NEWSLETTER OF THE UMKC CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
Vol. 4, Nos. 1-2
Administration Again on the Offensive , by Patricia Brodsky
Proposed Institute a Threat on Many Levels , by Stuart McAninch, Susan Adler, and Louis Odom
The View from Inside: Letter to the Chancellor and Provost , by Linda Edwards
What is an "Institute" and Why We Should Care , by Ed Gogol
Fringe Association for Research , by V. T. Skepticism
"Contrary to all that is Rational," by Burton Halpert
The Viability Process: A Faculty Perspective , by Harris Mirkin
Transparency and MU Medicine , by Marino Martinez-Carrion
Food for Thought , by Pat Brodsky
HR 3077--the Education for Empire Act , by David Brodsky
Class Struggle 101 , by Barbara Ehrenreich
Letter to Kansas City Star about Adjunct Faculty , by Greg Hodes
News of the Chapter
MPA/AAUP-Sponsored Conference on Academic Labor
AAUP Chapter Dues, Survey of Critical Issues , by Ed Gogol
Administration again on the Offensive
by Patricia Brodsky
Audits, program destruction, and resignations
During the past three months the Gilliland Administration agenda of corporatization, privatization, and destruction of disciplinary units has escalated alarmingly. Its earlier assault on the School of Biological Sciences (SBS) is being expanded to as many as fourteen units at UMKC, this time with the help of a mandate from Central Administration in Columbia. At the center of the latest attack are the School of Education and three departments in the College--Physics, Political Science, and Sociology. All are targeted for "viability studies" or "audits" (read: "punitive fishing expeditions"). The mandate of the committee in charge makes no attempt to hide that their intent is to restructure, reduce, or close down units. Elimination of the School of Education is apparently already under way. The money "saved" will be moved to projects favored by the Administration. At stake, once again, are faculty governance and academic freedom.
The document describing the mandate of the "Resources for our Vision" committee leaves no doubt about the audits' destructive aims. The committee must provide "recommendations for each department or division under Viability Audit. Recommendtions must include either: (A) a clear plan so that the unit will become clearly viable and the expected date by which that will happen; or (B) a plan for program merger, discontinuance, or elimination." In addition, the committee is charged with providing the Provost and Chancellor, by June 1, 2004, " a list of degree programs to be eliminated [emphasis Ed.]; and recommendations for incentives that will improve the productivity and efficiency of our academic programs, emphasizing inter-disciplinary programs, alliances with other institutions, and departmental mergers and consolidations."
Since the committee's mandate excludes the possibilty that a targeted unit is already "viable," either alternative--improved productivity or elimination--involves administrative usurpation of faculty responsibilities for curriculum and instruction. For this reason alone, faculty should be demanding the termination of the audits as currently structured and replacement of the primarily administrative "Resources" committee with competent and appropriate faculty bodies .
In addition, because many units are already greatly understaffed and overworked, "improved productivity and efficiency" can only mean increasing the rate of exploitation of the faculty. Faculty instead should be demanding adequate funding for normal staffing levels and normal workloads.
For two faculty reactions to the viability studies, see "The Viability Process: A Faculty Perspective," by Harris Mirkin, and "Contrary to all that is Rational," Burton Halpert's letter of resignation as chair of the currently targeted Department of Sociology.
There are other drastic changes reflecting the same administrative agenda, and despite the wall of silence surrounding them, as around the audits, the larger plan of a corporate makeover, or takover, is evident. There is much speculation, and little concrete knowledge, about the privatization and outsourcing of the School of Education to an "Institute for Urban Education" associated with the Kauffman Foundation. School of Education faculty are currently in limbo as to the future of their unit.
What may signal a change in policy came November 19, when system president Elson Floyd met with Chancellor Gilliland and asked her to delay action on the Institute until she had "gather[ed] more professors' and community representatives' input" (Lynn Franey, "Floyd wants more public input on UMKC plan," [KC Star, December 4, 2003], B10). President Floyd is to be commended for stepping in, but it remains to be seen just who is meant by "professors" and "community representatives." Given the local administration's track record, it's clear the School of Education isn't out of the woods by a long shot.
A critique of the Institute appeared in the Star "As I See It" column December 2. Charles G. Spencer, a geologist and science education consultant, objects to "administrative unilateralism at UMKC" which leaves the faculty out of the planning process. "The Institute seems to be the brainchild of UMKC's chancellor and provost, a Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation vice president and two UMKC faculty members with close ties to Kauffman. What is most disturbing is that the institute will not exist within the School of Education, but replace it," and that it will answer to "external entities with their own agendas." Spencer also questions the decision to leave the regional school districts out of the plan, since "UMKC is supported by tax dollars from the suburbs and rural areas as well as the urban core." Finally, he sees the Institute plan as the latest in a series of Gilliland administration follies. "Under the guise of establishing collaborations with the community, the university now pursues funding relationships that transfer de facto governance of academic units from faculty to external institutions."
John Cleek, Dean of the School of Education, and Ted Sheldon, Dean of the Library, both abruptly announced their intention of leaving their deans' positions. Cleek departed with one week's notice, to take a position dealing with the "challenge" of expanding distance education (see Provost Ballard's memo to the faculty of October 17). Sheldon is taking early retirement and leaving the University altogether. Faculty in the School of Education consider Cleek's resignation to have been forced from above, while according to sources in the library, there has been no word from the administration concerning the future of the libraries since the meeting at which Sheldon announced his retirement. The faculty needs to demand significant participation in the process of selecting interim deans, and ultimately in the search process to replace Cleek and Sheldon.
For initial reactions to the Institute for Urban Education, see "Proposed Institute a Threat on Many Levels," "What is an 'Institute' and Why We Should Care," and Acting Dean Linda Edwards' letter to the Provost. For commentary on privatized education schemes see the anonymous satire on the "Brouchers System." The Faculty Advocate will be carefully monitoring developments at the Library for a report in a future issue.
Why the AAUP chapter opposes the audits
We should have an absolutely clear understanding of what these so-called "audits" signify: the administration is trying to dictate curricular policy to the faculty. But as AAUP guidelines state, the faculty have the decisive say in curricular matters. Any proposal to radically change the curriculum must involve the participation and decision-making power of the faculty in affected units. AAUP guidelines were adopted by the University of Missouri system and all four of its campuses in 1980 as a condition of being removed from the AAUP censured list, on which they were placed in 1973. As Adler, McAninch, and Odom point out in their article, the audits violate School of Education Faculty Bylaws, UMKC Faculty Bylaws, and the Collected Rules and Regulations, Article IV of 10.030.
In addition, shared governance includes the right of all faculty--tenured as well as non-tenure-track--to decide the future of the university, particularly in times of crisis, whether or not the institution declares financial exigency. If it does not declare exigency (as in the current situation), AAUP guidelines state: " The decision to discontinue formally a program or department of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee thereof [emphasis Ed.]" (AAUP Policy Documents and Reports [9th ed.], p. 25).
The audits are treating UMKC faculty like a passive unskilled workforce, one which is supervised and which does repetitive jobs, rather than the professionals they are in fact. Professionalism entails, among other things, the power to set the goals and choose the methods of one's work. Professionalism is the definition of academic faculty members. Most important, professionalism is the foundation of the faculty's claim to academic freedom and the tenure that protects it. Corporatization means first of all denying, abrogating, and eventually destroying that professional status, which academics work long and hard to achieve, through a extended period of professional education, apprenticeship, and peer review.
Thus the audits are not only limited purges of selected units. They undermine the professional status of every faculty member at the university, tenured and non-tenured, full-time, part-time, and graduate teaching assistants. All members of the faculty at UMKC without exception should understand that they are in danger, whether or not their particular unit is targeted. Since all faculty are at risk, all faculty should organize in self-defense. As I wrote in June 2002: "What is happening now in SBS may be repeated in the near future in other units of the university. Thus it is in the immediate as well as long-term interest of all faculty, tenured, nontenured, and contingent, to publicly make known their objections to the destruction of SBS and to insist on the proper role of faculty in determining the future of UMKC."
But the decision by other units of the University and the Faculty Senate to withhold support for the School of Biological Sciences when it was under attack was a disastrous tactical error. Once the administration saw that it could get away with its first, experimental purge, with strong opposition coming only from the AAUP and a number of individual faculty, it was encouraged to escalate its aggression. Now fourteen other units have been lined up for administrative meddling and possible dismantling, and an unknown number may be added in the future.
UMKC faculty should be reminded, as Ed Gogol points out in this issue, that the pretext for attacking SBS was audit-like allegations and innuendos that bore little resemblance to fact. As I reported in the June 2002 Faculty Advocate, a letter from Provost Ballard "enumerated alleged shortcomings on the part of the School and its faculty" and listed "multiple performance problems." In addition, the plan to which SBS faculty objected called for terminating the School, most likely by outsourcing instruction and research to the privately run Stowers Institute. An analogous plan is being applied to the School of Education, which is to be incorporated into a privately run Institute, probably affiliated with the Kauffman Foundation. Current administration strategy is to starve the School of Education into submission through deliberate understaffing. An analogous starvation tactic was used against SBS, when the Provost punitively froze its funds.
Administration spokespeople are downplaying the dangers inherent in the audits. But false assurances are a standard tactic to prevent targeted victims from organizing to defend themselves. Likewise, factuality and evidence (e.g. about alleged program shortcomings) are hardly a concern of this administration. Any arbitrary claim will do, so long as it serves to confuse, divide, intimidate, and disarm the faculty. See Ed Gogol's article, "UMKC Support for Life Sciences a Sham" in Faculty Advocate (June 2002).
What should the faculty do?
Only a determined and widespread opposition movement among faculty in all units can halt this current wave of purges and assaults on academic freedom and faculty governance, and the dangerous precedent they set for the future of UMKC. Since no unit on this campus can feel safe and invulnerable, it is in everyone's interest to oppose the administration's offensive against the core purposes of the university, teaching and research (both of which involve the Library), and thus against the core constituencies of the university, its faculty and students. Faculty should also inform students about the destructive effects of administration policy on their study and career plans and urge students to organize in their own self-defense. Alumni and parents, likewise, should be informed of the destructive administration agenda being implemented at their own public university. Letters to the editor and op-eds are also important, in the local media and in your disciplinary journals and newsletters.
One thing faculty can do immediately is to put pressure on their faculty senators to adopt resolutions strongly objecting to the audits. At the same time faculty should take the initiative at their own unit level. If the colleagues in your unit are unreceptive, then link up with individuals in other units who are determined to oppose this aggression. The AAUP chapter will serve as a clearinghouse to help faculty network with one another. For networking contact AAUP secretary, Pat Brodsky, 218 Scofield Hall, 235-2826, firstname.lastname@example.org
In addition, since the audits violate UM system, UMKC, and campus unit regulations, which are based on AAUP guidelines, and thus are utterly illegitimate operations, consider collective methods of non-cooperation with the audits. Finally, and most important, faculty must turn the tables. As Harris Mirkin suggests, let's do a faculty audit of the upper administration. Nowhere in the university budget is there a greater need for "improved productivity and efficiency," belt-tightening, and elimination of redundancies and pork barrel financing than among these overpaid bureaucrats. Whether the money comes from private or public sources, they have been diverting millions of dollars in funds that rightly should be reserved in these financial hard times for the first priority needs of instruction and research.
Isn't it high time to "just say no" to their hostile takeover and to reassert faculty rights and responsibilities?
Proposed Institute a Threat on Many Levels
by Susan Adler, Stuart McAninch, and Louis Odom
On September 30, 2003, Chancellor Gilliland announced, with great fanfare, the establishment of the Institute for Urban Education (see, for example, the Kansas City Star, October 29, 2003). This Institute, we are told, is intended to focus on the preparation of educators (teachers and leaders) for the specific needs of urban schools. This is a goal many of us in the School of Education have long supported. Planning for this Institute could and should be an exciting and renewing undertaking. Many, probably most faculty, would be eager to participate in an Institute composed of the School of Education, the College of Arts & Sciences, and community partners in order to improve the preparation of teachers and leaders for urban schools. However, many of us have a number of concerns, both about the planning process and about the plans.
Planning for the Institute for Urban Education is proceeding without meaningful faculty input. This means that faculty expertise on urban education, teacher education, and administrator education and ongoing faculty initiatives in urban schools are being ignored by the small group of senior university and school district administrators, corporate philanthropic officials, and consultants involved in the planning. It also means that faculty control of curricula called for by the School of Education Faculty Bylaws and UMKC Faculty Bylaws and by AAUP principles, and delegated to faculty as indicated in Collected Rules and Regulations, Article IV of 10.030 is seriously threatened by decisions being made without even faculty input on academic programs.
Faculty were included this Fall in an advisory committee to the Steering Committee for the Institute (which includes Steve Ballard, Susan Wally from the Kauffman Foundation, Bryan LeBeau, and--until his "resignation", which is widely believed in the School of Education to have been forced--John Cleek, Dean of Education). However, a conclusion which has emerged among faculty representatives is that discussions in which they are involved will not have any impact on substantive decisions concerning the development of the Institute. Substantive decisions will likely be made by a group limited to the Chancellor and Provost, the superintendents of the Kansas City Missouri School District and Kansas City Kansas School District, and leaders of the Kauffman Foundation and Greater Kansas City Community Foundation. In the absence of consultation with faculty, this small group apparently intends to rely on outside consultants for expertise. Prior to the formation of the faculty advisory committee, there had been no faculty involvement in dialogue and decision-making regarding the Institute.
Meanwhile, many in the School of Education feel as though we are being starved into failure. Faculty numbers have been reduced from 47 tenure-line, clinical, and visiting faculty at the rank of assistant professor or above in 1998 to 32 tenure-line faculty (including the current acting dean, the division chairs and the Director of Teacher Education), 6 visiting and clinical faculty (one of whom is primarily an administrator), and 3 instructors this semester. Meanwhile, our student numbers have gone up, especially in teacher preparation. We have been informed by the Provost that, despite available VERIP funds, all faculty searches are frozen until that unspecified date at which the Institute is sufficiently planned to allow for the reframing of positions in light of Institute needs.
In the meantime, we are expected to address the needs of an increased number of students with a reduced base of faculty. While new searches are frozen until the needs of the Institute can be determined, two School of Education faculty members are negotiating with the Provost to transfer their academic affiliation and faculty lines to the Department of Psychology. If their proposal is approved, their transfer would essentially deprive the School of Education of the ability to offer courses in educational psychology and quantitative research methods--foundational elements in any School of Education. Furthermore, as a result of retirements and the movement of these two faculty, we have no faculty whose teaching focus is research, thus diminishing the support we can give to doctoral students. A sense of siege and mistrust pervades the School. The dean's "resignation" two weeks prior to an accreditation visit is compounded by the limited resources. The demands of meeting the needs of our current programs and students push us beyond those limits.
It is not clear, at this time, what form the new Institute will take. Implications are that the work of the Institute will supersede the work of the School of Education. That is, it appears as though the School of Education will not be a "participant" in the Institute, but will be taken over by it. We have inferred from what information we are able to get, that the intention is that all School of Education programs, with the exception of teacher and leadership preparation, and professional development for urban school districts, will eventually be closed. Currently, the "bread and butter" of the School are the master's programs for current teachers. These programs serve the entire metropolitan area, but appear to have no place in future plans. Similarly, programs such as counselor education, higher ed administration and our participation in the PhD may have to cease.
What is happening at UMKC is, unfortunately, not unique. Schools and Colleges of Education across the country are under siege for being "out of touch" with the needs of today's classrooms. The argument is that since the preparation of teachers moved from normal schools and teachers colleges to research universities, teachers are being taught in ways that are inappropriate for the demands of classrooms. It would seem that educating teachers to be thoughtful decision-makers who engage their students in active learning and inquiry is no longer acceptable. It is a teacher "training" model, rather than a teacher "education" model which is behind many of the attempts to reform schools of education. An Institute for Urban Education, with top-down control, with no input from university faculty or classroom teachers, is typical of the pressures being felt nation-wide. To say that this is in the service of urban youth is to suggest a perpetuation of existing power arrangements, not an unleashing of creative potential.
The View from Inside: Letter to the Chancellor and Provost
by Linda Edwards
(Dr. Edwards' letter begins by emphasizing the willingness of the School of Education faculty and staff to work toward "improving student achievement and learning in our region's urban schools." It goes on to point out that the Urban Institute initiative virtually excludes involvement by members of the School, and the following paragraphs describe the problems this "lack of involvment has generated."-- Ed.)
