NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/9536

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 21.2 KB | 328 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: New Liberation News Service <[e-mail]>
Subject: NLNS: Death of the University
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:33:10 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 313

The Death of the University and the End of the Middle Class
Jason Keuter, The Student Insurgent

EUGENE, OR (NLNS)--From the outside, University politics may look
bewildering.  Administrators representing "liberal interests"  off campus
represent the right wing on campus.  Many mistakenly presume they either
have power or pursue agendas with ulterior motives serving powerful
interests.  There's a visible group of campus "radicals," who are made to
look like kooks--bean-curd eating, tree lovers and assorted violent
revolutionaries kicking in windows and using swear words in lieu of
rational discourse. Indeed many are unseasoned propagandists; but then
again, many of them are too young to be good propagandists, prone to self
indulgence and substituting public spectacle for meaningful political action.
    Part of the reason conservative campus administrators become
liberal special interests once they get off campus is the general hostility
Americans have towards education.  "Liberal" educators are often portrayed
as elitists out of touch with the values most Americans hold dear.   Ruling
elites often encourage this view, generally because education sometimes
encourages independent thinking, a practice rulers may laud in abstraction
but despise in any other form.
    Even conservative intellectuals grapple with expressions of right
wing populism because it's so offensive to their belief in rationality.  It's a
rare intellectual that doesn't regard issues like flag burning amendments as a
manipulative distraction from more important issues.  The conservative
campus intellectual avoids looking like a blind supporter of any particular
agenda, as do the majority of liberal and radical professors.  People freely
acknowledge a basic philosophy, but are always careful to point out
particular deviations to distinguish themselves from the rigidly orthodox and
irrational.  Skepticism, even unwarranted and foolish skepticism, is the
ideal professorial attribute.  As long as you suspect everything and believe
nothing, you will at least be smart.
     Few on campus accept much in politics without at least some
reservation.  Universities are places where every answer is subject to a new
question, which accustoms people in universities to the kind of discourse
usually discouraged in politics where people have so much to hide.
    This is not to say universities are not political.  In fact, universities
are, comparatively, places of great political ferment.  A wide range of ideas
exist in universities, but few of them ever get a hearing in politics.  What is
heard infrequently in political institutions is often discussed and debated
regularly on campuses. Thus universities are politically "isolated" because,
intellectually at least, they are so politically aware.
    Universities are now paying for their isolation.  Campus protests
continue to cause public relations problems for administrators hoping to
demonstrate the worth of the university to the general public.  Moreover,
administrators have to demonstrate to politicians that campus politics do not
reflect the mission of the university while at the same time telling the student
body that they encourage "open discourse" and the practice of other tenets
of liberal philosophy.
    The intellectual climate fostered by the Cold War inculcated in liberal
educators the knee jerk response of denying radicals within their midst.  The
truth is, those who attack universities as hot beds of leftism are right.  There
are a lot of political radicals in universities; in fact, the most vibrant group of
school sponsored, politically active students at the University of Oregon are
not student Democrats or Republicans, but student "radicals," encouraged in
their beliefs by radical professors.
     This climate fosters the kind of visible political action we have come
to expect from UO.  It does very little, however, to help administrators and
others begging for money from philanthropists and the State Legislature to
appease the belief that the University is not conservative enough to merit
their support.
    Like most liberal institutions, universities face the same dilemmas
they faced over twenty years ago when they became the maelstrom of
political dissent.  How can universities play a functionary role in a capitalist
economy while at the same time facilitating the kind of open dialogue and
exchange of ideas which often threaten the most powerful interests in that
economy?
    This is not an easy dilemma to resolve, largely because our high-
tech industry is very dependent on brain power.  Its rulers, however, are
dependent on brain numbing propaganda.  Herein lies one of the great
contradictions of high-tech, monopoly capitalism: How to somehow narrow
brain activity to serve one purpose while shutting down its capacity to serve
another without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the first.
    To a large degree, this is the question bureaucracy has tried to
answer, and not without success.  Just as Taylorism (the system invented at
the turn of the century that broke down tasks requiring skilled organized
labor into tasks an ape could do, and made workers slaves to the time-clock)
in the industrial workplace proved most effective in controlling the blue
collar working class by fostering alienation within its ranks, so
bureaucracies control the white collar working class.  Bureaucracies are
very unique systems. They are systems of collective alienation. But, at least
until recently, it has become possible to alienate working people without too
much of a progressive backlash.

