Page 217 of 231
1 215 216 217 218 219 231

CHILE: Comisión de Educación de la Cámara continuará revisando proyecto de reforma a la Educación Superior

Chile/27 de septiembre de 2016/Fuente: entorno inteligente

A las 10:00 horas de este lunes se continuó  la revisión del proyecto de reforma a la Educación Superior en la comisión de Educación de la Cámara. Se tratará de una sesión especial en la que se continuará con el trámite de audiencias públicas para el estudio de la iniciativa.

Hasta el ex Congreso Nacional llegarán el presidente del G9 y rector de la Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Claudio Elórtegui, el rector de la Universidad de Santiago, Juan Manuel Zolezzi, el de la Universidad de Playa Ancha, Patricio Sanhueza y el de la Universidad de Concepción, Sergio Lavanchy.

Uno de los integrantes de la comisión el diputado DC Mario Venegas afirmó en Radio Bío Bío que han existido críticas muy importantes de la reforma, lo cual es valioso para el proyecto ya que se espera que todos los actores participen para el aprobación del proyecto de ley.

El Gobierno en esta iniciativa pretende crear una nueva institucionalidad a través de una subsecretaría, multar en caso de lucro y establecer un fondo exclusivo para las universidades de carácter estatal.

Se espera, además, que el Consejo de Rectores sesione este miércoles y jueves en Valdivia para abordar el proyecto de reforma a la educación superior. Esto con el fin de emitir su posición respecto a esta iniciativa a modo de establecer si debe ser retirada o modificada en el Congreso Nacional.

Fuente: http://www.entornointeligente.com/articulo/8997159/CHILE-Comisioacute;n-de-Educacioacute;n-de-la-Caacute;mara-continuaraacute;-revisando-proyecto-de-reforma-a-la-Educacioacute;n-Superior-%7C-Emolcom-25092016

Imagen: static.emol.cl/emol50/Fotos/2016/09/25/file_20160925233614_300x200.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

Higher Education and Neoliberal Temptation: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux

Por Almantas Samalavicius , Eurozine

Educación Superior y la tentación neoliberal: Una entrevista con Henry A. Giroux

Si la universidad es para sobrevivir, los profesores van a tener que reconsiderar su papel como intelectuales públicos críticos, conecte su beca a los problemas sociales más amplios y aprender cómo escribir para y habla a un público más amplio. De esta cantidad, el crítico cultural y decano de la pedagogía crítica Henry Giroux está convencido.

—————————-

If the university is to survive, faculty are going to have to rethink their roles as critical public intellectuals, connect their scholarship to broader social issues and learn how to write for and speak to a broader public. Of this much, the cultural critic and doyen of critical pedagogy Henry Giroux is convinced.

Almantas Samalavicius: The neoliberal agenda that came into being a few decades ago in the northern hemisphere, and was eventually globalized, now seems to threaten systems of higher education worldwide. The persistence of this phenomenon has become alarming to many who care about its social consequences. As you have correctly and insightfully observed in your 2014 book Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, «a full-fledged assault is also being waged on higher education in North America, the United Kingdom and various European countries. While the nature of the assault varies across countries, there is a common set of assumptions and practices driving the transformation of higher education into an adjunct of corporate power and values.» Why is this agenda taking over societies that are so different from each other? What makes neoliberalism so overwhelmingly powerful and resistant to criticism as well as to social action? Why do governments give themselves up to neoliberal ideology, even if they claim to represent quite different ideological positions?

Henry Giroux: For all of its differences, neoliberalism brings together a number of elements that makes it appear almost insurmountable, if not universal, in its ability to normalize itself and convince the rest of the world that there is no alternative as Margaret Thatcher once argued.

First, it has created a new set of power relations in which power is global and politics is local. The financial elite now operate in the global flows of capital and have no allegiance to the nation-state or to the social contract that mediated between labour and capital in the post-war period. This separation points to a crisis of agency on the part of the state and a crisis of politics in terms of the ability to develop social formations that can challenge capital on a global rather than simply a local scale. The nation-state can no longer make concrete decisions on the economic level or create social provisions necessary to limit the effects of the market and offer the most basic services for people.

At the nation level, state sovereignty has been transformed into economic sovereignty. Governments don’t give themselves up, they have been hijacked by the institutions, power and wealth of the global elite. There is no way for states to challenge global forms of governance. We must remember that neoliberalism is very powerful not only because of its economic structures but also because of its pedagogical and ideological power. It not only consolidates wealth and power in different wars for the ultra-rich, it also controls all of those cultural apparatuses and pedagogical sites that function to produce identities, desires and values that mimic the market. In this sense it is a mode of governance that controls all of social life and not simply the market.

As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects and ways of life free of government regulations, driven by a survival of the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social costs. As a policy and political project, neoliberalism is wedded to the privatization of public services, the selling off of state functions, the deregulation of finance and labour, the elimination of the welfare state and unions, the liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment and the marketization and commodification of society. As a form of public pedagogy and cultural politics, neoliberalism casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality.

