors – and no grading boost for agreeing with me or my
assigned authors. I merely require that students show some meaningful engagement with my
arguments and those of my assigned authors.
Another false complaint relayed to me and taken seriously by a dean claims that I told
students that they "all write like fifth graders." Nope: I said I would no longer read papers
handed in without students having first done an elementary copy-edit. I sent a few papers back
to students, asking them to use the editing function in Word and suggesting that they read
their first drafts aloud to themselves. I recommended the university's first-rate Writing
Center as a student resource and I added a few specific comments on things like punctuation and
paragraph breaks.
I had to explain all this in a long email to the academic authorities, who took the charges
seriously because the Dean of Students took them seriously. In a recent email, I asked if any
student or the dean had provided any actual evidence for their charges. The response:
crickets.
There isno extra pay for the time spent responding to absurd charges, just as
there is no extra pay for the endless hours I've spent trying to work with the instructional
technology, the tech staff, computer and printer companies, and so on .
Online teaching for me has been a bad dream, even more base and cruel than what I had heard.
I would only wish it on myvery worst enemies .
Three things have made it especially horrific in my experience this spring:
(1) The inherent awfulness of online teaching has been significantly exacerbated by the
COVID-19 crisis, which has made coordination exceedingly difficult and has all kinds of
collateral consequences.
(2) I already spend a lot of time on a computer due to my ongoing writing career. The last
thing a writer wants is another job that involves hours and hours and hours of typing, typing,
typing into a computer screen. Give me a janitorial position before that!
(3) As a teacher I am employed as an adjunct, paid per course, not by the hour. Prior to the
online transition, the hourly rate was decent. With the extra work involved in Covid-era online
instruction, it is more like sweatshop labor. By my best guess, the labor time has at the very
least doubled (it may have tripled in my case). Along the way, the work requirements have
interfered with the other paid work I do, which now earns at a higher hourly rate (it did not
before).
As Daniel Falcone writes, paraphrasing the political scientist Stephen Zunes, "the work
has doubled and the rewards have been diminished." And, I would respectfully add, the
harassment and abuse have escalated.
I've been searching through my long employment record trying to recall a worse occupational
experience: my second job ever, as an 18-year-old dishwasher in a diner (Augie's) on Chicago's
North Clark St. The dishes and silverware and plates piled up endlessly, far beyond my capacity
to load and wash them. Every ten minutes or so, the restaurant's Greek owner would come back
and yell at me. This went on for weeks until one Friday night, when it was especially bad, I
just put my coat on and walked out the back door into a black alley and never returned. I
sacrificed two week's pay and it was worth it.
Walking out of an online curse (I am going to leave that typo – this course is a
curse ) is not an option: students are depending on a grade for this quarter and their
folks have paid (absurdly) big tuition, so I will stick it out.
Thank God it is almost over – the nightmare ends in two weeks and I have some serious
and relevant intellectual and political work to do full time when it does. We are living and
dying, after all, under a new American and global neo-fascism in a period of dire capitalogenic
epidemiological, ecological, and economic crisis. This no freaking time to be spending hours
online and on the phone trying to make yet another idiosyncratic XXX.edu program work, trying
to rally alienated students who have other priorities, and arguing with people who think it is
authoritarian bullying to want college-level students to edit their papers and write complete
sentences that end with a period instead of a comma.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic,
fewer and fewer international students were coming to study in the United States.
While the number of international students who newly enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities during the 2015-2016 school year stood at
more than 300,000 , by the 2018-2019 school year, that number had fallen by about 10% to
less than 270,000.
This trend will undoubtedly accelerate in the fall of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The American Council on Education predicts that overall international enrollment for the next
academic year will
decline by as much as 25% . That means there could be 220,000 fewer international students
in the U.S. than the approximately
870,000 there are now.
As an international education professional, I foresee six major ways that the expected
steep decline in international enrollment will change U.S. higher education and the
economy.
1. Higher tuition
International students often pay full tuition
, which averages more than US$26,000
per year at public four-year institutions and $36,000 at private nonprofit four-year
institutions. That matters because the tuition from foreign students provides extra funds to
subsidize the
costs of enrolling more students from the U.S. At public colleges and universities, the
revenue generated from international enrollment also helps to
make up for cuts in state funding for higher education.
One study found that for every 10% drop in state funding for higher education, international
enrollment increased by
12-17% at public research universities from 1996 to 2012.
According to the Institute of International Education's 2019
Open Doors Report , 872,214 international students are enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities.
As
states cut budgets due to the loss of tax revenue brought on by the economic crisis caused
by COVID-19, many institutions of higher education will be forced to raise tuition . While this may help college and
university finances in the short term, in the long term it will make it more difficult for
international students to be able to
afford to study in the U.S., which in turn will make the U.S. a less attractive study
destination.
... ... ...
Associate Vice Provost for International Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore
County
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
"... Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom ..."
"... Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. ..."
It's the same in education. Academies are unaccountable bureaucracies with very expensive
layers of management while teachers are being laid off in some of the most deprived areas of
the country, exemplified by this story from Sheffield
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and
Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers in the population
rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes more expensive.As
market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence people not able to
get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young people being denied an
education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are
devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the
top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom.
With the introduction of
Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the former there is no surprise
that this system does not work and has provided a platform for the unscrupulous greedy and
corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take 'Neiliberalism' to where
logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected minority exerting their
power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. It worked well
when labour was pumping billions into it and they invested in early intervention schemes such
as sure start and nursery expansion. Unfortunately under the tories we have had those
progressive policies scaled right back. Children with SEND and/or in care are commodities
bought and sold by local authorities. I've been working in a PRU which is a private company
and it does good things, but I can't help but think if that was in the public sector that it
would be in a purpose built building rather than some scruffy office with no playground. The
facilities aren't what you would expect in this day in age. If we had a proper functioning
government with a plan then what happens with vulnerable children would be properly organised
rather than a reactive shit show.
The wristband and microchip sound fab for children under 18 so we monitor to ensure their
safety, especially in educational settings and on school trips. It would enable them to be
located if lost or snatched. If it can be used to monitor language and aspects of behaviour
then they could not be falsely accused of of antisocial actions. If they don't comply then
child care benefits or access to higher education could be withdrawn as a sanction. It may
even improve road safety if they drive illegally or badly. Any chance of a tiny electric
shock feature to the microchip?
"... In France, confinement has been generally well accepted as necessary, but that does not mean people are content with the government -- on the contrary. Every evening at eight, people go to their windows to cheer for health workers and others doing essential tasks, but the applause is not for President Macron. ..."
"... What we have witnessed is the failure of what used to be one of the very best public health services in the world. It has been degraded by years of cost-cutting. In recent years, the number of hospital beds per capita has declined steadily. Many hospitals have been shut down and those that remain are drastically understaffed. Public hospital facilities have been reduced to a state of perpetual saturation, so that when a new epidemic comes along, on top of all the other usual illnesses, there is simply not the capacity to deal with it all at once. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalization myth fostered the delusion that advanced Western societies could prosper from their superior brains, thanks to ideas and computer startups, while the dirty work of actually making things is left to low-wage countries. One result: a drastic shortage of face masks. The government let a factory that produced masks and other surgical equipment be sold off and shut down. Having outsourced its textile industry, France had no immediate way to produce the masks it needed. ..."
"... In late March, French media reported that a large stock of masks ordered and paid for by the southeastern region of France was virtually hijacked on the tarmac of a Chinese airport by Americans, who tripled the price and had the cargo flown to the United States. There are also reports of Polish and Czech airport authorities intercepting Chinese or Russian shipments of masks intended for hard-hit Italy and keeping them for their own use. ..."
"... The Covid–19 crisis makes it just that much clearer that the European Union is no more than a complex economic arrangement, with neither the sentiment nor the popular leaders that hold together a nation. For a generation, schools, media, politicians have instilled the belief that the "nation" is an obsolete entity. But in a crisis, people find that they are in France, or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium -- but not in "Europe." The European Union is structured to care about trade, investment, competition, debt, economic growth. Public health is merely an economic indicator. For decades, the European Commission has put irresistible pressure on nations to reduce the costs of their public health facilities in order to open competition for contracts to the private sector -- which is international by nature. ..."
"... Scapegoating China may seem the way to try to hold the declining Western world together, even as Europeans' long-standing admiration for America turns to dismay. ..."
"... The countries that have suffered most from the epidemic are among the most indebted of the EU member states, starting with Italy. The economic damage from the lockdown obliges them to borrow further. As their debt increases, so do interest rates charged by commercial banks. They turned to the EU for help, for instance by issuing eurobonds that would share the debt at lower interest rates. This has increased tension between debtor countries in the south and creditor countries in the north, which said nein . Countries in the eurozone cannot borrow from the European Central Bank as the U.S. Treasury borrows from the Fed. And their own national central banks take orders from the ECB, which controls the euro. ..."
"... The great irony is that "a common currency" was conceived by its sponsors as the key to European unity. On the contrary, the euro has a polarizing effect -- with Greece at the bottom and Germany at the top. And Italy sinking. But Italy is much bigger than Greece and won't go quietly. ..."
"... A major paradox is that the left and the Yellow Vests call for economic and social policies that are impossible under EU rules, and yet many on the left shy away from even thinking of leaving the EU. For over a generation, the French left has made an imaginary "social Europe" the center of its utopian ambitions. ..."
"... Russia is a living part of European history and culture. Its exclusion is totally unnatural and artificial. Brzezinski [the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration's national security adviser] spelled it out in The Great Chessboard : The U.S. maintains world hegemony by keeping the Eurasian landmass divided. ..."
"... But this policy can be seen to be inherited from the British. It was Churchill who proclaimed -- in fact welcomed -- the Iron Curtain that kept continental Europe divided. In retrospect, the Cold War was basically part of the divide-and-rule strategy, since it persists with greater intensity than ever after its ostensible cause -- the Communist threat -- is long gone. ..."
"... The whole Ukrainian operation of 2014 [the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kyiv, February 2014] was lavishly financed and stimulated by the United States in order to create a new conflict with Russia. Joe Biden has been the Deep State's main front man in turning Ukraine into an American satellite, used as a battering ram to weaken Russia and destroy its natural trade and cultural relations with Western Europe. ..."
"... I think France is likelier than Germany to break with the U.S.–imposed Russophobia simply because, thanks to de Gaulle, France is not quite as thoroughly under U.S. occupation. Moreover, friendship with Russia is a traditional French balance against German domination -- which is currently being felt and resented. ..."
"... "Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic." ..."
"... Since WWII the US has itself been occupied by tyrants, using Russophobia to demand power as fake defenders. ..."
"... " French philosophy .By constantly attacking, deconstructing, and denouncing every remnant of human "power" they could spot, the intellectual rebels left the power of "the markets" unimpeded, and did nothing to stand in the way of the expansion of U.S. military power all around the world " ..."
"... From her groundbreaking work on the NATO empire's sickening war on sovereign Serbia, the dead end of identity politics and trans bathroom debates, to her critique of unfettered immigration and open borders, and her dismissal of the absurd Russsiagate baloney, better than anyone else, Johnstone has kept her intellect carefully honed to the real genuine kitchen table bread and butter issues that truly matter. She recognized before most of the world's scholars the perils of rampant inequality and saw the writing on the wall as to where this grotesque economic system is taking us all: down a dystopian slope into penury and police-state heavy-handedness, with millions unable to come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or dental bill. ..."
"... The mask competition and fiasco shows the importance of a country simply making things in their own country, not on the other side of the world, it's not nationalism it's just a better way to logistically deliver reliable products to the citizens. ..."
"... Some hold that they never departed, but mutated tools including CFA zones and "intelligence" relations in furtherance of "changing" to remain qualitatively the same. Just as "The United States of America" is a system of coercive relations not synonymous with the political geographical area designated "The United States of America", the colonialism of former and present "colonial powers" continues to exist, since the "independence" of the colonised was always, and continues to be, framed within linear systems of coercive relations, facilitated by the complicity of "local elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest, and the acquiescence of "local others" for myriad reasons. ..."
"... After reading Circle in the Darkness, I have ordered and am now reading her books on Hillary Clinton (Queen of Chaos) and the Yugoslav wars (Fool's Crusade), which are very worthwhile and important. I would recommend that her many articles over the years, appearing in such publications such as In These Times, Counterpunch and Consortium News, be reprinted and published together as an anthology. Through Circle in the Darkness, we have Diana Johnstone's "Life", but it would be good also to have her "Letters". ..."
"... Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest. ..."
In France, confinement has been generally well accepted as necessary, but that does not mean
people are content with the government -- on the contrary. Every evening at eight, people go to
their windows to cheer for health workers and others doing essential tasks, but the applause is
not for President Macron.
