हमला जारी है ,महंगाई भारी है
बेरोजगारी छारी है,फांसी आरी है
मेरा देश महान है
बेरोजगारी छारी है,फांसी आरी है
मेरा देश महान है
शुक्रवार, 13 मई 2016
NEOLIBERAL EDUCATION CRISIS
The Crisis Of The Neoliberal Model Of Higher Education
By Jon Kofas
13 May, 2016
Countercurrents.org
Introduction
Countercurrents.org
Introduction
A nation’s higher education system reflects the ideological and political institutional mainstream as a whole. This has been the case since the founding of universities in the late Middle Ages (University of Bologna, 1088; University of Paris, c.1150; University of Oxford (1167); even earlier for Arab universities (University of al-Qarawiyyin, 859; Al-Azhar University, 970). To this day, universities reflect society’s value capitalist system, prevalent ideological and political trends rooted in neoliberal thinking that dominates the political economy. The question is whether the neo-liberal model of higher education best serves individual students and society collectively or merely large businesses.
Based on the cosmopolitan ideals of the Age of Reason, the Humboldtian Model of Higher Education - named after Prussian philosopher and diplomat Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1767-1835 - endeavored to forge teaching and research in the arts, sciences and humanities for the broader purpose of general knowledge both theoretical and applied. The Industrial Revolution necessitated education at all levels including university level in order to expand. Therefore, the modern university became a necessary instrument to serve industrial capitalism’s needs (drivers of innovation where basic research and development took place).
It stands to reason that the most thriving capitalist country, the United States with the world’s largest economy in nominal value at least, would have the best universities both private and public, especially land-grant colleges that started in 1862 under the Morrill Act. Although such schools started with the purpose of indeed buttressing the economy by creating an educated work force, they reflected an apartheid society considering that it was not until the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Education Amendment of 1972 that minorities, women and lower income whites had access to these institutions that were mostly for white middle class males.
In the early 21st century the problem is not one of access based on race and gender but rather class because of the commoditization of higher education model prevalent in the US and exported worldwide. Considering the number of US-affiliated colleges and university extensions overseas, but the degree to which non-US universities try to emulate the commoditized model, many around the world accept the commoditized neoliberal model of American higher education as the very best possible.
It is indeed true that the US has some of the world’s best universities, especially graduate schools if not so as much at the undergraduate level. It is just as true that since the end of the Vietnam War American higher education has become increasingly unaffordable and divided into the top tier schools with many at the bottom providing low-quality in-class or online education at a very high cost. This too is a reflection of broader societal trends such as downward socioeconomic mobility and good education as a commodity reserved for wealthy families.
Excluding loans, the federal government provides a mere 2% of the budget for higher education, despite a sharp decrease in spending by states since 2008. If we consider the federal student loan program estimated at $170 billion in the next ten years, the cost is still negligible given that the US has proposed foreign military aid of $40 billion to Israel for that same ten-year period; money devoted to continue the repression against the Palestinian people. Two-thirds of American college students graduate with college debt that currently stands at$1.3 trillion. In an economy of $17.5 trillion GDP, this is an enormous burden that has been rising commensurately with the average household debt over the last three decades. Approximately 43% the student debt is not paid in regular payments and it is estimated that because of the absence of jobs about 20% will probably never be repay the loans. This would then leave the federal government with the burden of the guaranteed bank loans. Because the US economy has been experiencing downward socioeconomic mobilization concurrently with the massive rise in student debt and household debt in the last ten years, the problem was inevitable.
The position of the majority of the politicians is to do nothing, other than have universities raise endowments for scholarship money and force universities to depend even more on tuition and the private sector. However, as Warren Buffett recently noted, the university where he serves as a board member raised its endowment from $8 million to $1 billion but kept tuition at high levels instead of lowering it and it did nothing about improving. As we will see below, doing nothing about the current neoliberal model has many negative consequences for society both domestically and globally.
Another option to fix a broken system is to cut the multi-million dollar costs of the top-heavy administration in universities where presidents, vice presidents, chancellors, vice chancellors, and deans have compensation packages as though they are executives in the private sector. The salary gap between a university president and an adjunct English professor is almost as wide as a worker and a corporate CEO. Clearly, the overhead costs of the bureaucratized universities entails that student tuition is unaffordable for the working class and the weakened middle class. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/income-inequality-in-higher-education-the-college-president-to-adjunct-pay-ratio/407029/
Another option to fix the costs in higher education is to go tuition free. This is a proposal that Senator Bernie Sanders floated as part of his neo-Keynesian presidential platform that includes free health care for all Americans. This of course means putting an end to the neoliberal model. His reasoning is that students are punished for going to college. They come out with massive debt to start their lives in a job market that is hardly favorable to the majority of them. Considering that a college degree is roughly equivalent today to a High School degree in the 1950s-1960s when the US economy was growing and there was upward socioeconomic mobility, what purpose does the unaffordable tuition serve other than to keep college the domain of the wealthy or those willing to go deep into debt?
This is a question not just about economics and raising taxes of the rich to pay tuition of the poor. The fact is that the system already favors the wealthy and it is stacked against the lower class. This is an issue of social justice considering that the federal government and states have no problem providing billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the richest Americans and setting aside a massive budget for defense, intelligence and homeland security and very little for human welfare. This is an issue of values, just like the blatantly racist criminal justice system that punishes the petty thief or small time drug dealer in the inner city, but rewards the bank executive whose bank had been laundering drug money, fixing rates, engaged in inside trading, etc.
The Rising Cost of Higher Education
From 1978 until 2012 the increase in tuition and fee was 1,120%. An increase far above the level of inflation that generally ranges in the single digits represents a crisis in the cost structure of colleges and universities. Assuming a rise of just 7% between 2016 and 2030, the average annual cost for a public university will be $58,000, or $232,000 for a four-year degree. For a family with two children, this means the cost will be around the half-a-million dollar mark, and the difference between owning a home or sending the children to college and sinking them into debt when they graduate.
Since the Great Recession of 2008 states have slashed spending on higher education to raise corporate subsidies and provide more tax breaks for upper income groups. The result has been college affordability in 45 out of the 50 states has decreased for the average household which has seen a drop in its income during the same period. This means that households under $30,000 must devote 60% of their income to educate a college age teenager at a two-year college, while those between $40,000 and $100,000 (middle class) need 76% for a four-year college. In short, a very difficult choice for the average American family that must ask whether an undergraduate degree really means much in the workforce of today. http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/04/29/when-it-comes-college-costs-middle-class-kids-are-still-screwed
One could argue that a college education is well worth investment not only in terms of securing higher paying jobs in the future but because the quest for knowledge about the world and self discovery are very basic to human nature and society. Moreover, education goes to the core of a society’s claim to maintaining a merit-based system by developing the most creative minds that benefit the totality through the individual. If higher education is a mirror of society as well as the source for progress, is it time to consider new models other than the existing corporate one that will best serve society and not just a very narrow segment linked to the corporate structure? A few voices including that of Bernie Sanders and his supporters agree the time has come for a new model of higher education. However, the entrenched business, political and media elites are adamantly against change. Interestingly enough, they allies among highly paid administrators who have a vested interest in maintaining the existing system.
Political Resistance to Changing the Neoliberal Model of Higher Education
The neoliberal ideology that took hold during the Reagan administration in society impacted higher education because government at all levels adopted a policy of transferring income from social programs, mental hospitals and education to corporate welfare through various subsidies and tax reductions. At the state level, governors and legislatures began seeking ways to reduce their allocations to public colleges and universities, forcing them to seek funds from the private sector. This entailed that they would have to emulate the private sector in everything from ideology to structure and at the same serve its needs rather than carry out work independently.
Not just the governance structure of higher education, but endowed chairs and entire departments or even colleges would be created to reflect the millionaire or billionaire donors’ wishes. Everything from hiring faculty to reflect the neoliberal ideological orientation to setting priorities that link the institution to local and national businesses changed because of the inexorable relationship between university and the donors. Most college presidents and university top administrators serve on boards of local and national businesses, and they are as themselves business people and politicians rather than academics. In some cases, top administrators are as alien to academia as the local bank executive hobnobbing with the mayor, governor and congressmen.
