In this 16-minute video Professor of Political Science Wendy Brown does a clear and concise job of outlining eight frightening changes that privatization will bring to higher education. The talk is part of a six-part “Save the University” teach-in at UC Berkeley.
Via John McMahon at Facile Gestures.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 13
Yrro — May 16, 2011
I think I would disagree significantly that privatization will result in reduced meritocracy, given that public forces already seem to be working actively against it. We have quotas, diversity scholarships, Women in Engineering departments, and special programs for those who come from low economic background. You may think that these are all good things (and I don't even mean to argue that they are not, on balance, good), but they are *not* meritocratic. Not to mention that public universities already take on large charitable donations, and will continue to do so whether their research is being paid for by the department of energy or exxon-mobil.
In the end, we are judging whether political forces that interfere with ideal education and research are more or less toxic than market and commercial forces that do the same. It might be useful discussing the differences there, but this speech is much more vitriolic.
JD — May 19, 2011
JKL - Your view seems self contradictory. You seem to be suggesting that, because people are not responsible for their circumstances (hinting at determinism?), there is something unethical about rewarding or punishing them on the basis of those circumstances.
I contend that the notion of what is "ethical' breaks down entirely under such a view. If you accept the notion of hard determinism (i.e. fate), than no one is responsible for anything they do. After all, I can argue that the murder's actions are merely the product of the society he was raised in just as surely as you can argue the entrepreneur's wealth is the product of same. If the murder is not responsible for their actions for the same reasons the entrepreneur isn't, than why are they deserving of punishment?
All we're left with (starting, I note, from your own assumptions), is the utilitarian value when deciding what systems to use. If we lock up the murder because he is dangerous, not to punish him, what should prevent us from rewarding the meritorious because of their potential to improve the quality of life in society as a whole? We reward them not because they _deserve_ the reward, but because (all else being equal) more utility from rewarding them for their potential than we might get from rewarding them based on their birth (or their cash). That's the definition (in some sense) of "merit".
Obviously we could be totally nihilistic, but short of that, I think there's are objective arguments for favouring meritocracy over other systems. It's not just a question of personal bias.