Macron and his government are criticized for hesitating too long to confine the population,
for vacillating about the need for masks and tests, or about when or how much to end the
confinement. Their confusion and indecision at least defend them from the wild accusation of
having staged the whole thing in order to lock up the population.
What we have witnessed is the failure of what used to be one of the very best public health
services in the world. It has been degraded by years of cost-cutting. In recent years, the
number of hospital beds per capita has declined steadily. Many hospitals have been shut down
and those that remain are drastically understaffed. Public hospital facilities have been
reduced to a state of perpetual saturation, so that when a new epidemic comes along, on top of
all the other usual illnesses, there is simply not the capacity to deal with it all at
once.
The neoliberal globalization myth fostered the delusion that advanced Western societies
could prosper from their superior brains, thanks to ideas and computer startups, while the
dirty work of actually making things is left to low-wage countries. One result: a drastic
shortage of face masks. The government let a factory that produced masks and other surgical
equipment be sold off and shut down. Having outsourced its textile industry, France had no
immediate way to produce the masks it needed.
Meanwhile, in early April, Vietnam donated hundreds of thousands of antimicrobial face masks
to European countries and is producing them by the million. Employing tests and selective
isolation, Vietnam has fought off the epidemic with only a few hundred cases and no deaths.
You must have thoughts as to the question of Western unity in response to
Covid–19.
In late March, French media reported that a large stock of masks ordered and paid for by the
southeastern region of France was virtually hijacked on the tarmac of a Chinese airport by
Americans, who tripled the price and had the cargo flown to the United States. There are also
reports of Polish and Czech airport authorities intercepting Chinese or Russian shipments of
masks intended for hard-hit Italy and keeping them for their own use.
The absence of European solidarity has been shockingly clear. Better-equipped Germany banned
exports of masks to Italy. In the depth of its crisis, Italy found that the German and Dutch
governments were mainly concerned with making sure Italy pays its debts. Meanwhile, a team of
Chinese experts arrived in Rome to help Italy with its Covid–19 crisis, displaying a
banner reading "We are waves of the same sea, leaves of the same tree, flowers of the same
garden." The European institutions lack such humanistic poetry. Their founding value is not
solidarity but the neoliberal principle of "free unimpeded competition."
How do you think this reflects on the European Union?
The Covid–19 crisis makes it just that much clearer that the European Union is no more
than a complex economic arrangement, with neither the sentiment nor the popular leaders that
hold together a nation. For a generation, schools, media, politicians have instilled the belief
that the "nation" is an obsolete entity. But in a crisis, people find that they are in France,
or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium -- but not in "Europe." The European Union is structured to
care about trade, investment, competition, debt, economic growth. Public health is merely an
economic indicator. For decades, the European Commission has put irresistible pressure on
nations to reduce the costs of their public health facilities in order to open competition for
contracts to the private sector -- which is international by nature.
Globalization has hastened the spread of the pandemic, but it has not strengthened
internationalist solidarity. Initial gratitude for Chinese aid is being brutally opposed by
European Atlanticists. In early May, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the Springer publishing
giant, bluntly called on Germany to ally with the U.S. -- against China. Scapegoating China may
seem the way to try to hold the declining Western world together, even as Europeans'
long-standing admiration for America turns to dismay.
Meanwhile, relations between EU member states have never been worse. In Italy and to a
greater extent in France, the coronavirus crisis has enforced growing disillusion with the
European Union and an ill-defined desire to restore national sovereignty.
Corollary question: What are the prospects that Europe will produce leaders capable of
seizing that right moment, that assertion of independence? What do you reckon such leaders
would be like?
The EU is likely to be a central issue in the near future, but this issue can be exploited
in very different ways, depending on which leaders get hold of it. The coronavirus crisis has
intensified the centrifugal forces already undermining the European Union. The countries that
have suffered most from the epidemic are among the most indebted of the EU member states,
starting with Italy. The economic damage from the lockdown obliges them to borrow further. As
their debt increases, so do interest rates charged by commercial banks. They turned to the EU
for help, for instance by issuing eurobonds that would share the debt at lower interest rates.
This has increased tension between debtor countries in the south and creditor countries in the
north, which said nein . Countries in the eurozone cannot borrow from the European
Central Bank as the U.S. Treasury borrows from the Fed. And their own national central banks
take orders from the ECB, which controls the euro.
What does the crisis mean for the euro? I confess I've lost faith in this project, given
how disadvantaged it leaves the nations on the Continent's southern rim.
The great irony is that "a common currency" was conceived by its sponsors as the key to
European unity. On the contrary, the euro has a polarizing effect -- with Greece at the bottom
and Germany at the top. And Italy sinking. But Italy is much bigger than Greece and won't go
quietly.
The German constitutional court in Karlsruhe recently issued a long judgment making it clear
who is boss. It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that
the main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not
directly finance member states. If these rules were not followed, the Bundesbank, the German
central bank, would be obliged to pull out of the ECB. And since the Bundesbank is the ECB's
main creditor, that is that. There can be no generous financial help to troubled governments
within the eurozone. Period.
Is there a possibility of disintegration here?
The idea of leaving the EU is most developed in France. The Union Populaire
Républicaine, founded in 2007 by former senior functionary François Asselineau,
calls for France to leave the euro, the European Union, and NATO.
The party has been a didactic success, spreading its ideas and attracting around 20,000
active militants without scoring any electoral success. A main argument for leaving the EU is
to escape from the constraints of EU competition rules in order to protect its vital industry,
agriculture, and above all its public services.
A major paradox is that the left and the Yellow Vests call for economic and social policies
that are impossible under EU rules, and yet many on the left shy away from even thinking of
leaving the EU. For over a generation, the French left has made an imaginary "social Europe"
the center of its utopian ambitions.
" Europe" as an idea or an ideal, you mean.
Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the
nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European Union
faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step toward
fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis which weakens
the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic.
Two and a half months of coronavirus crisis have brought to light a factor that makes any
predictions about future leaders even more problematic. That factor is a widespread distrust
and rejection of all established authority. This makes rational political programs extremely
difficult, because rejection of one authority implies acceptance of another. For instance, the
way to liberate public services and pharmaceuticals from the distortions of the profit motive
is nationalization. If you distrust the power of one as much as the other, there is nowhere to
go.
Such radical distrust can be explained by two main factors -- the inevitable feeling of
helplessness in our technologically advanced world, combined with the deliberate and even
transparent lies on the part of mainstream politicians and media. But it sets the stage for the
emergence of manipulated saviors or opportunistic charlatans every bit as deceptive as the
leaders we already have, or even more so. I hope these irrational tendencies are less
pronounced in France than in some other countries.
I'm eager to talk about Russia. There are signs that relations with Russia are another
source of European dissatisfaction as "junior partners" within the U.S.–led Atlantic
alliance. Macron is outspoken on this point, "junior partners" being his phrase. The Germans --
business people, some senior officials in government -- are quite plainly restive.
Russia is a living part of European history and culture. Its exclusion is totally unnatural
and artificial. Brzezinski [the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration's national
security adviser] spelled it out in The Great Chessboard : The U.S. maintains world
hegemony by keeping the Eurasian landmass divided.
But this policy can be seen to be inherited
from the British. It was Churchill who proclaimed -- in fact welcomed -- the Iron Curtain that
kept continental Europe divided. In retrospect, the Cold War was basically part of the
divide-and-rule strategy, since it persists with greater intensity than ever after its
ostensible cause -- the Communist threat -- is long gone.
I hadn't put our current circumstance in this context. US-backed, violent coup in Ukraine, 2014.
The whole Ukrainian operation of 2014 [the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kyiv, February
2014] was lavishly financed and stimulated by the United States in order to create a new
conflict with Russia. Joe Biden has been the Deep State's main front man in turning Ukraine
into an American satellite, used as a battering ram to weaken Russia and destroy its natural
trade and cultural relations with Western Europe.
U.S. sanctions are particularly contrary to German business interests, and NATO's aggressive
gestures put Germany on the front lines of an eventual war.
But Germany has been an occupied country -- militarily and politically -- for 75 years, and
I suspect that many German political leaders (usually vetted by Washington) have learned to fit
their projects into U.S. policies. I think that under the cover of Atlantic loyalty, there are
some frustrated imperialists lurking in the German establishment, who think they can use
Washington's Russophobia as an instrument to make a comeback as a world military power.
But I also think that the political debate in Germany is overwhelmingly hypocritical, with
concrete aims veiled by fake issues such as human rights and, of course, devotion to
Israel.
We should remember that the U.S. does not merely use its allies -- its allies, or rather
their leaders, figure they are using the U.S. for some purposes of their own.
What about what the French have been saying since the G–7 session in Biarritz two
years ago, that Europe should forge its own relations with Russia according to Europe's
interests, not America's?
At G7 Summit in Biarritz, France, Aug. 26, 2019. (White House)
I think France is likelier than Germany to break with the U.S.–imposed Russophobia
simply because, thanks to de Gaulle, France is not quite as thoroughly under U.S. occupation.
Moreover, friendship with Russia is a traditional French balance against German domination --
which is currently being felt and resented.
Stepping back for a broader look, do you think Europe's position on the western flank of
the Eurasian landmass will inevitably shape its position with regard not only to Russia but
also China? To put this another way, is Europe destined to become an independent pole of power
in the course of this century, standing between West and East?
At present, what we have standing between West and East is not Europe but Russia, and what
matters is which way Russia leans. Including Russia, Europe might become an independent pole of
power. The U.S. is currently doing everything to prevent this. But there is a school of
strategic thought in Washington which considers this a mistake, because it pushes Russia into
the arms of China. This school is in the ascendant with the campaign to denounce China as
responsible for the pandemic. As mentioned, the Atlanticists in Europe are leaping into the
anti–China propaganda battle. But they are not displaying any particular affection for
Russia, which shows no sign of sacrificing its partnership with China for the unreliable
Europeans.
If Russia were allowed to become a friendly bridge between China and Europe, the U.S. would
be obliged to abandon its pretensions of world hegemony. But we are far from that peaceful
prospect.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
Josep , May 19, 2020 at 02:04
It recalled and insisted that Germany agreed to the euro only on the grounds that the
main mission of the European Central Bank was to fight inflation, and that it could not
directly finance member states.
I once read a comment elsewhere saying that, back in 1989, both Britain (under Margaret
Thatcher) and the US objected to German reunification. Since they could not stop the
reunification, they insisted that Germany accept the incoming euro. A heap of German
university professors jumped up and protested, knowing fully well what the game was: namely
the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers.
Thorben Sunkimat , May 20, 2020 at 13:45
France and Britain rejected the german reunification. The americans were supportive, even
though they had their demands. Mainly privatisation of german public utilities. After
agreeing to those demands the americans persuaded the british and pressured the french who
agreed to german reunification after germany agreed to the euro.
So why did france want the euro?
The German central bank crashed the European economy after reunification with high interest
rates. This was because of above average growth rates mainly in Eastern Germany. Main
function of the Bundesbank is to keep inflation low, which is more important to them than
anything else. Since Germany's D Mark was the leading currency in Europe the rest of Europe
had to heighten their interest rates too, witch lead to great economic problems within
Europe. Including France.
OlyaPola , May 21, 2020 at 05:30
"namely the creation of a banker's empire in Europe controlled by private bankers."
Resort to binaries (controlled/not controlled) is a practice of self-imposed
blindness. In any interactive system no absolutes exist only analogues of varying assays since
"control" is limited and variable. In respect of what became the German Empire this relationship predated and facilitated the
German Empire through financing the war with Denmark in 1864 courtesy of the arrangements
between Mr. von Bismark and Mr. Bleichroder. The assay of "control of bankers" has varied/increased subsequently but never attained the
absolute.
It is true that finance capital perceived and continues to perceive the European Union as
an opportunity to increase their assay of "control" – the Austrian banks in conjunction
with German bank assigning a level of priority to resurrecting spheres of influence existing
prior to 1918 and until 1945.
One of the joint projects at a level of planning in the early 1990's was development of
the Danube and its hinterland from Regensburg to Cerna Voda/Constanta in Romania but this was
delayed in the hope of curtailment by some when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 (Serbia not being
the only target – so much for honesty-amongst-theives.)
This project was resurrected in a limited form primarily downstream from Vidin/Calafat
from 2015 onwards given that some states of the former Yugoslavia were not members of the
European Union and some were within spheres of influence of "The United States of
America".