Higher education has been reduced to a business and the administration views itself as such and students as customers as thought they are shopping for a new cell phone. No candidate of either party has dared to go along with Sanders’ proposal, although there is no shortage of those on the Democrat side promising “something must be done” but within the neoliberal corporate model that exists today. Politicians who raise money from wealthy donors for election and reelection are not interested in facing their benefactors to explain higher taxes to fund higher education. Higher education is a political issue in so far as politicians decide where it fits in as far as a national priority. It is hardly a secret that both political parties have national defense/terrorism/homeland security as a top priority followed by retaining the corporate welfare system.
Between 9/11 and the end of 2015 the US had spent $4.4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, various interventions in Libya and Syria, the war on terror and homeland security. During that same decade-and-a-half, the corporate tax subsidies from state and local governments cost $80 billion annually, while Export-Import subsidies cost an additional $112 billion. The combined corporate welfare program costs $1.5 trillion annually, but both political parties are committed to it as a national priority whereas higher education is a low priority. Just as the state government in Michigan had as a priority providing a tax break of $1 billion to the richest residents even if that meant cutting costs in the Flint water supply, similarly state and federal government have corporate welfare as a priority over higher education. http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/
The Media and the Corporate Model of Higher Education
All of the mainstream media came out against the Sanders proposals of reexamining the neoliberal model of higher education, including the Washington Post and the New York Times promoting themselves as “liberal”. Every day their pages are promoting neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign and defense policies, but they continue to project the fake image of a liberal media. No matter where one looks in the mainstream media, there is no support for making higher education a national priority, and certainly not at the expense of cutting defense and the generous corporate welfare programs that benefit the richest Americans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/college-doesnt-need-to-be-free/2015/05/21/4453fc94-ff0f-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html; https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/11/can-america-afford-sanders-big-plans/MtEoDAEbF9EhtGeCkW8QvK/story.html
Although the Sanders plan would cover about 70% of college students, and it would cost an estimated $75 billion annually split between the federal government and the States, Republicans and most Democrats find this plan reprehensible because it calls for a new tax on Wall Street speculation. It must be stressed that the Federal government makes an estimated $11 billion profit annually from student loans. In short, the media has no problem with Wall Street speculation, higher defense costs and higher corporate welfare costs, but it decries free tuition for public colleges and universities. A number of prominent university professors on the payroll of corporations including media companies have come out in opposition to ending the neoliberal model arguing that free tuition would: a. stifle innovation and creativity; b. undermine private colleges and universities; c. too much government involvement in higher education would impede entrepreneurship in higher education; d. deprive people of “freedom of choice; and e. free tuition will necessarily mean that quality suffers. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/05/27/why-bernie-sanders-free-public-college-plan-is-a-bad-idea ;
Presenting itself as America’s premier newspaper and supposedly liberal, the New York Times came out against free tuition because: “free tuition means fewer resources to teach students. Unintended consequences could include reductions in need-based financial aid, which would harm the low- and middle-income students free tuition is meant to help.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/free-tuition-is-not-the-answer.html?_r=0 Oblivious to the current $1.3 trillion in student debt expected to rise sharply by 2030, the media insists that higher education must not become a national priority. After all, the majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree with Wall Street that the economy cannot afford free tuition when it has already set its priorities in the domain of defense and corporate welfare. Along with politicians, the media is silent when it comes to the for-profit online unaccredited colleges and universities that government subsidizes by providing subsidies for low-quality to dubious educational experience for students.
It makes sense that corporate and business opposition in general would be forthcoming on this issue for a number of reasons. First, the businesses would lose the influence they currently enjoy over universities in every matter from curriculum to faculty and top administrators running the university on the existing commoditized model. When the most important function of its administration is to raise money rather than deliver a good education the question arises about the hold that the wealthy donors have on the university either by request or because the university is obligated to cater to the corporate ideological framework.
Based on the cosmopolitan ideals of the Age of Reason, the Humboldtian Model of Higher Education - named after Prussian philosopher and diplomat Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1767-1835 - endeavored to forge teaching and research in the arts, sciences and humanities for the broader purpose of general knowledge both theoretical and applied. The Industrial Revolution necessitated education at all levels including university level in order to expand. Therefore, the modern university became a necessary instrument to serve industrial capitalism’s needs (drivers of innovation where basic research and development took place).
It stands to reason that the most thriving capitalist country, the United States with the world’s largest economy in nominal value at least, would have the best universities both private and public, especially land-grant colleges that started in 1862 under the Morrill Act. Although such schools started with the purpose of indeed buttressing the economy by creating an educated work force, they reflected an apartheid society considering that it was not until the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Education Amendment of 1972 that minorities, women and lower income whites had access to these institutions that were mostly for white middle class males.
In the early 21st century the problem is not one of access based on race and gender but rather class because of the commoditization of higher education model prevalent in the US and exported worldwide. Considering the number of US-affiliated colleges and university extensions overseas, but the degree to which non-US universities try to emulate the commoditized model, many around the world accept the commoditized neoliberal model of American higher education as the very best possible.
It is indeed true that the US has some of the world’s best universities, especially graduate schools if not so as much at the undergraduate level. It is just as true that since the end of the Vietnam War American higher education has become increasingly unaffordable and divided into the top tier schools with many at the bottom providing low-quality in-class or online education at a very high cost. This too is a reflection of broader societal trends such as downward socioeconomic mobility and good education as a commodity reserved for wealthy families.
Excluding loans, the federal government provides a mere 2% of the budget for higher education, despite a sharp decrease in spending by states since 2008. If we consider the federal student loan program estimated at $170 billion in the next ten years, the cost is still negligible given that the US has proposed foreign military aid of $40 billion to Israel for that same ten-year period; money devoted to continue the repression against the Palestinian people. Two-thirds of American college students graduate with college debt that currently stands at$1.3 trillion. In an economy of $17.5 trillion GDP, this is an enormous burden that has been rising commensurately with the average household debt over the last three decades. Approximately 43% the student debt is not paid in regular payments and it is estimated that because of the absence of jobs about 20% will probably never be repay the loans. This would then leave the federal government with the burden of the guaranteed bank loans. Because the US economy has been experiencing downward socioeconomic mobilization concurrently with the massive rise in student debt and household debt in the last ten years, the problem was inevitable.
The position of the majority of the politicians is to do nothing, other than have universities raise endowments for scholarship money and force universities to depend even more on tuition and the private sector. However, as Warren Buffett recently noted, the university where he serves as a board member raised its endowment from $8 million to $1 billion but kept tuition at high levels instead of lowering it and it did nothing about improving. As we will see below, doing nothing about the current neoliberal model has many negative consequences for society both domestically and globally.
Another option to fix a broken system is to cut the multi-million dollar costs of the top-heavy administration in universities where presidents, vice presidents, chancellors, vice chancellors, and deans have compensation packages as though they are executives in the private sector. The salary gap between a university president and an adjunct English professor is almost as wide as a worker and a corporate CEO. Clearly, the overhead costs of the bureaucratized universities entails that student tuition is unaffordable for the working class and the weakened middle class. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/income-inequality-in-higher-education-the-college-president-to-adjunct-pay-ratio/407029/
Another option to fix the costs in higher education is to go tuition free. This is a proposal that Senator Bernie Sanders floated as part of his neo-Keynesian presidential platform that includes free health care for all Americans. This of course means putting an end to the neoliberal model. His reasoning is that students are punished for going to college. They come out with massive debt to start their lives in a job market that is hardly favorable to the majority of them. Considering that a college degree is roughly equivalent today to a High School degree in the 1950s-1960s when the US economy was growing and there was upward socioeconomic mobility, what purpose does the unaffordable tuition serve other than to keep college the domain of the wealthy or those willing to go deep into debt?