As public higher education withers in a number of countries, either various policies of privatizing higher education are introduced or the logic of the market takes over. More and more universities and other institutions of higher education are being run as if they were large multinational companies seeking immediate profit; politicians and administrators speak out for efficiency, marketability of knowledge, institutional sensitivity and adaptability to the market, etc. What do you think will be the social and cultural price if this tendency continues to retain the upper hand? And do you see any possibilities to resist this global transformation of universities as well as higher education in general?

If this tendency continues, it will mean the death of critical thinking and higher education will simply become another ideological apparatus dedicated to training rather than education, stifling critical inquiry rather than nurturing it — and will narrow if not kill the imagination rather than cultivate it. One consequence will be that knowledge will be utterly commodified, students will be defined in utterly instrumental terms and the obligations of citizenship will be reduced to the private orbits of self-interest, consumption and commodification. This nightmare scenario will reinforce one of the central tendencies of totalitarianism; that is, a society dominated by thoughtlessness, stupidity and diverse modes of depoliticization.

In the United States and in many other countries, many of the problems in higher education can be linked to low funding, the domination of universities by market mechanisms, the rise of for-profit colleges, the intrusion of the national security state and the lack of faculty self-governance, all of which not only contradicts the culture and democratic value of higher education but also makes a mockery of the very meaning and mission of the university as a democratic public sphere. Decreased financial support for higher education stands in sharp contrast to increased support for tax benefits for the rich, big banks, military budgets and mega corporations. Rather than enlarge the moral imagination and critical capacities of students, too many universities are now wedded to producing would-be hedge fund managers, depoliticized students and creating modes of education that promote a «technically trained docility.»

Strapped for money and increasingly defined in the language of corporate culture, many universities are now driven principally by vocational, military and economic considerations while increasingly removing academic knowledge production from democratic values and projects. The ideal of the university as a place to think, to engage in thoughtful consideration, promote dialogue and learn how to hold power accountable is viewed as a threat to neoliberal modes of governance. At the same time, higher education is viewed by the apostles of market fundamentalism as a space for producing profits, educating a docile labour force and a powerful institution for indoctrinating students into accepting the obedience demanded by the corporate order.

However, it is crucial to remember that power is never without resistance and this suggests that faculty, students, unions and broader social movements must fight to regain higher education as a democratic public sphere. In addition, it must be made clear to a larger public that higher education is not simply about educating young people to be smart, socially responsible and adequately prepared for what ever notions of the future they can imagine, but that higher education is central to democracy itself.

Without the formative culture that makes democracy possible, there will be no critical agents, no foundation for enabling people to hold power accountable and no wider foundation for challenging neoliberalism as a mode of governance and political and ideological rationality. The struggle over higher education and its democratic misuse cannot be separated from the struggle to undo the reign of markets, neoliberalism and the ideologies informing this savage market fundamentalism. We see this struggle being taken up in precisely these terms in many countries in Latin America, the United Kingdom and the United States. Time will tell if they can spark a global movement to transform both higher education and the political and economic system that holds it hostage.

The American research university has been a model institution of higher education during the last half-century in many places of the globe. Despite the spectacular ascent of multiversity, proclaimed as early as 1963 by Clark Kerr in his famous book The Uses of the University, the production of research is in fact just one of the university’s functions. However, this function is taken for granted and even fetishized. Meanwhile, the teaching and education of informed, responsible citizens, capable of critical scrutiny as well as many of the other tasks of higher education, have been largely neglected and ignored. Do you see this imbalance in the functions of the university as threatening? What are the potential dangers of imagining the university exclusively as a research enterprise that relinquishes any commitment to teaching and cultivating a critical consciousness?

The role of research in the university cannot be separated from the modes of power that influence how research is defined and carried out. Under the reign of neoliberalism and given the encroaching power of the military-industrial complex, research is prioritized and rewarded when it serves the interests of the larger society. In this instance, research becomes armed and instrumentalized, serving largely the interests of powerful corporations or the ongoing death-machine of the military and its corporate allies. Research that matters informs teaching and vice versa. Universities are not factories and should not be defined as such. They are there to serve faculty, students and the wider community in the interests of furthering the public good. When the latter become subordinated to a research agenda that is simply about accumulating capital, the critical, moral and political essence of the university withers and everybody who believes in a democracy is marked for either failure, exclusion or punishment.

The corporate university is the ultimate expression of a disimagination machine, which employs a top-down authoritarian style of power, mimics a business culture, infantilizes students by treating them as consumers and depoliticizes faculty by removing them from all forms of governance. Clearly all of these defining relations produced by the neoliberal university have to be challenged and changed.

Traditionally, the university has been understood as community of scholars and students. However, there are multiple reasons for the university hardly existing any more in these terms. Back in the 1970s, the American social thinker Paul Goodman still articulated a vision of a community of scholars but during recent decades, academics either function simply as obedient personnel afraid to lose their diminishing rights and «privileges» (if there are any at all) or otherwise their collective voice is hardly heard. How can public criticism get back to where it should belong — i.e. in the universities?