POLITICS AND THE UNIVERSITY IN THE POST-WAR ERA
    Even before World War II, American universities were politicized
owing to their relationships with corporations, mostly as part of the military
industrial complex.  Universities served as research and development
centers and trained much of the workforce for high-tech industry.  The
student rebellion of the 60s, at least at its inception, was a rebellion against
the university's entanglements with the military industrial complex, and the
moral questions those entanglements provoked.  Liberal, enlightenment
philosophy, compromised by corporate influence on the "mission" of the
university, did a great deal to produce the political convulsions that rocked
the university in the 1960s.
    The 1980s, a period in which already extensive, governmental
allocation of tax payer funds to high-tech military industries was expanded
even further, also witnessed a sharp drop in spending on education.  While
America's investment in military industries was expanded, its investment in
universities that had served as the research and development arm of military
industries was cut substantially.
    The convulsions of the 1960s  produced a conservative backlash
against universities.  Liberal, elitist, and isolated intellectuals allegedly
spearheaded the erosion of values, and the right lambasted these liberals
with great  effectiveness.  Campus had produced the research and
development powerful economic interests desired, but it also produced
political confrontations and challenges they didn't want.  Fortunately,
universities were associated with elitism in the public mind, making them
vulnerable targets in the right wing's effort to discredit dissent largely aimed
at elite rule.
    The Reagan revolution chose to fight campus political ferment the
only way it knew how, by cutting the financial base that supported it.  As a
result, however, the Reagan Revolution eroded the research and
development infrastructure that had historically served its biggest
constituent--the military-industrial complex--so well.
    The UO administration is now seeking to restore the tattered thread
linking higher education to industry.  In its "Strategic Plan," a manuscript
authored by Senior Vice-Provost for Planning and Resources Gerald
Kissler, the administration attributes the steep decline in our economy to
short-sighted lack of investment in research and development.  In order to
restore the strength of our economy, investment in research and
development is vital.  As our nation's historical center of R & D, the
American University requires a return to the kind of governmental support it
lost in the Reagan years.
    Since the corporate community overwhelmingly supported Reagan's
policies, and the political spectrum has shifted far enough to the right so that
there is no viable opposition to the continuation of those policies, how can
the university gain business support for its renewal?  It must convince the
business community that it has resolved its identity crisis.  It must prove
that it will serve corporate interests and no longer facilitate the kind of
disruptive political dissent that corporate interests regard with great hostility.
    The (U of O President) Brand administration
hopes to distance itself from the kind of
dissent the general public has associated with universities over the years.  In
fact, the existence of this particular administration could arguably be traced
to former President Paul Olum's outspoken criticism of nuclear weaponry,
criticism that had the added benefit of coming from a man who helped
design our first atomic weapons--a strong slap in the face to the military
industrial complex upon which America's universities have been so
dependent. Although the administration may now be "politically correct"
and wish to foster strong relations with the corporate world,  recent campus
protest has helped them little in their efforts to cultivate such relations.