This is a question not just about economics and raising taxes of the rich to pay tuition of the poor. The fact is that the system already favors the wealthy and it is stacked against the lower class. This is an issue of social justice considering that the federal government and states have no problem providing billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the richest Americans and setting aside a massive budget for defense, intelligence and homeland security and very little for human welfare. This is an issue of values, just like the blatantly racist criminal justice system that punishes the petty thief or small time drug dealer in the inner city, but rewards the bank executive whose bank had been laundering drug money, fixing rates, engaged in inside trading, etc.
The Rising Cost of Higher Education
From 1978 until 2012 the increase in tuition and fee was 1,120%. An increase far above the level of inflation that generally ranges in the single digits represents a crisis in the cost structure of colleges and universities. Assuming a rise of just 7% between 2016 and 2030, the average annual cost for a public university will be $58,000, or $232,000 for a four-year degree. For a family with two children, this means the cost will be around the half-a-million dollar mark, and the difference between owning a home or sending the children to college and sinking them into debt when they graduate.
Since the Great Recession of 2008 states have slashed spending on higher education to raise corporate subsidies and provide more tax breaks for upper income groups. The result has been college affordability in 45 out of the 50 states has decreased for the average household which has seen a drop in its income during the same period. This means that households under $30,000 must devote 60% of their income to educate a college age teenager at a two-year college, while those between $40,000 and $100,000 (middle class) need 76% for a four-year college. In short, a very difficult choice for the average American family that must ask whether an undergraduate degree really means much in the workforce of today. http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/04/29/when-it-comes-college-costs-middle-class-kids-are-still-screwed
One could argue that a college education is well worth investment not only in terms of securing higher paying jobs in the future but because the quest for knowledge about the world and self discovery are very basic to human nature and society. Moreover, education goes to the core of a society’s claim to maintaining a merit-based system by developing the most creative minds that benefit the totality through the individual. If higher education is a mirror of society as well as the source for progress, is it time to consider new models other than the existing corporate one that will best serve society and not just a very narrow segment linked to the corporate structure? A few voices including that of Bernie Sanders and his supporters agree the time has come for a new model of higher education. However, the entrenched business, political and media elites are adamantly against change. Interestingly enough, they allies among highly paid administrators who have a vested interest in maintaining the existing system.
Political Resistance to Changing the Neoliberal Model of Higher Education
The neoliberal ideology that took hold during the Reagan administration in society impacted higher education because government at all levels adopted a policy of transferring income from social programs, mental hospitals and education to corporate welfare through various subsidies and tax reductions. At the state level, governors and legislatures began seeking ways to reduce their allocations to public colleges and universities, forcing them to seek funds from the private sector. This entailed that they would have to emulate the private sector in everything from ideology to structure and at the same serve its needs rather than carry out work independently.
Not just the governance structure of higher education, but endowed chairs and entire departments or even colleges would be created to reflect the millionaire or billionaire donors’ wishes. Everything from hiring faculty to reflect the neoliberal ideological orientation to setting priorities that link the institution to local and national businesses changed because of the inexorable relationship between university and the donors. Most college presidents and university top administrators serve on boards of local and national businesses, and they are as themselves business people and politicians rather than academics. In some cases, top administrators are as alien to academia as the local bank executive hobnobbing with the mayor, governor and congressmen.
Higher education has been reduced to a business and the administration views itself as such and students as customers as thought they are shopping for a new cell phone. No candidate of either party has dared to go along with Sanders’ proposal, although there is no shortage of those on the Democrat side promising “something must be done” but within the neoliberal corporate model that exists today. Politicians who raise money from wealthy donors for election and reelection are not interested in facing their benefactors to explain higher taxes to fund higher education. Higher education is a political issue in so far as politicians decide where it fits in as far as a national priority. It is hardly a secret that both political parties have national defense/terrorism/homeland security as a top priority followed by retaining the corporate welfare system.
Between 9/11 and the end of 2015 the US had spent $4.4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, various interventions in Libya and Syria, the war on terror and homeland security. During that same decade-and-a-half, the corporate tax subsidies from state and local governments cost $80 billion annually, while Export-Import subsidies cost an additional $112 billion. The combined corporate welfare program costs $1.5 trillion annually, but both political parties are committed to it as a national priority whereas higher education is a low priority. Just as the state government in Michigan had as a priority providing a tax break of $1 billion to the richest residents even if that meant cutting costs in the Flint water supply, similarly state and federal government have corporate welfare as a priority over higher education. http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/
The Media and the Corporate Model of Higher Education
All of the mainstream media came out against the Sanders proposals of reexamining the neoliberal model of higher education, including the Washington Post and the New York Times promoting themselves as “liberal”. Every day their pages are promoting neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign and defense policies, but they continue to project the fake image of a liberal media. No matter where one looks in the mainstream media, there is no support for making higher education a national priority, and certainly not at the expense of cutting defense and the generous corporate welfare programs that benefit the richest Americans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/college-doesnt-need-to-be-free/2015/05/21/4453fc94-ff0f-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html; https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/11/can-america-afford-sanders-big-plans/MtEoDAEbF9EhtGeCkW8QvK/story.html
Although the Sanders plan would cover about 70% of college students, and it would cost an estimated $75 billion annually split between the federal government and the States, Republicans and most Democrats find this plan reprehensible because it calls for a new tax on Wall Street speculation. It must be stressed that the Federal government makes an estimated $11 billion profit annually from student loans. In short, the media has no problem with Wall Street speculation, higher defense costs and higher corporate welfare costs, but it decries free tuition for public colleges and universities. A number of prominent university professors on the payroll of corporations including media companies have come out in opposition to ending the neoliberal model arguing that free tuition would: a. stifle innovation and creativity; b. undermine private colleges and universities; c. too much government involvement in higher education would impede entrepreneurship in higher education; d. deprive people of “freedom of choice; and e. free tuition will necessarily mean that quality suffers. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/05/27/why-bernie-sanders-free-public-college-plan-is-a-bad-idea ;
Presenting itself as America’s premier newspaper and supposedly liberal, the New York Times came out against free tuition because: “free tuition means fewer resources to teach students. Unintended consequences could include reductions in need-based financial aid, which would harm the low- and middle-income students free tuition is meant to help.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/free-tuition-is-not-the-answer.html?_r=0 Oblivious to the current $1.3 trillion in student debt expected to rise sharply by 2030, the media insists that higher education must not become a national priority. After all, the majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree with Wall Street that the economy cannot afford free tuition when it has already set its priorities in the domain of defense and corporate welfare. Along with politicians, the media is silent when it comes to the for-profit online unaccredited colleges and universities that government subsidizes by providing subsidies for low-quality to dubious educational experience for students.
It makes sense that corporate and business opposition in general would be forthcoming on this issue for a number of reasons. First, the businesses would lose the influence they currently enjoy over universities in every matter from curriculum to faculty and top administrators running the university on the existing commoditized model. When the most important function of its administration is to raise money rather than deliver a good education the question arises about the hold that the wealthy donors have on the university either by request or because the university is obligated to cater to the corporate ideological framework.
Just as millionaires and billionaires have a hold on the political arena because they finance campaigns and control the media that provides coverage to politicians, similarly hundreds of millions have been flowing into universities from Koch brothers and other billionaires and millionaires wishing to influence what is otherwise academic freedom.