As to France, "Vichy" and Europa also facilitated the resurrection of finance capital and
increase in its assay of control after the 1930's, some of the practices of the 1940's still
being subject to dispute in France.
mkb29 , May 18, 2020 at 16:33
I've always admired Diana Johnstone's clear headed analyses of world/European/U.S./
China/Israel-Palestine/Russia/ interactions and the motivation of its "players". She has
given some credence to what as been known as French rationalism and enlightenment. (Albeit as
an American expat) Think Descartes, Diderot, Sartre , and She loves France in her own
rationalist-humanist way.
Linda J , May 18, 2020 at 13:21
I have admired Ms. Johnstone's work for quite awhile. This enlightening interview spurs me
to get a copy of the book and to contribute to Consortium News.
Others may be interested in the two-part video discovered yesterday featuring Douglas
Valentine's analysis of the CIA's corporate backers and their global choke-hold on
governments and their influencers in every region of the world.
Part 1
see:youtu(dot)be/cP15Ehx1yvI
Part 2
see:youtu(dot)be/IYvvEn_N1sE
worldblee , May 18, 2020 at 12:26
Not many have the long distance perspective on the world, let alone Europe, that Diana
Johnstone has. Great interview!
Drew Hunkins , May 18, 2020 at 11:03
"Decades of indoctrination in the ideology of "Europe" has instilled the belief that the
nation-state is a bad thing of the past. The result is that people raised in the European
Union faith tend to regard any suggestion of return to national sovereignty as a fatal step
toward fascism. This fear of contagion from "the right" is an obstacle to clear analysis
which weakens the left and favors the right, which dares be patriotic."
Bingo! A marvelous point indeed! Quick little example -- Bernard Sanders should have worn an American flag pin on his suit
during the 2020 Dem primary campaign.
chris , May 18, 2020 at 04:46
A very good analysis. As an American who has relocated to Spain several years ago, I am
always disappointed that discussions of European politics always assume that Europe ends at
the Pyrenees. Admittedly, Spanish politics is very complicated and confusing. Forty years of
an unreconstructed dictatorship have left their mark, but the country´s socialist,
communist and anarchic currents never went away. I like to say that the country is very
conservative, but at least the population is aware of what is going on.
Perhaps what Ms.
Johnston says about the French being just worn out, with no stomach for more violent conflict
also applies to the Spanish since their great ideological struggle is more recent. The
American influence during the Transition (which changed little – as the expression
goes: The same dog but with a different collar) was very strong, and remains so. Even so,
there is popular support for foreign and domestic policies independent of American and
neoliberal control, but by and large the political and economic powers are not on board. I do
not think Spain is willing to make a break alone, but would align itself with an European
shift away from American control.
As Ms. Johnston says, Europe currently lacks leaders
willing to take the plunge, but we will see what the coming year brings.
Sam F , May 17, 2020 at 17:45
Thank you Diana, these are valuable insights. Since WWII the US has itself been occupied by tyrants, using Russophobia to demand power
as fake defenders.
1. Waving the flag and praising the lord on mass media, claiming concern with human rights
and "Israel"; while
2. Subverting the Constitution with large scale bribery, surveillance, and genocides, all
business as usual nowadays.
In the US, the form of government has become bribery and marketing lies; it truly knows no
other way.
It may be better that Russia and China keep their distance from the US and maybe even the
EU:
1. The US and EU would have to produce what they consume, eventually empowering workers;
2. Neither the US nor EU are a political or economic model for anyone, and should be
ignored;
3. Neither the US nor EU produces much that Russia and China cannot, by investing more in
cars and soybeans.
It will be best for the EU if it also rejects the US and its "neolib" economic and
political tyranny mechanisms:
1. Alliance with Russia and China will cause substantial gains in stability and economic
strength;
2. Forcing the US to abandon its "pretensions of world hegemony" will soon yield more
peaceful prospects; and
3. Isolating the US will force it to improve its utterly corrupt government and society,
maybe 40 to 60 years hence.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:40
" French philosophy .By constantly attacking, deconstructing, and denouncing every remnant
of human "power" they could spot, the intellectual rebels left the power of "the markets"
unimpeded, and did nothing to stand in the way of the expansion of U.S. military power all
around the world "
Brilliant. Exactly right. This was the progenitor to our contemporary I.D. politics which seems to be solely
obsessed with vocabulary, semantics and non-economic cultural issues while rarely having a
critique of corporate capitalism, militarism, massive inequality and Zionism. And it almost
never advocates for robust economic populist proposals like Med4All, U.B.I., debt jubilee,
and the fight for $15.
Drew Hunkins , May 17, 2020 at 15:10
The book is phenomenal. I posted a customer review over on Amazon for this stupendous
work. Below is a copy of my review:
(5 stars) One of the most important intellects pens her magisterial lasting legacy
Reviewed in the United States on March 31, 2020
Johnstone's been an idol of mine ever since I started reading her in the 1990s. She's
clearly proved her worthiness over the decades by bucking the mainstream trend of apologetics
for corporate capitalism, neoliberalism, globalism and imperialistic militarism her entire
career and this astonishing memoir details it all in what will likely be the finest book of
2020 and perhaps the entire decade.
Her writing style is beyond superb, her grasp of the overarching politico-socio-economic
issues that have rocked the world over the past 60 years is as astute and spot-on as you will
find from any global thinker. She's right up there with Michael Parenti, James Petras, John
Pilger and Noam Chomsky as seminal figures who have documented and brought light to tens of
thousands (millions?) of people across the globe via their writings, interviews and speaking
engagements.
Johnstone has never been one to shy away from controversial topics and issues. Why?
Simple, she has the facts and truth on her side, she always has. Circle in the Darkness
proves all this and more, she marshals the documentation and lays it out as an exquisite gift
for struggling working people around the world.
From her groundbreaking work on the NATO
empire's sickening war on sovereign Serbia, the dead end of identity politics and trans
bathroom debates, to her critique of unfettered immigration and open borders, and her
dismissal of the absurd Russsiagate baloney, better than anyone else, Johnstone has kept her
intellect carefully honed to the real genuine kitchen table bread and butter issues that
truly matter. She recognized before most of the world's scholars the perils of rampant
inequality and saw the writing on the wall as to where this grotesque economic system is
taking us all: down a dystopian slope into penury and police-state heavy-handedness, with
millions unable to come up with $500 for an emergency car repair or dental bill.
Whenever she comes out with a new article or essay I immediately drop everything and
devour it, often reading it twice to let her wisdom really soak in. So too Circle of Darkness
is an extremely well written beautiful work that will scream out to be re-read every few
years by those with a hunger to know exactly what was going on since the Korean War era
through today regarding liberal thought, neocon and neoliberal dominance with its capitalist
global hegemony and the take over of Western governments by the parasitic financial
elite.
There will never be another Diana Johnstone. Circle in the Darkness will stand as her
lasting legacy to all of us.
Bob Van Noy , May 17, 2020 at 14:43
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding
it" ~Albert Einstein
Many Thanks CN, Patrick Lawrence, and Joe Lauria. Once again I must commend CN for picking
just the appropriate response to our contemporary dilemma.
The quote above leads Diana Johnstone's new book and succinctly describes both the
universe and our contemporary experience with our digital age. President Kennedy and Charles
de Gaulle of France would agree that colonialism was past and that a new world (geopolitical)
approach would become necessary, but that philosophy would put them against some great local
and world powers. Each of them necessarily had different approaches as to how this might be
accomplished. They were never allowed to present their specific proposals on a world stage.
Let's hope a wiser population will once again "see" this possibility and find a way to
resolve it
Aaron , May 17, 2020 at 14:18
Well over the span of all of those decades, the consistent, inexorable theme seems to be a
trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, a small number of individuals,
not really states, gaining wealth and power, so everybody else fights over the crumbs,
blaming this or that party, alliance, event or whatever, but behind it all there are two
flower gardens, indeed the rich are all flowers of their golden garden, and the poor are all
flowers of their garden.
It's like the Europeans and the 99 percent in America have all
fallen for the myth of the American dream, that if we are just allowed more free, unfettered
economic opportunity, it's just up to us to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and become a
billionaire.
The mask competition and fiasco shows the importance of a country simply making
things in their own country, not on the other side of the world, it's not nationalism it's
just a better way to logistically deliver reliable products to the citizens.
AnneR , May 17, 2020 at 13:42
Regarding French colonialism – as I recall the French were especially brutal in
their forced withdrawal from Algeria, both toward Algerians in their homeland and to
Algerians within France itself.
And the French were hardly willing, non-violent colonialists when being fought by the
Vietnamese who wanted to be free of them (quite rightly so).
As for the French in Sub-Saharan Africa – they have yet to truly give up on their
presumed right to have troops within these countries. They did not depart any of their
colonies happily, willingly – like every other colonial power, including the UK.
And, as for WWII – she seems, in her reminiscences, to have mislaid Vichy France,
the Velodrome roundups of French Jews, and so on ..
Ms Johnstone clearly has been looking backwards with rose-tinted specs on when it comes to
France.
Randal Marlin , May 18, 2020 at 13:00
There may be some truth to AnneR's claim that Ms Johnstone has been looking with
rose-tinted specs when it comes to France, but it is highly misleading for her to talk about
"the French" regarding Algeria. I spent 1963-64 in Aix-en-Provence teaching at the Institute
for American Universities and talked with some of the "pieds-noirs," (French born in
Algeria).
After French President Charles de Gaulle decided to relinquish French control over
Algeria, having previously reassured the colonial population that "Je vous ai compris" ("I
have understood you"), there followed death threats to many French colonizers who had to flee
Algeria immediately within 24 hours or get their throats slit – "La valise ou le
cercueil" (the suitcase or the coffin).
In the fall of 1961, I saw Parisian police stations
with machine-gun armed men behind concrete barriers, as an invasion by the colonial French
paratroopers against mainland France was expected. The "Organisation Armée
Secrète," OAS, (Secret Armed Organization) of the colonial powers, threatened at the
time to invade Paris.
As an aside, giving a sense of the anger and passion involved, when the
death of John F.Kennedy in November 1963 was announced in the historic, right-wing
café in Aix, Les Deux Garçons, a huge cheer went up when the media announcer
proclaimed "Le Président est assassinée. Only, that was because they thought de
Gaulle was the president in question. A huge disappointment when they heard it was President
Kennedy. To get a sense of the whole situation regarding France and Algeria I recommend
Alistair Horne's "A Savage War of Peace."
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:23
"They did not depart any of their colonies happily"
Some hold that they never departed, but mutated tools including CFA zones and
"intelligence" relations in furtherance of "changing" to remain qualitatively the same. Just as "The United States of America" is a system of coercive relations not synonymous
with the political geographical area designated "The United States of America", the
colonialism of former and present "colonial powers" continues to exist, since the
"independence" of the colonised was always, and continues to be, framed within linear systems
of coercive relations, facilitated by the complicity of "local elites" on the basis of
perceived self-interest, and the acquiescence of "local others" for myriad reasons.
Despite the "best" efforts of the opponents and partly in consequence of the opponents'
complicity, the PRC and the Russian Federation like "The United States of America" are not
synonymous with the political geographical areas designated as "The People's Republic of
China and The Russian Federation", are in lateral process of transcending linear systems of
coercive relations and hence pose existential threats to "The United States of America".
The opponents are not complete fools but the drowning tend to act precipitously including
flailing out whilst drowning; encouraging some to dispense with rose- tinted glasses, despite
such accessories being quite fashionable and fetching.
OlyaPola , May 20, 2020 at 04:32
" .. their colonies "
Perception of and practice of social relations are not wholly synonymous. A construct whose founding myths included liberty, egality and fraternity – property
being discarded at the last moment since it was judged too provocative –
experienced/experiences ideological/perceptual oxymorons in regard to its colonial relations,
which were addressed in part by rendering their "colonies" department of France thereby
facilitating increased perceptual dissonance.
Like many, Randal Marlin draws attention below to the perceptions and practices of the
pied-noir, but omits to address the perceptions and practices of the harkis whom were also
immersed in the proselytised notion of departmental France, and to some degree continue to
be.
This understanding continues to inform the practices and problems of the French state.
Lolita , May 17, 2020 at 12:05
The analysis is very much inspired from "Comprendre l'Empire" by Alain Soral.
Dave , May 17, 2020 at 11:27
Do not fail to read this interview in its entirety. Ms Johnstone analyzes and describes
many issues of national and global importance from the perspective of an USA expat who has
spent most of her career in the pursuit of what may be termed disinterested journalism.
Whether one agrees or disagrees in whole or in part the perspectives she presents,
particularly those which pertain to the demise (hopefully) of the American Empire are worthy
of perusal.
Remember that this is not a polemic; it's a memoir of a lifetime devoted to
reporting and analyzing and discussion of most of the significant issues confronting global
and national politics and their social ramifications. And a big thanks to Patrick Lawrence
and Consortium News for posting the interview.