1) Though eager to participate in the proposed profound changes and often expressing this desire, faculty and its leadership have been relegated to a minimal to nonexistent role in the planning process ... attempts ... to involve faculty and leadership ... have been at [the level of] window dressing. The structure, curriculum and conceptual framework of the proposed institute, its most fundamental aspects, are being determined by foundations and upper administration of the University. Further, School of Education faculty are advised to look at the creation by others of an institute as a "great opportunity". We might view it as such if we had a chance to participate in meaningful ways.
2) There is a lack of information about the initiative, lack of clarity around the limited information given, and increasingly contradictory messages concerning the structural and conceptual elements of the initiative. We "know" mostly from what we read in the newspaper. We learn, for example, that a consultant hired by the University will "help organize the academic side of the new institute" [Frank Horton, of SBS "restructuring" fame--Ed.] or that it is unknown "what parts of the School of Education will keep rolling along and which parts won't."
3) Though adjured to "keep doing what (we're) doing, which is taking care of 1200 students and keeping (our) curriculum focused on excellence," the faculty and staff and programs of the School of Education are being made increasingly ineffective by the slow suffocation of all forward momentum. I will enumerate only a few of the most critical examples ...
Taking care of students . We have not been permitted to use our VERIP monies (or any other funds) to hire for new and/ or vacant faculty positions. Because of the State's budget deficits as well as losing five faculty to VERIP, we are at an all time low in numbers of tenure track faculty. With the impending departure of two additional faculty to A&S, along with their lines, we have lost the entire program area of Educational Psychology and Research, an area that affects and intersects with all forty-eight of our other programs, from undergraduate teacher preparation to advanced doctoral programs. Our list of eight to-be-[filled] positions (prioritized by using University wide goals) has been put on hold, pending development of the institute. The loss of over one fourth of our faculty and the inability to hire for critical vacancies have a significant impact on our ability to serve present and future students, [and] to carry out all of our programs, and upon the workload of existing faculty. Further, [our lack of sufficient faculty] endangers our present full national (both NCATE and APA) and state accreditation precisely because of its impact on students.
Keeping our curriculum focused on excellence. We have also been told that we cannot move forward with an intensive retrofitting effort for the old ... IMC space on our first floor. The new space configuration, for which thorough budgets, architectural plans and some funding have existed since last April, was to maximize our student services activities as well as to centralize and greatly expand student centered technology programs. For the past three years, faculty have engaged in radically restructuring the teacher preparation curriculum, integrating instructional technology into all program aspects. We have required the extensive development of student technology projects, such as electronic portfolios in the new curricula. We now have neither the space nor the infrastructure to carry out these requirements or prepare our current 300+ prospective teachers to be effective and competitive in the marketplace.
More curricular and programmatic issues. Over the past year and a half, we have also engaged in intensive efforts to completely revise and strengthen our M.A. programs, which serve the largest numbers of ... students (800+). These efforts have come to a halt since it seems meaningless to expend yet more energy in planning and implementing degrees which may not be chosen to keep "rolling along." Other, more minor effects include decisions about whether to spend funds on brochures advertising these newly structured degrees, thus impacting our enrollment management plan, or to restructure our web site, since the revisions may not reflect what will soon exist.
As I write this, faculty, staff and leadership in the School of Education fluctuate between anger, frustration and hope: anger at being marginalized in the institute planning process, frustration at feeling thwarted at every turn in ... serving our students and improving our programs, frustration at being characterized as hopelessly resistant to change when any constructive comments are offered, and hope, growing more slender with every passing day, that we can somehow effect a change in these conditions.
I suggest ... [the following] partial solutions to these acute problems:
1) A written plan, developed collaboratively, for the meaningful and substantive involvement of School of Education faculty and staff as full partners in the planning and implementation of the institute.
2) Clear and timely articulation and dissemination of information about the institute, realizing that if an involvement plan is formulated, we will, by definition, have access to such information.
3) Timely and thorough discussions of transition issues based on better information than we now have, so that we can minimize the damage to our students, future enrollments, existing programs and faculty.
Linda Edwards is Acting Dean, School of Education. Her letter to the Chancellor and Provost is excerpted by permission of the author.
What is an "Institute" and Why We Should Care
by Ed Gogol
The future of the proposed Institute for Urban Education appears to be quite undefined at this point, at least to the extent that discussions of its creation are public. The goals of the proposed institute are undeniably meritorious, supported by the faculty of the School of Education. However, the mechanism of establishing an independent institute outside the rules governing legitimate academic units raises several potential conflicts with a bedrock principle of the AAUP, healthy university governance. Some of the major pitfalls are listed below.
1. Shift of faculty from tenured or tenure-track slots to unspecified positions in an independent institute would violate the guarantee of academic freedom provided by the institution of tenure. (The concept of an independent institute was among the possibilities suggested by Provost Ballard in his infamous May 24, 2002 letter to the SBS faculty.)
2. If faculty lines are transferred from academic departments to preserve tenure in the institute, the affected units will be depleted of personnel and faculty slots, thereby compromising the integrity, teaching, and research capabilities of those departments.
3. If positions in institutes are continually funded by the university, appointments may be made without normal faculty oversight, potentially to reward interests in the community who have provided the administration with support. The appointment, promotion, tenure, and dismissal of faculty are a faculty responsibility and prerogative.
4. Changes in the functions of the School of Education, and perhaps in the composition of other academic departments, may take place without meaningful representative faculty leadership in these academic matters. They may instead be directed largely by moneyed interests (even if well-intentioned in their goals) outside the scope of normal university governance.
5. Finally, these issues of direct AAUP concern do not even touch on the more practical ones of the purpose of such an effort (will it grant degrees?), its viability (will it be accredited?), oversight of credentials of the appointees, and diminished efforts on behalf of ongoing academic initiatives.
(A reader sent us this satirical commentary on a worrisome trend--Ed.)
Fringe Association for Research in Communal Engineering Newsletter, Volume 1 Number 1
by V. T. Skepticism
Brouchers System Announced
The Fringe Association for Research in Communal Engineering (FARCE) announced a new institute for the study of urban bridges. FARCE representatives Ann Teak and Tie Churchstate said, "Local bridges are in a major state of disrepair." Teak indicated that years of complacency in the ivory tower of engineering educators resulted in major failures of the local bridge system. Nearly a billion dollars in state money has been pumped into the urban bridge system over the past 20 years. Churchstate said privatization of bridges forcing competition between bridge building groups would result in the greatest bridges in the world. Strong bridge builders would flourish and poor bridge builders would go out of business.
A new bridge vouchers system, also known as brouchers, will redirect the flow of bridge funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to government bridge districts. Families would have a reduction in taxes and be issued brouchers. This would allow bridge choice while traveling the metro. Teak said, "As a pilot project half of the areas bridges will be run by private contractors." Brouchers are advocated on the grounds that parental choice and competition between public and private bridge builders will improve transportation safety for all children. Brouchers will be funded and administered by the government, by private organizations, or by some combination of both.
New Endowed Chair
In addition, FARCE will be funding a new Endowed Chair of Entrepreneurial Bridge Building at the local university. Churchstate's brother, Buck will be the new chair. Buck said "we need new ways of training bridge engineers. The current system has failed our urban bridges. We should throw science out the window and treat bridge engineering education as a business." Buck also indicated that public land grant universities have been a major failure in the USA and that our only hope is privatization of all education, which will allow people with money, business background, and Christian values to run things.
When asked about the legality of brouchers, Buck indicated that "Brouchers are a constitutional way to assist parochial and other private bridges. Brouchers will allow private bridge groups to integrate Christian religious values and doctrine throughout bridge engineering curriculum, indoctrinating students on anti-abortion, creationism and the role of women in society. For example, women will be required to wear hats when crossing urban bridges. In order to save money, the number of girls allowed in the education system will be reduced. "We are going to break the government monopoly," according to Buck. Brouchers are the only hope for poor urban male kids because they will burn in hell if they are not converted."
However, detractor Abe Bell Formalthink says that the belief that brouchers will result in more choices for poor families is untrue. Brouchers will only pay for passage over the poorest private bridges. Even then, few private bridges are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas. Fewer still are likely to allow children with disabilities or special needs to cross. In any event, no broucher plan will benefit more than a small number of poor children. Public bridges remain the only reliable resource for all children to cross waterways safely.
"Contrary to all that is Rational"
by Burton Halpert
(Below are excerpts from Burton Halpert's October 25 letter of resignation as Chair of Sociology/Criminal Justice and Criminology to protest the "viability studies." It was sent to Chancellor Gilliland, Provost Ballard, Dean LeBeau, the faculty in his Department, education editor of the Kansas City Star Lynn Franey, and others.--Ed.)
"This is to inform you that I have decided to resign my position as Chair of the Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice and Criminology (effective November 7, 2003) in protest over the the University's decision to conduct a viability study of my department. This decision is so far fetched that it goes contrary to all that is rational in the functioning of any university or organization. Consequently, I do not feel that I can any longer legitimate and carry out the decisions of those above me.
The Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice and Criminology over the past five years has grown into a highly robust department providing quality education to its many students, producing sizeable numbers of refereed journal articles and published books, receiving grants that amount to over a million dollars, and providing service to the community that without exception ranks the department as one of the most highly engaged units on campus. Its faculty have won the University's and College of Arts and Sciences' highest awards in community service, research and teaching. The recent Departmental COPE review was praised by Provost Ballard and led to the Department being given a new faculty position. Yet the Department was selected as one of three from all of the departments in the College ... for the viability study.
The reason given by the Provost for the Department being selected was the Delaware Study based upon FY 2000 SCH and productivity data that showed us as not being cost efficient/ effective. These data were provided by UMKC's Institutional Research Unit to the UM System, which then provided the data to those who produced the Delaware Study.
Continued attempts by the author to correct these data went for naught ... One major flaw in the data resulted from [the fact that] UMKC's Institutional Research Unit [did not know] ... that our Department contains two major disciplines: Sociology, and Criminal Justice and Criminology.... The Dean of the College discovered the flaw as well when he ran the numbers and so did Former Dean Durig, who ran the numbers to corroborate what Dean LeBeau had found.
This flaw ... was brought to the attention of the Provost, who felt that even though the data might be wrong ... 'we would be given the opportunity of showing this in the Viability Study.... he did not want to interfere in the process since it had already begun.' This was subsequently agreed to by the Dean.
As an Organizational Sociologist ... [I can attest that this] decision represents a perverse incentive for our Department as well as other departments and schools at UMKC. Rather than rewarding us for [putting] 'Education First, Engaging the Community, Innovating and Discovering, and Creating a Highly Viable Work Environment (Core UMKC Values),' we are being punished for doing a good job in meeting these values.... How can one lead others as Chair when chaos and unpredictability from above [prevail]. I certainly cannot nor do I have a wish to do so.
The Committee selected to do the Viability Study, and its highly paid outside consultant, have created an instrument that has not been pretested ... How can anyone allow [himself] to be placed at risk by an untested instrument and process--especially a Department that has a large number of untenured junior faculty members?
The aim of the process is to cut programs and faculty if necessary (reported as such in ... newspapers from St. Louis to Kansas City and told to me by the Dean). Now in a rationally run organization one would have no fear, since rationality is the underpinning of "Due Process." While I respect my peers on the committee, I cannot trust their judgement, since they have neither the institutional memory of our Department nor ... any concept of what constitutes either Sociology or Criminal Justice and Criminology....
... even more distressing is the hiring of the [same] outside consultant who was brought in initially to "shape up" the School of Biological Sciences. To my knowledge, [SBS] lost quite a few good faculty as a result. Even though I do not know the full story, from the outside [the SBS case appears to be] another example of perverse incentives at work.... UMKC has become a monolithic authoritarian-led organization where accountability is demanded of the faculty but not [of] the Administration. As Chair I can not in good conscience legitimate this kind of organization or leadership. Therefore, I am tendering my resignation as Chair.
The Viability Process: A Faculty Perspective
by Harris Mirkin
The viability process raises a lot of questions. I don't claim to know the answers, but I think we need to discuss the issues.
1. The College and the Ed School seem to be targeted. Other units are also expensive, but they seem to have argued their way out of a viability examination. Was the College Dean simply less emphatic, were the other units protected because of unstated policy decisions, or is this part of a long-range plan to allocate fewer resources to the College and more to the health sciences and some professional schools? The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for Research, mostly dealing with Health Science type research, would seem to lend credence to the reallocation hypothesis.
2. Two academic units are being studied, while the administration pays a high salary to Horton, intends to establish a Vice Chancellor for Research, etc. These might be good moves, but is the administration operating under the same rules of fiscal restraint as the educational units? If they think something is a good idea they go ahead with it. If the educational units think something is a good idea they are told that there are no funds. Why don't we have a viability study of the administration? Also, perhaps some of the administrative salaries ought to be looked at, since there are now so many associate and assistant vice chancellors [emphasis Ed.]. Apparently the sports program isn't undergoing a viability study, though it is heavily subsidized by the operating budget and student fees, for about $5,000,000 a year. Why isn't it being looked at?
3. Why was Horton hired? He is a good administrator. Still, it seems as though the job of heading up a campus-wide viability committee should be done by the Provost. No other school in the system has gone for an outside chair. Of course, that leads to the next question, why do we have a campus wide committee?
4. Since the apparent viability problems exist mostly within the College, and since Ballard has denied that funds will be reallocated outside of the College because of viability findings, why is the university wide reallocation committee needed at all? It seems as though the College ought to be deciding on its curriculum, and it ought to make those curriculum decisions with costs in mind. If the College thought outside faculty, from the conservatory, dental school, etc. were needed, it could invite them--though it doesn't seem as though outside faculty would have any special wisdom in deciding on the college curriculum and department structures. If the College thought the issues were so thorny that an outside consultant (like Horton) was needed, they could have asked for the resources to hire that person.
5. Why has the entire university faculty been cut out of the process of deciding on curriculum issues? Neither the faculty nor the Faculty Senate were consulted about the creation of the committee, its structure or its charge (which is exceedingly nebulous). The choice of curriculum by a department in the College largely decides whether departments have high costs or low costs, depending on which courses are required. Doesn't the curriculum committee need to be involved in decisions about which departments are going to grow, be restructured, be merged or be killed? I am not one of those who think the faculty has to have the dominant voice, but we don't even have a minor role in this one. There has been a persistent pattern in the university to decide important curriculum issues by edicts from the Chancellor, the Provost and the Deans.
6. The size of impending state cuts, though great, has probably been exaggerated. We only get about 1/3 of our budget from the state at this point, so even a 20% cut in the state budget translates into an 8 or 9 % cut. Some of that could be offset by a tuition increase, so we are probably looking at a smaller cut. The cuts would be hard, but do they justify a massive restructuring? Or is the plan to shift money around, so the cuts to some units would be far greater than the state budget cuts would justify? If so, shouldn't we (administration and faculty) be discussing this?
7. We know the names of five of the units targeted for viability studies, but there were originally 14 suggested target programs sent to the campus. What are the other nine programs, and why were they removed from the list? Apparently the dean doesn't know this either--so why are the criteria and names being kept secret?
I am a member of a department that has been targeted for a viability study, but these questions are not directed at my department's particular concerns. I suspect that within the framework and structure that has been set up the process will be fair, and faculty will be consulted. These questions are policy questions, about making important curriculum decisions, which affect the entire faculty. For all the rhetoric of cooperation on this campus, it seems that even the minimal traditions of shared governance are being violated in this process. Neither the administration nor the faculty has a monopoly of wisdom on these issues. That is why there needs to be a cooperative atmosphere rather than a hierarchical one.
Transparency and MU Medicine
by Marino Martinez-Carrion
In a flurry of articles in the Columbia Daily Tribune (October 2, 19, 23, 2003) and the Kansas City Star, the latest folly in the corporatization of the university and the influence of business interests on UMKC is being exposed.
In the documents that have been aired, there is direct and indirect evidence of the collusion of the university administration with certain business leaders from Kansas City. The plan to remove the Medical School from the flagship campus to Kansas City, without faculty input or detailed academic analysis of the implications, is the latest, and biggest, chapter in the handing over of the fate of the life sciences programs to the corporate mentality. This mentality sees mainly business profit on patents and licenses as the great bait in the hook for other KC businesses, supporting their manipulations regarding the control of academic programs.