Most of the donations to universities go to the already wealthy private institutions, but almost always with conditions that determine everything from curriculum to hiring and program development. “In Kentucky, Papa John’s pizza founder John Schnatter teamed up with the Koch Brothers Foundation to fund business school programmes at the University of Louisville and at the University of Kentucky. Both donations came with the caveat that the donors can stop funding if they do not feel that their mission – the teaching of free market economics and business practices – is being carried out to their satisfaction. To some, such stipulations imply that students will be taught by professors sympathetic to the political and economic views of the donors.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/phil-knight-nike-stanford-universities-billionaire-donate-a6894716.html
In the past forty years, the faculty-to-student ratio has remained about the same, although the corporate model has meant relying increasingly on part time faculty. This reflects the corporate model of relying of low-paying part time employees and avoiding the costs of fulltime people. During the same forty-year period of a rise in part-time faculty, there has been an astronomical rise in the administrative bureaucracy that deals with the university as a business and injects a corporate ideology into an otherwise non-profit institution of higher learning. The least educated and most opportunistic elements invariably wind up in administration positions that pay much higher than any faculty position. Administrators identity and self-interest is not with the students but with the business community and they in turn project that value system into the university. (Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and why it Matters. 2011);http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/noam_chomsky_corporate_business_models_are_hurting_american_universities_partner/
Corporatization of the University and College Administration
It makes sense that private colleges would object to ending the neoliberal model and supporting Sanders because they would have to reduce tuition and costs. Of course, the wealthy that would rarely consider a public school in the first place will continue to attend private colleges. Moreover, the free tuition of public schools would permit the private schools to promise they are the elite. Representing 1000 private universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) opposes Sanders’ proposal despite its acknowledgement that costs are very high.
“But one of the things we very firmly believe is that as it has been for the last 50 years or so, that federal aid money must follow the student, and stay with the student.” In other words, do what you will with public schools, as long as federal and state funds also flow into private schools based on student choice. “There is no trend we can discern yet that suggests schools are going to start cutting back on the amounts of money that they need for the expanding services they offer. There may be a decrease in growth if tuition increases, but nobody is decreasing tuition, nobody is decreasing the number of services offered, and therefore schools are continually getting more expensive.” http://dailyfreepress.com/2015/09/11/private-college-presidents-hesitant-on-sanders-education-stance/
In every state where there is a major corporation its influence is heavily felt very clearly on the state institutions. Whether it is Eli Lilly in Indiana or 3-M in Minnesota, the influence of the long arm of the corporate world in ubiquitous in universities that fight amongst themselves to secure corporate funding no matter the cost to academic freedom. Not just humanities and social sciences faculty, but those in the “hard sciences” are constantly fighting to secure grants for their research and as government slashed National Science Foundation money (16% cut proposed for 2016), faculty look to corporations. Scientists depend on the agrichemicals, pharmaceutical and biotech industry for research funding, so they structure their research around what the corporation expects. http://www.livingbetter.org/livingbetter/articles/corporate.html;http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/house-spending-panel-does-its-best-hide-large-cut-nsf-social-and-geosciences-research
In his article entitled “Higher Education or Education for Hire? Corporatization and the Threat to Democratic Thinking”, Joel Wetheimer writes: “The effects of corporatization on the integrity of university research – especially in the sciences – has been well-documented elsewhere. Readers of Academic Matters are likely familiar with the many cases of scientific compromise resulting from private commercial sponsorship of research by pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. Indeed, faculty throughout North America are already deluged with requests or demands to produce research that is “patentable” or “commercially viable.”http://www.academicmatters.ca/2010/04/higher-education-or-education-for-hire-corporatization-and-the-threat-to-democratic-thinking/
A land grant school, the University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana campus is one of many public institutions heavily indebted to the private sector. Upon accepting massive grants from agrichemical companies such as Monsanto, the university caters to the wishes of the donors to hire faculty in the field of expertise the company dictates, namely in genetically modified seeds and agrichemicals that would have a direct impact on its multinational business. In other words, this is just another very cheap way of outsourcing research and development. On the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with this, expect that this is a public tax-supported institution whose work is geared to serve the corporation. In short, the general taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing corporations.
As Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch put it: “Sound agricultural policy requires impartial and unbiased scientific inquiry, but like nearly every aspect of our modern food system, land-grant school funding has been overrun by narrow private interests….Private-sector funding not only corrupts the public research mission of land-grant universities, but also distorts the science that is supposed to help farmers improve their practices and livelihoods,” said Hauter. “Industry-funded academic research routinely produces favorable results for industry sponsors. And since policymakers and regulators frequently cite these university studies to back up their decision-making, industry-funded academic research increasingly influences the rules that govern their business operations.” http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/public-research-private-gain-corporate-influence-over-university-agricultural-research
The highly paid university administrators urge faculty to forge closer ties with the corporate world. They bring with them a corporate value system and worldview intended to make the university an institution that models itself after the corporate world. These leaders of the universities are among the most adamant opponents of doing away with the neoliberal model. Catharine Bond Hill, Vassar College president, a Clinton backer argued that Sanders is wrong to propose free tuition for public colleges. There is a vast administrative bureaucracy handling everything from loans to scholarships with layers of vice chancellors and vice presidents in the larger universities. One concern that college administrator have if the Sanders proposal goes through is the inevitable cuts in the administrative bureaucracy that will not be needed to deal with student loans, scholarships, and fundraising for student aid. From 1985 to 2005, the number of administrators rose by 85% and their attendant staff by 240%.http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf. People assume that tuition goes for the direct educational experience of the student. “This is no longer the case. Instead, a large chunk of a check made out for tens of thousands of dollars is feeding the burgeoning administrative staff on college campuses. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/04/mink-the-misguided-bureaucratization-of-higher-education)
The cozy relationship between the corporate world and college administrators illustrates that the neoliberal model is not a theoretical construct but a sinister reality. To university administrators and board of trustees invariably serve on the boards of businesses large and small. It may surprise the reader to discover that 42% of the Board trustees at public universities come from large corporations and they make the decisions about university governance and direction.
http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf; http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf
One reason Sanders has captured the vast majority support of voters under 30 years of age, especially college students is because they agree with him on free college tuition, among other issues such as addressing Wall Street control of politicians. Having lost confidence in the neoliberal model of the university system, the majority of people under 30 have lost confidence in the neoliberal political economy. A Harvard University study recently shows that 51% of people between 18 and 29 oppose capitalism and 33% stated they support socialism. https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2275; http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/23078-harvard-survey-shows-millennials-oppose-capitalism-but-do-they-really; The youth in America is moving farther to left of its neoliberal political, business and academic establishment, showing the entire societal structure of which higher education is an integral part is not working for the benefit of most citizens. Despite this reality, the neoliberal establishment has deep institutional roots. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31994-who-s-against-college-for-all
Conclusions
It is indeed amazing that the US model of higher education with all of its problems is actually one that other countries are trying to emulate. Although it has been cultural diffusion, especially the contributions of a global academic talent that has made American Higher Education as productive as it has since the end of WWII, many around the world and here in the US confuse this catalyst to success with the neoliberal governance and operational structure. The fact that high school students in Japan and many European countries actually score at par with US college graduates is indicative that the high cost of US colleges does not translate to better education. Graduation rates across the board are in the mid-50s, and for the lower tiered schools in the low 20s and high teens. Why is it that graduation rates are so low across the board, although tuition and fees keep going higher and grade inflation is a reality driven mostly by an administration that views students as paying customers? If the neoliberal model of education is the best one possible why do we have such grim results?
Billions of dollars in endowments and funding for research from the federal government and states allows the top universities mostly private to buy the best academics in their respective fields. However, the pyramid structure of American higher education suggests that the very few at the top, mostly private with some public schools, enjoy the big money and reputation. Despite a second tier with good departments in all fields from humanities to business, the bottom of the pyramid is where most students attend and where the system shows its cracks. It is at the bottom of the pyramid – The following are all for profit mostly online mostly low-quality education that does not compare favorably to a state university and does not have commensurate weight in the job market.