The increasing corporatization of higher education poses a dire threat to its role as a democratic public sphere and a vital site where faculty can address important social issues, be self-reflective and learn the knowledge, values and ideas central to deepening and expanding the capacities required to be engaged and critical agents. Unfortunately, with the rise of the corporate university which now defines all aspects of governing, curriculum, financial matters and a host of other academic policies, education is now largely about training, creating an elite class of managers and eviscerating those forms of knowledge that conjure up what might be considered dangerous forms of moral witnessing and collective political action.

Many faculty have bought into this model because it is safe for them and they get rewarded. If the university is to survive, faculty are going to have to rethink their roles as critical public intellectuals, connect their scholarship to broader social issues and learn how to write for and speak to a broader public. Neoliberal modes of governance reinforce the worse dimensions of the university: specialisms, a cult of distorted professionalism, a narrow empiricism, unwillingness to work with others and a mode of scholarship steeped in obtuse and often mind-numbing discourse. All of this must change for faculty or they will not only be unable to defend their own labour as academics, they will continue to lose power to the corporate and managerial elite.

Higher education is intrinsically connected to what is usually termed as a public good, however, as you penetratingly observe «under the current regime of neoliberalism, schools have been transformed into a private right rather than a public good.» Do you think it is possible for higher education to reclaim its role in creating and providing a public good or at least providing a setting where a public good might be created? Under what conditions can are universities able to perform such a task? How can they get support from the public? Can one count on public intellectuals at all?

Universities are suffering from a crisis of legitimacy and a crisis of agency. If they are going to regain their role as a public good, faculty, students and other educational progressives are going to have to strongly challenge the current role of higher education. This means that faculty, students and various groups outside of the university are going to have to engage in a range of acts of civil disobedience extending from occupying classrooms to mobilizing larger populations in the street to force the hand of corporate power and its allies.

We saw this happen in Quebec a few years ago and such actions must be repeated on a global level. Public intellectuals are absolutely necessary to participate meaningfully in this role. We rarely hear about them but there are plenty of academics acting as public intellectuals, not only in the liberal arts, social sciences and humanities, but also in the health sciences where faculty are working closely with communities to improve the conditions of the often poor residents who reside in these communities. While public intellectuals can ask important questions, provide a critical language, help write policy and work with social movements, any real change will only come from the outside when social formations, educators and other progressive groups can force the hands of political power, governance and legislation.

Despite higher education’s present orientation toward the market and the reign of an ideology that glorifies the market even in those spheres where it is not supposed to and cannot work, what is your vision of the coming tendencies in higher education during the next decades? Do you expect the present trends concerning the marketization of higher education to be finally reversed? Or will we witness the final triumph of neoliberalism?

I am not optimistic but hopeful. That means, I don’t think progressive change will come by default, but only by recognizing the problems that have to be faced and then addressing them. The latter is a matter of real hope. The cruelty, barbarism and violence of neoliberalism is no longer invisible, the contradictions it produces abound and the misery it inflicts has become extreme. Out of the ashes will hopefully rise the phoenix of hope.

 ALMANTAS SAMALAVICIUS

Almantas Samalavicius tiene un Ph.D. en la historia y teoría del arte y es un profesor de la Universidad Técnica Vilnius Gediminas. Es autor de numerosos libros y ensayos sobre crítica cultural y literaria, la última de las cuales es, Ideas y Estructuras: Ensayos en Historia de la Arquitectura (2011). Además se ha traducido libros de Zygmunt Bauman y Gerard Delanty al lituano.

Fuente de la Entrevista:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35956-higher-education-and-neoliberal-temptation

Fuente de la Foto:

Luke Jones ; Editado: LW / A

Comparte este contenido:

México enfrenta retraso de 70 años en educación media superior; debe fortalecer enseñanza: UNESCO

México/27 de septiembre de 2016/Fuente: http://revoluciontrespuntocero.com/

La Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (Unesco) con base en su Informe de seguimiento de la educación en el mundo (Informe GEM) 2016, declaró que México tiene un rezago de 70 años con respecto al límite marcado para el cumplimiento de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) 2030 para garantizar la universalización de la educación básica y media superior.

Los ODS para México, América Latina y el Caribe plantean en el caso de primaria que esa meta debe alcanzarse en 2042, para secundaria en 2066 y  bachillerato en 2095, sin embargo enfrentan un retraso de 65 años.

Por lo que si no hay avance en las metas educativas México lograría la universalización de la educación a nivel primaria en 2035, secundaria en 2060 y en bachillerato en 2100.

Al retraso se  suma que hay una reducción en la inversión destinada en educación a nivel mundial, denunció la Unesco; y en el caso específico de México en la Propuesta Presupuestal 2017 elaborada por la Secretaría de Hacienda el recorte más grande se hizo a la Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP).

“Si queremos acelerar el paso e intentar cumplir con las metas de los ODS 2030 se requiere por lo menos una inversión en educación seis veces mayor de lo que ahora se destina”, recalcó Nuria Sanz, representante de la Unesco en México.

Agregó que el Informe GEM de hace dos años demuestra cómo ha habido una reducción del 7 por ciento en la  inversión internacional en educación.