Irrelevant to corporate minds are the facts that such a move would not result in the improvement of the quality of the successful medical program in Columbia, and would deal a major blow to the Ph.D. programs in biomedical education, when dissociated from other quality science programs on that campus.
The guise of promising some millions of dollars from foundations run by themselves or their friends is intended to give the impression of altruistic motives. Does anybody really believe that, when all is said and done, there will not be need of a large infusion of state and university funds to complete such a move? The possibility of getting a medical school in Kansas City, in which they could manipulate academic appointments and the Ph.D. programs toward their profit-seeking ends, is paramount to their plans. This is a primary goal of our campus administration, to demonstrate the "leadership" of the Chancellor in life sciences. First, she wounds her primary life science research unit, the School of Biological Sciences, with 12 of its best scientists fleeing UMKC. Now she tries to dismantle one of the best state medical schools and hand it to the business types who incited her to shake down SBS.
Presumably, then, they would hail her as a great transformer and local hero for having performed an educational travesty, one that certainly would cost the Columbia campus its place among universities in the AAU. The memos from Columbia administrators-in-the-know and Missouri representative Chuck Graham to President Floyd are very telling in their distrust of Chancellor Gilliland and the influence of the Kansas City business barons.
Yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg. What else is cooking, e.g. with the School of Education? Similar pattern. A dean is fired, the business community gets a footing in the School, and the role of the faculty is ignored.
The paths are similar, the difference is that the number of consultants and ad hoc administrative positions on Oak Street keeps growing. Meanwhile the Provost claims he has a shortage in his budget, and therefore needs a reallocation of 1% from academic units. It is about time that our academic bodies hold the university administrators responsible for their actions, when the quality of education and the welfare of the faculty and students are the least of administrative priorities.
Food for Thought
by Pat Brodsky
1. Unanswered Questions
The most frequent complaint I've heard from colleagues all over campus recently is about the lack of information on crucial issues, otherwise known as stonewalling. The Chancellor repeats her promises of openness, while one administrative decision after another is carried out with little or no communication to, let alone contributions from, those most centrally affected. The campus is rife with unanswered questions, questions that deserve fast, honest and complete responses. Let me list a few.
· What is the future of the UMKC libraries? Is it true, as many suspect and fear, that the administration agenda foresees a merger of the libraries and IT, under a director not at the Dean level? Will the administration's infatuation with technology for its own sake lead to a dumbing down of the library, from its legitimate role as preserver of book culture and the printed word and facilitator of research, to a shopping mall "information center?"
· What is the real motivation behind the multiple attacks on the School of Education? Within a few months it has been targeted as one of the units to be subjected to a viability audit; its dean has resigned suddenly and with remarkably short notice; and the administration has moved forward rapidly, and without consultation, on its plans essentially to replace many of the School's functions by outsourcing them to a privately funded institute, whose exact function, structure, and even legality are unclear.
· Who benefits from these attacks? We know who will suffer from them: the School, the students, faculty control of curriculum, and academic freedom.
What is the track record of community projects already
established by private entities, with the blessings or cooperation of
the administration? For example, what really happened to the
University's agreement with the
Belgers? At the Belgers' insistence, the agreement led to the
of our well-respected university art gallery. But now UMKC has no
gallery at all. The Faculty Advocate plans to focus on
matter in a future issue.
Louis Odom of the School of Education points out the need to question the claims that improvements in ACT scores, Metropolitan Achievement Test Scores, and student attendance trends can be credited to the "First Things First" reform model implemented by Kansas City Kansas School District, and funded by the Kauffman Foundation. Where is the independent external evaluation of the First Things First reform model?
· Which were the other nine units originally scheduled for viability audits? If, as we know, the data used to select the Department of Sociology were spectacularly flawed, what do the data for the other departments look like? Or are the data merely a pretext for politically motivated purges? Is it an accident that the School of Education and the Sociology Department have been targeted because they serve the real community of everyone in the region, as opposed to the elite "corporate community" which the Blueprint/Vision and the administration serve?
In this context, it is interesting to see what units were selected at the other UM campuses. (My thanks to Dean LeBeau and A&S Faculty Chair Jim Durig for these figures. At press time figures for Rolla were unavailable.) At UM Columbia viability audits are underway for the following degree programs: BA and BS in Physics; MA in Art History and Archaeology and in Exercise Physiology; PhD in Art History and Archaeology, Theatre, and Exercise Physiology; and two academic units, Entomology and Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering. At UMSL the programs currently under review are the MA in gerontology, MS and PhD in physiological optics, the PhD in nursing, and the entire Department of Foreign Languages.
· So here's another question: what does it tell us that of the fifteen programs being audited at MU and UMSL, nine are graduate level programs, whereas of the four currently under review at UMKC, three are "core" Arts and Sciences departments, and the fourth is an entire division of the School of Education?
2. Not All Pigs are Created Equal ...
Perhaps enough has been written about the Chancellor's 36% raise, although even this affront has not succeeded in rousing the UMKC community out of its apathy and into effective action. The Faculty Senate sent a letter to President Floyd questioning his decision. Floyd wrote back defending it, saying in essence that he didn't have to tell us why. Meanwhile, not only did most of us get a 2% or less raise, of which nearly half has already disappeared into higher medical premiums. Now the word is out that a number of people on campus got considerably more, and the Senate is attempting to find out who, how much, and why. At the November 4 Senate meeting, senators were told by the Chair of the Senate to hand back printed data provided by the Administration before they were allowed to leave the room. Unfortunately, most senators seem to have complied. But since UMKC is a public institution, all budget information is ipso facto public, not secret and privileged. Not only senators and faculty, but all citizens have a right to access, retain, and critique that information.
On November 13 the Senate met in a special session with the Chancellor, who had promised to bring "corrected" salary data. Instead, she arrived empty-handed; admitted under pressure that the current data were probably correct, but said they were "invalid" because they all needed an explanation; and objected to the presence of Kansas City Star education reporter Lynn Franey, saying she would not participate in a meeting at which the press was present. This brings me to yet another vital set of questions:
· Who were the persons who received more than the mandated (but unfunded) 2%, and on what grounds?
· How can the Chancellor--and the Senate chair--be allowed to flout state law by attempting to suppress access to and discussion of public information?
· Certain senators are working hard to obtain the facts, and are willing to challenge the Chancellor to her face. But when is the Senate as a whole going to stand up and do its job, as the elected representatives of the faculty, instead of swallowing whatever it's fed?
That faculty raises at other state-supported schools in Missouri (not to mention throughout the US) were the same as or less than the UMKC raises is no argument for a misery-loves-company resignation to "the inevitable." That the state of Missouri and UMKC exemplify national "trends" does not justify the economic warfare being waged against public education by the Bush administration and its helpers in state governments and among university admninistrators. Faculty, students, and citizens nationally are protesting this right-wing assault on the public domain, which includes public education. The national protest trend is the one which faculty, students, and citizens in this region should be joining in ever greater numbers.
3. A&S Commencement: Moment of Pride, or Animal House?
At a time when the corporate leviathan grinds on, dismantling the university piece by piece, the Spring 2003 A&S Commencement was a sobering experience for many of those who participated. There were problems at every level, from organization, to student and audience behavior, to the choice of speakers. From my vantage point as a marshal, I had a chance to see it from the front lines.
The traditions of Commencement have been reduced to a few externals, and its spirit has been perverted, both through administrative choices and through a failure to educate our students and their relatives and friends about what the ceremony means. During the processional and recessional, many students were raucous and rowdy, with no apparent sense of place or occasion. I realize things have changed since my own graduation ceremonies; but the behavior I've seen at this and other UMKC graduations saddens me, because it robs the students of a memorable experience. Many treat it like a sporting event, screaming and waving. The audience of family and friends likewise has no sense of solemnity or propriety, or even dignity. They act like a cheering section, and many left after "their" graduate had crossed the stage, not waiting for the end of the ceremony.
But the low point was the commencement speaker, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans. In her lengthy introduction, Chancellor Gilliland dwelt on Secretary Evans' long-time friendship with George W. Bush, as if this qualified him to speak to a group of graduates. Evans then gave a talk that was emotionally dishonest, partisan, and inappropriate. He began by telling the students that "George Bush congratulates you, cares about you, and loves you." Evans' statement was particularly offensive given the education agenda of the Bush administration, which through vouchers, faith-based interference, corporatization, outsourcing, underfunding and political harrassment of academics reminiscent of the McCarthy era, is attempting to destroy education nationwide. This President's "love" for the students is the love of the wolf for the sheep.
The people Evans proposed to the graduates as models of behavior, Jim Stowers and Ewing Kauffman, are wealthy local entrepreneurs, hardly the sort of figures that most of our students, who come from economically modest backgrounds, are able to relate to, much less emulate. Evans told a disingenuous story of how admiring people all over the world ask him, "How did you Americans do it in only 200 years?" This at a time when America's international reputation is plummeting, and the government is officially thumbing its nose at the international community.
But the worst thing about Evans' talk was the unforgivable trick he played on the students themselves--the guests of honor. He asked all graduates to stand, then told those who made only A's to sit down, followed by those who made only A's and B's, and finally those who made only A's, B's and C's. This left about a dozen students scattered around the hall looking uncomfortable, including a number of African Americans. Others students and people in the audience began to laugh and clap, whereupon Evans delivered his punchline: "Those of you who are still standing have in your transcripts what it takes to become Secretary of Commerce of the US!"
Many in the hall were appalled by Evans' insensitivity, poor taste, and contempt for intellectual achievement. He had singled out poor students before a huge audience of peers and family, on what was supposed to be their day of pride and achievement. Then he boasted of his own poor academic record, and thumbed his nose at academics and quality: you don't have to be a good student to succeed in this society, look where it got me! It would have been entirely different had he said something like, "you can come from a working class family, or be a worker yourself, and make it in America"--but as it was, his stance was mocking, indeed gloating, and very ugly. Evans' performance was an insult to the students, who, along with their families, in the belief that a college education was a valuable and worthy goal, had committed enormous amounts of time, effort, and money to be able to walk across the stage that day. They deserved a better sendoff than to be told that what they had done really wasn't worth much, and to be made a captive audience to right-wing political propaganda.
Can anything be done to restore to Commencement some of its original meaning? Faculty and everyone connected with the ceremony should impress upon students ahead of time its seriousness as well as its joy. Suggest to them that it is a time for dignity, pride, and respect for their classmates and their families. They should also be urged to talk with their guests before the ceremony and ask them to behave in an appropriate manner. Couldn't the University provide at least a token reception afterwards for the grads and their guests? And what ever happened to the idea of students and faculty playing the the leading roles in the ceremony, including a salutatorian and a valedictorian? Most important, can't the graduates be accorded the honor of an honest, intellectually exciting commencement speaker who has something to say that addresses them, their achievements, and their hopes and goals?
The good news is that faculty (and students?) are being asked to suggest names for our next commencement speaker. In many universities students, sometimes with faculty input, choose the speakers at commencement, since it is their day and their ceremony.
The bad news is that the next Arts and Sciences commencement may be the last, as such. Apparently the Administration is considering having one mega-ceremony, instead of separate commencement exercises for each School. The logistical ramifications alone boggle the mind: parking, seating, the length of the ceremony! But most important is that the result could be even more alienating, more zoolike, than what we already have, and negate any possibility of regaining the original atmosphere and significance of the Graduation ceremony.
HR 3077--the Education for
Right-wing Takeover of International Education
Half-completed in Congress
by David Brodsky
(The following report is a greatly expanded presentation of the corresponding print version in The Faculty Advocate--Ed.)
The American Empire
Popular awareness of the existence of an American Empire hardly begins with the latest official announcements, such as the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States , submitted by the White House to Congress. Or with Michael Ignatieff's essay, "The American Empire (Get Used to It)," in the New York Times Magazine (January 5, 2003). Ignatieff (and many others) seeks to reassure the public about the "benevolence," "idealism," and "civilizing role" of the US empire (as opposed to all other empires). In reality, US "benevolence" has been exemplified in embargoes, subversion, bombing, invasions, military occupations, massive non-combatant deaths, and economic exploitation, among others.
Public consciousness of the US Empire's existence began in 1898, when the empire officially came into being. So did public awareness of the identity of its principal promoters and beneficiaries, who today continue to be political and economic elites. What has changed is intensified popular attention to its operations, influenced no doubt by the willingness of its planners and apologists to espouse its cause publicly and aggressively. In this respect, open propaganda in the cause of US empire has returned to its roots at the end of the 19th century, when the US made Cuba an economic colony and annexed Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, the latter entailing the wholesale massacre of Filipinos (500,000), all but 20,000 of them civilians.
Popular consciousness, however, has not retrieved the American roots of the terms "imperialism" and "anti-imperialism." They came out of the Anti-Imperialist League, the first mass US peace movement, with a membership of 30-50,000 in the years 1898-1902. The Anti-Imperialist League included such notables as Mark Twain, William James, Samuel Gompers, Andrew Carnegie, Carl Schurz, and Jane Addams, as well as a large labor and women's movement base. One of the arguments the League used against US seizure of other countries was that imperialism violated American traditions and ideals, that is, it was unamerican. Thus the terms (anti-) imperialism (-ist) are not a foreign import but thoroughly American, as American as motherhood and apple pie.
Three European continental empires collapsed after World War 1, and most overseas colonies held by European states gained their independence after World War 2. Into this turmoil stepped the US, which exploited the opportunity of expanding its global reach without the formal annexation of colonies. Under the cover of first the Cold War, and then--following the collapse of the socialist bloc and the non-aligned movement--of "national security" and the "war on terrorism," the US emerged as the dominant military power and imperialist force on the planet.
Empire does not require colonies, but the Bush doctrine of "preventive war" provided the pretext to invade and occupy Iraq, that is, to make it a US colony ruled by a compliant US-installed government. Colonization is intended to insure US control of Iraq's mineral wealth and its economy (e.g. through lucrative "rebuilding" contracts awarded to US multi-national corporations), to extend direct US power to the middle east and central Asia, and through its geopolitical dominance to pressure Russia, China, and other major powers into compliance with the US agenda. The major incentive for empire building and its major beneficiaries are the multi-national corporations themselves and their associated imperial and colonial elites, a fact that has not changed since the 1890s. The losers are the vast majority of the people in both the colonies and the imperial centers.
Because empire building is decidedly not a popular initiative, predictable resistance abroad and at home must be overcome through military invasion and occupation of foreign countries, and through police repression of domestic dissent. For this reason empire requires the dedication of national resources to the military, intelligence, and police sectors, the suspension or elimination of constitutional rights protecting dissent, and the economic impoverishment of the general population, which is asked to make sacrifices "in the national interest" for the benefit of elites.
The economic, political, social, and cultural consequences of empire for conquered peoples are much more devastating. For example, the actual activities of euphemistically named "intelligence" agencies go far beyond "information-gathering" to encompass political and military strategizing, propaganda, psywar, espionage, subversion, terrorizing of civilians, torture, and political assassination (Blum, Killing Hope ). Most of these functions are also carried out by the military and/or assigned to local elite troops in the Third World. The latter are often trained in institutions like the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia (recently renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). But it has been dubbed the "School of the Assassins" by the movement that seeks to close it down.
The "management" of empire also requires the indoctrination of public opinion, domestic and foreign, and the recruiting of a large imperial bureaucracy devoted to territorial and economic conquests. Recruiting is accomplished through economic incentives, like federal funding of education channeled into a narrow range of careers.
Education and Empire: HR 3077
Education plays a crucial role in the expansion and maintenance of the US empire. Along with the mass media, education is one of the organs of the doctrinal system, a weapon in the ideological battle to control public opinion and gain consent and support for US imperial designs. At its birth, right after World War 2 and into the McCarthy period, the field of international and area studies, focussing on foreign languages and cultures, political science, sociology, and economics, was harnessed to the Cold War, an earlier pretext for US imperial expansion. Corporate foundations, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and elite universities all collaborated in establishing the field, until Congress took over funding in the late 1950s. The legislation under which the programs were funded included Title VI of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and the Fulbright-Hays program.