PEG , May 17, 2020 at 09:11
Diana Johnstone is one of the most intelligent, clear-minded and honest observers of
international politics today, and her book "Circle in the Darkness" – which expands on
the topics and insights touched on in this interview – is certainly among the best and
most compelling books I have ever read, putting the events of the last 75 years into
objective context and focus (normally something which only historians can do, if at all,
generations after the fact).
After reading Circle in the Darkness, I have ordered and am now reading her books on
Hillary Clinton (Queen of Chaos) and the Yugoslav wars (Fool's Crusade), which are very
worthwhile and important. I would recommend that her many articles over the years, appearing
in such publications such as In These Times, Counterpunch and Consortium News, be reprinted
and published together as an anthology. Through Circle in the Darkness, we have Diana
Johnstone's "Life", but it would be good also to have her "Letters".
Interesting comparison between the aspirations of De Gaulle and Putin.
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. His policy was to foster friendly relations on equal terms with all parts of
the world, regardless of ideological differences. I think that Putin's concept of a
multipolar world is similar. It is clearly a concept that horrifies the exceptionalists."
Agree with Johnstone.
OlyaPola , May 19, 2020 at 11:55
"Having a sense of history, de Gaulle saw that colonialism had been a moment in history
that was past. "
Mr. de Gaulle like other "leaders" of colonial powers did understand that the moment of
overt coercive relations of colonialism had passed and that colonialism to remain
qualitatively the same, required covert coercive relations facilitated by the complicity of
local "elites" on the basis of perceived self-interest.
The exceptions to such strategies lay within constructs of settler colonialism which were
addressed primarily through warfare – "The United States of America",
Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola refer –
to facilitate such future strategies.
"I think that Putin's concept of a multipolar world is similar."
As outlined elsewhere the concept of a multi-polar world is not synonymous with the
concept of colonialism except for the colonialists who consistently seek to encourage such
conflation through myths of we-are-all-in-this-togetherness.
If you thought you knew everything about Eric Blair/George Orwell, I suggest
reading this essay as a test. Hopefully, you'll discover many facets not known before as
I did.
Orwell's career was a lot more complicated than that. Basically, he came from a relatively
prosperous middle-class family, which allowed him to play the game of the writer, when it
worked, and to come back to the family when things were thin. Of course he exploited his own
experiences, as every writer does. That doesn't detract from the great creations. Animal Farm
and 1984 don't have direct origins.
Posted by: Laguerre | May 20 2020 21:39 utc |
32 @Posted by: karlof1 | May 20 2020 18:51 utc | 26
That essay is a real shame, an impossible intend of whitewashing and redime Orwell, just
another intent on rewritting of history, and try to paint what is black as white.
Neo-language
This intent could be inscribed along the rescues of Stepan Bandera and the Forest Brothers as
new heroes of NATO world in their offensive against reviving socialist ideas.
That Orwell did not change even a bit after returning from Burma is proven by the fact
that he came to Spain, and strolled around there with the Trotskyites of POUM, to elaborate
black lists of communists which then were provided to Franco, at result of which many people
was tortured and summarily executed. He, this way, contributed greatly to decimate the
resistance in the side of the legitimate republican government, and thus, to help the
fascists in their way to power, well supported by the US with arms and fuel and by the air
forces of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Orwell: Sneak sighting of British secret services in the Cold War (is declassified by MI-5
and documented). Its function: to expose communists. He even betrayed Charles Chaplin,
exiled in his native England for FBI persecution. "Referrer". "Always loyal"
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 21:40 utc | 33
In the essay by Alert Escusa linked above, it is studied the historical context in which
Orwell published his most famous works, at all innocent, debunking the legend on that he was
kinda an outsider and was about to self-publish Animal Farm , being the checked
reality that he had full support of the birgueoisie to publish his influential works when the
time was more propice for the capitalists.
As a sample, a button:
What was happening that year of 1943, while Orwell was writing his Animal Farm? It was not
exactly, as Pepe Gutiérrez says "the distribution of the world", but something quite
different that he hides from us: the Nazis had invaded the USSR two years ago,
exterminating millions of Russians and devastating much of the country. The greatest battle
of the war, Stalingrad, had taken place, and it was not yet known who would win the
conflict, whether Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. No one could safely predict that Nazism
would be extirpated from Europe, the Nazi death camps had not yet been discovered, but
Orwell was obsessed with his anti-Soviet writings. What did Orwell want to portray with his
Farm Rebellion? Nothing more and nothing less than the following: "The specific purpose
Orwell threw into it with a sense of urgency was the desire to exploit the "myth" of the
Soviet Union, as a paradigm of the socialist state".
There are plenty of comments about it. It is only worth reflecting on who benefited from
Orwell's position in 1943. The victory was precisely achieved by the Soviet people and the
Red Army at the price of innumerable human sacrifices, also easily forgotten in the West,
where the true character of the anti-fascist war is hidden. It is logical that the USSR,
which had suffered a war of extermination unprecedented in history, and which also defeated
the collaborationist and fascist regimes of Eastern Europe, along with the popular and
communist guerrillas, was seen as a liberating power by broad sectors of local populations.
In addition, the communist guerrillas, ideologically linked to the USSR, had come to have
great prestige throughout Europe: so much so that, in the first French general elections
after Nazism, the French Communist Party was the most voted party, achieving more out of 5
million votes representing 30% of the electorate [7]. As we will see later, the USSR had
very well-founded reasons to believe that a new war was being prepared against him, this
time with the country devastated, so it was logical and legitimate that he try to win
allies against the possibility of a new world war. This is a long way from "distribution of
the world" and trying to equate imperialism with socialism, as will be seen later.
I must say the replies to my 26 go in many directions. As to Martin Sieff's essay, it's
fundamentally a well deserved critique of the BBC that segues into a discussion about how
George Orwell would easily recognize its Fake News for what it is that draws on Finding George
Orwell in Burma for some of its content. (A very short preview's available at the
link and it can be borrowed if you're an Archive member, for which there's no excuse as it's
free.) IMO, the comments fit Sieff's intent quite well. Judging from book excerpts offered here , the book's more
a critique of Myanmar than Orwell, although the additional sources provided at page bottom
leads to credibility questions. I also note that most websites promoting Finding lead
with the NY Times jacket blurb which is more about dissing Myanmar than revealing what
was found regarding Orwell. Sieff says he knows the author but doesn't speculate on why he
chose a female nom de plume; I too wonder why as I don't see what purpose it could serve
unless it's anti-Myanmar propaganda that Orwell would recognize or something similar.
Curious--an innocuous comment becomes a can of worms. Also curious how Orwell and his
writing still generate an intense level of controversy.
karlof1 , May 20 2020 22:47 utc |
42H.Schmatz , May 20 2020 22:52 utc |
43
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 22:08 utc | 36
A bit more from the must read essay linked, even related to current events...
2. THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT OF "ANIMAL FARM" AND "1984"
What events were taking place in the western world at that time, which caused a
favorable change of attitude towards Orwell's publications, of those who were previously
reticent? Neither more nor less than the imminent offensive against socialism, which had
already lost almost thirty million lives during the anti-fascist war and had suffered
appalling material destruction.
While the first copies of Animal Farm were being printed and bound, some
extremely disturbing events were taking place. Just at the end of the war, Nazi spies and
war criminals were being recycled by the American spy services, such as the German SS
General Reinhard Genhlen, whose spy network passed entirely to the Americans and was used
in Eastern Europe to promote the anti-Soviet uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary
in 1956. Clandestine networks were created to evade thousands of Nazi criminals towards
Latin America and the USA. Later, with Japan defeated, the operation was repeated with the
Japanese scientists who are experts in bacteriological weapons, responsible for the deaths
of tens of thousands of allied prisoners, but who were secretly brought to the United
States. Meanwhile, during the 1945 Potsdam conference, which brought together Hitler's
victorious allies - where the alleged "honeymoon" took place to "divide the world" - US
President Truman and English Churchill had speculated before Stalin about the power the
western allies had with a new secret weapon. On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. According to Ian Gray, Stalin's biographer: "Stalin and the majority
of Russians immediately understood the terrible meaning of this fact ... Stalin realized
that the Americans had used the bomb mainly to impress and threaten Russia". Stalin and the
Soviets were right: the American Secretary of State, James Byrnes, recognized that the bomb
was necessary not against Japan, but "to make Russia moldable to Europe".
As the historian Pauwels has explained, the initial will of the Soviets in Europe was
not to have like-minded regimes and their own zone of influence, but to intervene in
Germany to prevent it from engaging in a second war, this time together with its former
allies against the USSR. This is demonstrated by the fact that until well into the post-war
period, the Soviets did not help to make any political-social change in the liberated
countries. It was Truman's nuclear policy that forced the Soviets to stand face to face
with the Americans in Eastern Europe, thus deterring American aviation: from this way they
would have to carry out a long trip until arriving at the Soviet cities where they had to
drop their bombs. This caused the political and social changes in Eastern Europe to
accelerate, which, however, were already taking place autonomously since the end of the war
thanks to the triumph of the popular anti-fascist forces. This fact not only saved the USSR
from a new war and enabled socialism to survive: stability in Eastern Europe laid the
foundations for a development of national liberation struggles and for socialism throughout
the world: in 1949 the victory of the Chinese Revolution heralded the triumph of many
others, putting all capitalism in danger of death.
In parallel, just after the Cold War started by imperialism, the conservative British
leader Churchill theorized about the need to build an Iron Curtain to contain the
communists and allegedly asked the American President Truman to attack the USSR with the
atomic bomb by means of a preemptive attack. Churchill was not just any character, but one
of the most influential leaders of the British Empire, champion of English colonialism and
the participation of his country in World War I, therefore responsible for many millions of
deaths and suffering of peoples.
That was the real reason for the delay in publishing Animal Farm . Orwell,
naturally, during the anti-fascist war could not see his anti-Soviet work published until
the end of the conflict, since it would have been quite awkward for the Western governments
allied to the USSR, who were risking their lives against the Nazis, to criminalize in this
way a friendly government. On the other hand, at that time, from the Orwellian model, it
would be difficult for western and world public opinion to understand how it was possible
that the Soviet people fought with such a degree of sacrifice and heroism, expelling the
Nazis from Europe: all the other bourgeois regimes, where there was freedom, had collapsed
rapidly and had collaborated with the Nazis.
It was in connection with these events that the first copies of Animal farm were
placed on the shelves of bookstores. Precisely the publication coincided with the end of
World War II and the dissolution of the anti-fascist alliance between England, USA, and the
USSR. The first edition is exactly from 1945 in England, published by Secker &
Wargburg, from London, and from 1946 in the USA, published by Harcourt, from New York. The
capitalist governments, which were imminently going to promote Animal Farm , were
evaluating different options to attack the USSR: from rearming German units as shock
brigades to attack the Soviets, to the launch of "preventive" atomic bombs. The prestige
that the USSR had among all the workers of the world, fundamentally the Europeans who
suffered the Nazi atrocities, was enormous, as well as among the intellectual and popular
sectors, whose reflection could be followed in the great influence that some communist
parties had. It was necessary to dismantle this prestige to sweep the opposition of the
world public opinion to an armed aggression against those who liberated Europe from Nazism,
and Orwell's novels came as a ring to a finger for this purpose, since they were a good
instrument to spread among the so called mass culture, just as later were the film versions
of his works.
Albert Escusa, gives in his essay a good semblance of what kind of person could Orwell
really be:
Orwell was above all a great individualist, with some important personal contradictions and
prejudices that led him to oscillate along various paths without being able to commit
himself in a stable and permanent way to anything that was not himself, in such a way that,
when he became disenchanted with some social processes that he was unable to interpret
correctly and scientifically, ended up ranting against what he believed to be the object of
his anger.
We can see it in Corbière's sharp description: "Who was Orwell? A sniper, a
skeptic who devoted his efforts to Manichean criteria describing the great social and
political contradictions of our time. Anarchist, Semitrotskyist in Spain, Labor in England,
free thinker, undercover anti-Semite, his real ideas reveal a kind of elitism.
He had an intense imagination but his methodology of thought was restricted,
one-sided.
No that I am aware, but, if interested, you could translate it with a translator.
Since the essay is quite long, you could translate paragraph by paragraph, then read the whol
thing once assembled.
A bit complicated, but worth the effort, the essay is a well researched work, wu¡ith
several referecnes as weel worth reading, like a disection of Orwell, his epoch and
motives.