En el informe de la Unesco también se recalca que la enseñanza debe fortalecerse en países como Argentina, Uruguay y México en temas ambientales y desarrollo sustentable debido a que más del 60 por ciento de los estudiantes mayores de 15 años sólo tienen conocimientos elementales de los temas del medio ambiente.

Asimismo en la mitad de los países del mundo no se incluye en los planes de estudios el tema del cambio climático.

Por su parte Otto Granados Roldán, subsecretario de Planeación, Evaluación y Coordinación de la Secretaría de Educación Pública, negó que en México enfrente un retraso con los ODS en educación media superior, como lo afirma la Unesco, ya que aseguró que la cobertura en bachillerato es superior al 75 por ciento.

Cabe recalcar que anteriormente la Unesco informó que México es una de los países que menos invierte en ciencia, tecnología e innovación, cuando el país debería convertirse en un generador de la economía del conocimiento, así lo declaró  el  director general del Conacyt, Enrique Cabrero.

Fuente de la Noticia:

http://revoluciontrespuntocero.com/mexico-enfrenta-retraso-de-70-anos-en-educacion-media-superior-debe-fortalecer-ensenanza-unesco/

Comparte este contenido:

Ecuador: 68% de los nuevos universitarios pertenece a familias de escasos recursos económicos

América del Sur/Ecuador/27 de septiembre de 2016/Fuente:

El 68% de los bachilleres que accedió a un cupo universitario, en la última convocatoria del Examen Nacional para la Educación Superior  (ENES), es la primera generación de sus familias que accede a formación de tercer nivel. Hasta la Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas (ESPE), en Sangolquí (Quito), llegaron 135 jóvenes que iniciarán sus estudios de pregrado en una de las 30 universidades públicas del país.

La Secretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Senescyt) les entregó un diploma y una medalla. Cristopher Castro, de 19 años, fue uno de los que recibió el reconocimiento. Su abuela, Gloria Saconcela, y su tía, Teresa Cataguarco, lo acompañaron durante el acto académico. La mamá de ‘Cris’ (así le dicen sus familiares) murió hace seis años por un derrame cerebral. Su padre actualmente trabaja en la Amazonía, donde inició una nueva relación. Desde entonces, Cris vive con su abuela, en el sur de la capital. Sus padres, sus abuelos y sus tíos nunca tuvieron la oportunidad de acceder a la universidad. La mayoría culminó la primaria y pocos se graduaron de bachiller. Cris se graduó en el colegio réplica 24 de Mayo, una de las unidades educativas del milenio. Su buena calificación en el ENES fue de 823. Estudiará ingeniería agrónoma en la Central. René Ramírez, titular de la Senescyt, aseguró que se ha creado una política pública en la educación superior con el fin de construir una sociedad de calidad con base en la meritocracia y la igualdad. “Gracias al trabajo mancomunado con las universidades públicas y los institutos técnicos y tecnológicos avanzamos por el principal motor de la transformación de la sociedad: la educación”.

Por su parte, Andrea Andrade, de 22 años, se graduó hace cuatro. En los períodos anteriores aplicó para obtener un cupo, pero su puntaje no le permitió acceder a la carrera que ella escogió (finanzas y auditoría). Después de varios intentos lo consiguió. Hoy inicia clases en la ESPE. Andrea, la semana pasada, llegó con su hermana mayor y su sobrina de un año. Mientras daba un paseo por las instalaciones de su universidad, contó que sus padres son de la Amazonía. Cuando ellos se separaron, su mamá, Lala Dagla, viajó a Quito para trabajar. La mamá de Andrea se instaló en la capital con sus 10 hijos. Ella terminó la primaria y desde joven trabajó. En la actualidad, Andrea vive en Sangolquí con cinco de sus hermanos, los demás se casaron y formaron una familia. Su mamá regresó a Lago Agrio y desde allá envía una mensualidad a sus hijos. Ninguno de ellos accedió a la universidad. “Teníamos que trabajar, no contábamos con los recursos necesarios”, recordó su hermana. Una oportunidad Del nuevo grupo de estudiantes, cerca del 50% proviene de un estrato socioeconómico bajo y reside en el área rural del país, “lo que constituye un logro histórico y un indicador de la efectividad de la política pública que garantiza la igualdad de oportunidades entre los diferentes sectores de la población”, expresó Ramírez. Inti Santillán, de 19 años, luce un traje otavaleño. Ella estudiará Negocios Internacionales.

Desde la primaria, su formación ha sido en el sistema público, pues la situación de su familia no le permitía optar por un centro particular. Inti se considera una alumna aplicada, pero admite que aún debe capacitarse más. En los próximos días la joven rendirá una evaluación que determinará si ingresa a primer semestre o al curso preuniversitario. (I )

Esta noticia ha sido publicada originalmente por Diario EL TELÉGRAFO bajo la siguiente dirección: http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/4/68-de-los-nuevos-universitarios-pertenece-a-familias-de-escasos-recursos-economicos
www.eltelegrafo.com.ec

Imagen: www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/media/k2/items/cache/107cac0219c8c51e74f4f16501818b58_XL.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

México: Autoridades acuerdan programa indicativo para educación a distancia

América del Norte/México/ 22 de septiembre de 2016/Fuente: terra

La Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES) junto con la Asociación para el Desarrollo del Sistema Nacional de Educación a Distancia (SINED) formularon un programa indicativo para el desarrollo de la Educación Superior a distancia, de acuerdo a una agenda establecida con la Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP).