As copious documentation indicates, the main purpose of foreign area studies was to train and recruit academics for Cold War propaganda, anti-communist research and activism, Third World underdevelopment, and military and intelligence work. Despite successes in recruiting large numbers of students and faculty into the war effort, the majority studied foreign cultures for traditional academic purposes. Ideological enforcement of curriculum was covert, like much of the funding and the activities it supported. It was also decentralized, delegated to individual institutions, programs, and faculty. For these reasons, independent thought had room to develop, albeit unevenly and depending on local circumstances, and the McCarthyist goal of ideological regimentation was rarely achieved. As a consequence, many students managed to receive a good international education, whose quality improved in many respects after about 1970.
Certain foreign area centers today maintain close ties with the military and intelligence agencies and continue to place a large number of graduates in these jobs. But many other programs, centers, and faculty over the past thirty years have managed to weaken or break their dependency on the ideology and dictates of the national security state, the relation established at the very inception of the field. Vijay Prashad, Director of International Studies at Trinity College, writes: "The campus struggles during the Vietnam War and the uprisings of students of color (the Third World Strike) pushed the academy to rethink Area Studies" (Prashad). Foundation funding of progressive scholarship increased during the 1970s (Berman, 104-5). Thus "Title VI is not a one-dimensional weapon of imperial domination: it has allowed for the creation of vast amounts of knowledge mobilized by progressives to help us to understand the dilemma of our world.... Area Studies has enabled us to better understand the creativity of popular social and left movements ..." (Prashad).
The political situation, today, however, has radically deteriorated. The mass media have been placed under the tight ideological control of these same imperial multi-national corporations (witness their coordinated cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq), and now education is to be recolonized, resubordinated, and forcibly reconscripted into the imperial service. Prashad writes that the legislation is an "attempt by the state to make the academy into the emissary of Empire" (Ibid).
The neo-liberal global assault on education, continued and intensified by neo-conservatives, has its roots in the drive to privatize and eliminate the public domain (see my report, "The Broad Perspective of Academic Freedom", http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/perspective ). Privatization, including the private takeover of public education, serves multi-national corporations, the principal promoters and beneficiaries of empire, as well as other right-wing forces (such as the religious right). But the recent passage by the House of Representatives of the "International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003" (HR 3077), which reauthorizes Title VI funding for university-based foreign language and area study programs, unveils a newly aggressive imperial policy toward education. The term "empire," as envisioned by the radical right now in possession of the federal government, never appears in the legislation itself or in official statements and related materials. Instead, it is replaced and masked by the all-purpose slogan of "national security."
To support goals similar to those of the early Cold War, HR 3077 establishes a centralized, federal, political police agency mandated to place academia under surveillance, regiment thought, and purge dissenters. This agency, the brainchild of the coordinated Congressional and think-tank right-wing, has received bipartisan support, and is the principal means, as one history professor explains, of accomplishing "a hostile corporate take-over" of higher education (Cole). Right-wing operatives associated with well-funded think tanks are aiming to force their way into academia through the door of international education. But their career strategies pale beside the larger imperial agenda, which they hope to ride into positions of greater power and influence.
The House legislation calls for reincorporating international education into the "national security" machinery pursuing the "war on terrorism," and, to a lesser extent, into the direct service of US international business ("international competitiveness", "trade competitiveness"). Gilbert Merkx of Duke University, a presenter at the June 19 hearings on HR 3077, held by the House Subcommittee on Select Education, made the connection explicit: "National security also is increasingly linked to commerce" ("108th Congress Report"). "Commerce" and "international competitiveness" signify the penetration and domination of foreign markets, and sometimes entire national economies, by US based multi-national corporations. The CIA already maintains a Near East and South Asia Academic (NESA) Outreach office ("108th Congress Report").
Because area studies disciplines have won independence from the national security agenda in the past three decades, HR 3077 is intended to discipline and punish "revisionism," marginalize traditionalists, and mobilize the field for national security/war on terrorism/empire. In conformity with the public agenda of right-wing networks, the goal is to remove or silence liberal academics and replace them with ideological conservatives. "'There's the threat that centers will be punished for not toeing the official line out of Washington, which is an unprecedented degree of federal intrusion into a university-based area studies program,' says Zachary Lockman, a New York University history professor and director of the school's Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies" (Goldberg). Needless to say, no faculty who deal with international studies on traditionally academic or progressive grounds were invited to testify at the hearing on the bill, nor were they even represented. On the contrary, representation was limited to military-intelligence, business, and right-wing ideological interests, both within and outside the academy.
The right-wing agenda
Public attention concerning HR 3077 has been devoted to the testimony of Stanley Kurtz at the June 19 hearings. Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think tank, and contributor to the National Review online. Kurtz's proposals appear to have heavily influenced the legislation, but the House Republicans who drafted the bill were already well disposed toward them. The chair of the hearing ended his opening remarks with tacit support for Kurtz's testimony, expressing concern about the "teachings" of "some of the international education programs" and their "efforts to potentially undermine American foreign policy" ("108th Congress Report").
Kurtz devoted much of his time to denouncing Middle Eastern studies programs, post-colonial theory, and its founder, Edward Said, as unpatriotic and anti-American. He accused them of disloyalty to US foreign policy (the holy war on terrorism), and deplored their influence on "teachers responsible for educating America's young children about the meaning of September 11" ("108th Congress Report"). Denunciations of "corrupters of youth" resonate with the state-mandated demise of a well-known academic in ancient Athens. Said's death in September may have saved him from a similar fate.
In fact, the material Kurtz denounced consisted of a mere 20 pages out of a total of 212 in an anthology of readings about 9/11 for a pre-college teachers workshop (American Council on Education). Only 10% of the readings was devoted to informed criticisms of US foreign policy by left moderates, who were transformed by Kurtz's distorting mirror into dangerous extremists. Right-wing extremist judgments are enabled by the corporate media, which have pushed the political center so far to the right that everything on the left side of the spectrum without distinction can be dismissed as off the scale.
Paying lip service to academic freedom and civil liberties, Kurtz claimed he did not want to ban Said et al from academia. But, in fact, his colleague, Daniel Pipes, frankly declared: "I want Noam Chomsky to be taught at universities about as much as I want Hitler's writing or Stalin's writing. These are wild and extremist ideas that I believe have no place in a university" (Goldberg). Racism and xenophobia also play a role in right-wing assaults on academia. David Horowitz, a right-wing pundit, complains that "'as a result of leftist control of hiring, now 50 percent [of Middle Eastern scholars] come from Middle Eastern countries'" (Ibid).
The specific proposals Kurtz recommended were derived from a book by Martin Kramer, editor of the right-wing Middle East Quarterly. "Middle East Quarterly is published by the Middle East Forum, whose director is Daniel Pipes, the man behind Campus Watch" (Ibid). Campus Watch functions like the American Council of Trustees and Alumni just after September 11, 2001. It monitors the political content of Middle Eastern Studies programs, denounces deviations from right-wing policy, and encourages students to act as informers.
Kurtz/Kramer proposed the following measures: 1) the creation of a Supervisory Board dominated by military-security agencies to enforce "the national interest," including by means of public (inquisitional) hearings; 2) crushing the boycott of "national security related scholarships" through termination of funding for non-compliant programs, and by forcing ROTC and military recruiters onto campuses; 3) imposing "diversity" on area studies faculties, i.e. administrative hiring of right-wing operatives, irrespective of academic qualifications and standard faculty hiring procedures; and 4) increasing funding for students eager to take military and intelligence agency jobs. In Kurtz's opinion, "the national interest" takes precedence "over and above questions of peer review" ("108th Congress Report"), that is, hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions must be taken out of the hands of the faculty.
In response to Kurtz's accusations that Title VI centers "undermine American foreign policy" and "actively discourage students from working for the federal government," opposing testimony was offered by Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, American Council on Education, and Gilbert Merkx, Vice Provost for International Affairs and Director of the Center for International Studies at Duke University. They confirmed that Title VI has continued to turn out great numbers of operatives for the national security apparatus.
Hartle declared: "We believe that most of the career security foreign language and area specialists in agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were trained at institutions with Title VI-funded centers." In, addition, Title VI does "outreach to government agencies at all levels", including the CIA, the military, and the State Department. One example is "the University of Kansas Title VI national resource centers for Latin America, Russia and Eastern Europe, and East Asia," which provide "education and training opportunities for the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth." Instead of defending Said as an exemplary intellectual, Hartle claimed that Said's influence "has been waning," his books are only occasionally assigned, and "historians and political scientists rarely find this theory useful" ("108th Congress Report"). By contrast, Prashad, a working academic in this discipline, states that Said's influence has been so great "that it has provoked an immense backlash from people like Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Martin Kramer and Stanley Kurtz" (Prashad).
Merkx's testimony focussed on the numerous and tight connections his foreign area centers have maintained with military and intelligence agencies, and he gives several examples. "During the period of the Central American conflict, my center hosted four workshops for the Defense Intelligence Agency in which academic specialists from around the country, whom I selected, met with intelligence officers from the DIA, CIA and State Department to discuss security issues in a confidential setting." And "at Duke University, the Center for International Studies that I direct houses ... the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS)," which "interact[s] regularly with national security agencies and military institutions. Shortly before the war in Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, visited TISS to share with us the Administration's views, anticipating remarks he was to make to the nation at the side of Secretary Rumsfeld a couple of days later." Finally, "I give these examples to make it clear that within the Title VI community there are people like myself who actively collaborate with our national security and defense institutions" ("108th Congress Report").
The Kurtz/Kramer proposals recycle the National Security Education Act of 1992, whose purpose was to increase recruiting into military and intelligence agencies. The NSEA would have created not one but two oversight boards, one public and one shadow board. The Pentagon and intelligence agencies would have dominated policy-making about international education and research. The service obligations of grantees would have been limited mostly to jobs in agencies with national security interests (Cumings, 173ff). NSEA was defeated, but it did survive in attenuated form as the National Security Education Program (NSEP), which is controlled primarily by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence.
Forces trying to broker the passage of NSEA suggested minor reforms, such as distancing Pentagon funding through regranting agencies. But like CIA-created fronts, these were "little more than laundries for DOD funding" (Ibid, 177). Another proposal, which recommended the legislation incorporate guarantees to the academic community, had equally low credibility. Such promises were "routinely bypassed by the state and area studies academics [themselves]," and Congressional intelligence oversight committees were likewise "ignored and subverted." Finally, calls for "merit review, independence, recognition of the difference between scholarship and government 'service,' and so on, were the same ones harped on by the early leaders of area education, and they did little to hold back the proliferation of CIA-service faculty and students" (Ibid, 177).
Principled critics of NSEA and NSEP objected that students (and faculty) in the program would appear to be "'spies-in-training'" (Ibid, 173). The Association of African Studies Programs stated in 1997 that "scholarly activities and exchanges" should be "public, transparent, and based on academic integrity. This is impossible if academic inquiry about Africa is defined in a major way by 'national security' and military goals" (Association of Concerned Africa Scholars). Presidents of the African Studies Association, Latin American Studies Association, and Middle East Studies Association stated in February 1992: NSEA "will endanger the physical safety of scholars and our students studying abroad; and it will jeopardize the cooperation and safety of those we study and collaborate with in these regions" (Ibid). Thus NSEP was boycotted by a number of area studies programs and professional organizations (Middle East, Latin American, and African), which had passed resolutions "urging members not to participate in defense-related research programs" (Cumings, 174). In addition, starting with the end of the Vietnam war, many institutions adopted policies, some long-standing, that bar military and intelligence recruiters from campus. The same objections apply today to HR 3077, whose clear intent is to remilitarize higher education.
Political Police: the International Advisory Board
While most of the policies enumerated in HR 3077 reconfirm previous Title VI legislation, the major innovation is its establishment of an "International Advisory Board" (also called "Committee"). The Board is simply a policing mechanism to enforce right-wing control. It is "authorized to ... monitor, apprise and evaluate activities supported under this title ... to ensure programs meet the purposes of the title." Under the heading "PURPOSE" the legislation reads: "Such programs not only foster knowledge of the world, but more importantly [emphasis DB], train experts who are prepared to meet America's national security needs."
Other passages from HR 3077 reinforce the message. 1) "The events and aftermath of September 11, 2001, have underscored the need for the nation to strengthen and enhance American knowledge." 2) "Homeland security and effective United States engagement abroad depend upon an increased number of Americans who have received such training and are willing to serve their nation." 3) Foreign language studies are "to assist the national effort to educate and train citizens to participate in the efforts of homeland security." 4) Educational programs are to "reflect the national needs related to the homeland security." 5) One of the "FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE" [BOARD] is to "encourage students to serve the nation and meet national needs in an international business, ... or national security capacity." 6) High priority recruits are native speakers of "languages that are critical to the national security of the United States." 7) And, finally, the Board itself must include two members from "Federal agencies that have national security responsibilities."
Since the Board's mandate is to subject educational programs to "national security" criteria, with two positions reserved for military-intelligence agency representatives and the remainder to be filled with like-minded appointees, there can be little doubt about the doctrine under which international education is to be reconceived and enforced. A major consequence of domination by the "national security" rationale, as yet unremarked by its targeted victims, is that, in practice, all the other provisions of the Act--which, at least in theory, were once semi-independent and primarily supported traditional educational objectives--will be subordinated to and measured by the agenda of the "war on terrorism." Thus legitimate international education activities will be hijacked, distorted, and corrupted by the requirements of the American empire, the cause which "the war on terrorism" both advances and obscures.
That such an outcome expresses the intent of the House is indicated by the subcommittee hearings, press releases, and other published supporting material. It is also confirmed by the fact that the House passed the bill on October 21 "unanimously" (Goldberg), "under suspension of the rules and without a roll call" (National Council for Languages Report), leaving no record of debate, criticism, or individual votes. These supporting materials and circumstances will surely be used by the courts to interpret actual Congressional intent behind the Act's bland exterior.
If we look beyond the euphemistic language of HR 3077, the Board has the following functions. It is authorized to: 1) determine the shape and goals of academic disciplines, curriculum, content, and mission; 2) enforce indoctrination in and loyal adherence to official imperial foreign policy; 3) require propaganda outreach to pre-college institutions and the general public, e.g. to promote retaliation for 9/11 and the consequent "benevolence," "idealism," and "civilizing role" of US imperialism; 4) impose right-wing operatives loyal to official policy as new faculty in international studies programs, in the name of insuring "diverse perspectives" and "the full range of views"; 5) demand unlimited access to all kinds of information from all kinds of agencies, public and private; 6) pillory dissenters and non-compliant programs by means of public hearings; and 7) require access to all higher education institutions for military and intelligence agency recruiters, in search of "cadres" for the "war on terrorism," particularly among minorities.
To begin with function number 7, section 634 in HR 3077 explicitly makes funding dependent on recruiter access to students and on the absence of undefined "undue restrictions" placed by the institution on students seeking military and security agency jobs. Since any argument against these jobs (e.g. anti-war, anti-imperialist) offered by a member of the campus community or a campus organization could be construed as an "undue restriction" and therefore subject to suppression, student job seekers deprived of full information will be easy marks for the slick PR presentations of agency recruiters, a predatory relationship that already has been established in high schools (Huet-Vaughn).
For example, "military recruiters have already given away over 3 million copies" of a new computer war game, "'America's Army'," which is "wildly popular among many teenage boys.... Two million young people have signed up to play in informal tournaments." One tournament "took place in Kansas City," where teams of twelve "participate in mock combat operations," and, according to Army Times, "recruiters end up with dozens of fresh leads to (pursue)'" (Citizen Soldier).
The term "cadre," i.e. recruits for the national security apparatus, was used approvingly by Merkx in his testimony on HR 3077. He elaborates that such cadres "can serve as an on-call resource to be drawn on in times of crisis, analogous to the National Guard." Hartle compared the "educational infrastructure" to "the federal government maintain[ing] military reserves" ("108th Congress Report"). Civilian education is to be militarized, and students and teachers are to model themselves on soldiers in the National Guard or the reserves. Testimony at the same hearing by the Director of the Center for NAFTA Studies at University of North Texas confirms that the ultimate goal of militarized education is to support the imperial expansion of US business interests abroad. "International education" is expected to train business, economic, and political cadres to fill slots in imperial bureaucracies run by the government and multi-national corporations.
Functions number 1 to 4 of the Advisory Board entail direct interference in curriculum and hiring, responsibilities that belong to the faculty. Relevant language reads: "the Board may address any area in need of improvement"; it can "review and comment upon the regulations for grants"; it can do "an assessment of ... the training provided by the institutions of higher education." The Board can also interfere with cooperating foreign institutions (see Sec.2 (f) and Sec. 606). In addition, function number 4 (insuring "the full range of views") imposes a political test on academic employment. These functions all involve acute violations of academic freedom.
