Teaching the New Poll Tax

In 1995, when OJ Simpson was on trial, the debate over his innocence or guilt took over the teaching of first year college English in many places because it epitomized the complex dynamics of racial politics in the U.S.  I am hoping that something similar will happen around voting laws this fall, for the very same reasons.  There’s a lot of good information to be had to launch the discussions. A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice paints a frightening picture of the extensive sweep of the new poll tax, restricting voting access for million of U.S citizens.  The statistics are daunting:

At least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.

47 restrictive bills currently pending in 12 states.

24 laws and 2 executive actions passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin).

16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia). These states account for 214 electoral votes, or nearly 79 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.

Of these, 13 laws and executive actions are currently in effect in 9 states (Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia).

2012 Summary of Voting Law Changes” Wendy R. Weiser and Lawrence Norden

Just a quick glance at a map of the states where these new laws have been enacted illustrates their political intent.  The election of the first Black president has fueled some of the most reactionary legislation in decades, much of it aimed at keeping the poor and non-white and elderly– all groups unlikely to vote Republican– out of the electoral process.  The Voting Rights Act, along with Roe v. Wade, Social Security, and Medicare, is clearly on the target list of the extreme far right (aka the Tea Party).  These new restrictive voting laws have been spearheaded by Republican governors and legislatures and are focused on states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that played a key role in the last several presidential elections.  Students can listen to Bill Moyers’ interview with the authors of the report as well has his investigation into the difficulty of getting official identification.

Deconstructing Higher Education

Talking about U.S. Higher Education in the U.S. is challenging.  We have a federal system, for example, and just about every state has it own peculiar system. It’ tempting, then, to start drawing lines, just to make discussion manageable. In that sense, Senator Harkin’s recent report on for-profit education (“Senate Committee Report on For-Profit Colleges Condemns Costs and Practices“) can be forgiven for leaving out the public universities.

There are some dramatic problems with the strategy, however, insofar as the public universities can hide behind it. The more we vilify the for-profits as corporate ne’er-do-wells, the more we risk creating the false impression that the public universities are paradigms of  education and service. Worse, we create the impression that there is an absolute distinction between private  business practises and the practises of  public universities.

We want to think that a state university is more like a group of firefighters than Apple Computer. The distinction is more figurative than real.  Public universities are run on the same dysfunctional business principles that have shaped the economy at large. Harkin’s report also emphasizes that all for-profit schools depend on public money. In effect, the for-profits are public institutions; perhaps more so than many state universities.

Any public or private university has to be placed on the same (market) spectrum. Harkin’s report, then, should be seen as pointing the way towards a reform of the entire system, private or otherwise.  Two areas deserve special attention, one emphasized in the report and one neglected.  One problem in unregulated capitalism is that money  flows towards administration and marketing (and lobbying). Harkin’s report rightly argues that this has to be curtailed.

The Affordable Care Act requires that 80% of  corporate health insurance budgets is spent “on quality health care, not administrative costs … CEO salaries and marketing.”  I prefer Medicare for all, but a similar rule in higher education makes sense.  Let’s start with 80% and then push for 8%5 or 90%  a few years later.  The “marketing” program, of course, has to be defined to include university sports programs.

Harkin’s notes the high level of adjunct teachers– up to 90%- in the private sector. The private universities have accelerated a long-standing trend.  As Harkin’s report emphasizes, the for profits experience in online education illustrates the importance of student support services. That, in turn, emphasizes the need for a system dominated by full-time teachers protected by tenure. We can start at 50 or 60% but our goal should be 90% full timers.

We can’t serve our students if we are always looking over our shoulders, worried that we might lose our jobs either to administrators seeking to cut costs or to disgruntled consumers, aka our students. We can’t offer the help our students need, either, help that more and more research suggests is doubly necessary in an online setting, unless our working conditions are humane. That won’t happen until we start draining the administrative pool.

Aint Necessarily So

For generations, most college-bound Americans paid reasonable fees to attend publicly financed state universities.But the bedrock of that system is fracturing as cash-strapped states slash funding to these schools just as attendance has soared. Places like Ohio State, Penn State and the University of Michigan now receive less than 7 percent of their budgets from state appropriations. … The upshot of it all? Students face greater competition for admission, significantly higher tuition bills and bigger debt loads upon graduation.

U.S. recession’s other victim: public universities” Jilian Mincer

As of 2009, 75.5% of instructional staff members were employed in contingent positions either as part-time or adjunct faculty members, full-time non-tenure-track faculty members, or graduate student teaching assistants.

A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members: A Summary of Findings on Part-Time Faculty Respondents to the Coalition on the Academic Workforce Survey of Contingent Faculty Members and Instructors

The professional background of half (49.4 percent) of board members of public colleges and universities in 2010 was business. Other occupations of board members (in the workforce and retired), included: 24.1 percent professional service (such as accountant, attorney/law, dentist, physician/medicine, and psychologist/mental health), 15.5 percent education, 9.3 percent other occupations (nonprofit executives, clergy, homemakers, artists, government officials, and others), and 1.7 percent agriculture or ranching.

2010 Policies, Practices, and Composition of Higher Education Coordinating Boards and Commissions

I am sometimes (perhaps unfairly) driven batty by people who say, as if by reflex, that education– and educators– need to pay more attention to the workplace and to business. This can mean one of several things. Sometimes people say this because they want a college education, which is after all an expensive investment, to be relevant to a student’s professional future. We can’t afford the old liberal arts model anymore; higher education must be primarily vocational. Who do they think is responsible?

Sometimes, perhaps even more often, I hear people– even other teachers–argue that universities ought to learn from business. Universities, like any business, can only benefit from more market competition; universities need to learn to treat students as customers. Government is wasteful; business efficient. This is said as it were a totally new idea, representing a break with the institutional past and the birth of a more efficient education system. The university has to come out from behind its ivy curtain.

As the data on the boards suggests, business people are by far the largest influence on university and college governing boards. This is not a new phenomena by any means. Depending on how you define business, these boards might include as high as 70% or more business people. They’ve created a system that grows more expensive daily and that has precious few full-time teachers. We need a more public minded system, not more of the same business logic that caused the current mess.

Romney’s Animal House

Mitt Romney’s surreal disconnection from reality–a disconnectedness he shares with the rest of the .o1%–continues to offer surprises.  (Those missing income tax returns would no doubt offer a lot more. ) First he bragged that he put his dog on the roof of the car on a family vacation. That’s weird and stupid, even if you aren’t rich. Imagine the trauma his children might have suffered if the dog had gone flying off the car, tumbling down the freeway to its death. It’s a near sadistic risk for a father to take.

It resonates, too, with the image of Mitt the Vulture capitalist, pursuing profit by, among other things, stripping companies and sending the jobs overseas. (“All the G.O.P.’s Gekkos” by Paul Krugman, nicely summarizes the nature of the sort of sadism-tinged (“let them fail“) capitalism Romney practiced and would bring to the White House.)  The newest entry in the Romney menagerie is his Olympic horse, which is better fed and taken care of than most families. That’s the income divide in a nutshell.

It’s helpful for educators and parents– as a gauge of Romney out-of-touchiness– to compare the cost of this single horse–Rafalca–to the average student loan debt, which is $25,250 . Romney may not be able to deduct the cost of his horse yet, but his tax returns suggest that he spent $77,000 on it last year.  It’s very difficult to imagine that a man who spends 3 times the average student loan debt on his horse racing hobby would be all that concerned that the debt load has grown too large and college too expensive.