University of Phoenix at $35.5 billion
Walden University - $9.8 billion;
DeVry - $82 billion;
Capella University - $8 billion;
Strayer University - $6.7 billion
Kaplan University - $6.7 billion
The schools listed above have graduation rates in the low 20s compared with mid-50s for the national average. In short, these places take the students’ money but fail to retain them. The burden of very low graduation rates and such high level of debt falls on students that come mostly from working class backgrounds without the usual social/professional connections that the upper middle class students attending private universities enjoy. As more people find it difficult to afford the cost of public universities, they will turn to the degree mills mostly online that will result in high debt and low prospects for a rewarding career. The results of doing nothing with the current neoliberal corporate model of higher education will be the following:
1. Higher student debt as many studies have indicated considering the six-fold rise between 2008 and 2016.
2. A New elite class will emerge of college graduates with advanced degrees that will become increasingly unaffordable to the majority of American families.
3. Convergence of costs between public and private universities will make higher education increasingly unattainable for the majority of Americans.
4. Second and third tier low-quality for-profit schools will continue to prop up marketing themselves as the alternative to a solid college education.
5. Blacks, Hispanics and poor whites will be the worst to suffer the elitist neoliberal system of higher education.
6. Lower number of students that attend four-year colleges, choosing instead the bogus online universities and corporate institutions that are in essence degree factories taking the money and providing very little in return.
7. Rich-poor gap widening in society owing to lack of opportunity for a college education as the ticket to upward social mobility.
8. More jobs will be exported with the rise of the educational level in other countries while the US will assume increasingly characteristics of a Third World society.
9. A less educated citizenry may serve the interests of the political, financial elites and those in academia and media whose careers are linked to the elites, but it is a reflection of an autocratic society that deliberately prefers backwardness for the majority of its citizens.
10. US competitiveness with the rest of the world will diminish over time, although this does not appear to be a problem today because of the chronic “brain drain” from many developing nations coming to the US.
America’s neoliberal model of higher education will not change because the political economy is based on the neoliberal model and the entrenched elites support it. There are Republicans, including Trump, that are interested in privatizing Veterans affairs health care system, thus indicating the course of neoliberal policies will continue not diminish. This privatization craze is at the core of neoliberal ideological framework, and this is one reason they oppose free tuition for public universities. The success of higher education in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, among some of European countries offering college-free tuition, as well as Brazil and Argentina means nothing to the neoliberal defenders of the system. Only a crisis deeper and wider in society would bring about change in higher education and that will come with the next inevitable contracting economic cycle that may be much deeper and longer lasting than the Great Recession of 2008.
Most of the donations to universities go to the already wealthy private institutions, but almost always with conditions that determine everything from curriculum to hiring and program development. “In Kentucky, Papa John’s pizza founder John Schnatter teamed up with the Koch Brothers Foundation to fund business school programmes at the University of Louisville and at the University of Kentucky. Both donations came with the caveat that the donors can stop funding if they do not feel that their mission – the teaching of free market economics and business practices – is being carried out to their satisfaction. To some, such stipulations imply that students will be taught by professors sympathetic to the political and economic views of the donors.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/phil-knight-nike-stanford-universities-billionaire-donate-a6894716.html
In the past forty years, the faculty-to-student ratio has remained about the same, although the corporate model has meant relying increasingly on part time faculty. This reflects the corporate model of relying of low-paying part time employees and avoiding the costs of fulltime people. During the same forty-year period of a rise in part-time faculty, there has been an astronomical rise in the administrative bureaucracy that deals with the university as a business and injects a corporate ideology into an otherwise non-profit institution of higher learning. The least educated and most opportunistic elements invariably wind up in administration positions that pay much higher than any faculty position. Administrators identity and self-interest is not with the students but with the business community and they in turn project that value system into the university. (Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and why it Matters. 2011);http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/noam_chomsky_corporate_business_models_are_hurting_american_universities_partner/
Corporatization of the University and College Administration
It makes sense that private colleges would object to ending the neoliberal model and supporting Sanders because they would have to reduce tuition and costs. Of course, the wealthy that would rarely consider a public school in the first place will continue to attend private colleges. Moreover, the free tuition of public schools would permit the private schools to promise they are the elite. Representing 1000 private universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) opposes Sanders’ proposal despite its acknowledgement that costs are very high.
“But one of the things we very firmly believe is that as it has been for the last 50 years or so, that federal aid money must follow the student, and stay with the student.” In other words, do what you will with public schools, as long as federal and state funds also flow into private schools based on student choice. “There is no trend we can discern yet that suggests schools are going to start cutting back on the amounts of money that they need for the expanding services they offer. There may be a decrease in growth if tuition increases, but nobody is decreasing tuition, nobody is decreasing the number of services offered, and therefore schools are continually getting more expensive.” http://dailyfreepress.com/2015/09/11/private-college-presidents-hesitant-on-sanders-education-stance/
In every state where there is a major corporation its influence is heavily felt very clearly on the state institutions. Whether it is Eli Lilly in Indiana or 3-M in Minnesota, the influence of the long arm of the corporate world in ubiquitous in universities that fight amongst themselves to secure corporate funding no matter the cost to academic freedom. Not just humanities and social sciences faculty, but those in the “hard sciences” are constantly fighting to secure grants for their research and as government slashed National Science Foundation money (16% cut proposed for 2016), faculty look to corporations. Scientists depend on the agrichemicals, pharmaceutical and biotech industry for research funding, so they structure their research around what the corporation expects. http://www.livingbetter.org/livingbetter/articles/corporate.html;http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/house-spending-panel-does-its-best-hide-large-cut-nsf-social-and-geosciences-research
In his article entitled “Higher Education or Education for Hire? Corporatization and the Threat to Democratic Thinking”, Joel Wetheimer writes: “The effects of corporatization on the integrity of university research – especially in the sciences – has been well-documented elsewhere. Readers of Academic Matters are likely familiar with the many cases of scientific compromise resulting from private commercial sponsorship of research by pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. Indeed, faculty throughout North America are already deluged with requests or demands to produce research that is “patentable” or “commercially viable.”http://www.academicmatters.ca/2010/04/higher-education-or-education-for-hire-corporatization-and-the-threat-to-democratic-thinking/
A land grant school, the University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana campus is one of many public institutions heavily indebted to the private sector. Upon accepting massive grants from agrichemical companies such as Monsanto, the university caters to the wishes of the donors to hire faculty in the field of expertise the company dictates, namely in genetically modified seeds and agrichemicals that would have a direct impact on its multinational business. In other words, this is just another very cheap way of outsourcing research and development. On the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with this, expect that this is a public tax-supported institution whose work is geared to serve the corporation. In short, the general taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing corporations.
As Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch put it: “Sound agricultural policy requires impartial and unbiased scientific inquiry, but like nearly every aspect of our modern food system, land-grant school funding has been overrun by narrow private interests….Private-sector funding not only corrupts the public research mission of land-grant universities, but also distorts the science that is supposed to help farmers improve their practices and livelihoods,” said Hauter. “Industry-funded academic research routinely produces favorable results for industry sponsors. And since policymakers and regulators frequently cite these university studies to back up their decision-making, industry-funded academic research increasingly influences the rules that govern their business operations.” http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/public-research-private-gain-corporate-influence-over-university-agricultural-research
The highly paid university administrators urge faculty to forge closer ties with the corporate world. They bring with them a corporate value system and worldview intended to make the university an institution that models itself after the corporate world. These leaders of the universities are among the most adamant opponents of doing away with the neoliberal model. Catharine Bond Hill, Vassar College president, a Clinton backer argued that Sanders is wrong to propose free tuition for public colleges. There is a vast administrative bureaucracy handling everything from loans to scholarships with layers of vice chancellors and vice presidents in the larger universities. One concern that college administrator have if the Sanders proposal goes through is the inevitable cuts in the administrative bureaucracy that will not be needed to deal with student loans, scholarships, and fundraising for student aid. From 1985 to 2005, the number of administrators rose by 85% and their attendant staff by 240%.http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf. People assume that tuition goes for the direct educational experience of the student. “This is no longer the case. Instead, a large chunk of a check made out for tens of thousands of dollars is feeding the burgeoning administrative staff on college campuses. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/04/mink-the-misguided-bureaucratization-of-higher-education)
The cozy relationship between the corporate world and college administrators illustrates that the neoliberal model is not a theoretical construct but a sinister reality. To university administrators and board of trustees invariably serve on the boards of businesses large and small. It may surprise the reader to discover that 42% of the Board trustees at public universities come from large corporations and they make the decisions about university governance and direction.