El subsecretario de Educación Superior de la SEP, Salvador Jara Guerrero, inauguró el taller en la Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas (UNACH), en compañía del secretario general de la Anuies, Jaime Valls Esponda, el cual tiene como objetivo evaluar y generar un programa indicativo de la educación a distancia.

En un comunicado, consideró que no sólo la educación en línea y a distancia en México es menor en comparación con el resto del mundo, sino que además no existe un diagnóstico que muestre los niveles y alcances de la misma.

Apuntó que el taller permitirá hacer un diagnóstico o programa indicativo de la educación a distancia en México, revisar los casos de éxito de programas en línea y generar una prospectiva que permita atender y aumentar la cobertura de la Educación Superior.

En tanto Valls Esponda agradeció el interés de la dependencia por continuar impulsando desde la Anuies y el Sined la Educación Superior a distancia y hacer este programa indicativo para el desarrollo de la educación a distancia, el Pidesad, un instrumento indispensable en el diseño de políticas públicas en la materia.

Señaló que la Anuies ha mostrado interés permanente en la educación a distancia que asegure educación de calidad, promueva la equidad y mejore la cobertura, tanto en los programas, como de la población que resultará beneficiada.

Cabe señalar que la Asamblea General de Asociados del Sined, en su sesión del 12 de junio de 2015 autoriza el Plan de Fortalecimiento, propuesto por la Anuies, para impulsar la educación a distancia que comprende estrategias normativas, de planeación, organizativas, financieras y tecnológicas.

En esta ceremonia de inauguración, estuvieron presentes el rector de la UNACH, Carlos Eugenio Ruiz Hernández; Ana Cristina Hernández, coordinadora general del Sistema Nacional de Educación a Distancia; directores de Educación a Distancia de Instituciones de Educación Superior y especialistas en la materia.

Fuente:

Imagen:

Comparte este contenido:

Banco Mundial y Fondo Monetario Internacional apoyarán a Colombia durante el posconflicto

Colombia/22 septiembre 2016/Fuente: hsbnoticias.com

El Ministro de Hacienda, Mauricio Cárdenas, confirmó que la directora gerente del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), Christine Lagarde, y el presidente del Banco Mundial (BM), Jim Yong Kim, confirmaron su asistencia a la firma del acuerdo de paz entre gobierno y Farc el 26 de septiembre en Cartagena.

Desde ya, el jefe de la cartera de Hacienda indicó en el foro Diálogos para una Nueva Economía, realizado en la Institución de Educación Superior Tecnológico de Antioquia. que ambos directivos mostraron su respaldo económico al proceso.

“Este miércoles en la noche recibimos esta noticia positiva para el futuro económico del país y que nos llena de regocijo. Ese respaldo económico al posconflicto es fundamental. Quiere decir que los dos principales organismos económicos mundiales están comprometidos con la paz de Colombia”, manifestó el Ministro.

Cárdenas, además, reiteró que la paz es la mejor noticia para la economía de Colombia, pues, entre otras cosas, se avanzará más rápidamente en el pago de sus obligaciones y traerá mayores beneficios a los jóvenes colombianos, brindando más oportunidades en la educación superior.

“Vamos a poder consolidar a la educación como el sector líder en materia de recursos en Colombia. Hoy 50 de cada 100 estudiantes que terminan la educación media, dan el paso a la educación superior. Soñemos que sean 60, 70 e incluso 80 de cada 100 jóvenes que puedan ingresar a una institución de educación superior, que tengan cómo hacerlo, eso lo podremos hacer en paz”, puntualizó.

Fuente: http://hsbnoticias.com/noticias/economia/banco-mundial-y-fondo-monetario-internacional-apoyaran-col-235724

Comparte este contenido:

Neoliberal Savagery and the Assault on Higher Education as a Democratic Public Sphere

 

By Henry A. Giroux

Across the globe, a new historical conjuncture is emerging in which attacks on higher education as a democratic institution and on dissident public voices in general – whether journalists, whistleblowers, or academics – are intensifying with alarming consequences for both higher education and the formative public spheres that make democracy possible. Hyper-capitalism or market fundamentalism has put higher education in its cross hairs and the result has been the ongoing transformation of higher education into an adjunct of the very rich and powerful corporate interests. Marina Warner has rightly called these assaults on higher education, “the new brutalism in academia.”[i] It may be worse than she suggests. In fact, the right-wing defense of the neoliberal dismantling of the university as a site of critical inquiry is more brazen and arrogant than anything we have seen in the past. What we are witnessing is an attack on universities not because they are failing, but because they are public. This is not just an attack on political liberty but also an attack on dissent, critical education, and any public institution that might exercise a democratizing influence on the nation. In this case the autonomy of institutions such as higher education, particularly public institutions are threatened as much by state politics as by corporate interests. How else to explain in neoliberal societies such as the U.S., U.K. and India the massive defunding of public institutions of higher education, the raising of tuition for students, and the closing of areas of study that do not translate immediately into profits for the corporate sector?