Oh dear. Relatively prosperous middle class means descended from Earls of Westmorland, family
tree of Fanes, de Veres, Grosvenors, at a little reach basically related to the entire
peerage. True, Orwell's father was a bit of a dope, he did manage to contract a marriage to a
very wealthy woman. Jacintha Buddicom's memoir, Eric and Us, about growing up living next
door to the Blairs, will tell you what 'middle class' life was like.
Orwell maintained the friendships from St. Cyprians and Eton for life. Pretty much
everyone on the roster could be considered as spooks and agents. All of them tied to old
money, old family, government service. Government as MI6 and CIA.
I think he's a great writer. My copy of the four volumes of Collected Essays Letters &
Journalism is still right here next to the fireplace. All the rest of it around here
somewhere, even the minor novels from the 30s. But no illusions what team he is on or what
station he was born to.
Winston Smith means 'maker of Winston', as in broadcasting from Room 101 and forging the
myth of Winston Churchill. Orwell was a big boy when he did that and was far past having any
illusions. He created the myth that Room 101 of Broadcasting House was the worst place in the
world. And talked of how the war years were the best years of his life.
@Posted by: oldhippie | May 20 2020 23:13 utc | 48
I think he's a great writer
Not even so, more proper a plagiarist and propagandist at the service of Western
totalitarian imperialism.
Since we are in the task of deconstructing Orwell, let´s go to the end...
In addition to the Animal Farm , one of the works that most influenced the
construction of Western totalitarianism against the Communists was 1984 . It shows
an overview of socialism in the USSR similar to a delusional totalitarian and monstrous
drama, with a Big Brother (Stalin) who had absolute social control over the individuals
under his rule, through a sophisticated mind control mechanism. This work became a
must-read for CIA officers and a dependent body called the Council for Psychological
Strategies, in addition to the fact that NATO used the entire vocabulary of this novel
during the 1950s in its anti-communist strategy.12 It is interesting to know how He
conceived this book, since it was apparently a plagiarism Orwell did to another
disenchanted of Bolshevism, in this case a Russian writer, in the opinion of the writer
Emilio J. Corbière: "Orwell's was a conscious plagiarism, since he explained it
himself in another of his works. The plot, the main characters, the symbols and the climate
of its narration, belonged to a completely forgotten Russian writer of the beginning of the
century: Evgeny Zamyatin. In his book We , the Russian disillusioned with socialism
after the failure of the 1905 revolution, devoted his efforts to anathematizing the Social
Democratic Workers Party founded by Jorge Plejanov. When the October revolution happened -
in 1917 - Zamyatin went into exile in Paris, where he wrote his posthumous anti-communist
work"
This opinion is also shared by the historian Isaac Deutscher in his work The
Mysticism of Cruelty , an essay about 1984 , where he states that Orwell
"borrowed the idea of 1984, the plot, the main characters, the symbols and
the whole plot situation from the work We of Evgeny Zamyatin"
We see how behind the image of a great writer, lies the reality of a plagiarist of
stories, which served to elaborate theoretical and academic models on the functioning of
socialism in the Soviet Union totally adjusted to the requirements of imperialism in the
anti-communist Cold War. The impact of 1984 was tremendous among the population,
creating an atmosphere of anti-communist and anti-Soviet paranoia that was very effective
among the masses, as the disturbing personal testimony of Isaac Deutscher demonstrates:
"Have you read that book? You have to read it, sir. Then you will know why we have to drop
the atomic bomb on the Bolsheviks! With those words, a miserable blind newspaper vendor
recommended me in New York 1984 , a few weeks before Orwell's death".
H. Schmatz.
I am not a good book reader but I did read 1984 and it definitely seemed to be a veiled
critique on Communism.
However it seems the story is now more fitting to capitalism.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), happily amplified by the Public Broadcasting
System (PBS) in the United States which carries its World News, continues to pump out its
regular dreck about the alleged economic chaos in Russia and the imagined miserable state of
the Russian people.
It is all lies of course. Patrick Armstrong 's
authoritative regular updates including his reports on this website are a necessary corrective
to such crude propaganda.
But amid all their countless fiascoes and failures in every other field (including the
highest per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Europe, and one of the highest in the world) the
British remain world leaders at managing global Fake News. As long as the tone remains
restrained and dignified, literally any slander will be swallowed by the credulous and every
foul scandal and shame can be confidently covered up.
None of this would have surprised the late, great George Orwell. It is fashionable these
days to endlessly trot him out as a zombie (dead but alleged to be living – so that he
cannot set the record straight himself) critic of Russia and all the other global news outlets
outside the control of the New York and London plutocracies. And it is certainly true, that
Orwell, whose hatred and fear of communism was very real, served before his death as an
informer to MI-5, British domestic security.
But it was not the Soviet Union, Stalin's show trials or his experiences with the Trotskyite
POUM group in Barcelona and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War that "made Orwell Orwell" as
the Anglo-America Conventional Wisdom Narrative has it. It was his visceral loathing of the
British Empire – compounded during World War II by his work for the BBC which he
eventually gave up in disgust.
And it was his BBC experiences that gave Orwell the model for his unforgettable Ministry of
Truth in his great classic "1984."
George Orwell had worked in one of the greatest of all world centers of Fake News. And he
knew it.
More profoundly, the great secret of George Orwell's life has been hiding in plain sight for
70 years since he died. Orwell became a sadistic torturer in the service of the British Empire
during his years in Burma, modern Myanmar. And as a fundamentally decent man, he was so
disgusted by what he had done that he spent the rest of his life not just atoning but slowly
and willfully committing suicide before his heartbreakingly premature death while still in his
40s.
The first important breakthrough in this fundamental reassessment of Orwell comes from one
of the best books on him. "Finding George Orwell in Burma" was published in 2005 and written by
"Emma Larkin", a pseudonym for an outstanding American journalist in Asia whose identity I have
long suspected to be an old friend and deeply respected colleague, and whose continued
anonymity I respect.
"Larkin" took the trouble to travel widely in Burma during its repressive military
dictatorship and her superb research reveals crucial truths about Orwell. According to his own
writings and his deeply autobiographical novel "Burmese Days" Orwell loathed all his time as a
British colonial policeman in Burma, modern Myanmar. The impression he systematically gives in
that novel and in his classic essay "Shooting an Elephant" is of a bitterly lonely, alienated,
deeply unhappy man, despised and even loathed by his fellow British colonialists throughout
society and a ludicrous failure at his job.
This was not, however, the reality that "Larkin" uncovered. All surviving witnesses agreed
that Orwell – Eric Blair as he then still was – remained held in high regard during
his years in the colonial police service. He was a senior and efficient officer. Indeed it was
precisely his knowledge of crime, vice, murder and the general underside of human society
during his police colonial service while still in his 20s that gave him the street smarts,
experience, and moral authority to see through all the countless lies of right and left, of
American capitalists and British imperialists as well as European totalitarians for the rest of
his life.
The second revelation to throw light on what Orwell had to do in those years comes from one
of the most famous and horrifying scenes in "1984." Indeed, almost nothing even in the memoirs
of Nazi death camp survivors has anything like it: That is the scene where "O'Brien", the
secret police officer tortures the "hero" (if he can be called that) Winston Smith by locking
his face to a cage in which a starving rat is ready to pounce and devour him if it is
opened.
I remember thinking, when I was first exposed to the power of "1984" at my outstanding
Northern Irish school, "What kind of mind could invent something as horrific as that?") The
answer was so obvious that I like everyone else missed it entirely.
Orwell did not "invent" or "come up" with the idea as a fictional plot device: It was just a
routine interrogation technique used by the British colonial police in Burma, modern Myanmar.
Orwell never "brilliantly" invented such a diabolical technique of torture as a literary
device. He did not have to imagine it. It was routinely employed by himself and his colleagues.
That was how and why the British Empire worked so well for so long. They knew what they were
doing. And what they did was not nice at all.
A final step in my enlightenment about Orwell, whose writings I have revered all my life
– and still do – was provided by our alarmingly brilliant elder daughter about a
decade ago when she too was given "1984" to read as part of her school curriculum. Discussing
it with her one day, I made some casual obvious remark that Orwell was in the novel as Winston
Smith.
My American-raised teenager then naturally corrected me. "No, Dad, " she said. "Orwell isn't
Winston, or he's not just Winston. He's O'Brien too. O'Brien actually likes Winston. He doesn't
want to torture him. He even admires him. But he does it because it's his duty."
She was right, of course.
But how could Orwell the great enemy of tyranny, lies and torture so identify with and
understand so well the torturer? It was because he himself had been one.
"Emma Larkin's" great book brings out that Orwell as a senior colonial police officer in the
1920s was a leading figure in a ruthless war waged by the British imperial authorities against
drug and human trafficking crime cartels every bit as vicious and ruthless as those in modern
Ukraine, Columbia and Mexico today. It was a "war on terror" where anything and everything was
permitted to "get the job done."
The young Eric Blair was so disgusted by the experience that when he returned home he
abandoned the respectable middle class life style he had always enjoyed and became, not just an
idealistic socialist as many in those days did, but a penniless, starving tramp. He even
abandoned his name and very identity. He suffered a radical personality collapse: He killed
Eric Blair. He became George Orwell.
Orwell's early famous book "Down and Out in London and Paris" is a testament to how much he
literally tortured and humiliated himself in those first years back from Burma. And for the
rest of his life.
He ate miserably badly, was skinny and ravaged by tuberculosis and other health problems,
smoked heavily and denied himself any decent medical care. His appearance was always
abominable. His friend, the writer Malcolm Muggeridge speculated that Orwell wanted to remake
himself as a caricature of a tramp.
The truth clearly was that Orwell never forgave himself for what he did as a young agent of
empire in Burma. Even his literally suicidal decision to go to the most primitive, cold, wet
and poverty-stricken corner of creation in a remote island off Scotland to finish "1984" in
isolation before he died was consistent with the merciless punishments he had inflicted on
himself all his life since leaving Burma.
The conclusion is clear: For all the intensity of George Orwell's experiences in Spain, his
passion for truth and integrity, his hatred of the abuse of power did not originate from his
experiences in the Spanish Civil War. They all flowed directly from his own actions as an agent
of the British Empire in Burma in the 1920s: Just as his creation of the Ministry of Truth
flowed directly from his experience of working in the Belly of the Beast of the BBC in the
early 1940s.
George Orwell spent more than 20 years slowly committing suicide because of the terrible
crimes he committed as a torturer for the British Empire in Burma. We can therefore have no
doubt what his horror and disgust would be at what the CIA did under President George W. Bush
in its "Global War on Terror." Also, Orwell would identify at once and without hesitation the
real fake news flowing out of New York, Atlanta, Washington and London today, just as he did in
the 1930s and 1940s.
Let us therefore reclaim and embrace The Real George Orwell: The cause of fighting to
prevent a Third World War depends on it.
"Foglesong's book provides a panoramic view of American popular attitudes toward Russia, one that is illustrated with many
arresting cartoons and magazine covers. It should provoke a wider debate about the rationality of evaluating Russia with reference
to an idealized view of the United States, as well as the deeper sources of this tendency." -Deborah Welch Larson, H-Diplo
"In the 21st century, the American debate on the prospects of modernizing Russia and on the Americans' role in this process is
still going strong even though it began more than a century ago. This is why David Foglesong's book aimed at elucidating the
mechanisms of misrepresentations which threaten both Russian-American relations and the world security as a whole is of equal
importance for the academic community and for the policy makers in both Russia and the United States."
-Victoria Zhuravleva, H-Diplo
"Foglesong demonstrates that powerful Americans have again and again seen the possibility, even necessity, of spreading the word
to Russia, and then, when Russia fails to transform itself into something resembling the US, have recoiled and condemned Russia's perfidious
national character or its leaders-most recently Putin. The author's singular achievement is to show that well before the cold war, Russia
served as America's dark double, an object of wishful thinking, condescension and self-righteousness in a quest for American purpose-without
much to show for such efforts inside Russia. The author thereby places in context the cold war, when pamphleteers like William F Buckley
Jr and politicians like Ronald Reagan pushed a crusade to revitalise the American spirit. Russia then was a threat but also a means
to America's end (some fixed on a rollback of the alleged Soviet "spawn" inside the US-the welfare state-while others, after the Vietnam
debacle, wanted to restore "faith in the United States as a virtuous nation with a unique historical mission"). Foglesong's exposé of
Americans' "heady sense of their country's unique blessings" helps make sense of the giddiness, followed by rank disillusionment, vis-...-vis
the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s and 2000s." -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine
Notable quotes:
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
"... The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea. ..."
"... This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags. ..."
"... T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil, precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror. ..."
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which
missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans
as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair
during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's
own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts
about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions
that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia,
more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting
what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American
journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have
distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."