http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf; http://www.occupy.com/article/college-bureaucracy-how-education-forgot-students-and-became-business#sthash.G22kz58h.dpuf
One reason Sanders has captured the vast majority support of voters under 30 years of age, especially college students is because they agree with him on free college tuition, among other issues such as addressing Wall Street control of politicians. Having lost confidence in the neoliberal model of the university system, the majority of people under 30 have lost confidence in the neoliberal political economy. A Harvard University study recently shows that 51% of people between 18 and 29 oppose capitalism and 33% stated they support socialism. https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2275; http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/23078-harvard-survey-shows-millennials-oppose-capitalism-but-do-they-really; The youth in America is moving farther to left of its neoliberal political, business and academic establishment, showing the entire societal structure of which higher education is an integral part is not working for the benefit of most citizens. Despite this reality, the neoliberal establishment has deep institutional roots. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31994-who-s-against-college-for-all
Conclusions
It is indeed amazing that the US model of higher education with all of its problems is actually one that other countries are trying to emulate. Although it has been cultural diffusion, especially the contributions of a global academic talent that has made American Higher Education as productive as it has since the end of WWII, many around the world and here in the US confuse this catalyst to success with the neoliberal governance and operational structure. The fact that high school students in Japan and many European countries actually score at par with US college graduates is indicative that the high cost of US colleges does not translate to better education. Graduation rates across the board are in the mid-50s, and for the lower tiered schools in the low 20s and high teens. Why is it that graduation rates are so low across the board, although tuition and fees keep going higher and grade inflation is a reality driven mostly by an administration that views students as paying customers? If the neoliberal model of education is the best one possible why do we have such grim results?
Billions of dollars in endowments and funding for research from the federal government and states allows the top universities mostly private to buy the best academics in their respective fields. However, the pyramid structure of American higher education suggests that the very few at the top, mostly private with some public schools, enjoy the big money and reputation. Despite a second tier with good departments in all fields from humanities to business, the bottom of the pyramid is where most students attend and where the system shows its cracks. It is at the bottom of the pyramid – The following are all for profit mostly online mostly low-quality education that does not compare favorably to a state university and does not have commensurate weight in the job market.
University of Phoenix at $35.5 billion
Walden University - $9.8 billion;
DeVry - $82 billion;
Capella University - $8 billion;
Strayer University - $6.7 billion
Kaplan University - $6.7 billion
The schools listed above have graduation rates in the low 20s compared with mid-50s for the national average. In short, these places take the students’ money but fail to retain them. The burden of very low graduation rates and such high level of debt falls on students that come mostly from working class backgrounds without the usual social/professional connections that the upper middle class students attending private universities enjoy. As more people find it difficult to afford the cost of public universities, they will turn to the degree mills mostly online that will result in high debt and low prospects for a rewarding career. The results of doing nothing with the current neoliberal corporate model of higher education will be the following:
1. Higher student debt as many studies have indicated considering the six-fold rise between 2008 and 2016.
2. A New elite class will emerge of college graduates with advanced degrees that will become increasingly unaffordable to the majority of American families.
3. Convergence of costs between public and private universities will make higher education increasingly unattainable for the majority of Americans.
4. Second and third tier low-quality for-profit schools will continue to prop up marketing themselves as the alternative to a solid college education.
5. Blacks, Hispanics and poor whites will be the worst to suffer the elitist neoliberal system of higher education.
6. Lower number of students that attend four-year colleges, choosing instead the bogus online universities and corporate institutions that are in essence degree factories taking the money and providing very little in return.
7. Rich-poor gap widening in society owing to lack of opportunity for a college education as the ticket to upward social mobility.
8. More jobs will be exported with the rise of the educational level in other countries while the US will assume increasingly characteristics of a Third World society.
9. A less educated citizenry may serve the interests of the political, financial elites and those in academia and media whose careers are linked to the elites, but it is a reflection of an autocratic society that deliberately prefers backwardness for the majority of its citizens.
10. US competitiveness with the rest of the world will diminish over time, although this does not appear to be a problem today because of the chronic “brain drain” from many developing nations coming to the US.
America’s neoliberal model of higher education will not change because the political economy is based on the neoliberal model and the entrenched elites support it. There are Republicans, including Trump, that are interested in privatizing Veterans affairs health care system, thus indicating the course of neoliberal policies will continue not diminish. This privatization craze is at the core of neoliberal ideological framework, and this is one reason they oppose free tuition for public universities. The success of higher education in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, among some of European countries offering college-free tuition, as well as Brazil and Argentina means nothing to the neoliberal defenders of the system. Only a crisis deeper and wider in society would bring about change in higher education and that will come with the next inevitable contracting economic cycle that may be much deeper and longer lasting than the Great Recession of 2008.
Jon Kofas is a retired university Professor from Indiana University.
When Gods Are Threatened
When Gods Are Threatened
By Surabhi Singh
13 May, 2016
Countercurrents.org
Countercurrents.org
A phenomenal opening chapter in the much acclaimed novel “Roots” by Alex Haley, describes the birth of protagonist Kunta Kinte in the thickets of a glorious African Gambia Forest and his father takes the new born to the highest peak of a mountain. He holds the new born high and says to Allah, “Behold, the only thing more magnificent than you.” That was before the young man thus born to magnificence is chained and thrown into a boat, made to sit on his own shit and vomit for three months and sold into a slave market like a circus animal. The sheer tragedy of his life, should have been a lesson for generations to come in the continent of Africa- where today- millions are dying of fratricide and genocide on one hand, and starvation on the other.
Why after nearly a decade of reading the novel, this particular scene has remained inside my mind, like a gnawing pain, is because I have come across several such magnificence shrewn to bestial shreds of indignity right in my hometown Raipur. Across roads, in the by lanes, in front of temples, in the darkened alleys leading to illustrious malls, in front of schools, hospitals, eateries- they are there. Hollowed eyes, vacant faces, slugging shoulders and soiled hands. Their personalities emptied of the past magnificience, taking one day at a time of struggle for survival. Among all the things that are stripped from these children, is their God, who had witnessed their births as a glorious thing. In here, in this cage of metal, alluminium, steel, plastic, copper and iron, their God, like their mountain, river, forests and homeland- has ceased to exist. These migrant flailing children are Adivasis who were evicted from their forests in Bastar, Jashpur and Rajnandgaon districts, leaving their homes, farms, land back. Although the Gods had remained there- being plummeted, blasted, dug, exploded or simply hammered to dust to make way for rich minerals, excavated from the depth of their hearts.
In this day of Ultra Nationalism, Hindutva fascism and Cultural hegemony- the Adivasi gods have paid the price of being too liberal and progressive. After all, a society that can shed tears for a woman raped, brutalized and killed in her house before celebrating Mother’s Day with emphatic zeal; or for a society that can easily celebrate festivities worshipping a Mother Goddess while burning, raping, molesting and acid raining its mothers, sisters and daughters everyday- it is imperative that there exists a more conservative God- that can actually draw a clear line of distinction between sinners and saints. The same society also needs its God to prescribe some real easy ways to define ways of absolving one’s sins. Like for example put a man in the loop of rebirths, atonements, confessions, kumbh snans or donations in the temples- to absolve him of any weight on his conscience. Better still, divide the entire society based on hatred and make sure women and those who are most hardworking people- are thrown in at the bottom of the food chain. You see, religion, the Aryan way, is meant to scare the shit out of us, leave us confused and numbed at the core.
If the Hindutva brigade has to win in India, the animism of the Adivasis, has to lose. That’s because Adivasi Gods do not preach fear and cast its believer with its wrath at the drop of a hat. But mostly, the Sangh denies adivasis the status of the original dwellers, their very own stake into the survival, because the latter’s existence runs counter to its own claim that the Aryans, who brought vedic civilization to the country, are the original inhabitants of the land.