The hidden notion of politics that fuels this market-driven ideology is on display in a more Western-style form of neoliberalism in which the autonomy of democratizing institutions is under assault not only by the state but also by the rich, bankers, hedge fund managers, and the corporate elite. In this case, corporate sovereignty has replaced traditional state modes of governance that once supported higher education as a public good. That is, it is now mostly powerful corporate elites who despise the common good and who as the South African Nobel Prize winner in literature, JM Coetzee, points out “reconceive of themselves as managers of national economies” who want to turn universities into training schools equipping young people with the skills required by a modern economy.”[ii] Viewed as a private investment rather than a public good, universities are now construed as spaces where students are valued as human capital, courses are defined by consumer demand, and governance is based on the Walmart model of labour relations. For Coetzee, this attack on higher education, which is not only ideological but also increasingly relies on the repressive, militaristic arm of the punishing state, is a response to the democratization of the university that reached a highpoint in the 1960s all across the globe. In the last twenty years, the assault on the university as a center of critique, but also on intellectuals, student protesters, and the critical formative cultures that provide the foundation for a substantive democracy has only intensified.[iii]

Coetzee’s defense of education provides an important referent for those of us who believe that the university is nothing if it is not a public trust and social good; that is, a critical institution infused with the promise of cultivating intellectual insight, the civic imagination, inquisitiveness, risk-taking, social responsibility, and the struggle for justice. Rather than defining the mission of the university by mimicking the logic of the market in terms of ideology, governance, and policy, the questions that should be asked at this crucial time in American history might raise the following issues: how might the mission of the university be understood with respect to safeguarding the interests of young people at a time of violence and war, the rise of a rampant anti-intellectualism, the emerging specter of authoritarianism, and the threat of nuclear and ecological devastation? What might it mean to define the university as a public good and democratic public sphere rather than as an institution that has aligned itself with market values and is more attentive to market fluctuations and investors than educating students to be critically engaged citizens? Or, as Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis write: “how will we form the next generation of … intellectuals and politicians if young people will never have an opportunity to experience what a non-vulgar, non-pragmatic, non-instrumentalized university is like?”[iv] As public spheres – once enlivened by broad engagements with common concerns – are being transformed into “spectacular spaces of consumption”,[v] financial looting, the flight from mutual obligations and social responsibilities has intensified and resulted in not only a devaluing of public life and the common good, but also a crisis in the radical imagination, especially in terms of the meaning and value of politics itself.[vi]

What I am suggesting is that the crisis of higher education is about much more than a crisis of funding, an assault on dissent, and a remaking of higher education as another institution designed to serve the increasing financialization of neoliberal driven societies; it is also about a crisis of memory, agency, and the political. As major newspapers all over the country shut down and the media becomes more concentrated in the hands of fewer mega corporations, higher education becomes one of the few sites left where the ideas, attitudes, values, and goals can be taught that enable students to question authority, rethink the nature of their relationship with others in terms of democratic rather than commercial values, and take seriously the impending challenges of developing a global democracy.

The apostles of predatory capitalism are well aware that no democracy can survive without an informed citizenry, and they implement a range of policies to make sure that higher education will no longer fulfill such a noble civic task. This is evident in the business models imposed on governing structures, defining students as customers, reducing faculty to Wal-Mart workers, imposing punishing accounting models on educators, and expanding the ranks of the managerial class at the expense of the power of faculty.

As politics is removed from its political, moral, and ethical registers – stripped down to a machine of social and political death for whom the cultivation of the imagination is a hindrance, commerce is the heartbeat of social relations, and the only mode of governance that matters is one that rules Wall Street. Time and space have been privatized, commodified, and stripped of human compassion under the reign of neoliberalism. We live in the age of a new brutalism marked not simply by an indifference to multiple social problems, but also defined by a kind of mad delight in the spectacle and exercise of violence and what the famed film director, Ken Loach, has called “conscious cruelty.”[vii] America is marked by a brutalism that is perfectly consistent with a new kind of barbaric power, one that puts millions of people in prison, subjects an entire generation to a form of indentured citizenship, and strips people of the material and symbolic resources they need to exercise their capacity to live with dignity and justice.

For those of us who believe that education is more than an extension of the business world and the new brutalism, it is crucial that educators, artists, workers, labour unions, and other cultural workers address a number of issues that connect the university to the larger society while stressing the educative nature of politics as part of a broader effort to create a critical culture, institutions, and a collective movement that supports the connection between critique and action and redefines agency in the service of the practice of freedom and justice. Let me mention just a few. 