The Adventures of Straw Man Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2013 This has been the essential function of US
Russia policy, as David Foglesong shows in his century-long tour.
The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has
defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed
Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea.
This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps
the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags.
The crusade against US civil rights - of which Reagan was also a part in his early career - as Communist-inspired tinkering
with the Constitution was much less successful. His support for free trade unions in the Soviet Bloc while crushing them at home
underscored the irony.
But Foglesong is much too generous in evaluating Reagan's human decency as a policy motive. Reagan pursued his grand rollback
strategy by any means necessary, mixing hard tactics (contras, death-squad funding, mujahadin, Star Wars) with soft (democracy-enhancement,
human rights, meeting with Gorbachev). Solidarity activists in Poland might remember his crusading fondly; survivors of the Salvadoran
civil war will not.
The "crisis" with the Putin regime currently empowered shows the missionary impulse yet alive: projecting one's reforming instincts
upon others rather than at home. T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion
of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil,
precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror.
I do find it puzzling that Foglesong made no mention of Maurice Hindus, the prolific popular "explainer" of Russia in over
a dozen mid-century books; and the notorious defector Victor Kravchenko and his best-selling memoir of the 1940s (ghost-written
by Eugene Lyons, another popular anti-Soviet scribe). Both were much more influential in the public and political mind than many
of the more obscure missionary authors Foglesong does cite. Nevertheless, Foglesong has offered a generous helping of cultural/political
history that shows no signs of growing stale.
>
indah nuritasari , Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
This book tells a fascinating story of American efforts to liberate and remake Russia since the 1880s. It starts with the story
of Tsar Alexander II's asasination on March 1, 1881 and how James William Buel, a Missoury Journalist wrote it in his book "Russian
Nihilism and Exile Life in Siberia."
The story continues until The Reagan era and "the Evil Empire," 1981-1989.
This book is very interesting and useful for history lovers, students, journalists, or general public. Here you can find all
the "dark and exciting stuff" about the cold war, including the involvement of the journalists, political activists, diplomats,
and even engineers.
It is really helpful for me as a new immigrant in the US to help me understand the US position and role in the Cold War Era.
The language used in this book, though, is " kind of dry". A little editing for the next edition could be really helpful!!
"... 1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA. After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt. ..."
"... As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign. ..."
"... I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me. ..."
If it were true why would they need to repeat it again and again? The American Dream died
in 1969 - the last year of the post-war miracle in the USA. For the following five years, the
country continued to flourish, but at a clear slower pace. With the oil crisis of 1974-5, the
American Dream definitely died, albeit some indicators (e.g. real wages) still showed some
improvements.
1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA.
After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years
of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in
consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was
mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their
hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt.
As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's
election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his
lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker
to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during
Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign.
Not only does the headline "The American Dream is Alive and Well" need to be repeated ad
nauseam but also the narrative it promotes, of the immigrant family that succeeds through
sheer hard work and dedication and nothing else - no help from government subsidies or
relatives already in the country, no dependence on bank loans that help start a business or
put teenagers through college, no discrimination whatsoever - has to be hammered constantly
over and over, even when everyone can see that the story template no longer has any legs if
it ever had any.
For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of Edward
Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and their mass
media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
I wonder what America would have become if sociopaths like Allen Dulles hadn't relocated to
Nazi braintrust after WWII. maybe it was inevitable that we would become the 4th reich.
David Talbot's book The Devil's Chessboard should be required reading for all
Americans.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
We all know these main stream media outlets do little more than pump out propaganda to the
ignorant masses who need someone to tell them what they want to hear.
Wow, those guys were phoning it in. 1. Their dreamland pieces were identical to the ones
in 2015, 2. the bottom 20% who they claim either don't have it so bad or can easily improve
their lot, have been gutted like a fish and left out to dry. Did people write these opinion
pieces or robots, robots could easily replace their jobs, pity their jobs won't be automated
but I really don't see why they couldn't be. Actually Neocons could be replaced by
automatons.
I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that
people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting
my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still
need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me.
As an aside that is nonetheless relevant, dealing as it does with issues of the
responsibility that banks have for the mess in this world, I recommend watching the TV
series, "Devils", described here on Wikipedia:
London, 2011. The Italian Massimo Ruggero is the head of trading at the banking giant
American New York - London Bank (NYL). While the financial crisis is raging across Europe,
Massimo is making hundreds of millions thanks to speculation. His mentor is Dominic Morgan,
the American CEO of NYL and the closest thing to a father Massimo has ever had. He fully
supports it, the talented trader seems to be the first choice in the run for vice-CEO. But
when Massimo is unwillingly involved in a scandal that sees his ex-wife implicated as an
escort, Dominic denies him the promotion, instead choosing the old school banker Edward
Stuart.
Massimo is amazed: his father turns his back on him. Convinced that he has been set up,
Massimo is determined to bring out the truth, but when Edward suddenly dies, Massimo
realizes that something bigger is at stake. With the help of his team and a group of
hackers, Massimo will discover the plot hidden behind apparently unrelated events such as
the Strauss-Kahn scandal, the war in Libya and the PIIGS crisis. Finding himself in front
of the Devils who pull the ropes of the world, Massimo will have to choose whether to fight
them or join them.
The series is well-written and well-acted. If you have access to it (I get it off the
Internet, but it does not appear to be available in the US market yet), it's well worth
watching. It is in some ways better than "Deep State", the spy series that was on a season or
two ago. It has already been renewed for a second season.
Interesting book "Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime " published in 2013 by PETER C
GØTZSCHE
He points out "Science philosopher Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
depicts the totalitarian, closed society as a rigidly ordered state in which freedom of
expression and discussion of crucial issues are ruthlessly suppressed. Most of the time, when
I have tried to publish unwelcome truths about the drug industry, I have been exposed to the
journal's lawyers, and even after I have documented that everything I say is correct and have
been said before by others, I have often experienced that important bits have been removed or
that my paper was rejected for no other reason than fear of litigation. This is one of the
reasons I decided to write this book, as I have discovered that I have much more freedom when
I write books. Popper would have viewed the pharmaceutical industry as an enemy of the open
society.
Rigorous science should put itself at risk of being falsified and this practice should be
protected against those who try to impede scientific understanding, as when the industry
intimidates those who discover harms of its drugs. Protecting the hypotheses by ad hoc
modifications, such as undeclared changes to the measured outcomes or the analysis plan once
the sponsor has seen the results, or by designing trials that make them immune to refutation,
puts the hypotheses in the same category as pseudoscience.
In healthcare, the open democratic society has become an oligarchy of corporations whose
interests serve the profit motive of the industry and shape public policy, including that of
weakened regulatory agencies. Our governments have failed to regulate an industry, which has
become more and more powerful and almighty, and failed to protect scientific objectivity and
academic curiosity from commercial forces."
Thats about it in a nutshell. Too bad the good scientists are all muzzled. Only the
politicized fraudsters get the good press.
Coronavirus To Decimate Colleges and Universities Posted on
May 12, 2020 by Yves Smith "Decimate" might be too
charitable a forecast for American higher educational institutions, since the word originated
with the Roman army practice of killing one man in ten. Coronavirus is hitting pretty much all
of the bad aspects of their business models at once.
Let's list them:
Dependence on/preference for foreign students, often not for their accomplishments but for
their ability to pay full and even premium fees . Chinese students accounted for one-third of
the total. Their enrollment was already falling as of 2019.
Universities in English-speaking countries, especially Britain, Australia and the United
States, have grown increasingly dependent on tuition from Chinese students, a business model
that the virus could dismantle.
With qualifying exams postponed, travel bans spreading and anger rising among Chinese
students and parents at the West's permissive attitude toward public health, enrollment could
plummet in the coming years, experts said, potentially leaving countries with multibillion-
dollar holes in their universities' budgets.
Foreign students were dismayed by the way US schools shut down abruptly and gave little to
no help in helping get them back home.
Skyrocketing prices leading more students to question college or emphasize "practical"
degrees . As with mortgages, access to debt has led to higher prices. And with student debt
terms so draconian, more and more students are trading down: going to cheaper schools or
focusing on programs that teach harder skills that hopefully translate into market value.
Bloated adminispheres and gold plated facilities . MBA parasites have colonized
universities, with the justification often that they increase fundraising. For what purpose? To
pay themselves better, and to create naming opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to
justify high charges via plush dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
All those expensive buildings have become an albatross.
Now consider the impact of coronavirus.
Litigation over terminating on-campus instruction . This is probably the least of their
worries. Plaintiffs are seeking refunds for the degradation of the educational product. The
schools argue quite explicitly that they are not in the business of educating but of conferring
credentials, and it is they alone that determine what is adequate for them to hand out a
degree. There is precedent supporting the universities' arguments, albeit with less bad facts
than these.
Low likelihood of resuming classes on campus this fall . My colleagues with contacts among
university administrators say no one has any idea how to make dorms safe if coronavirus is
still on the loose. This has many negative implications.
Why should students and/or their parents be willing to pay full prices for a degraded
product? They won't get interaction with instructors. For science and engineering classes, they
won't get lab work. They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates. They won't get
tips from other students on career and summer job strategies. They won't get to participate in
extracurricular activities, which is a low-stakes way to learn to work with other people. They
won't learn how to grow up in a somewhat protected environment.
There is the very real possibility that employers will downgrade the value of degrees
conferred during the plague years.
It's hard to see how colleges and universities escape cutting tuition, save perhaps the most
elite. I can't see any schools besides the most elite can maintain their charges without seeing
a big falloff in enrollment. And with them administering classes remotely, the cost of delivery
has fallen. And that's before seeing students postponing or abandoning degrees due to the
horrible state of the economy.
And what happens to university budgets due to the loss of room and board income?
Schools already looking at probable downgrades . Standard & Poors is already put a long
list of higher educational institutions on its negative watch list. Bear in mind that S&P
and Moody's tend not to downgrade before Mr. Market already has the bond trading at a lower
rating level.
From an April 30 Ratings Action :
The public and private colleges and universities affected by these actions include
primarily those with lower ratings ('BBB' rating category and below), but also those entities
that, in our opinion, have less holistic flexibility (from both a market position and
financial standpoint) at their current rating level
While S&P Global Ratings' outlook on the U.S. not-for-profit higher education sector
has been negative for three consecutive years now, we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic and
related economic and financial impacts exacerbate pressures already facing colleges and
universities. The financial impact on institutions from the loss of auxiliary revenue from
housing and dining fees, and parking fees; as well as revenues from athletics, theater, and
other events, is material for many. For schools with health care systems, lost revenue from
cancelled elective surgical procedures could also be significant. The recently passed CARES
Act will provide some budgetary relief to higher education institutions; however, despite
this aid, we expect to see stressed operating budgets, the scope of which will ultimately be
determined by the magnitude of lost revenues, the duration of the pandemic, fall 2020 mode of
instruction, and ultimate enrollment figures.
Colleges and universities have reacted rapidly to the challenges presented by the
pandemic. They have moved classes online to adhere to social-distancing rules, adjusted
admission policies to accommodate disruptions to high school exams, and suspended academic
conferences and travel. At the same time, many have implemented material expense cuts,
including deferring capital expenditures, and imposing furloughs and layoffs, in some cases,
with plans to continue to ramp up cost containment under various fall scenarios. Many
colleges and universities have disclosed estimates of 2020 budget shortfalls, despite the
inclusion of CARES stimulus funds. We expect that the colleges and universities we rate will
face an unprecedented level of operating stress and tightened liquidity, which will worsen
the longer and deeper the pandemic lasts.
It is also not clear how much more help the Federal government will be willing to provide.
Even though Congresscritters will be under pressure to help institutions in their district, the
flip side is the Republicans know well that higher educational institutions are a Democratic
party province, so they won't be high on their list of rescue priorities.\\
This section seems very much behind the curve, as if S&P talks to too many Wall Street
types who are betting on a V shaped recovery:
Many of the colleges and universities that we rate have some headroom to absorb the
impacts associated with COVID-19 at their current credit ratings, as they have built up
reserves over recent years, hold solid balance sheets, and have relatively low debt levels.
However, colleges and universities will face increased downward pressure on their current
ratings depending on the extent to which economic disruptions associated with COVID-19
persist. If global travel restrictions are prolonged, or the imminent recession diminishes
foreign students' financial means, then some could opt to study or work in their home
countries instead. In our opinion, a fall 2020 with significantly fewer international
students, as well as lower domestic enrollments overall, will cause serious operational
pressures. At the same time, most U.S. colleges and universities depend on endowments and
fundraising for a significant portion of revenues, and declining investment performance and
endowment market values along with weaker fundraising results could negatively affect credit
metrics during the outlook period.