For the past seven decades and more, these Adivasi communities are being systematically denied their fundamental rights of existence through vehement corporate, political and social exploitation. The triage of greed, violent orstracisation and mass sexual deprivation has resulted in their shrinking from the original dwellers of the land, to just a few thousand inhabitants now hobbled deep inside the pockets of thick jungles on one hand, while the rest are scattered across the cities and towns, forgotten and forbidden.
One of the cruellest tactics of annihilating these Adivasis, have been through imposed religious divisions, first by large scale Christian missionary activity and more recently by the Sangh Parivar, that has somehow arrogated to itself the authority to control them. In Raipur itself there are several hundred schools and tribal hostels, that are engaged in a massive drive to ‘bring back’ the tribals into the fold of Hinduism. Their tactics are often viciously violent and explicitly misogynist to say the least.
The Bastar Adivasis are predominantly animistic (the belief that non-human objects have spirits, that animals, birds and tree possess souls) and although their beliefs vary from tribe to tribe, it usually centres around animal worship, tree worship, belief in the Rain God, the Hill God, and the Earth Spirit. The Dhurwa tribe, for example, call upon a spirit of rain or river water to bless them with good catches of fish and abundant crops.
Gond Adivasis have the trees form the focal point of their cosmos. They believe that trees are hard at work during the day, providing shade, shelter and nourishment for all; but at night, when all the daytime visitors have left, the spirits of the trees reveal themselves. Each of the clans have a Mother Goddess. The people of Bastar worship Earth as their Mother. Most interesting factor is that most of the Adivasis have centred their religion around female deities, often called matas, or mothers. Some of the clans invoke deities to get rid of diseases and natural calamities and also to provide them with good harvest and bountiful forest produce. The various Totempoles reveal their Men, horses, elephants and birds as the symbols of belief.
The fact that their stories, their deities and their mythology never found a place in the popular curriculum in our nation, is because, they believe in universal synchronization with nature. Even worse, their kings and queens ended up becoming modern day “Rakshashas and Mahishasuras.” Moreover, the Hindu mythologies, based on which most of our popular religious stories are centred, have all somehow managed to make demons out of the aboriginal tribes of our nation, who are dark skinned, fat lipped and generally muscular. Is it just a co incidence that all Asuras during Durga Pooja are carved like the Dravidian males, bearing uncany resemblance to African race?
The Adivasi idea of a religion that worships the mountains, trees and Sun and does not cast a lowly born Shudra to eternal hell or prevents a widow from having carnal desires, goes against the interest of a Brahiminal society. Its evil twin, the Corporate world demands that “Nature” be exploited as only a “raw material” for its business model. From Bastar in Chhattisgarh, to Mahaan Forests in Madhya Pradesh, to Sunderban in West Bengal, time and again the “mainstream” people have wielded a dagger deep into the heart of these Adivasis, to create a turf of their own, the machinated mechanized version of proselytization, that requires nature to be exploited, and not worshipped.
The cropping up of millions of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashrams, Ekal Vidyalayas, Sewa Bharati Kendras, Vivekananda Kendras, Bharat Kalyan Pratishthans and Friends of Tribal Society Centes- are no natural phenomenon. They are all part of a definite corporate social political structural design, and all have received the IDRF funding. The primary focus is on Hinduizing the Adivasis and also halting the proselytisation of Christian Missionaries. Preaching them, Ram, Krishna, Geeta and Gayatri Mantras has slowly and surely stripped them off their glorious traditions. This mainstreaming of their education, negates the primary roles played by women in the Adivasi society, and thus infuses it with all the evils of patriarchy. This then, helps the “mainstream” into intertwining the thought process for its electoral gains. Most often than not, these have also successfully engineered communal tensions, as and when the political diaspora dictated. Some of the most sordid examples being the 2015 Nun Rape case in Raipur, and the brutal killings of Adivasis in Kandhamal, Odisha, all of which remained at the headlines long enough to polarise the electoral tadpoles.
Beyond the flames of a burning church and the wails of survivors of atrocities, lies the fact that with the “mainstreaming” of the Adivasis, the society has turned towards an immoral, corrupt, patriarchal sledgefest that now is simply another moneryroller for the modern day billionaires. The Adivasis find themselves at the mercy of a Brahminised Manuvaadi society in the cities and a brutish para military, and corrupt Corporate regime inside the forests. In the slugfest of immediate identity- their God, has lost to our Gods.
The Author is an independent journalist, writer and Intersectional Feminist. I have worked with development sector for some time, and have contributed articles as an Assistant News Editor for The Hitavada News Editor, a Regional English Daily for 10 years. After working with media for more than a decade I have come to understand, stories ought to be told from the voice of the deliberately silenced echos, and those that are preferably unheard. For Dalits, Bahujan, Adivasis and Women, this world is a battlefield, their stories- are what we need.
Save Humanity And The Biosphere Through Zero Tolerance
Save Humanity And The Biosphere Through Zero Tolerance
For Deadly Neoliberalism And Remorseless Neoliberals
For Deadly Neoliberalism And Remorseless Neoliberals
By Dr Gideon Polya
Countercurrents.org
Greed-driven neoliberalism is currently the dominant economic philosophy globally but has driven Humanity to the edge – a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise is now essentially inevitable, 17 million people die avoidably from deprivation each year, 7 million people die annually from air pollution and as many as 10 billion people will die this century if man-made climate change is not requisitely addressed. We can only save Humanity and the Biosphere through implacable zero tolerance for deadly neoliberalism and remorseless neoliberals.
Neoliberalism seeks to maximize the freedom of the smart and advantaged to exploit the human and natural resources of the world to maximize personal profit, with an utterly dishonest claim of “trickle down” benefits for the less smart and less advantaged. In contrast, social humanism (social democracy, democratic socialism, the welfare state) involves sustainably maximizing human happiness, opportunity and dignity through evolving national and international social contracts for the betterment of all people and the irreplaceable Biosphere (biodiversity) on which they depend [1, 2].
Indeed neoliberalism kills – thus 17 million people die avoidably from deprivation ands deprivation-exacerbated disease on Spaceship Earth with inhumane and remorselessly greedy First World One Percenter neoliberals in charge of the flight deck [3].
However, even in the rich Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada, UK and the US where avoidable death (avoidable mortality, excess death, excess mortality) on a global comparative scale is almost zero, one can identify hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths annually from major killers such as such as adverse hospital outcomes, smoking, obesity, air pollution and alcohol down to relatively minor killers such as homicide and illicit drugs. Annual preventable deaths from such causes in Australia , Canada , theUK and the US total , 85,000, 101,000, 150,000 and 1.7 million, respectively [4-8]. Such preventable deaths in Australia , Canada ,UK and the US have thus totalled 1.2 million, 1.5 million, 2.2 million, and 24 million, respectively, since the US Government's false flag 9/11 atrocity in 2001 that killed about 3,000 people [9]. Pollutants from carbon fuel burning kill 7 million people annually (WHO) and have killed 102 million people thus since 9-11 – there have been 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US political terrorism deaths since 9-11 [10, 11].
However it gets worse. It is now extremely unlikely that the world will avoid a catastrophic plus 2 degrees Centigrade temperature rise and the worst culprits in this catastrophe in terms of “per capita income weighted annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution” include the rich Anglosphere countries of Australia , Canada , UK and the US [12]. It is estimated that failure to address man-made climate change will wipe out much of the Biosphere and kill all but 0.5 billion people i.e. kill 10 billion people this century [13].
Unfortunately the Awful Truth is hidden from the masses by One Percenter-controlled Mainstream media that have entrenched lying by commission and vastly worse lying by omission in the West [14-16]. Dominant neoliberalism has converted one-person-one-vote Western democracies into Plutocracies, Kleptocracies, Murdochracies, Lobbyocracies, Corporatocracies and Dollarocracies in which Big Money purchases people, politicians, parties, policies, public perception of reality, political power and more personal wealth for One Percenters.