First, educators can address the relationship between the attack on the social state and the transformation of higher education into an adjunct corporate power. As Stefan Collini has argued, under the regime of neoliberalism, the “social self” has been transformed into the “disembedded individual,” just as the notion of the university as a public good is now repudiated by the privatizing and atomistic values at the heart of a hyper-market driven society.[viii] Clearly, in any democratic society, education should be viewed as a right, not an entitlement. This suggests a reordering of state and federal priorities to make that happen. Much needed revenue can be raised by putting into play even a limited number of  reform policies in which, for instance, the rich and corporations would be forced to pay a fair share of their taxes, a tax would be placed on trade transactions, and tax loopholes for the wealthy would be eliminated. It is well known that the low tax rate given to corporations is a major scandal. For instance, the Bank of America paid no taxes in 2010 and “got $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits.”[ix]

In addition, academics can join with students, public school teachers, unions, and others to bring attention to wasteful military spending that if eliminated could provide the funds for a free public higher education for every qualified young person in the country. While there is growing public concern over rising tuition rates along with the crushing debt students are incurring, there is little public outrage from academics over the billions of dollars squandered on a massive and wasteful military budget and arms industry. As Michael Lerner has pointed out, democracy needs a Marshall Plan in which funding is sufficient to make all levels of education free, while also providing enough social support to eliminate poverty, hunger, inadequate health care, and the destruction of the environment. There is nothing utopian about the demand to redirect money away from the military, the powerful corporations, and the upper 1 percent. 

Second, addressing these tasks demands a sustained critique of the transformation of a market economy into a market society along with a clear analysis of the damage it has caused both at home and abroad. Power, particularly the power of the largest corporations, has become more unaccountable and “the subtlety of illegitimate power makes it hard to identify.”[x] Disposability has become the new measure of a savage form of casino capitalism in which the only value that matters is exchange value. Compassion, social responsibility, and justice are relegated to the dustbin of an older modernity that now is viewed as either quaint or a grim reminder of a socialist past. This suggests, as Angela Davis, Michelle Alexander, and others have argued, that there is a need for academics and young people to become part of a broader social movement aimed at dismantling the repressive institutions that make up the punishing state. The most egregious example of this is the prison-industrial complex, which drains billions of dollars in funds to put people in jail when such funds could be used for expanding public and higher education.We live in a country in which the police have become militarized, armed with weapons from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.[xi] The United States prison system locks up more people than any other country in the world, and the vast majority of them are people of color.[xii] Moreover, public schools are increasingly modeled after prisons and are implementing policies in which children are arrested for throwing peanuts at a school bus or violating a dress code.[xiii] The punishing state is a dire threat to both public and higher education and democracy itself. The American public does not need more prisons; it needs more schools, free health services, and a living wage for all workers.  

Third, academics, artists, journalists, and other young people need to connect the rise of subaltern, part-time labour – or what we might call the Walmart model of wealth and labour relations – in both the university and the larger society to the massive inequality in wealth and income that now corrupts every aspect of American politics and society. No democracy can survive the kind of inequality in which “the 400 richest people…have as much wealth as 154 million Americans combined, that’s 50 percent of the entire country [while] the top economic 1 percent of the U.S. population now has a record 40 percent of all wealth and more wealth than 90 percent of the population combined.”[xiv] Senator Bernie Sanders provides a statistical map of the massive inequality at work in the United States. In a speech to the U.S. Senate, he states:

Today, Madam President, the top 1% owns 38% of the financial wealth of America, 38%. And I wonder how many Americans know how much the bottom 60% own. They want people to think about it. Top 1% own 38% of the wealth. What do the bottom 60% own? The answer is all of 2.3%. Top 1% owns 38% of the financial wealth. The bottom 60% owns 2.3%. Madam President, there is one family in this country, the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, who are now worth as a family $148 billion. That is more wealth than the bottom 40% of American society. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of American society…That’s distribution of wealth. That’s what we own. In terms of income, what we made last year, the latest information that we have in terms of distribution of income is that from 2009-2012, 95% of all new income earned in this country went to the top 1%. Have you all got that? 95% of all new income went to the top 1%, which tells us that when we talk about economic growth, which is 2%, 3%, 4%, whatever it is, that really doesn’t mean all that much because almost all of the new income generated in that growth has gone to the very, very, very wealthiest people in this country.[xv]

Democracy in the United States, and many other countries, has been hijacked by a free-floating class of ultra-rich and corporate powerbrokers and transformed into an oligarchy “where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals.”[xvi] At least, this is the conclusion of a recent Princeton University study, and it may be much too moderate in its conclusions. 

Fourth, academics need to fight for the rights of students to get a free education, for them to be given a formidable and critical education not dominated by corporate values, and to have a say in the shaping of their education and what it means to expand and deepen the practice of freedom and democracy. In many countries such as Germany, France, Denmark, Cuba, and Brazil, post-secondary education is free because these countries view education not as a private right but as a public good. Yet, in some of the most advanced countries in the world such as the United States and Canada, young people, especially from low income groups have been excluded from getting a higher education and, in part, this is because they are left out of the social contract and the discourse of democracy. They are the new disposables who lack jobs, a decent education, hope, and any semblance of a life better than the one their parents inherited. They are a reminder of how finance capital has abandoned any viable vision of a better future for young people. Youth have become a liability in the world of high finance, a world that refuses to view them as an important social investment. 