In response to criticisms from higher education organizations that the original bill violated the "the Department of Education Organization Act, which explicitly prohibits federal interference in curriculum decisions" (Joint National Committee), the House Subcommittee on Select Education added a disclaimer to HR 3077: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the International Advisory Board to mandate, direct, or control an institution of higher education's specific instructional content, curriculum, or program of instruction" ("108th Congress Report").
Nevertherless, the weight of all the other provisions in HR 3077, its avowed primary purpose, and the ineffectiveness of similiar assurances in earlier international education laws, give this disclaimer low credibility. For example, judging by the precedent of Pentagon controlled curriculum in high school Junior ROTC programs, there is a distinct likelihood that comparable higher education courses, taught by imposed right-wing faculty, will espouse official and uncritical views of US history and foreign policy (Huet-Vaughn). JROTC has been forced on high schools through the same funding strategy proposed in HR 3077, making federal aid dependent on military and security agency access to on-campus recruiting. "With the 'No Child Left UnRecruited' law now being enforced on school districts coast to coast, military recruiters receive personal data on tens of thoudands of high school students to assist their search" (Citizen Soldier).
Functions number 5 and 6 authorize the Board to act as an investigative body, analogous to federal police agencies and Congressional inquisitorial committees, such as the House Committee on Unamerican Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in the McCarthy period. These functions involve grave violations of civil liberties. The legislation states: the "Board is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics .... and each such department, bureau, agency,... is authorized and directed [emphasis DB], to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the International Advisory Board ..." The Board is also "authorized to utilize, with their consent, the services, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies ..." ("108th Congress Report").
Function number 4, the political test in employment, links violations of academic freedom and violations of civil rights. In today's political environment, which has been accurately named the "new McCarthyism," suppression of dissent is routine, denial of most constitutional rights has been authorized by the Patriot Act and executive orders, and the government has tried to promote a broad spying and informing program among the population. Today's environment and copious examples from the McCarthy period make it reasonable to surmise that the right-wing operatives imposed as faculty on foreign area studies programs could also double as spies and informers, denouncing their non-compliant colleagues to the Board and to Homeland Security, and as prosecution witnesses in public hearings punishing dissenters. Consequently, the creation of the Board reestablishes a very dangerous precedent, one that has the potential to inaugurate a full-scale neo-McCarthyite persecution that could escalate from international studies into other academic disciplines, and from academia into other sectors of American life.
Finally, the Board is guaranteed almost six years of functioning, more than sufficient time for the right-wing to take over international studies and to expand into other areas as well.
The importance of HR 3077 to the right-wing Republicans who drafted the legislation is suggested by their careful ideological manipulation of historical dates, both overt and covert. The overt manipulation is transparent and predictable. Introduction of the bill to the full House on September 11, 2003 was strategically timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the attacks. The covert manipulation is the more telling one and confirms the bill's neo-McCarthyist intentions. The June 19 hearings of the House Subcommittee on Select Education just happened to fall on the 50th anniversary of the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953. The Rosenbergs were scapegoated as "traitors," framed by the government, and murdered in the McCarthyist terror. Right-wing historical memory would have been reminded of this date by Ann Coulter's recent best-selling pamphlet, Treason, which celebrates the McCarthy period.
Higher education organizations addressed the issue of the unlimited powers granted to the Advisory Board and its potential for interference in curriculum. The AAUP is the only one to have taken an unconditional stand against the Board, which it wants removed from the Act, because it constitutes a clear and present danger to academic freedom. Another organization noted that the Board's investigative powers exceed the advisory role to which it is allegedly limited, and "its activities could be both political and intimidating" (National Humanities Alliance Report). The American Council on Education (ACE) wrote: "the Advisory Board could intrude into the academic conduct and content of higher education and could impinge on institutional decisions about curriculum and activities. Indeed, the powers vested in the proposed Advisory Board make it more of an investigative, rather than an advisory, body" (Ward). But like the accommodating academic NGOs facing NSEA ten years ago, despite these serious reservations, ACE supported the creation of the Board, arguing that it could be reformed as a harmless instrument supportive of academic values.
Brief history of international and foreign area studies
Before World War 2 education in foreign languages and cultures primarily served Christian missionaries (Asian and Latin American studies) or the foreign service (Russian studies). After the war the expansion of university-based international studies programs was a crucial factor in the expansion of the American empire. In 1943 the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) saw the need for a "comprehensive knowledge of other lands" in order to exploit projected "unexampled" business opportunities for the US after the war (Wallerstein, 196). In the same year a report on area studies at Columbia University wrote of the need for trained people "who are thoroughly, exhaustively, and scientifically informed about particular neighbors." Such information, as the report suggests, will be useful for "one of the great oil companies" (Ibid, 197).
Imperial national ambitions generated imperial international studies. The earliest conceptions of area studies were overtly imperialist on a global scale. An SSRC report in 1947 called for "'complete world coverage'" justified by US interests: "'In terms of the national good, we must not gamble'" (Ibid, 203). The rationale for focusing on "critical" regions was whether they "generate[d] an excess of power," that is, whether they were strong enough to block the expansion of US power. An SSRC conference in 1950 spoke of giving "'education a world perspective'" (Ibid, 206). The mission of the CIA think tank at MIT was "'to research worldwide political, economic, and social change'" (Trumpbour, 70). US area studies plans were called by their right name in a 1952 UNESCO publication. A French writer accurately depicted the US model of area studies as a field "'commissioned by the Defence Ministry or the Foreign Affairs Office of this or that country, with a militarist or imperialist aim'" (Wallerstein, 207).
The post-war model of area studies issued from World War 2 intelligence-espionage agencies. McGeorge Bundy of the CIA wrote that "'the first great center of area studies ... [was] in the Office of Strategic Services'" (Cumings, 163). OSS and later CIA figures, like Bundy, William Donovan (director of OSS and founder of the CIA), George F. Kennan, and John Paton Davies, "played the major roles" in developing the post-war field (Ibid, 164). The transition from OSS to CIA required the replacement of the "anti-fascist politics of the OSS" by the "anti-communist politics of the CIA." This about face may have been accomplished because "the anti-fascists, many of them left-liberals, were either weeded out or fell by the wayside, distressed at the turn taken by American Cold War policies after 1947" (Ibid, 183, FN 9).
Close collaboration between the academy, government (military and intelligence agencies), and corporate foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford), with intimate ties to industry, finance, and elite policy-making bodies (e.g. Council on Foreign Relations), founded, sustained, and shaped foreign area studies after World War 2. Government agencies and foundations essentially defined the field (Berman, 99). "Military, intelligence, and propaganda agencies provided by far the largest part of the funds for large research projects in the social sciences in the United States from World War 2 until well into the 1960s" (Simpson, xii). Bundy wrote in 1964: "'It is still true today, and I hope it always will be, that there is a high measure of interpenetration between universities with area programs and the information-gathering agencies of the government'" (Cumings, 163).
"Davies had a plan to transform area studies and bring enormous amounts of government and foundation funding into American universities,... a model for the organization of studies of the communist world and threatened Third World areas. Donovan, who was then with the Wall Street firm Donovan, Leisure, was at the center of this effort, working with Davies in 1948 and helping him get foundation funding. The organizers specified that the government was not to be involved publicly in developing area studies, thus to allay suspicions that such programs were little more than 'an intelligence agency'.... However, Clinton Barnard of the Rockefeller Foundation ... wrote, 'the most compelling aspect of this proposal is the intelligence function which the Institute could perform for the government'" (Ibid, 164). In fact, "the universities, through their international studies programs," were reorganized after the war to "pump out many of the middle-level technicians needed for managing the Empire" (Trumpbour, 65).
The OSS Soviet Division was relocated to Columbia University "as the basis for its Russian Institute, which opened in September 1946" (Cumings, 163). With startup funding of $250,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation (Berman, 101), it became the model for all other area programs. Carnegie Foundation funding of $750,000, brokered by OSS member John Gardner and Harvard alumnus Devereux Josephs (Trumpbour, 66), went to Harvard's Russian Research Center in 1948, which likewise followed the university-espionage agency model (Trumpbour, Diamond). By 1952 these foundations had awarded several million dollars to the Slavic field. But the Ford Foundation, through its Foreign Area Fellowship Program initiated in 1952, had the greatest impact, particularly on Asian studies, giving "a total of $270 million to 34 universities for area and language studies from 1953 to 1966" (Cumings, 163).
Regions targeted by area studies and the foundations were Africa, Latin America, the near East, South Asia, USSR, and Eastern Europe. Foundation funded area studies centers were established at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Georgetown, Berkeley, and Stanford, and in Geneva, London, and Oxford (Berman, 102). Funding was also given to educational institutions in "a limited number of African, Asian, and Latin American nations" (Berman, 100). The pedagogy of area studies combined language, culture, and a social science discipline. Sociology, political science, and economics formed "the core of the area-studies programs" (Ibid, 110).
The Columbia and Harvard Centers "became a model for other area progams on Eastern Europe and China. [They were] also a model of cooperation with the CIA and FBI" (Cumings, 164-5). Philip Mosely, director of the Russian Research Institute at Columbia University, and also "a central figure at the Ford Foundation," was involved for over two decades with the CIA and other "secret government agencies," and testified as a friendly witness for the McCarthy era Subversive Activities Control Board (Ibid, 167-168). Sigmund Diamond, victimized in a McCarthyist purge by Bundy, then a dean at Harvard, showed that the Harvard Russian Research Center "was based on the wartime OSS model; that the Center was deeply involved with the CIA, the FBI, and other intelligence and military agencies; that several foundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford) worked with the state and the center to fund projects and, in some cases, to launder CIA funding" (Ibid, 165). More generally, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations served "as financial 'covers' for the CIA's large scale entry into academic affairs and domestic politics in the United States." Their activity "appears to have violated both the CIA's legal charter and the fiduciary responsibilities of the foundation's executives and trustees" (Simpson, xxxiv, FN 18).
Major funders of the Slavic field were the US Air Force and the CIA (Cohen, 10). According to "official studies," the military in 1952 supplied "fully 96% of all reported [government] funding for the social sciences" (Cumings, 170). For example, in 1950, the CIA's Project Troy, "a covert effort seeking to beam U.S. propaganda into Eastern Europe," was developed by "MIT and Harvard intellectuals" (Trumpbour, 69). Out of this collaboration "emerged the Center for International Studies (CENIS), a joint MIT-Harvard think tank based at MIT," which the CIA founded and funded (Ibid, 70). "In its early years in the 1950s," writes Cumings, "the CIA underwrote [CENIS] almost as a subsidiary enterprise". Max Milliken, former assistant director of the CIA, was the first director of CENIS. Also on the Center staff was W. W. Rostow, later the architect of the Vietnam War. Some participants, fearful of exposure, wanted other organizations to "'front [for] the CIA'" and one thought that the National Security Council would be "'a wonderful cover'" (Cumings, 173). Cumings remarks that the CENIS meeting transcript "resonates with Hollywood versions of Mafia palaver" (Ibid, 173).
A classified committee on which CENIS-affiliated scholars sat promoted military use of "'unconventional weapons'" (i.e. WMD's), such as "crop-destroying agents that would cause general famine," suggested ways of "'minimizing'" protests by targeted peoples, and discussed means "'to reduce to tolerable levels the political disadvantages of the use of a variety of such weapons'.... the covert use of ... unconventional weapons would be accompanied by overt denial that the U.S. had used them" (Ibid, 185, FN 18). Since the committee referred to Southeast Asia, it appears to have prefigured the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Psywar research done by CENIS-affiliated scholars was later incorporated into the CIA's murderous Phoenix program in Vietnam (Ibid, 186, FN 26).
Other social science "security" projects were equally destructive. When physicians associated with prestigious university medical schools organized "studies" of the physical effects on US soldiers exposed to radiation from atomic explosions, social scientists measured their morale and strove to "'indoctrinate'" them (the word comes from the Department of Defense) "against their 'mystical' fear of radiation" (Simpson, xxxiii, FN 13). Social scientists at the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University turned out a number of "studies" whose indirect goal was to accustom the population to the idea of nuclear warfare. Project titles included "The Social Impact of Bomb Destruction," "U.S. public opinion about the threat of war," "the views of corporate executives on maintaining production in the wake of atomic war, " etc. (Ibid, xxxiii, FN 14). The same Bureau studied the effects of large doses of LSD (a component in CIA psywar strategies), and produced marketing advice for tobacco interests (Ibid, xxxiv, FN 14).
Well-known CIA-linked academics include Harvard historian Richard Pipes, who wrote a CIA sponsored study in the mid-1950s entitled "Moslems of the Soviet Central Asia" (Cumings, 170), and Harvard ideologue Samuel Huntington, whose CIA ties were exposed in the mid-1980s (Trumpbour, 68). Harvard's Center was home to Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy, and James A. Perkins, vice-president of the Carnegie Corporation and a director of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank (Berman, 103).
Secret work for intelligence agencies took a political toll on academics. A 1953 Soviet area studies conference discussing Ford Foundation fellowships, attended by academics and high government officials including from the CIA, "fretted about 'loyalty' checks on grantees, and therefore suggested denying fellowships to 'partisans of special Soviet movements and recognized supporters of political parties inimical to the best interests of the United States'" (Cumings, 171). The Carnegie Foundation likewise screened out left of center scholars (Ibid, 186, FN 28). Beyond academia proper, "all contributors to the government journal, Problems of Communism, which regularly featured most of the prominent Sovietologists of the period, had to be secretly 'security cleared' before their writings appeared" (Cohen 17-18).
Some Harvard researchers were targets of FBI investigations and denounced their colleagues to the Bureau, although working for the CIA often shielded scholars, particularly foreign ones, from investigation. The main intermediary between the Center and both the FBI and the CIA was Harvard President James B. Conant (Cumings, Diamond). Campus informants for the FBI included Henry Kissinger at Harvard and William F. Buckley, Jr. at Yale (Cumings, 166). The FBI regularly monitored course content in "critical studies" fields, as well as the content of lectures sponsored by left organizations.
During the McCarthy period the Columbia University Slavic program underwent anti-communist denunciations and purges, issuing from both within and outside of the university (Blejwas; Cohen, 17). Senator McCarthy personally denounced two of the pre-Cold War founders of Slavic studies at Columbia as members "'of the Communist conspiracy'," one of whom was called before HUAC (Cohen, 17). "Selective purges of dissenting academics" were typical of the new foreign area studies model (Simpson, xxii).
The subservience of international education to the national security state did generate some resistance. Wilfrid Cantwell Smith, in a 1955 address to the American Oriental Society, made a "very traditionalist, deeply conservative defense of the humanist tradition and of Oriental studies" (Wallerstein, 213). Smith accused area studies of "'preoccupation with the technique and method rather than with the object of study, and, correspondingly, with manipulation and control rather than appreciation'." Underlying Smith's critique was an implicitly anti-imperialist educational philosophy, which treated foreign cultures with "'reverence and humanity,' 'imaginitive sympathy and objective validity'." Such an approach was the best way for Americans to "'serve our own culture'" and "'learn to live with (not to dominate) the others who share the planet and its problems with us'." It also defined the proper "'role of the university in a multi-cultural world'" (Ibid, 212-213).
Smith's resistance was echoed in postwar Great Britain. Since the US after World War 2 had replaced Britain as the world's dominant imperial force, area studies in the UK abandoned the policy of imperial domination and war for coexistence with Asia, Africa and eastern Europe (Ibid, 214). A 1961 report acknowledged "'that the civilisation of western Europe has no longer an undisputed pre-eminence. Its importance continues, but it must accommodate itself to other powerful and creative influences outside'" (Ibid, 214). British scholars recruited to the US were likewise critical of US-Euro-centrism. "Sir Hamilton Gibbs, a leading British orientalist who had become director of ... the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard," stated: "'It needs no proof that to apply the psychology and mechanics of Western political institutions to Arab or Asian situations is pure Walt Disney'" (Ibid, 216). Besides dismissing US-Euro-centrism as fantasy, Gibbs may also have been alluding to Disney's reactionary postwar views.