THE RIGHT'S ATTACK
ON THE UNIVERSITIES
    The Reagan Right targeted universities as a bastion of elitism, while
it  pursued the agenda of economic elites.  Some of these elites now regret
the loot and pillage of the Reagan years, recognizing that short term gain
comes at the expense of long term stability,  a sentiment well articulated by
UO Vice Provost Gerald Kissler, who is, by most standards, a liberal--
regardless of how far on the right he may fall on the campus political
spectrum.
    The 1980s witnessed an intense erosion of our educational
institutions.  Education, a value in a liberal-capitalist order, lost ground with
capitalists when it became too liberal.  Reverberations of the campus revolts
of the Sixties are with us today.  It should come as no surprise that the
Governor who led the establishment's attacks against Berkeley in the
1960s, expanded and intensified those attacks to encompass all of higher
education as President of the United States in the 1980s.
    Meanwhile, higher education continues to lose ground, and its
comparative tolerance and diversity of opinion places it even  further outside
the parameters of an increasingly narrow political system.  This
development cannot come as good news to the right wing.  The degree of
"isolation" the university  has from the American people in no way equals
the political alienation the American people share with the university, a
common ground which may prove politically disruptive for elites wishing to
divide students and educators from the rest of the American people.
    Administrators cannot abandon these remnants of liberal tradition.
Too many who work in higher education value that tradition too much, and
therein lays the dilemma universities face: maintaining the precarious
balance between a liberal intellectual tradition and its service to economic
elites.  The Reagan Right seems to have resolved this dilemma for
universities by granting them the freedom to pursue potentially disruptive
intellectual matters while at the same time cutting the financial base upon
which such pursuits rested.
    For those fortunate enough to afford school, a Darwinian ethic of
collective selfishness consumed them.  It is interesting to hear conservatives
educators attack "multi-culturalism" as the root of our educational decline,
while ignoring the reign of business education--arguably the most mind
numbing education a person can receive--that ballooned in the Eighties.  Of
course that bubble burst, and business students now find themselves
without work too - the flipside of their Darwinian dreams, the realization
that you are dispensable, subject to the whims of your environment, and if
being upper class isn't in your DNA, you won't survive.
    During America's post WWII economic boom, universities and
public education were part of an infrastructure which supported a vast
middle class.  In large measure, this middle class helped blunt the kind of
dissent and political disruption usually found in societies characterized by
extreme polarities of wealth and poverty.  The Reagan years witnessed the
polarization of not only rich and poor, but also within the middle class
itself.
    The Reagan Right successfully exploited cultural issues that
appealed to the white, working class/"middle class"--the proletariat of the
affluent, post-War  society.  But while the Reagan Right directed its most
visible attack against the poor and blatantly vulnerable, it also eroded a
governmental infrastructure upon which middle class life was sustained,
thereby sentencing the middle class to downward mobility to compete with
the already poor over what few resources remain after the Reagan cuts.
    Some in the upper-middle class did quite well, but their prosperity
was short lived.  The Yuppie Dream, an ugly narcissistic nightmare that
makes the repressive conformity of the fifties seem desirable, is no longer
attainable, and for those who already have it, easily lost.  Not being able to
"make it" on $50,000 a year sounds less absurd as time goes by and
inflation continues to skyrocket, especially inflation which destroys hopes
of home ownership and a college education.  Although people with $50,000
a year may live comfortably in this generation, they will not be able to pass
a legacy of middle class affluence on to their children.
     The capacity of states all over the country to finance education was
eroded not only by a loss of funds for education but by across the board
cuts in  federal funding for an assortment of government programs and
services.  This withdrawal of federal support created an insurmountable
funding burden for states and cities, forcing them to deficit spend and raise
taxes in order to maintain programs - or at least avoid sudden and drastic
cuts.  Thus the Reagan years, contrary to promulgated orthodoxy, can best
be characterized as a time in which taxes went up and services went down.
The sentiment that led to the passage of Ballot Measure 5 here in Oregon
becomes more understandable as a legitimate tax revolt when this squeeze
on the middle class is taken into account.
     The government withdrew its support from the American middle
class, and now faces the danger of the American middle class withdrawing
its support from the government.  Alienation from government, long the
trademark of the underprivileged, is now rampant among the formerly well-
off American middle class.  Symbolic of this loss of privilege is the decline
of the American university.
    In a larger sense, the death of the university is part of the death of
the American middle class.  Wealth and political power have been
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over the past 12 years--a fact one can