Fifth, there is a need to oppose the ongoing shift in power relations between faculty and the managerial class. Too many faculty are now removed from the governing structure of higher education and as a result have been abandoned to the misery of impoverished wages, excessive classes, no health care, and few, if any, social benefits. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsburg points out, administrators and their staff now outnumber full time faculty producing two-thirds of the increase in higher education costs in the past 20 years. This is shameful and is not merely an education issue but a deeply political matter, one that must address how neoliberal ideology and policy has imposed on higher education an anti-democratic governing structure. 

Sixth, it is important to stress once again that education must be viewed not simply as a practice endemic to schooling but goes on throughout society through a range of cultural apparatuses extending from the mainstream media to various aspects of screen culture. Education is at the center of politics because it is crucial to how agency is formed, how people view themselves and their relations to others. Educators and other cultural workers must acknowledge that domination is as much ideological as it is economic and structural. This means taking on the challenge of embracing the symbolic and ideological dimensions of struggle as part of the struggle against oppression and domination. Educators need to launch pedagogical campaigns aimed at dismantling the common sense logic of neoliberalism: people are only consumers, government is the enemy, the market should govern all of social life, social bonds are a pathology, self-interest is the highest virtue, and last but not least the market should govern itself. University faculty must join together and find ways to press the claims for economic and social justice and do so in a discourse that is aimed at multiple audiences and is both rigorous and accessible. Universities need to defend not only the idea of the university as a democratic public sphere but also faculty as public intellectuals capable and willing to question authority, hold power accountable, and be critical of existing affairs.

Finally, seventh, the fight to transform higher education cannot be waged strictly inside the walls of such institutions by faculty and students alone. As radical social movements more recently in Spain, Portugal, and India have made clear, there is a need for new social and political formations among faculty, unions, young people, cultural workers, and most importantly social movements, all of which need to be organized in part for the defense of public goods and what might be called the promise and ideals of a radical democracy. Any struggle against the anti-democratic forces that are mobilizing once again all over the world must recognize that power is not global and politics is local. A financial elite operates now in the flow and international spaces of capital and have no allegiances to nation-states and can impose their financial will on these states as we have seen recently in some European countries. Resistance must address this new power formation and think and organize across national boundaries. Resistance on a global level is no longer an option, it is a necessity.

Neoliberal societies now live in the shadow of the authoritarian corporate state, but the future is still open. The time has come to develop a political language in which civic values and social responsibility – and the institutions, tactics, and long-term commitments that support them – become central to invigorating and fortifying a new era of civic engagement, a renewed sense of social agency, and an impassioned international social movement with the vision, organization, and set of strategies capable of challenging the neoliberal nightmare that now haunts the globe and empties out the meaning of politics and democracy.

Photo: Google Images


[i] Marina Warner, “Dairy,” The London Review of Books 36:17, September 11, 2014.

[ii]JM Coetzee, “JM Coetzee: Universities head for extinction” Mail & Guardian, November 1, 2013.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis, Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity, (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2013), p. 139.

[v] Steven Miles, Social Theory in the Real World (Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2001), p. 116.

[vi] Joshua Kurlantzick, Democracy in Retreat (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).

[vii] Fran Blandy, “Loach film on shame of poverty in Britain moves Cannes to tears,” Yahoo News, May 13, 2016.

[viii] These two terms are taken from Stefan Collini, “Response to Book Review Symposium: Stefan Collini, What are Universities For,” Sociology 1-2 (February 5, 2014).

[ix] Michael Snyder, “You won’t believe who is getting away with paying zero taxes while the middle class gets hammered,” InfoWars.com, February 19, 2013.

[x] Susan George, “State of Corporations: The Rise of Illegitimate Power and the Threat to Democracy,” in Transnational Institute and Occupy.com. State of Power 2014: Exposing the Davos Class (February 2014).

[xi] Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces (New York: Public Affairs, 2013), and Jill Nelson, ed. Police Brutality (New York: Norton, 2000).

[xii] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The New Press, 2010).

[xiii] Henry A. Giroux, Youth in a Suspect Society (New York: Palgrave, 2012).

 [xiv] David DeGraw, “Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion in Wealth,”Alternet, August 11, 2011.

[xv] Sen. Bernie Sanders, “A Threat to American Democracy,” RSN, April 1 , 2014

[xvi] Tom McKay, “Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy,” Popular Resistance, April 16, 2014.


Bio:
Henry A. Giroux
 is University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. His many books include Theory and Resistance in Education(1983), Critical Theory and Educational Practice (1983), Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning (1988), Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education (1992),Living Dangerously: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Culture (1993), Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope Theory, Culture, and Schooling (1997), Impure Acts: The Practical Politics of Cultural Studies(2000), Public Spaces/Private Lives: Democracy Beyond 9/11 (2003), Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post Civil Rights Era (co-authored with Susan Searls Giroux, 2004), The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy(2004), The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex (2007),Youth in a Suspect Society: Democracy or Disposability? (2009), America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (2013), and America’s Addiction to Terrorism (2016).

Comparte este contenido:
Page 217 of 231
1 215 216 217 218 219 231