Government funded social science projects sometimes caused scandals. For example, the "U.S. State Department secretly financed studies of U.S. public opinion by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at the University of Chicago, as part of the Department's cold war lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill," and a scandal erupted when its contracts were uncovered in 1957 (Simpson, xiii, xxxi, FN 5). Another scandal, revealed in 1965, concerned a US government contract awarded in 1955 to Michigan State University to aid in the training of South Vietnam's secret police (Wallerstein, 230, FN 37).
The first major scandal weakening imperial area studies arose from exposure of the 1964 Operation (or Project) Camelot. Operation Camelot was a program "conceived by the U.S. Army's Special Operations Research Office" with the "task of managing national liberation movements in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East" (Simpson, xxiv). Based at American University and funded by the US Army, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, it was devoted to controlling, undermining, and overthrowing popular governments in Latin America that resisted US corporate interests. The program's upbeat utopian name, associated with the administration of recently assassinated JFK, reflected the standard military packaging given to projects of US terrorist intervention. Such activities are also known euphemistically as "counterinsurgency," a term which the project description found insufficiently euphemistic, but which it agreed accurately described "'the overall counterinsurgency program of the U.S. Government'" (Wallerstein, 221).
Under the general rubric of "'The U.S. Army's Limited War Mission'" (Ibid, 221) Project Camelot invited social scientists to help the military foment civil wars in Latin American countries. Social scientists were to engage in "data collection" and "assessment," i.e. essential support services for criminal activities reflecting the everyday business of the CIA and military "intelligence" agencies. Project Camelot was to be "multi-disciplinary" and "in close collaboration with universities and other research institutions within the United States and overseas" (Ibid, 221-222). The list of targeted countries included twelve in Latin America, "three in the Middle East, four in the Far East, one in Africa, and two in Europe (France and Greece)" (Ibid, 222).
Project Camelot was exposed by a UNESCO exchange scholar from Norway working in Chile, resulting in "intervention by the President of Chile with the U.S. State Department, debate in the U.S. Congress, and cancellation of the project worldwide. More importantly, it stimulated a major debate within the United States and elsewhere about the propriety of collaboration by scholars with U.S. government projects.... Project Camelot had the consequence of directing systematic attention to the Cold War side of area studies ... [and] the occasion for individual and organizational statements of ethical-political positions, and an increased wariness of many governments about the role of U.S. scholars doing research in their countries" (Ibid, 223).
Exposure, however, did not change national policy. After Camelot's cancellation, the House of Representatives held hearings on the usefulness of social science as a propaganda weapon in the cold war (Simpson, xxxii, FN 9). Likewise, the program and its mission simply shifted underground to the CIA, which expanded its psywar and political operations abroad in the next decade. "Virtually all the original Camelot-style projects in Latin America went ahead under new project names, ... and a Camelot-inspired computer model ... eventually became the testbed for CIA scenarios" in Chile (Ibid, xxv). Starting in 1964, in the biggest operation in its history, the CIA systematically propagandized, sabotaged, and subverted Chilean society, culminating in a US planned and backed military coup by General Pinochet, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973, the murder of the President, "more than three thousand" executed, "thousands more disappeared, tens of thousands tortured" (Blum, Rogue State, 143; Cumings).
The "tight, reinforcing networks" of researchers involved in security state projects "came to have great influence over scholarly societies, foundation grants committees, tenure decisions, the content of academic journals, and other levers of power in the academy" (Simpson, xii). "In some cases, the security agencies' intervention proved decisive in the 'scientific' evolution of an academic field, which is to say, in the establishment of the institutions, texts, methodologies, and body of knowledge regarded as central to that academic enterprise. (Ibid, xii). "State and corporate security agencies frequently initiated social science concepts and projects, and the campus experts followed [emphasis Simpson]--not the other way around.... this has been true especially in ... development studies and area studies" (Ibid, xiv). Sometimes university projects were "a means of implementing policy decisions taken at the level of the National Security Council or similar elite bodies" (Ibid, xiv).
Immediate postwar area studies were devoted explicitly to Cold War policy. Anti-communism "pervaded American intellectual, educational, and scholarly life, sometimes with martial zeal," egged on by the US Commissioner of Education (Cohen, 13). "Anti-Communism--and specifically anti-Sovietism--formed the political-ideological basis of the scholarly consensus in Soviet studies" (Ibid, 13). Preventing countries from "'falling into the hands of the communists'" defined the justification of area studies in an SSRC report (Wallerstein, 201). Modernization or development theory was driven by the need for "'long-range solutions to the threats of instability and Communism in the Third World'" (Berman, 112). The world's nations were divided into "allies" and "adversaries" of the US, the former residing within the "containment system", the latter outside its boundaries, and intellectual treatment was divided accordingly (e.g. modernization studies versus communist studies)(Cumings, 160).
Messianic anti-communism bred as its predictable progeny US militarism. The SSRC report argued for a state of endless total warfare, because, in its view, peacetime breeds civilian complacency and ignorance. "'We expend every effort to win a war, but we let the peace look out for itself. No wonder if it fails to endure! Can we doubt any longer that total peace is the direct counterpart of total war?'" (Wallerstein, 202). Regimented pedagogy serving total war was likewise the message of the president of the American Historical Association in 1949. "He exhorted his university colleagues to ... accept 'a large measure of regimentation' because 'total war, whether it be hot or cold, enlists everyone and calls upon everyone to assume his part'" (Cohen, 13). A Slavist stated that the pragmatic goal of official US ideological bias was to maintain bellicose relations: "'Any objective study of the Communist-dominated world is rendered impossible if the supplemental goal is to promote mutual understanding'" (Ibid, 14).
The propaganda function the Slavic field was expected to fill was likewise explicit. "All Sovietological theories of the time were 'designed to shape the behavior of the free world in its opposition to Communism'" (Ibid, 11). Total denigration of the Soviet Union was the sole permissable approach: "professed Soviet achievements were not only empty but the antithesis of real progress" (Ibid, 14). An associated dogma "equated Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, teaching that postwar Soviet Communism was a replay of Nazism in the 1930s, or 'Red fascism,' and thus warning against any 'appeasement'" (Ibid, 13-14). Consequently, while other scholars generally studied cultures they were attracted to, "many Sovietologists ... seemed to dislike or hate their subject" (Ibid, 12). As compensation for hatred, during the McCarthy period Soviet studies were not assaulted as mercilessly as the Asianists (for having "lost China"). Because "Soviet studies" occupied a "privileged position" in the Cold War pantheon, they were accordingly "protected by powerful sponsorship, ties to government agencies, and affinity with official policy" (Ibid, 16).
Anti-communism was likewise the rationale for funding area studies. Its purpose was to "'maintain the strength of the non-Communist nations and [to] assist the social and economic development of the new emerging nations'" (Berman, 101). "The dominant developmental theory that emerged after 1945" (Ibid, 123) was capitalist, insuring that Third World nations adopted and maintained a capitalist model of development friendly to US business interests and local elites. Recruitment of elites into these programs, in the US and abroad, was intended to create "'an environment in which societies which directly or indirectly menace ours will not evolve'" (Millikan and Rostow, 41). That is, US policies thwarted decolonization and indigenous cultural development. The Ford Foundation explained its focus on Asia as a contribution to "'America's power to overcome Asian misunderstanding and to contribute to the shaping of events in these areas'" (Berman, 101). Events were "shaped" and "misunderstanding" was overcome through military intervention and slaughter (Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) and support for dictatorial coups (Indonesia). The foundations supported intellectual trends intended to neutralize and expel Marxism from academic social science (Ibid, 106), and to maintain "the policies of corporate liberalism at home and imperial liberalism abroad" (Ibid, 107).
Modernization or development theory was driven by the need for "'long-range solutions to the threats of instability and Communism in the Third World'" (Ibid, 112). By the 1960s "the evolving liberal theory, like all ruling ideologies, was designed to support extant interests" (Ibid, 110). The pretense that it enjoyed "autonomous development", rather than handsome subsidies from corporate foundations, "was an important mechanism to support and subsequently to disseminate the dominant ideology" (Ibid, 110). The fruits of modernization theory in the Third World were subservient and corrupt neo-colonialist underdevelopment. The foundations underwrote development theories and models despite evidence of their inefficacy, because they reflected their own ideological biases (Ibid, 117). Likewise essential to the theory's success was the fictitious assertion that it was politically neutral and "value-neutral," ideologically unbiased, disinterested, and scientific. Gunnar Myrdal argued, to the contrary, that "'a "disinterested" social science has never existed and never will exist.... A view presupposes a viewpoint. Research ... must have a direction.... Valuations enter into the choice of an approach, the selection of problems, the definition of concepts, and the gathering of data ...'" (Ibid, 111).
For the dominant OSS-CIA elite, US interests and security always came first, rationalized as the best fulfillment of the US-defined and unexamined hopes of humankind (Ibid, 113). Such policies did "little to alleviate the plight of the masses in the underdeveloped nations while ensuring extended markets for capitalist activity" (Ibid, 120). Government officials, foundation executives, and academics all shared "in the belief of America's imperial mission" or "imperial liberalism" (Ibid, 120), seduced by "the messianic quality of American foreign policy" (Ibid, 122).
"The dominant institutional mechanisms of the Cold War set academic agendas," while "politically liberal intellectuals" helped implement them, "frequently at considerable cost to scientific integrity and to the peoples being 'developed'" (Simpson, xxix). "Social scientists studied the experience of power and hegemonic relations in order to rationalize the exercise of that power--that is, to improve its efficiency and effectiveness" (Ibid, xx). Projects at university-based "area studies centers in the United States both predicted and required [emphasis Simpson] the worldwide triumph of modernity and contemporary forms of global capitalism, or at least their extension to every part of the globe that had markets, resources, or a geo-strategic location of interest to the United States" (Ibid, xiv).
Capitalist development projects typically resulted in "vast disruption of traditional societies" (Ibid, xvi). Thus "experts in counterinsurgency, insurgency, political warfare, and police training" (Ibid, xvi), including "studies" of the use of torture in interrogation and prisons (Ibid, xxxi-xxxii, FN 6), were also recruited into serving the imperial mission. "Supplanting traditional ways of life by development--which is to say, by cultural penetration, the expansion of international markets, and changes in property relations--required what was euphemistically known as a period of 'transition' to the new and presumably better society" (Ibid, xvi). Since disruptive "transitions" frequently provoked resistance, academic experts, who "worked cheek by jowl with men whom many people would consider professional terrorists specializing in the suppression of indigenous democracy" (Ibid, xix), were called on to develop "the design and operation of the special machinery of repression and terror" (Ibid, xviii). Many projects funded by the military and intelligence agencies, despite their idealistic window-dressing, "unambiguously subordinated respect for democracy or human rights to the imperatives of exporting U.S. capital and extending Western ideological and military campaigns" (Ibid, xxiii).
"The foundations only began to reduce their level of support when the federal government decided to underwrite these programs more generously after 1960" (Berman, 99). The first federal education funding came in the wake of the launching of Sputnik on October 4, 1957. Eleven months later, on September 2, 1958, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) became law. The real motivation behind the legislation, frankly admitted at the time, was propaganda rivalry with the USSR, which was outclassing the US by being first in space. Although the "defense" rationale for education funding merely formalized already established dominance by the military and intelligence agencies, nonetheless the NDEA required a respectable justification. This was provided by a national security spin: "In passing NDEA, Congress recognized that the defense and security of the nation were inseparably bound with education" (Scarfo).
While its main thrust was scientific and technological education, Title VI funded area studies centers and the teaching of foreign languages "critical" to US interests: Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Hindi-Urdu, Portuguese, and Russian. 77 other languages were ranked as second and third priorities, and "support for courses other than language, while authorized, was given a secondary role" (Ibid).
The International Education Act (IEA) of 1966 was passed but never funded, a casualty of the escalating costs of the Vietnam War. It would have expanded support to "functional fields", trans-regional studies, professional schools, generalists, and undergradutes. "Some of its provisions were enacted into Title VI under later reauthorizations" (Ibid). Funding levels for Title VI reached their peak in the late 1960s. When Nixon tried to phase out the program in the early 1970s, it was saved by Kissinger and Moynihan, who conviced the President to change his mind. "Congress continued to appropriate funds for Title VI, despite the Administration's attempts to eliminate it" (Ibid). In addition, the constituency for the program was broadened "beyond the major research institutions" to make it less vulnerable. Western European studies, "functional topics," undergraduates, and community outreach activities were added (Ibid).
The 1980 reauthorization expanded Title VI to include business education, in order to "address economic productivity and international economic competition," and business education was expanded again in 1988. Reagan tried to end the program, again to no avail, but the real value of funding remained below 1960s levels. The Coalition for International Education (CIE) was founded in 1990 to lobby for Title VI and by 1997 managed to increase funding by 60% (Merkx). Overseas Research Centers established by consortia of US universities and an Institute to attract minority students into international service were added in 1992. By 1996 Title VI had expanded from four to eleven programs (nine of them funded). "The strong, unwavering support of the academic community has been the critical factor in the growth of and success of Title VI" (Scarfo).
The campus anti-war and Third World uprisings of 1968 encouraged questioning the very rationale of the Cold War agenda in international area studies programs and resulted in the decolonization of some of them. "The emergence of a nonaligned movement in political response to the Cold War ... involved a certain distancing from U.S. scholars, often considered to be agents ... of U.S. government interests" (Wallerstein, 225). "Because of the ferment of the 1960s, social science scholarship of the 1970s met a high standard of quality and relevance. In political science, sociology, and even to some extent economics, political economy became a rubric under which scholars produced a large body of work on the multinational corporation, the global monetary system, the world pool of labor, peripheral dependency, and American hegemony itself" (Cumings, 180).
One of the demands of the late 1960s movements was to end military and intelligence agency funding and projects in higher education. It fell on deaf ears, because the issue for academic policy-making elites was only the covert (and potentially embarrassing) means of the funding, not the projects themselves. "The militarization of research and the university's subservience to the priorities of the national security state met with approval if they could be done in the open" (Trumpbour, 67). With the onset of the Reagan years, social scientists abandoned left critiques with alacrity and embraced the neo-liberal paradigm.
Due to the campus uprisings of the 1960s, the reevaluation of area studies in the 1970s, and high post-Vietnam anti-war sentiment among the population, the National Defense Education Act was quietly renamed the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1980, and Title VI was tranferred to this prima facie non-military instrument. HEA remains today as the major source of federal funding for international education. Because many CIA-funded campus projects "failed to survive the social upheavals of the 1960s and early 1970s" (Simpson, xix), such "social science service bureaus" were transferred to "lower-profile, Ph.D.-heavy, high-security government contractors operating off campus" (Ibid, xix). Analogously, fear of popular anti-war mobilizations forced military interventions during the 1980s largely into the covert mode.
In 1985 Stephen F. Cohen, a professor of Soviet politics and history at Princeton, revived several of William Cantwell Smith's criticisms made thirty years earlier. Cohen objected to the field's reduction to "usable scholarship ('applied research') in America's national interest, rather than more detached academic pursuits" (Cohen, 10). From the later 1940s to the early 1960s, Cohen argues, Soviet area studies was distinguished by an "arid" "Cold War consensus," (Ibid, 8) "orthodoxy" (Ibid, 4), "an interpretive strait-jacket," "bogus analysis," "pseudointerpretation," "blinkered preoccupations" (Ibid, 6), "double standards" (Ibid, 22), inadequate self-criticism (Ibid, 12), and "self-impoverishment. It eliminated everything diverse and problematic from its own subject," thus rendering Sovietological literature "repetitious and intellectually stale" (Ibid, 7). The field needed to acknowledge "how poorly Sovietology has performed its larger educational function" (Ibid, 37).
The predictable result was stagnation and crisis, discouraging potential new graduate students from entering the discipline. Harvard graduate student John Trumpbour dismissed Russian area studies as an "intellectually barren field" (Trumpbour, 80). As late as the mid-1980s "funding for academic Soviet studies still [was] predicated on strategic and commercial relations between the United States and the Soviet Union" (Cohen, 37). When the USSR collapsed, so did the field, federal funding, and student enrollments.
