Irony and Happenstance

My students often use the term irony in a very loose, colloquial fashion that simply means funny or odd. What they really mean, most often, isn’t irony technically, it’s happenstance. Irony involves a kind of reversal. It’s ironic, for example, when an organization like the American Council of Trustees and Alumni praises President Obama’s critique of university spending.

The ACTA is nothing but supportive of top-down administrative control, and it’s administrators that have promoted the “spas” and “food courts” that they believe help promote their schools to parents and alumni. It’s administrators that have emphasized the academic star system that allows certain professors to avoid the classroom; it’s administrators that believe they need huge marketing budgets.

When will the ACTA criticize the profligate spending on athletics, especially football and basketball? When hell freezes over. On the other hand, Obama says nothing about the disastrous labor policies common in U.S. higher education, and he neglects to mention the administrative costs– many avoidable– that have helped drive up the costs of education. So perhaps this is just happenstance.

Obama and the Teachers

Whenever I hear someone talking about the need to “get back to the basics” a little part of my brain answers, “Yes, that’s it! Let’s get back to the basics: class sizes need to be smaller and teachers need to be better paid!” That’s not what the phrase means, of course; usually, “the basics” mean simplifying education so that it can be easily measured on a standardized test. Most often, too, that means that writing disappears from the radar. Writing is harder to standardize.

Testing, to paraphrase William Gibson, is a consensual hallucination; if we believe in it, it takes on a semblance of reality. You can test reading comprehension on a test that can be easily mass-produced and administered. It’s nearly impossible to test writing skills that way. Even worse, and perhaps not surprisingly. these standardized tests are used to try to break the power of teachers (read: teachers’ unions) over the schools. It’s not just K-12, either.

Capitalism reflexivity believes in administrative rather than worker control. In the capitalist imagination, administrative control is flexible, rational, and efficient; worker control is rigid, irrational, and inefficient. In the name of the greater good, then, teachers must kept in check. It’s not surprising then, that, the Obama administration’s “Community College Summit” seems so completely out of touch with the realities of adjunct teaching.

This is about the capitalist agenda of administrative control, not learning. The New Faculty Majority is asking teachers to go to the White House blog and vote for posts that emphasize the concerns of adjunct and part-time teachers, which are the majority. it’s an interesting exercise and I hope that we can succeed in changing the administration’s views. That tricky business of power is not going to go away, though. Administrations are organized; we need to be too.

Evolution or Revolution

In 25 or 50 years, when someone or other, most likely a graduate student, writes a history of U.S. Higher Education in our time, the New Faculty Majority “Program for Change: 2010-2030” will have to play a key role. I don’t think it matters if the particulars of the program are achieved or not; its historical importance is its attempt to imagine a new employment system in U.S. higher education using a model developed largely in California and Canada. I think that it’s broad enough to be useful to almost anyone interested in reforming higher education. It’s our, “What is to be Done.”

OK, maybe it’s only our “Port Huron Statement.” Hopefully, in articulating this vision, the NFM has signaled the nadir of the current system. I think the proposed system makes a lot of sense; it touches on all of the key problems. I also think that the comments are as interesting as the document itself, particularly in the way they reflect the left’s current impasse over pragmatism. Obama is the example: is he doing what he can, given current politics, or he is too cowardly or inept to challenge the far right? I think it would be a mistake to let this document fall down that rabbit hole, as many of the comments seem to do.

I don’t have much faith in gradualist reform myself’; if you give administrations enough rope, they will hang you. It’s hard to imagine change without a union movement. Once change is achieved, we need unions to protect it. Still, if there were a union movement then I think this document could easily become a blueprint for contracts that address current inequities. All contract are local, of course, so details would differ. Meanwhile, there’s nothing to stop traditional faculty organizations– Senates, or other associations– from attempting to institutionalize these principals in their own reformish ways.

Educated Denial

All professors– especially if you’ve been teaching for a while– love to pontificate on learning and on higher education. I certainly can’t throw stones in that glass house. I am continually amazed, though, that so many avoid the white elephant: the almost total destruction of a secure employment system in U.S. Higher Education. It makes all of the professors’ ideas seem disingenuous.

Sometimes, as with Joel Shatzky’s piece in the Huffington Post, it’s only a question of not acknowledging reality ( “Educating for Democracy: What Makes Students Want to Learn?” ). Shatzky is also incorrect when he uses Bourdieu’s terminology (it’s embodied not social capital) and I think he makes the common mistake of reducing adult motivation to economics.

It’s important to understand education in economic terms. Students should be told that they will do much better financially if they graduate; that will surely motivate them. There are other motivations that are probably more important in late adolescence. Conformity and peer pressure come to mind, for example. What we need, more than anything, is a culture in which learning is cool.

In Lynn O’Shaughnessy’s “3 Negatives About How Colleges Are Behaving” the denial of reality is more glaring. Ms. O’Shaughnessy’s ideas are good, more or less, although I doubt educational quality can be “measured” quite as easily as she suggests, but her list leaves out university employment practices. Context is king: U.S. News and World Report isn’t exactly a labor friendly rag.