rationalize but hardly refute--and much of the wealth that has been taken
away has been taken from the middle class, both blue and white collar.
    In a way, UO's Gerald Kissler and other establishment liberals are
right.  The business community did sacrifice its long term interest in their
pursuit of short term gain.  By eroding the institutional mechanisms through
which the middle class maintained their existence, the Reagan right
eliminated the buffer standing between the rich and poor.  Politically, the
middle class is now hostile and unpredictable.  Hardly a stabilizing force in
a society increasingly characterized by extreme polarities of wealth.
    Liberalism, the great mitigator of social ills in capitalist societies, has
no place in an environment of such scarcity for the many.  Liberalism, to a
large degree, can be taken as a measure of a society's prosperity.  Liberals
thrive in prosperous capitalist societies.  In times such as our own,
liberalism dies.  One need only listen to what kind of  government spending
proposals provoke comments about the "deficit burden" to realize this is the
case.
    Americans simply cannot afford liberalism any more--economically,
politically, or intellectually.  Without it, however, we will be able to build
the kinds of progressive political movements the Reagan Revolution hoped
to suppress as radical political polarities arise as a result of radical disparities
in wealth and power.
    The ivory tower has historically stood between the many and the
few, obstructing the mass's view of the mansion on the hill.  Although it
helped obscure the reality of poverty, the Ivory Tower didn't necessarily
provide the illusion of a classless society.   It was, however,  evidence that
ours was a comparatively mobile society. Working class consciousness was
largely brunted by access to a middle class lifestyle.  But it is no more.
    Perhaps the most disruptive element in American society is not the
ghetto.  It never believed in the "American Dream" owing to its experience
with stark realities denying that dream's availability to all.  The falling
middle class may become the most disruptive and revolutionary force in
American society.
    The cacophony , frustration, and anxiety so evident on campus
today reflects the cultural strains of the middle class's economic decline.
Taken literally, culture is the way people live their lives.  In large measure,
"multi-culturalism", as adopted by white middle class students, reflects a
search for a new identity.
    The middle class struggles to define itself because it no longer has
any base of identity, so it is in drift, part of its adjustment to lower class
life.  Its ability to drift is ending, and the stark realities to which America's
lower class has long been accustomed are encroaching on a middle class
about to fall.  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, paid for by the
middle class.
    Among people making college campuses more diverse are older
students, who are never properly identified as part of a dislocated middle
class.  They go to college, go deeply into debt, and try to avoid leaving to
face a world without much opportunity.
    Employment is temporary; home ownership impossible; education
will soon cost the $100,000 + we started hearing warnings about long
before Measure 5; and inflation far outpaces service economy wages while
public assistance is gutted.  Our standard of living is not going down
("standard of living," usually measured in terms of over consumption,
needs to drop anyway).  We are faced instead with not being able to
survive.  The children of the "affluent" society, today's Post-Prosperity
generation, were acculturated to a lifestyle it can no longer afford.  It may not
even fall into the working class.  Like the disposable people of the ghetto,
the middle class may simply have no place in our crumbling economy.
    From the ivory tower, the residents of the mansion on the hill heard
critical voices tumbling upwards, and in a moment of irrational excess, they
struck the tower down.  Now they hear the mumbling of the many and
perhaps wish the ivory tower was still there. It could absorb dissent. Allow
it to echo through its chambers, causing no more disruption than hurt
feelings at academic conferences or animosity between scholastic rivals. For
all the scuffling at the bottom, the elite universities and colleges would still
be there with their mild, boring criticism; their annoying, but rarely
threatening, rational, liberal discourse, which would float upwards with all
due civility and respect to an audience that would let it vanish into thin air.
    If the voice of the many reaches the mansion on the hill, it won't
float up.  It won't even come knocking, and it will not speak with the
civility and deference of a bourgeois intellectual.
    And how the owner of the mansion will wish some college
professor was there to explain what it all means: drawing allusions to the
Storming of the Bastille and exploring the philosophical ramifications of the
past living on in the present and what impact this might have on post-
modern literary theory, but no!  The professor will be in the kitchen, wiping
jelly from his face with his former patron's silk shirts, as his patron is
dragged outside to face a gruesome fate at the hands of an angry mob let
loose from the restraints of liberal prosperity.  And nothing will brunt the
sharp edge of the mob's criticism, nor will anything brunt the sharp edge of
the action emanating from it.  The bourgeoisie are no more.  Make way for
the revolt of the masses.

The Student Insurgent can be reached at University of Oregon, EMU Suite
1, Eugene, OR 97403; [phone]; [e-mail]

--- 30 ---