Cohen's well-publicized and belated critique, the first that Soviet Area Studies had ever sustained, came a mere six years before the field's demise. In 1989 the national security state faced a crisis. "The entire field of communist studies found itself alone with the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, searching for a function after the object of their desire had rolled itself back to nothing" (Cumings, 181). Adrift in a sea of lost purposes, bloated military and intelligence budgets came under fire as the American people demanded a "peace dividend" after a half-century of sacrifices to the moloch of militarism. Despite the US "victory" in the first Gulf War of 1991, the National Security Education Act of 1992 didn't fly, shot down by Newt Gingrich in his budget-slashing zeal.
Nevertheless, the national security organs were never displaced from international studies. Under the Reagan administration the field of national security studies gained new prominence, as "government agents and their university collaborators [tried] to define university-based programs that would serve the interests of the U.S. national security apparatus" (Berman, 201, FN 2). In the 1990s NSEP was salvaged from the demise of NSEA. Throughout that decade substitute rationales for the Cold War were quickly improvised and military and intelligence budgets were protected. After 9/11 the elite solved the problem by dropping all pretenses and brazenly proclaiming the aggressive expansion of US empire.
Since the end of the Cold War few national security academics have reevaluated their commitments. The memoirs of a retired American Sovietologist state his pride in working for the CIA during the Korean War. He views the Agency as a high powered research institute not too different from academia (Byrnes). This attempt to domesticate the CIA through a conceptual convergence between it and the academy implicitly justifies their past and future political convergence, in which the university takes dictation from the empire.
In his testimony on HR 3077, Merkx expressed pride in the close collaboration his university-based foreign area studies programs have maintained with the military and intelligence agencies. His earlier article about Title VI, despite its advocacy of science and empirical data ("real-world observation"), reveals a reductionist and mechanistic conception of international education, derived no doubt from that same security apparatus mentality. "The language component of the training is a technical skill required for research, comparable to statistical training. The area or international studies training provides a base of factual information, a form of empirical knowledge or data." And "conceptually, this model of training differs from standard graduate and professional training only in that the language of investigation is not English and the locus of empirical information is not the United States" (Merkx). Epitomizing the Walt Disney or Gradgrind school of pedagogy, Merkx provides a training manual for imperial robots. By excluding both cultural understanding and critical thinking, this training (not education) teaches agents of empire to treat people, especially foreigners, as interchangeable and expendable ciphers. That is, it conceives of others in its own likeness and image
The continuity of right-wing ideology since 1945 is striking. The same bias Russian historian Richard Pipes applied to his scholarship and political activism in the McCarthyist heyday of orthodox Sovietology has been continued by his son, Daniel, in his neo-McCarthyist and xenophobic jihad against the remnants of today's largely polite and hapless academic left.
In the neo-liberal era (ca 1993-2001), imperial expansion and its consequent devastation of poor and working people, and later the middle classes, took place "peacefully," enabled by international trade agreements, the US bombing of four countries, the premeditated destruction of Yugoslavia, and a 12 year embargo of Iraq killing a million civilians. But 9/11 provided the perfect excuse for neo-conservative regression to old-fashioned saber-rattling and domestic repression. The first "war on terror" proclaimed under Reagan was disinterred and reanimated through shock and awe treatments (i.e. Blitzkrieg). Thus HEA, up for reauthorization this year, is being kidnapped and surgically altered. Its newly transplanted imperial head (to which organ it is sewn?) is programmed to function like the brain police.
The War on Higher Education
Like many other domestic targets of the "war on terrorism," education is currently under fire because it is largely unconquered territory harboring large non-right-wing populations. It is a prize to be invaded, occupied, colonized, and annexed to the empire of reaction.
Education NGOs are divided in their assessment of the Advisory Board in HR 3077. AAUP opposes it, while ACE, a consortium of NGOs (to which AAUP belongs), finds it acceptable if it can be declawed. But while all attention has been directed to the Advisory Board, no education NGO (so far) has challenged the legitimacy of the national security-imperial rationale for federal funding of international (or any other) education. Nor have NGOs raised any objection to increased recruitment into the security apparatus, or obligatory campus access for military and intelligence agency recruiters, that is, the militarization of international and, by extension, all education.
Individual faculty have been more forthright in their evaluations of HR 3077. A professor of history at the University of Michigan wrote: "As I read HR 3077's new Advisory Board provisions, the Title VI area studies centers are now being subjected to a hostile corporate take-over ... the most likely source of personnel for the International Advisory Board that will give Middle East Centers their marching orders is the neocons associated with WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] (the policy organ of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee)" (Cole). Michael Bednar, a graduate student at University of Texas, titled his e-mail alert, "Stop Congressional Policing of Curricula in Area Studies," and remarked: "someone in homeland security [could] instruct college professors (with Ph.D.s) on the proper, patriotic, 'American-friendly' textbooks that may be used in class" (Bednar). Prashad entitles his essay: "Confronting the Evangelical Imperialists: Mr. Kurtz: the Horror, the Horror," and provides essential historical background on international studies in the US.
Rashid Khalidi, "recently appointed to the Edward Said Chair of Arab studies at Columbia University," notes that "the neoconservative attack on Middle Eastern studies recalls the assault launched earlier this year on American intelligence agencies that failed to confirm right-wing assumptions about Iraq.... They're not just after academics. You see this inside the military, inside the intelligence community. You see this in the way the State Department has been treated. Anybody who knows anything about anything is suspect. Unless you have the right views you are not allowed to speak, and if you do, you do so at your peril" (Goldberg).
HR 3077 is only one front in a larger coordinated "War on Higher Education" (Fish), which at last count includes at least three other pieces of destructive federal legislation. One set goes by the name of an "Academic Bill of Rights," which likewise seeks to impose a political test on academic employment and curriculum, thus gravely threatening the academic freedom these Bills pretend to honor. The Academic Bill of Rights, according to the AAUP, "threatens to impose administrative and legislative oversight on the professional judgment of faculty, to deprive professors of the authority necessary for teaching, and to prohibit academic institutions from making the decisions that are necessary for the advancement of knowledge. For these reasons Committee A strongly condemns efforts to enact the Academic Bill of Rights" (AAUP Committee A).
Federal School Voucher bills, another means to weaken public education, are also in the pipeline. Finally, in early September Republicans on the same House subcommittee that wrote HR 3077 blamed underfunded public institutions for raising tuition, impudently denying that federal and state budget cuts trigger tuition increases. The result is the "Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003", which punishes public institutions because they are underfunded. Stanley Fish, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at University of Illinois Chicago, has published op-eds in the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education firmly opposing this legislation, and has challenged higher education organizations and the academic community to fight it effectively (Fish).
How to fight back effectively
So far the actions (as contrasted with the words) of academic NGOs indicate they are committed to accommodation. In the case of HR 3077, for example, they wrote a few organizational letters to Congress rather than mobilizing their base. Kurtz and the right-wing networks, on the contrary, promoted an effective grass-roots letter writing campaign, which encouraged the House subcommittee to adopt most right-wing proposals unchallenged.
The higher education organizations could have mobilized their own constituencies cheaply and quickly through e-mail alerts. Alerts sent by People for the American Way and other organizations have contributed to defeating right-wing legislation. The AAUP, for example, has 45,000 members, and the potential base for all higher education organizations amounts to hundreds of thousands of faculty, not to mention students, alumni, parents, sympathetic administrators, etc. If the AAUP, for example, had sent out an e-mail alert to its entire membership and obtained a one percent response, 450 articulate and strongly worded letters, phone calls, faxes, e-mails, etc. would have reached the House subcommittee warning it to remove the Advisory Board from the legislation. Five to ten times this number might have been generated if the entire professoriate had been alerted. Likewise, the numbers of responses could have been significantly increased by effective presentations of the imminent dangers posed by this legislation. Finally, the education NGOs had plenty of time to mobilize their members at any point in the legislative process. Four months passed between the June 19 hearings and October 21 passage by the House.
But instead of mobilizing their base to defend itself, the higher education organizations allowed the right-wing to dominate the field. It was the circulation of a graduate student's alert (Michael Bednar) after the House passed the bill that first informed the faculty nationwide about this atrocity in progress. However, the obvious sources for timely e-mail alerts are the AAUP and other NGOs with government relations offices in Washington who follow legislation closely.
Prashad recommends additional kinds of activism: "If you are on a college campus, start a student-faculty-staff group in defense of Postcolonial/Area Studies--and push the administration to take a position on the issue along the lines of freedom of speech. If you are not on a college campus, then express your outrage in the local paper about the government's infringement on the liberty of intellectual thought" (Prashad).
The basic AAUP message on HR 3077 is simple: reauthorize Title VI but remove the Advisory Board. Early prevention would have been better than a cure, but there may still be time for surgical intervention. Will the higher education organizations decide to alert their memberships, winter holidays notwithstanding, to contact the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will draft its own version of HR 3077 starting in early January? Will they mobilize their base to keep the pressure on the House-Senate Conference Committee, e.g. to prevent last minute damage? And will they keep the heat on when it reaches the President's desk for a signature?
Mobilization of the membership and of the broader higher education community is a strategy that should be applied to defeating all the anti-academic legislation now in the works. There is no guarantee of victory. But it makes more sense to put up a hard fight than to go down with only token opposition. And it might be therapeutic for more AAUP members and other faculty to become activists in their own self-defense and in the defense of higher education. Perhaps mobilization in the current fight can help build a nationwide activist self-defense network, which will surely be needed in the months and perhaps years ahead. Doing too little too late is an unacceptable alternative.
The Modern Language Association Radical Caucus submitted an emergency resolution to the MLA Executive Committee on December 10 opposing "policing and censorship of higher education" and the targeting of "critical approaches" in "the humanities" and "international students and scholars." The resolution asks the MLA to declare its opposition to "all federal legislation that seeks to impose government controls on academic inquiry and that creates a hostile environment for teaching and learning."
If HR 3077 does become law along with its political policing "Advisory" Board, the field of international and foreign area studies should reject Title VI (as well as NSEP) funding, as called for in resolutions passed by various area studies organizations over the past decade. Programs should also begin to seek alternative sources, starting with their own institutions and communities. It may be time for all self-respecting academics to shun the federal feeding bowl if the price is a right-wing dog collar.
Such intellectual independence can only strengthen the defense of the academy. That defense, in turn, will be enormously enhanced if the AAUP and academics as a whole begin to rethink current pedagogical and political assumptions, in order to reestablish a legitimate rationale for public support for higher education. The defense of academic freedom is currently limited to procedural and civil liberties arguments. But the right-wing has been successful in mobilizing its base because it focuses on issues of substance, however wrong its positions may be. Recovering legitimate grounds for international education offers an opportunity to mobilize academia around content and fundamental values, which can only strengthen its base. (For suggestions to buttress the foundations of academic freedom, see my report "The Broad Perspective of Academic Freedom", http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/perspective ).
There are numerous traditional arguments for international education. But first, it must be weaned from servitude to national security and empire. The subordination of academia to the national security state just after World War 2 undermined its autonomy and sabotaged faculty responsibility for the curriculum at the outset. In his book How Harvard Rules: Reason in the Service of Empire, Trumpbour wrote in 1989: "The university will never attain a critical and independent understanding of its role in society while it remains shackled to the priorities of the national security state" (Trumpbour, 72).
Today's student and faculty voices say much the same thing. An assistant professor at University of Texas questions the imperial basis of government funding: "I'm not sure that the purpose of Asian studies is to advance American interests. A careful consideration of history is in the country's best interest" (Fitzsimmons). A student at Yale likewise objects to "the American and Euro-centric ideology that the study of foreign languages and cultures serves no greater purpose than serving American interests," rather than "the notion that societies foreign to America can be studied on their own terms'" (Singh). Bruce Cumings, a professor of international history and East Asian economy at University of Chicago, argues in the collection, Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War, for "independent academic inquiry as essential in itself, or international and area studies as important apart from what the state (let alone the 'intelligence community') may want" (Cumings, 176). The Association of African Studies Programs stated in 1997 that "scholarly activities and exchanges" should be "public, transparent, and based on academic integrity."
Three arguments given above are intrinsic: the study of foreign cultures is essential in itself and should be based on academic integrity, and cultures should be understood on their own terms. Three arguments are social: critical understanding and knowledge should be public and transparent, serve the (genuine) national interest, and illuminate the university's (proper) role in society. But there are many other traditional and legitimate purposes (none of which can be found in the current legislation) justifying government funding of international education, which benefit both the individual and society.
They include: 1) education as a human right within the full panoply of universal human rights; 2) education for democracy, preparing citizens to practice government by the people (i.e. democracy), international education as the basis of an informed and democratic foreign policy; 3) disinterested and civic-minded support for learning, the spread of enlightenment, and the broadening of intellectual horizons; 4) knowledge of foreign languages and cultures as the firm basis for communication, understanding, sympathy, and enjoyment of other cultures, both at home and abroad; 5) promotion of peaceful coexistence of nations and peoples, international cooperation, and mutually beneficial international relations; 6) the prevention of xenophobia and jingoism.
In the face of barbaric imperialism, restating the many purposes of civilization which education proposes is of paramount concern to us all.
108th Congress Report, House of Representatives. "International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr308&dbname=cp108&
AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. "Academic Bills of Rights." December 2003. http://www.aaup.org/statements/SpchState/billofrights.htm
American Council on Education. "Talking Points Refuting Stanley Kurtz's Attack On HEA-Title VI Area Centers" (July 7, 2002). http://www.acenet.edu/washington/letters/2002/07july/titlevi.talking.points.cfm
Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. "The Case Against DoD and CIA Involvement in Funding the Study of Africa." November, 1997. http://www.prairienet.org/acas/pubs/nsep97.html
Bednar, Michael. "Congress Moves to Regulate Postcolonial Studies"; also under the title "Stop Congressional Policing of Curricula in Area Studies." Middle East Librarians Association (October 20, 2003), and many listservs, e.g. http://mailbox.gsu.edu/pipermail/tedlog/2003-October/000344.html
Berman, Edward H. The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy. Albany, NY: SUNY Albany Press, 1983.
Blejwas, Stanislaus A. "The Adam Mickiewicz Chair of Polish Culture: Columbia University and the Cold War (1948-1954)." Polish Review 36.3 (1991): 323-337; 36.4 (1991): 435-450. [O]
Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Monroe, ME: Common Courage P, 1995.
Blum, William. Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower . Monroe, ME: Common Courage P, 2000.
Byrnes, Robert F. "Harvard, Columbia, and CIA: My Training in Russian Studies." A History of Russian and East European Studies in the United States: Selected Essays. Lanham, MD: University P of America, 1994. 239-264.
Citizen Soldier. "Year End Report 2003." http://www.citizen-soldier.org
Cohen, Stephen F. Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917. NY: Oxford UP, 1985.
Cole, Juan. "Advisory Board" Threatens US International Studies. H-Mideast-Politics (November 3, 2003).
Coulter, Ann. Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror. NY: Crown Forum, 2003.
Cumings, Bruce. "Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies During and After the Cold War." Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. Ed. Christopher Simpson. NY: New P, 1998. 159-188.
Diamond, Sigmund. Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of Universities With the Intelligence Community, 1945-1955. NY: Oxford U. Press, 1992.
Fish, Stanley. "The War on Higher Education." Chronicle of Higher Education (November 28, 2003): C2-C3.
Fitzsimmons, Emma Graves. "Bill moves forward to monitor studies programs." Daily Texan (University of Texas Austin)(September 26, 2003). http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/477238.html
Goldberg, Michelle. "Osama University?" Salon.com. November 6, 2003
Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano. "Some Comments on Militarism and Miseducation." Workplace 4.2 (February 2002). http://www.louisville.edu/journal/workplace/huet-vaughn.html
Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL) and National Council for Languages (NCL). Letter to the House of Representatives (September 22, 2003). http://www.languagepolicy.org/ciehealetter.html
Merkx, Gilbert W. "Plus Ç
a Change: Challenges to Graduate Education under HEA Title VI."
Millikan, Max F. and Walt W. Rostow. "Notes on Foreign Economic Policy." Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. Ed. Christopher Simpson. NY: New P, 1998. 39-55.
National Council for Languages Report (October 22, 2003). http://www.languagepolicy.org/hea.html
National Humanities Alliance Report (October 22, 2003). https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/NHA-ANNOUNCE/Message/20123.html
Prashad, Vijay. "Confronting the Evangelical Imperialists: Mr. Kurtz: the Horror, the Horror." CounterPunch (November 13, 2003). http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad11132003.html
Scarfo, Richard D. United States Department of Education. "The History of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays." Coalition for International Education (CIE) Conference on Title VI Reauthorization, 1996. http://www.isop.ucla.edu/pacrim/title6/Over2-Scarfo.pdf
Simpson, Christopher. "Universities, Empire, and the Production of Knowledge: An Introduction." Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. Ed. Christopher Simpson. NY: New P, 1998. xi-xxxiv.