One Percenters now control 50% of the wealth of the world, and as revealed by French economist Professor Thomas Piketty, the One Percenter share of annual income in Anglosphere countries is steadily increasing. Professor Piketty argues that this hugely disproportionate wealth distribution is damaging for democracy (money buys votes) and for the economy (the poor cannot afford to buy the goods and services they produce) and he suggests a progressive wealth tax of up to 10% to ensure a return to democracy and to humane, sustainable economics [17-21]. One notes that France has an annual wealth tax of up to 1.5%, Islam demands an annual wealth tax of 2.5% [19], and a annual global wealth tax of 4% would abolish the 17 million annual avoidable deaths from deprivation [21].
The transformation of Western democracies into corporatist Lobbyocracies has seen the progressive side of politics shift from traditional pro-Humanity and pro-equity positions to obscene, neoliberal greed and unprincipled pragmatism. However
the massive public support for Democrat Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders in the US and for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in the UK – leaders who actually dare to call themselves socialists - suggests that a substantial proportion of the public in these countries have wised up to neoliberal falsehood and perversion of decent, humane values. The election of Justin Trudeau to power as PM of Canada suggests a similar hopeful trend.
In Australia the obscenely neoliberal, pro-One Percenter Liberal Party-National Party Coalition (aka the pro-coal KOALition) has over-reached in its appalling wealth transfer from the poor to the rich to the extent that a Right wing-dominated, neoliberal Labor Opposition has been forced to actually return to traditional Labor social humanist values in this election year and - despite the US Murdoch media empire's capture of 70% of Australian daily newspaper readership – may garner enough support from young, poor, sick, elderly, educated, pro-environment and pro-Humanity Australians to gain office with the help of preferences from the decent, pro-Humanity, pro-environment Greens in Australia's compulsory preferential voting system. Decent, science- informed, pro-Humanity and pro-Biosphere Australians will utterly reject evil, destructive and deadly neoliberalism, vote 1 Green and put the KOALition last.
Canadian academic Dr Simon Springer, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada , has cogently argued the case for utterly rejecting the inhumane evil of neoliberalism in an article provocatively entitled “F--- neoliberalism” [I have politely edited out Dr Springer's indignant use of the F word] that has the succinct abstract: “Yep, f--- it. Neoliberalism sucks. We don't need it”, commences “F--- neoliberalism . That's my blunt message. I could probably end my discussion at this point and it wouldn't really matter. My position is clear and you likely already get the gist of what I want to say. I have nothing positive to add to the discussion about neoliberalism, and to be perfectly honest, I'm quite sick of having to think about it. I've simply had enough. For a time I had considered calling this paper “Forget Neoliberalism” instead, as in some ways that's exactly what I wanted to do. I've been writing on the subject for many years…” and concludes “Ultimately neoliberalism is a particularly foul idea that comes with a whole host of vulgar outcomes and crass assumptions. In response, it deserves to be met with equally offensive language and action. Our community, our cooperation, and our care for one another are all loathsome to neoliberalism. It hates that which we celebrate. So when we say “f--- neoliberalism” let it mean more that just words, let it be an enactment of our commitment to each other. Say it loud, say it with me, and say it to anyone who will listen, but most of all mean it as a clarion call to action and as the embodiment of our prefigurative power to change the f---ing world. F--- Neoliberalism” [22].
I have recently put the same position of zero tolerance for evil and destructive neoliberalism somewhat more politely in an essay entitled “Polya's Laws of Economics expose neoliberal capitalism”: “Polya's 3 Laws of Economics mirror the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics and are (1) Price minus COP (Cost of Production) equals profit; (2) Deception about COP strives to a maximum; and (3) No work, price or profit on a dead planet. These 3 Laws of Economics are useful in exposing and assessing massive deceptions in neoliberal capitalism involving the dangerously uncosted exploitation of human and physical resources for private profit. As exampled above, application of the First Law of Economics enables quantitation of huge hidden subsidies from the remorseless deception described by the Second Law of Economics. The Third Law of Economics presents a terminal boundary condition of the human condition in which irreversible greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, ecocide, speciescide and climate genocide have led to omnicide and terracide, the destruction of Humanity and the Biosphere. The Paris Climate Change Conference has failed before it has begun – a plus 2C temperature rise is catastrophic and is now inevitable. Humanity is faced with an urgent new task to do everything we can to make the future “less bad”. Dishonest, destructive and deadly neoliberal capitalism that allows the vastly rich to get even vastly richer at the expense of Humanity and the Biosphere must be urgently replaced by an evolving social humanism involving truthful, science-based risk management and the maximization of human dignity, happiness and opportunity. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – the worsening deception by the ever-self-enriching One Percenters and complicit Mainstream media, politician and academic presstitutes means that 7 million people die annually from air pollution and 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation. Decent people must (a) inform everyone they can, and (b) apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all people, politicians, parties, countries, companies and corporations disproportionately involved in the terracidal rape of the Earth - armed with the 3 Laws of Economics they must ensure Climate Revolution now” [23].
We are badly running out of time to save the Planet from destructive and deadly neoliberalism. Already it appears that a plus 2C temperature rise will be catastrophic and is now inevitable. There must be zero tolerance for neoliberalism and total rejection of those espousing this remorseless, obscene, speciescidal, ecocidal, terracidal, anti-Humanity and anti-Biosphere philosophy.
References.
[1]. Brian Ellis, “Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics” , Routledge , UK
[2]. Gideon Polya, “Book Review: “Social Humanism. A New Metaphysics” By Brian Ellis - Last Chance To Save Planet?”, Countercurrents, 19 August, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190812.htm
[3]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes succinct histories of all countries from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the Web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/ .
[4]. Gideon Polya, “Australian State Terrorism - Zero Australian Terrorism Deaths, 1 Million Preventable Australian Deaths & 10 Million Muslims Killed By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 23 September, 2014:http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230914.htm .
[5]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Zionist, Pro-war, Pro-Opium, War Criminal Canadian Government Defames Iran
[6]. Gideon Polya, “UK Terror Hysteria exposed – Empirical Annual Probability of UK Terrorism Death 1 in 16 million”, Countercurrents, 16 September, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160914.htm .
[7]. Gideon Polya
[8]. Gideon Polya, "Corporate terrorism is state sanctioned, kills over 30 million people annually and dooms humanity by lying", State crime and non-state terrorism: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/corporate-terrorism .
[9]. “Experts; US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .
[10]. “Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths .
[11]. “Carbon terrorism: 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US
[12]. Gideon Polya
[13]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .
[14]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”, now available for free perusal on the Web:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com.au/ .
[15]. “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/home .
[16]. “Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home .
[17]. Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”, Harvard, 2014.
[18]. Gideon Polya, “Key Book Review: “Capital In The Twenty-First Century” By Thomas Piketty”, Countercurrents, 01 July, 2014:http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htm .
[19]. “1% ON 1%: annual one percent tax on One Percenter wealth”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .
[20]. Gideon Polya. “Polya's 3 Laws Of Economics Expose Deadly, Dishonest And Terminal Neoliberal Capitalism”, Countercurrents, 17 October, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm ).
[21]. Gideon Polya, “4 % Annual Global Wealth Tax To Stop The 17 Million Deaths Annually”, Countercurrents, 27 June, 2014:http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270614.htm .
[22]. Simon Springer, “F--- neoliberalism”, Academia: https://www.academia.edu/23908958/Fuck_Neoliberalism?auto=view&campaign=weekly_digest .
[23]. Gideon Polya, “Polya's Laws of Economics expose neoliberal capitalism”, MWC News, 17 October 2015:http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/54945-polyas-laws-of-economics-expose.html .
Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007:http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australian-complicity-in-iraq-mass-mortality/3369002#transcript
) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London
सदस्यता लें
टिप्पणियाँ (Atom)