I strongly suggest you look at the list. You'll see many familiar names. In particular, the
ones at the very bottom group, which already had a negative outlook before coronavirus, are the
most downgrade exposed. Interestingly, Northwestern, which went to the "hedge fund with a
university attached" model early and has an AAA rating, is in that cohort. Did they have an
even bigger than typical blow up in their portfolio?
Needless to say, this isn't cheery reading. While the universities set themselves for a big
fall, a lot of people who had nothing to do with the bad policies will get hurt.
As an aside, this is another reason why the 'we should relax lockdown as soon as possible'
crowd are so very misguided. The education business, along with so many others, gears up
after the August holidays right across the northern hemisphere. For many countries, there is
a good chance of suppressing the virus between now and the summer so that there can be at
least some sort of normalcy restored from August onwards. At the very least, this gives a
chance of a normal academic year for students. But this is only a possibility if infection
rates can be brought down to a 'track and trace' level over the summer. Failing to do this by
September will be devastating for all education providers. The UK third level sector, already
hit by Brexit, will be similarly wiped out if the virus is visibly not under control by
then.
Although they are unprofitable for almost all schools, I'm not sure that the impact from
cancelling the season is as clear cut, especially for the large D-I programs. Many of the
costs like million-dollar coaches, hundred million-dollar stadiums are fixed. Scholarships
will likely continue as well. Schools can probably cut costs of the lower paid employees
without contracts, like assistant coaches and trainers, but I don't think those are the
biggest drivers of costs.
Gameday revenues are almost certainly cashflow positive for the schools (ushers and
cleaners aren't paid very much); without them the football teams will be even bigger money
losers for the school. The schools might even get fees from their broadcast partners, as is
the case with many professional teams.
What happens with all these high-cost games like football and basketball if they cannot
get crowds to watch them? Do these crowds off-set much of the costs of staging these games? I
suppose that the institutes would be loath to drop them as they are such a "status" program
to have but I fail to understand how a coach in such a place is entitled to a multi-million
dollar salary as that money has to come from somewhere.
Most of their money is made through TV broadcasting rights, not in game ticket sales.
People will still watch them. Arguably even more people will watch them, although I don't
think that matters because the deals are already locked in with the various networks.
TV is the king but game day revenues are not insignificant for most of the big programs
that count on 70,000+ spectators times 7-8 home games a year.
Also agree with Another Scott that big-time college football especially has a lot of fixed
costs that will not go away if the season is cancelled. On the other hand, once you get
outside the big D1 programs, I do think cancelling football would be net cash flow
positive.
Comments like, "Football programs lose money" are so poorly thoughtout I just cant believe
they are posted here.
Honestly. . .
Huge amounts of dollars go through those programs and the benefit of that circulating
money to sooo many people and companies is enormous. There are many people who want to see
those programs continue.
If a Florida school thinks the price tag is too high, it is the begining of a series of
price negotiations. . . thats it. Come on!
first, your "quoted" material wasn't a quote in this write up or comments, so you can take
the quotes off. Second, look at the link Yves posted to see how football is a money pit for
many D1 schools. Third, I think I understand what you're trying to say that there's tons of
money flowing in and around college football, but the gist is that we're talking about the
impact to and financial ratings of colleges and universities and not the impact to the Purple
Porpoise in Gainesville, FL or similar establishments.
You make it sound like it doesn't matter if they lose money, because with all that money
sloshing around there then it's a net positive. The only problem is those universities aren't
there to slosh money around in their football programs, they are there so our society can be
an educated one. And when instead people start to think that the money sloshing around is
more important (as in all areas of human life) the part that was point of the whole endeavor
(as in, the education at the university) comes to look more like a cost. And what costs is
what is cut. And what is cut is degraded, given a higher price, and otherwise forced to
submit to those market forces that looks so good (well, at least when you have dollar signs
tattooed on your eyes).
The point is, whether football programs lose money or make lots of money slosh around,
this model is exactly the thing that is destroying our society, and exactly what needs to be
dismantled. So comments like "Football programs lose money" are exactly why people come
around here in the first place, and it seems you must be confused if you "can't believe they
are posted here."
AS A PSU grad and active alumnus I can attest that Penn State uses its massive football
revenues to fund ALL other of the school's sports programs. Though not part of the topic
being discussed, football Game day revenues also basically fund theTown of State College's
Downtown businesses FOR THE YEAR. And the full fare Chinese student contingent absolutely
'makes' the bottom line there. Those of us involved in alumni activities and meet with Board
members and others often are VERY worried .
If one reads the article, the key part of the statement about "most football programs lose
money" is that it's referring to FCS (Football Championship Series) schools which are the
"lower tier" Division 1 schools. Not Big10, SEC, etc. I don't think there's much in the way
of TV revenue for FCS either, except when they get a cut of the deal when playing a major
team (once or maybe twice a year).
My cousin attends Union and decided she'll take a leave of absence in the fall if they are
still remote.
Northeastern in Boston has stated they'll be back in the fall. I believe they are deeply
dependent on tuition revenue and have massive debts due to a campus expansion that must have
been costly due to Boston real estate prices.
In the UK, Queen Mary, Manchester (labouring under at least a billion pound debt for a
state of the art campus by the canals) and (private) Buckingham are teetering. Oxford is also
experiencing some discomfort.
I made this post unduly US focused due to having the S&P analysis, so thanks for
additional input on the UK. The New York Times article above made it clear that UK unis were
even more dependent than American ones on Chinese students paying hefty fees.
Thanks for that article. I've also heard that rumour about Queen Mary, is there any public
information about them?
I wonder how many other UK universities will announce redundancies in the coming months.
Would be interesting to know numbers of current vs. normal (last year) applications from Asia
for the coming year.
Yes, Edinburgh's situation is well known. Other prominent Scottish universities are in
similar positions, having gone all-in on rich international students to subsidise their "free
tuition for Scottish students" model. They're all very exposed now.
In England, I've heard of a number of institutions this week setting up voluntary
severance and redundancy schemes, with rather alarming stated goals for how many staff they
want to shed. Big, prestigious universities, too -- again, it's that reliance on
international students. The word I'm hearing repeatedly is "bloodbath."
Interesting NYT article about Bath. We live on campus (our house is a former uni property)
of another southwestern University, famous in no particular order for its campus being a
botanic garden, its current vice chancellor being about to retire after 20 years of
market-leading pay and it having closed its chemistry department, among others, 20 years ago
to make savings to pay for other priorities.
Again in no particular order, we gave remarked in the last few months:
– just how many east Asian students and junior faculty the place has attracted. We have
Japanese student lodgers!
– just how many purpose built student factory farms are being built in the city and,
more financially perilously, on the campus (building a massive student dorm extension campus
on farmland that was prime city centre green space and materially upgrading facilities at
other student blocks) and how distorted the local housing market is
– just how long the grass is getting since lockdown. There's little infection risk on a
single seater ride-on mower – the groundstaff, botanic garden not withstanding, have
been furloughed / laid off to save money. One vice chancellor's salary could pay for them
all. Austerity for thee, public subsidy for me.
– just how tone deaf the University is to assert its campus is now closed to the
public, when public roads run through it and it is used as a cycling and pedestrian right of
way to cross the northern half of the city. The buildings are closed and the students are in
their hutches. There is no danger of infection from people taking a walk from their confines
.
There is a big reckoning coming, with these bullying institutions suddenly acknowledging
their public and local obligations in return for a bailout.
Ps: I don't think the reaction of bath students to avoid sharing an elevator with a
Chinese student was racist. Just prudent. On a risk adjusted basis, a Chinese ethnicity
student is most likely a Chinese expat and if returning from Christmas or CNY to campus
represented a higher risk than a non-Chinese. I was very wary on my weekly commute in January
from London, of the Chinese students with big suitcases tagged Heathrow who were all getting
off at my stop . Tables have turned now, of course!
> They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates.
: Sherri Tepper: See. The word Festival. In the Onomasticon it carries the meaning
'opportunity for reproduction.' We talk of School House, but the book says, 'Protection of
Genetic Potential.' We say True Game. The book says 'Population control.'
The university of my town had moved from offering professions to Learning How To Learn in
the last couple decades. Along with that was the gilting, providing a shared cultural
experience, more in line with Tepper's definitions than educational outcomes. The incoming
cash provided support for community culture as well, restaurants, arts, weird shops. The
fallout for our cosmopolitan lifestyle in a small city is unfathomable.
Deeper even still, in the middle of the last century, educator Frank Templeton wrote from
the perspective that every citizen was like a brick, in the structure called a nation, and
schools made for strong bricks.
The harsh partial truth is that primary and secondary schools were hollowed out as daycare
centers to increase the labor pool. And many parents who were willing to pay to get the older
kids out of the house are now forced with a calculation: what's the roi on the
educational/professional dimension, and what's the roi on the social/Tepper dimension? If
both are low, why pay in this time of great uncertainty?
Chinese student applications are well down this year–this from direct knowledge at
one school and anecdotal at a few more. Companies that operate in China to connect students
to US institutions are laying off. And if numbers at any given school don't absolutely crater
(50%+), know that the discounting will have had to have been ramped up to make that possible.
Obviously there are health and safety concerns, but there is also a nasty political climate
with racist/xenophobic stuff coming from the Republicans that has been in some cases matched
by e.g. Biden campaign or NYT and that might clear the way for disastrous bans on
student/post-grad visas, if not increased violence.
University of Illinois "flagship" was prescient to purchase insurance from Lloyds Of
London for fortuitous Chinese student reduction risk. International students pay top dollar
rate. All good, their insurance broker should be commended!
Yesterday, Northwestern announced they are laying off ~250 personnel and cutting
administrative salaries 10 – 20% (so it must be serious). So much for the "safety" of a
higher education job.
On a tangential tack, locally, a slight majority of voters in our city passed a school
levy to firm-up/construct school dist. infrastructure – elementary/middle-school ..
with the future goal of a new shiny high school to replace the old/failing one. In the recent
years past, the school board and their boosters would put forth levies that amounted to Taj
Maschool 'wish-lists' .. which the community rightfully voted down. Same for the towns within
close proximity. So, the result of said measure .. even though it is lower that the previous
ones, is the rise, by hundreds of $$ annually (a bond floated, to be pay off in X years ..
only to have new one's brought forth after), to every property owner to achieve these goals
.. dollars that many would find a true burden Before the pandemic will be hit even harder
going forward. We are not what one would call a rich community .. unless one only considers
the movers/shakers/boosters. We rely less and less on timber exports – happening in
spades now! – with incoming revenue predicated on the vaunted idea of 'Tourism'.
'Sigh'
I see a failure of those same movers/shakers/boosters to consider that the whole college
track gristmill is the wrong approach .. bring back hands-on vocational training instruction
that was nixed years ago, having left it to the local college to do, with the added $-stream
THAT entails .. and put much less emphasis on 'college for college sake' There are a plethora
of skills that young folk are not being taught, that they will need for their very survival,
in a conflicted and low resource world! Imo, the Federal Dept. Of Ed needs to be abolished,
thus putting a end to it's often onerous 4 to 8 year changing 'mandates', and allow state and
local communities to come up with their own models of instruction. Sure, some will no doubt
fail, but I believe many others would in fact, thrive. There should of course be iron-clad
restrictions on just who has sway on funding and 'pull' (no hedgefunds/private equity/
scoundrels, rakes, and thieves !) Leave to the locals to hash out!
A little over a century ago, we had that kind of evironment, where children actually learned
of the world, whilst also becomeing proficient in the basics .. as well as taking on truly
practical skillsets .. from often small school settings – just look at an any exam
test-sheet from back then to get an idea of how badly we've handled things since. This
pandemic has brought to light our learned follies for sure.
Very true. I read that in EvanstonNow. Also saw a story from about a month ago about the
Wildcats 2020 prospects which IIRC previewed the 2020 schedule. So I guess college football
will go on even as colleges are decimated by the coronavirus. Priorities, indeed.
I looked this up. It does not appear to be as dire as you describe it. The staff members
are being temporarily furloughed, not laid off. And it is "university leaders" and deans that
are taking pay cuts. That is not administrative salaries generally. I am not saying it won't
get worse, just that it is not quite so terrible yet.
"University leadership said approximately 250 staff members will be temporarily
furloughed, the university will suspend 5% automatic and 5% match contributions to staff
retirement plans, and university leaders will take a 20% pay cut.
NU deans will also take a 10% pay cut reduction."