Singh, Benita. "New bill threatens intellectual freedom in area studies." Yale Daily News, November 6, 2003. http://www.yaledailynews.com/articlefunctions/Printerfriendly.asp?AID=23954
Trumpbour, John. "Harvard, the Cold War, and the National Security State." How Harvard Rules: Reason in the Service of Empire. Boston: South End P, 1989. 51-128.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. "The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies." The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History. NY: New Press, 1997. 195-231.
Ward, David. President American Council on Education. Letter to House of Representatives, October 21, 2003. https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/NHA-ANNOUNCE/Message/20123.html
Class Struggle 101
by Barbara Ehrenreich
On the evening of August 24, I had dinner with Randy Marcum, who works in the boiler room at Miami University of Ohio. Joining us were about ten other campus workers, plus some of their student supporters. It was a hefty meal--the best the Holiday Inn had to offer--complete with wine and dessert. Which was a good thing, because three weeks later, Marcum was on a hunger strike to dramatize the poverty of Miami University's food service and maintenance workers.
Welcome to higher education, twenty-first-century style, where the most important course offered is not listed in the college catalog. It's called Class Struggle, and it pits the men in suits--administrators and trustees--against the men and women who keep the school running: maintenance workers, groundspeople, clerical and technical workers, housekeepers, food service workers. Yale has gotten all the national attention, with its tumultuous three-week-long strike that just ended in a stunning victory for the university's clerical and maintenance workers. But similar clashes are going on in less illustrious places, like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where housekeepers, who have been trying to win union recognition for years, led a lively rally and teach-in on September 23.
As for Miami University, 460 maintenance workers are now out on strike, as I write at the end of September. Randy has ended his fast in order to build up energy for the picket line. The students have erected a tent city in front of the administration building. And faculty members are planning their own night in the tent city. Union picketers humiliated the university by turning away the union camera crews who had come to televise a Miami RedHawks vs. Cincinnati Bearcats game.
College presidents, deans, provosts, chancellors--along with their deputies, assistants, and other members of the ever-proliferating educational administrative workforce--insist that their labor problems are a sorry distraction from their institutions' noble purpose of enlightening young minds. But administrators like to cloak themselves in the moral authority of Western Civilization, such as it is, which means that labor issues are hardly peripheral to the university's educational mission. On an increasing number of campuses, incoming students are greeted at a formal fall convocation in which the top administrators--suited up in full medieval mortarboard-and-gown attire--deliver platitudinous speeches about Character, Integrity, and Truth. The message is that these weirdly costumed folks are not mere executives of a corporation but the guardians of an ancient and sacred tradition. So when these same dignitaries turn out to be grossly underpaying their employees and harassing the "troublemakers" among them, they do so with the apparent blessing of Aristotle, Plato, and Shakespeare.
If the university has so much to teach about social inequality, why shouldn't the students get credit for learning it? The covert lessons from the administration should be formalized as course offerings. Here's the curriculum.
Elementary Class Structure of the United States: The University as Microcosm. In this four-credit course, we will examine the pay gradient from housekeeper (approximately $19,000/ year) to president (more than $270,000 for Miami University's James C. Garland and about $500,000 for Yale's Richard Levin). In the final exam, students will be asked to discuss the rationale for this pay gap in terms of the payees' contributions to the university, ongoing housing and wardrobe expenses, and intrinsic human worth.
Presidential Architecture: A three-credit seminar course featuring field trips through university-provided presidential dwellings, including "great rooms," wet bars, saunas, guest suites, and exercise rooms, with a side trip, if time permits, to the trailer parks favored by the housekeeping and maintenance staff.
Race, Gender, and Occupational Preference: In this advanced sociology seminar, we will analyze the way campus workers sort themselves into various occupations on the basis of race and gender, and we will explore various theories attempting to explain this phenomenon--for example, the Innate Athleticism theory of why African Americans so often prefer manual labor, and the Nimble Fingers theory of why females can usually be found doing the clerical work.
Topics in University Financing: A four-credit business course tracing the development of the current two-pronged approach to financing institutions of higher learning--tuition increases for the students plus pay decreases for the staff. Alternative approaches to financing, featuring militant campaigns for adequate public funding for higher education, will be thoroughly critiqued.
A cynic might say that the true purpose of college is to teach exactly such lessons. After all, college graduates are a relative elite, comprising only 25 percent of the adult population, and they are expected to fill the kind of administrative and managerial jobs that make it a positive advantage to be able to starve workers, impose layoffs, and bust unions without losing a minute of sleep. Some students catch on with lightning-like speed, such as Yale's precocious Scott Wexler, eighteen, who confided to The New York Times, "I kind of like walking through the picket lines." This young man will make a fine assistant regional manager at Wal-Mart--or possibly a college president.
Fortunately, not all students are buying the administrations' lesson plan. At Harvard in the spring of 2001, students occupied an administration building for twenty-one days to persuade the administration to bargain with campus janitors, many of whom were paid only $6.50 an hour. Last spring, Stanford students went on their own hunger strike in support of campus blue collar workers. And it's not just the super-elite schools that have been generating vigorous student-labor alliances. At mainstream public universities like those of Maryland and Virginia, there are plenty of students who would agree with Miami University's Justin Katko, when he writes that he got involved in the campus workers' struggle because "I could not allow such extreme disparities as are found on college campuses ... to exist without being ashamed of myself for apathy."
It's hard to concentrate in classrooms that were cleaned during the night by people who can barely make rent. You tend to choke on your chicken fingers when the cafeteria is staffed by men and women who have to work a second job in order to feed their own children.
Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America and Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War. This article is reprinted with permission of the author and of The Progressive magazine, which ran it in its November 2003 issue. The Progressive's web site is http://www.progressive.org
Letter to Kansas City Star
by Greg P. Hodes, Ph.D.
When Johnson County residents admire the Gormley sculpture "Still Standing" (Star, 6/20/00), recently acquired for $93,000 by Johnson County Community College for its sculpture garden, I suggest that they reflect on the possibility that the person "standing still" next to them may well be one of live "adjuncts" who teach most of the courses at JCCC at one-third the salary of full time faculty, with no fringe benefits, no job security, and no sculpture garden to call their own. This professional probably has qualifications at least equal to those of tenured full time faculty, wants just as much to practice his profession, and is just as deserving of a decent income.
It is widely but erroneously believed that most adjuncts have other full time jobs and teach on the side "for fun"; in fact, most teach "part-time" at several institutions and rely upon the derisory income thus scraped together for the major part of their living. Nearly all would accept a full time academic position if it were offered to them.
Nation-wide, forty-six percent of all college and community college courses are taught by adjuncts. To understand what has happened, let the reader imagine that she has received a letter from her employer announcing that half the employees of her firm are being dismissed and that she is one of those being terminated. Further suppose that the places of the dismissed full time employees are to be filled by a larger number of "adjunct" employees whose pay will be a small fraction of the full time pay, who will receive no benefits, and who can be dismissed at will without appeal. Finally, let her imagine that she is invited to apply for one of the new "part time" positions.
Of course, the corresponding process has not taken place in our post-secondary institutions over night--it has been progressing at an accelerating rate for the last twenty-five years--but the injustice to the professionals so abused and the damage to our educational institutions are the same.
We are told by administrators, regents, and legislators that our colleges and community colleges can't afford to hire more full time faculty. I wonder if any of any these people suggested to the Oppenheimer-Stine foundation that better uses might be found for their generous donation. Indeed, better uses could be found for the twelve million dollars earmarked for a new student center at JCCC (what was wrong with the old one?) and for other funds lavished on what is not essential to the mission of a community college.
There is an important difference between not being able to afford more full time faculty and not having to afford more full time faculty. Does anyone doubt that if all the adjuncts at JCCC stayed home and were not replaced with other adjuncts, so that either more full time faculty would be hired or half the classes would be cancelled--does any one doubt that the required funds would be produced forthwith? One might try placing a sculpture in each unstaffed classroom, but as marvelous as these creations are, I do not think they will meet the need.
Greg Hodes is a former adjunct instructor at Johnson County Community College. His unpublished letter to the Kansas City Star, written several years ago, is up-to-date in its analysis.
News of the Chapter
The Chapter had its first meeting of the 2003-04 academic year on September 19th. Discussion ranged from the viability studies to the chancellor's raise, the faculty workload policy, and plans for the AAUP/MPA conference coming up in February. At the meeting Fred Lee, Economics, was appointed to serve out Bibi Chronwall's term as At-large Representative.
Chapter president Stuart McAninch attended the yearly meeting of the state executive committee of the Missouri Conference of the AAUP.
Chapter members continued to perform outstandingly in their fields. In April Simon Friedman, Pharmacy, received a $1 million grant from NIH for research on innovative cancer therapies. In WS 2003 Charles Wurrey, Chemistry, received the President's Award for outstanding Teaching. John Laity and George Thomas, both of SBS, received research grants from the KU Medical Center and the NIH, respectively. In 2002 Cathy Burnett, Sociology, published a book entitled Justice Denied: Clemency Appeals in Death Penalty Cases (Northeastern University Press). Doug Cowan, Sociology/Religious Studies, published two books in 2003: Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult, and The Remnant Spirit. Conservative Reform in Mainline Protestantism , both with Praeger. Drew Bergerson, History, has had his book, Ordinary Germans in Extraordinary Times: the Nazi Revolution in Hildesheim , accepted for publication by Indiana University Press. Projected publication date is 2004.
In October David Brodsky presented the keynote address, "The Broad Perspective of Academic Freedom," at the annual meeting of the Kansas State Conference of the AAUP, held at KU in Lawrence. An expanded version of his talk can be found on the UMKC AAUP website at http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/perspective .
We have lost some members recently as well. In addition to those who took early retirement under VERIP, Glenn Penny, History, took a position at the University of Iowa, while Gerry Carlson, Marina Jeyasingham, and Owen Nadeau, all of SBS, moved across town to KU Medical Center, and Lindsey Hutt-Fletcher, SBS, took a position in Texas. We will miss their energy and good ideas, and wish them well in their new positions.
As always we ask that members let us know about their achievements and activities, so we can spread the word. And please don't forget that a personal conversation with a colleague is the best way to recruit members for the AAUP. Every new member strengthens your faculty voice on campus.
MPA/AAUP-Sponsored Conference on Academic Labor Nears
Plans are well underway for the 29th annual conference of the Missouri Philological Association, jointly sponsored by the UMKC AAUP chapter. It will take place February 26-28, 2004 at the Sheraton Four Points Barcelo Hotel, One East 45th Street, north of the Plaza. Conference support has come from from the Departments of Foreign Languages and Literatures and English, the Missouri State AAUP Conference, and the AAUP Assembly of State Conferences.
The conference theme, Issues in Academic Labor, should appeal to a far broader audience than just those in the language and literature fields. February 26 events will focus on GTA and contingent faculty organizing. February 27 will include traditional MPA sessions as well as others with a labor focus, including a New Letters reading of labor poetry and a panel on labor culture. Saturday, February 28, will focus on labor issues, including labor in the curriculum, academic freedom, threats to faculty governance, and a plenary meeting on the local, state and national crisis in education. Colleagues from other area colleges and universities, public school teachers, and members of the labor community will be among the participants.
Except for the GTA organizing sessions, all panels, meals and the two keynote addresses will be held at the Sheraton Four Points Barcelo. Members are urged to attend and invited to submit papers.
For registration forms contact Pat Brodsky, Ph: 816-235-2826, e-mail: email@example.com . The call for papers and panels can be found below.
We need people to
help with local arrangements, and to work on getting out the word about
the conference. Please contact Pat Brodsky to volunteer.
CALL FOR PAPERS OR PANELS
· any area of language, literature, original poetry, fiction, creative non-fiction
· any area of (particularly academic) labor, including: current issues, political, cultural, or historical aspects, or approaches to organizing and activism
· If you are proposing a complete or partial panel, please indicate the names of those who have already committed. All members of a panel should submit a form.
· Information needed: name(s); institution(s); title of paper and/or panel; email address(es); telephone(s); biographical info for use by panel chair in introduction; time needed for presentation of original poetry/prose; and any special equipment needs.
· In addition, chairs are always needed for panels. Please indicate if you would be able to chair sessions on Friday AM, Friday afternoon, Saturday AM.
· Send 100-word abstracts for papers to: William Vaughn at firstname.lastname@example.org OR to William Vaughn, Central Missouri State University, Dept. of English and Philosophy, Warrensburg, MO 64093. Proposals may also be faxed to William at 660-543-8544.
Deadline for abstracts: February 2, 2004.
AAUP Chapter Dues, Survey of Critical Issues
by Ed Gogol
As Treasurer of our local chapter, I'm a bit overdue in sending out this notice to request your chapter dues ($10) for the 2003-4 academic year. Last year the Executive Committee decided that the Treasurer would ask for dues just once a year, regardless of your membership anniversary date, at the beginning of Fall semester. Some of you receiving this message have already sent in your dues, and I thank you for your conscientiousness. For the rest of you, please be reminded to send your local dues (made out to AAUP of UMKC, sent to Ed Gogol at SBS, UMKC) to help support our activities this year. Your dues support chapter activities, including publication of the Faculty Advocate, co-sponsorship of the Missouri Philological Association meeting next semester, and minor chapter expenses associated with our general and social chapter meetings. We hope you will attend some of the meetings to express your views and meet and inform your colleagues across campus. It's only through local activity that you can put the principles of the organization into practice.
On behalf of the Executive Committee, I also ask you to advise us of the topics that you would like the chapter to focus on most strongly. A brief summary of some the issues confronting the UMKC faculty are listed below. We'd appreciate your input, both in terms of rating the relative importance of these issues to you (on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being unimportant and 5 critical), and in identifying other faculty issues that you feel the UMKC AAUP should address. Please e-mail me (gogole @umkc.edu ) your ratings and comments, which will be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting.
Rating the issues
_____Growing gap in salary between faculty and administration
_____Changes to academic units (e.g., School of Education), with little or no faculty input
_____University budget issues: decisions on expenditures and directions, clarity of information
_____Establishing independent institutes on campus outside the norms of academic governance
_____Reliance on consultants (Starr, Horton, others) to provide university leadership
_____Effectiveness of faculty in their role in university governance
_____Treatment of contingent faculty - specific issue:
_____Treatment of graduate teaching assistants - specific issue:
_____Any grievance issues? Please identify:
_____Any academic freedom issues? Please identify:
Other issues of importance to you:
What should the UMKC AAUP chapter do to support faculty on these matters?
The correct publication date of David Ormerod's article in The Faculty Advocate about his case against MU is February 2002 (not 2001). The Editor regrets the error.
The entire contents of each issue of The Faculty Advocate (except for public domain material) is copyrighted. The Faculty Advocate, December 2003, Copyright 2003 by the UMKC Chapter of the American Association of University Professors. All rights returned to authors upon publication. AAUP chapters, state conferences, and the national organization have permission to reproduce and distribute. Permission for other non-profit publishers is a formality, but UMKC AAUP asks them for the courtesy of requesting it. Contact the Editor, Patricia Brodsky: 816-235-2826, e-mail: email@example.com
AAUP Dues Information
Membership requires payment of both local and national dues
Local UMKC chapter dues
$10 per academic year.
Send payment to Treasurer, Ed Gogol, BSB 415, 816-235-2584, or GogolE@umkc.edu.
Please make checks payable to "UMKC-AAUP Chapter."
Also please send Ed your preferred mailing address(es), phone(s), and e-mail address(es).
(varies by job classification and state)
New members who sign up for automatic bank debit of their
national dues receive a special discount:
half-price for first-year membership.
Go to the AAUP chapter home page-- http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/ and click on the direct link to the national dues web page; or go to the national dues page-- http://www.aaup.org/membership/03dues.htm .
Please note that National dues also cover Missouri State Conference dues (but not local UMKC dues)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2000)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 2000)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 3 (February 2001)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 2001)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 1 (October 2001)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2001)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 3 (February 2002)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 4 (April 2002)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 5 (June 2002)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 1 (September 2002)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2002)
The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4 (April 2003)
AAUP chapter home page