MBA parasites have colonized universities, with the justification often that they
increase fundraising. For what purpose? To pay themselves better, and to create naming
opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to justify high charges via plush
dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
I wish it were unique to the Anglosphere. Even here in Sweden one of the technical
universities in my city is in the midst of a big economic crisis. My friends who work there
as researchers attribute it to obscene administrative bloat that they've seen growing rampant
in the past decade. This is also after the implementation of big tuition fees for non-EU
students in 2011 (there were no tuition fees before that) which dramatically lowered the
quality of international applicants.
Athletic budgets (public institutions) in context: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
The far right column is the key: percent of athletic budget that is "allocated," which means
the part of the budget that comes directly out of the hide of the institution and its
students. About two dozen of the usual suspects make a "profit." My alma mater is way
profitable but still takes several million from captives in "student fees." Private
institutions in the black would include Notre Dame, Stanford, USC, and probably Duke
(basketball, which disappeared this spring). Note what the athletic budget does to schools
like UCONN, Rutgers, and UMASS, not to mention the smaller state schools. Something's gotta
give. It won't be the athletic departments.
When I bring up these data with academic colleagues, especially from smaller institutions
that have reestablished football as the prime money pit over the past 25 years, all I ever
get is the bovine stare of disbelief.
To be fair, what this analysis doesn't take into account is how many students are going to
the school (or how much more they are paying) who would not have gone if there were no sports
teams
I know thats a dumb reason to choose a college, but remember these are 18 year olds making
a decision. I suspect many more than you would assume include going to a "winner" and
additional social tailgating events as part of their criteria
Additionally, I think there is a mentality, or pride, that you too can be like Duke in
basketball or Notre Dame in football. But, first you have to commit to winning, or invest
early.
Yes, this is the "intangibles, school spirit" argument, a perennial favorite of presidents
and athletic directors and boards of trustees. It may be somewhat valid at the larger schools
of the Power Five conferences (SEC; Big-10, where they apparently can't count to 14; ACC;
Pac-12; Big-12, actually 10) but absolutely nowhere else except Notre Dame. And even in these
conferences, the financial drain on some schools is huge. Way past time to realize the sunk
costs associated with college sports are simply lost. Georgia Tech and Berkeley need big time
college sports (i.e., football)? Really? Georgia Southern and Illinois State? Connecticut and
Rutgers? Robert Maynard Hutchins to the white courtesy phone, please. Yes, I am unreasonable,
but these are unreasonable times.
And except for a brief renascence under Lou Holtz, Notre Dame football hasn't been much
since Ara Parseghian retired and the Boys from Chicago are still and forever nonplussed about
that.
And there is the small irony of educational institutions promoting a sport that can cause
serious head and bodily injury (American football).
Maybe some football programs do eventually pay for themselves via alumni contributions,
but one wonders if there is a herd mentality in colleges NEEDING to have a football team.
I know of one University of Calif campus (UC Santa Barbara) that dropped its football team
in the late 1960's, weakly woke it up in 1987 and then dropped it again in 1992.
"1985 a student referendum approved funding for a Division III, non-scholarship team. The
team began play in 1987,.. with a 33-15 record from 1987 to 1991. However, in 1992 the NCAA
decided to forbid schools playing in Division I in other sports from maintaining a lower
level football program, and UCSB dropped the sport again."
Maybe other schools can learn from UCSB's experience?
My high school buddy played on the last 1960's football team at UCSB. As a student there,
many of us were too busy protesting the war and burning the IV bank than attending football
games.
I looked at the ncaa/finances link and saw the "allocated" section.
I find that focusing on the allocated % is misleading as a school with an athletic budget
of only $100 that is not covered by gate receipts would show as %100 allocated.
This could be put in more perspective if the allocated dollar amount is divided by the
number of students.
For example, the University of California, Davis shows up at a high 81.90% allocated with
the allocated amount of $30,680,083.
UC Davis shows as having a student population of 35,186 per Google.
Per student, this is about $872 per student per year.
While Connecticut shows up at a seemingly better 49.23% allocation, but spreading the
shortfall over the 32183 student body size of Connecticut gives a cost of $1213 per student
per year.
One can wonder why the document did not give the per student cost and instead published a
%allocation figure.
These are historic times and one of the biggest sacrifices this generation of college
students will have to make is sitting through Zoom classes.
Let's keep this in perspective. Missing college because you've been drafted to fight in a
war across the Pacific is not the same as delaying your college education because you can't
get drunk with your frat. In the coming years employers will look much favorably on students
that stuck to their 4 year plan regardless of the troubles they were (or thought they were)
facing.
The Chronicle is tracking individual colleges' plans. Currently the vast majority say they
are planning for an in-person fall semester. This database is not behind a paywall Here's
a List of Colleges' Plans for Reopening in the Fall We'll see when August rolls
around.
At my university, the Registrar calculated that our campus has only ONE room large enough
to seat more than 50 students maintaining 6 feet of separation.
The rule of thumb is that covid capacity is 25-30% of normal capacity, so most classes
will need to be capped at 20 students or fewer. Probably better for education, but very much
not compatible with business as usual.
I don't see any way we reopen in any way approaching normal.
My university is probably going to be requiring us to teach half of the students in a
class in the classroom, then half of the students in the class online, alternating which
group is taught in a classroom and online throughout the semester. Unless this doesn't work,
in which case we might go all online, or all in person. What is being suggested–I kid
you not–is that we design each of our courses for the Fall to be taught in any one of
three, or more, ways. We're also taking pay cuts and losing the university's contribution to
our 403b plans. Good news though, we're still going through with our application to the NCAA
for division 1 status!!
The rot at the top of the university structure runs deep, I am afraid.
P.S. And, of course, our annual evaluations–usually the basis for a raise of between
1-1.5%–will continue, even though we're all taking pay cuts. Lol
Thank you for this, Yves. The problem is much bigger – and with more ramifications
– than most people realise, even in the education world itself .
The Guardian article linked to by CS talks about some of the immediate financial problems
this year. IN addition, huge numbers of students are going to consider putting off going to
University, even in their own country, let alone abroad, because they can't be sure that the
classes will start on time, or even at all. There's an increasing tendency, especially in
Europe, for Universities to have highly complex exchange agreements with each other,
especially at Master's level: I've taught classes with fifteen nationalities, the majority on
exchange from elsewhere. At the best of times that's a logistic nightmare, and requires
complex software to juggle. It's worse because the tendency over recent decades has been to
replace traditional degrees with a few options, by Starbucks-style hand-made degrees
assembled from bits and pieces. This works, as long as all the students who have signed up to
come can and do arrive. Otherwise, it can mean empty classrooms or teachers with one student.
Chaos is the kindest word one can use to describe what might happen in September. Courses
will have to be cancelled and lecturers' contracts torn up. It's also going to make it
permanently much more problematic to run courses on the expectation that you can attract
foreign students and send your own abroad. I'm not sure, for example that I would now sign up
for a four-year degree in (let's say) Japanese or Latin American Studies including a year
abroad that might not materialise. Language degrees, indeed, are likely to be among the first
casualties: it's almost impossible for one person to teach, say, Japanese grammar on
line.
I've taught courses using Zoom, and to be honest it's better than nothing but not a lot
better. It only works if everybody is approximately on the same timezone, and even then, once
you get above twenty students you can't actually see all of them on the screen and you have
no idea who's listening and who's doing their Facebook page. The students get no interaction
with you, and if you are using Powerpoint or similar they may hardly see your face the whole
time. It's not clear that students in future years will sign up for courses where face to
face teaching could be suspended at any moment because the virus comes back. Remember that
the virus is now pretty much everywhere and could reappear pretty much everywhere over the
next few years. When you add to that that, even today, students expect to "go to" University
rather than have it come to them, and to at least start to mature and find their feet, you
have to wonder how attractive University is going to seem, especially given the frightening
costs involved.
The situation is no better in Europe. In France, governments over the last decade have
made a huge push to attract foreign students, not just at Universities, but at the elite
Grandes Écoles like Sciences Po in Paris, where a third of the student body is from
abroad and many courses are taught in English. (You can study for some degrees in France
without speaking the language). Not many people will pay for the privilege of hearing French
teachers teaching in English while cooped up in their parents' home in a country a long way
away. For some institutions this is going to be catastrophic.
I have to say, though, as somebody who's been involved with Universities most of my life,
that this isn't all bad. In the UK, for example, there are simply too many degree courses,
and people who aren't really up to it are paying lots of money they can't afford for courses
they don't need and won't use. This could be the start of a sanity check. It's interesting
that the two universities mentioned in the Guardian article, including that of the author,
didn't used to be universities at all. They were both Polytechnics, specialising in
vocational teaching, magically transformed into universities about 25 years ago by giving
them a new name. This has led to too many graduates chasing university jobs, and too many,
frankly, sub-standard courses. There'll be some winnowing out. Partly for bad reasons –
you can't put engineering courses entirely on line – and partly for good ones: do I
really need that Master's degree in Intersectional Theory?
Thanks for the insight, David. As someone who did a Masters in one of the former Poly's
(in Oxford) back in the 1990's I was astonished at the commercialisation and pressure on
teachers in comparison to what I'd experienced doing under and post grad study in
pre-crapified (if very under-resourced) Irish Universities in the 1980's. Even then, the
pressure the junior lecturers were put under seemed extreme. I'm told by lecturer friends
that its gotten much worse over the years. And don't get them started on the standard of some
of the fee paying students .
I hope you are wrong, btw, about Japanese grammar, as I've just started online classes in
precisely that topic!
Sorry, badly expressed.You can indeed study languages online – in fact I've
done so, including Japanese as it happens. What I was suggesting is that actually
teaching languages at degree level entirely on line, and especially when you've got
three writing systems to worry about, or when you have tonal systems, or non-standard sounds
to memorise and practice, is going to be a hell of a problem. I think there's a substantial
difference between studying a language online to use it, and studying it to degree level,
which at least in theory qualifies you to teach it.
In fact, I was just thinking of that yesterday, when watching an online conversation
between two YouTuber Japanese teachers who were discussing the different ways of approaching
the language. It seems to me to be a golden age for language learning, there are so many
great resources available cheap or almost free online (I'm still picking and choosing which
method works best for me and which ones are worth supporting), but at the same time, I was
wondering if this is positive or negative for the old fashioned academic method.
Newton spent two years on the farm during the plague years and invented the calculus and
some ground breaking physics. Not to be too optimistic but perhaps there are some young folks
who can profit from a bit of time alone to think and tinker.
Thanks, David. Lots to unpack there. Much appreciated. And my two cents is that out of
this historic pandemic, maybe our great established universities and colleges will drive
online huckster "universities" out of business.
In a general view from the cheap seats, the real bottleneck here is the elite's usage of
"degrees" as gateway metrics for employment decision making. Thus, the above mentioned
transformation of "Trades Schools" into "Universities." I personally have encountered
marginally competent managers who owe their positions to their credentials, and not any
displayed skills. I have also encountered grossly incompetent managers who are not replaced
by upper management because said upper management will not consider slotting "up from the
ranks" workers into positions that they are manifestly qualified for by virtue of hands on
working experience, but lacked credentials.
This also highlights the mingling of both "Higher Education" programs with "Trade School"
ones. As a rule of thumb, when one tries to be all things to all people, one ends up being
nothing to anyone.
One to keep an eye on is the University of Austrian Economics
Chicago.
Under its current president, they have been spending like crazy, are heavily tuition
dependent,
and (like Northwestern) have a large medical center which will have taken a massive hit
from the pause on elective surgeries.
While the University of Chicago has about the same amount of debt as Yale University in
New Haven, Connecticut, its $6.7 billion endowment is a third the size of the Ivy League
school's $20.8 billion. Chicago's debt as a percentage of its endowment is 54 percent,
compared with 17 percent for Yale.
Harvard, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University, near Palo Alto,
California, have the most notes and bonds among the 20 richest schools. Yet as a percentage
of their endowments, the obligations represe
In reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him " had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories." Because those lost votes "would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden," re-electing Trump, burying those stories was first-degree election interference.
Dr Lisa McKenzie Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners' strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and thinker. Follow her on Twitter @redrumlisa . Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners' strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and thinker. Follow her on Twitter @redrumlisa . 21 Jun, 2020 07:11 Get short URL
© Getty Images / Joe Sohm / Visions of America/ Universal Images Group Follow RT on
I've spent the last 20 years of my life working with and supporting working class people to get into higher education. Today I'm wondering whether I've been right to do so. I remember my first day at University. I was 31 and had gone to Nottingham University, part of the so-called elite Russell Group, from an access course for mature students. I had no idea what I was walking into. I didn't know anyone who had been to university, and had spent the years since I left school working mainly on piece work in a factory making women's tights.
Removing Rhodes statue would be a total whitewash of both British and African history
As a UC Berkeley professor and a person of color, I REFUSE TO SERVE the Democratic party and #BLM – and so should you