Higher Education and Academic Freedom
Joseph P. Diaferia | 18.06.2002 22:16
Higher Education and Academic Freedom
by Joseph P. Diaferia • Tuesday June 18, 2002 at 02:35 PM
progress1917@hotmail.com New York City
Higher Education and Academic Freedom: Allies in the Struggle.
Higher Education and Academic Freedom: Allies in the Struggle.
By Joseph P. Diaferia
June 18, 2002
Many progressive critics of United States foreign and domestic policy correctly assert that radical social change will be possible only when the masses are ready for such an undertaking.
While social change should not be an unpopular concept to the masses—especially not during periods of economic despair—the radical changes necessary to end all forms of want and oppression have been subjects of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation in our society for generations. Indeed, total economic doom may have to appear imminent, before the American people may be willing to embrace progressive or revolutionary alternatives. Therefore, the struggle for radical change must consist principally, of educating and re-educating the working class; it must be a process of learning and unlearning history and bringing to people an understanding that ruling class interests and working class interests are not one and the same; that when Wall Street has had a good day, it does not mean it has been a good day for all.
In everyday American parlance, even “liberal”—hardly a revolutionary concept, and very often a reactionary one—has become a term of opprobrium. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that proposals for radical policy changes in any public discussion are sure to elicit anaphylactic responses from the chronically indoctrinated.
Many reactionary media pundits have devoted their careers to heaping ridicule upon so-called liberal political “leaders” who harbor mere tactical (as opposed to ideological) differences with conservatives who are more popular. Voices of the political Right are more popular, not because of their substance but because of their availability, and because of the deliberate exclusion of voices from the political Left. It is increasingly difficult for elected officials and commentators, who bear the “liberal” designation, to even pretend to fundamental differences with the establishment that they are very much a part. Therefore, it is still more difficult for progressives and radicals—whose agenda calls for substantial and legitimate redistributive policies—to reach mass audiences. (In effect, conservatives who engage in liberal bashing are untrue to their own philosophies by attacking political proposals that are intended to preserve the scourge of capitalism by making it appear more palatable.)
The fascist orientation of American politics has brought slavery, racism, anti-Semitism, millions dead in numerous wars, nuclear destruction, mass immiseration, a defiled ecology, several economic depressions, and much more. Yet, Americans believe that because they are given a perfunctory electoral system that allows them to choose from among two indistinguishable political parties—they have democracy. Americans believe that because they may offer limited critiques (as opposed to radical analyses) of public policy—they have free speech. Nevertheless, because the American people are constantly and systematically denied information that might lead them to a less favorable and more realistic view of their history and culture, the need for serious fundamental change is far removed from American consciousness. This is especially true in the context of 9/11/01 as the collective American psyche is increasingly imbued with reassuring images of “liberty and justice for all” (omitted from that moronic passage, is the requisite suffix, “..…who can afford it.”). The recriminatory wave that has followed the September attacks is intimidating many advocates for peace and justice into silence—as it is so intended.
In the months since the terrorist attacks, a particularly ruthless assault has been launched against academic freedom in the United States. This offensive is being spearheaded in part by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a Washington-based group founded in 1995 by Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and Lynne Cheney, the wife of our intensely reclusive vice-president. In a recent report, ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the Council asserts that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11, 2001. The report lists various incidents on college campuses as forebodingly symptomatic of anti-Americanism, and accuses more than 40 professors of less than reliable “patriotism”. Included in this list is the president of Wesleyan University, who recently wrote in an open letter that ``disparities and injustices'' in the world can lead to violence and war. Other examples include a Yale professor, criticized for the following statement, ``It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came.'' A professor from the University of Oregon is listed for recommending that ``we need to understand the reasons behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S. and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred for generations to come.''
By referring to academia as a “weak link”, ACTA is apparently admitting that many college professors are all that stand between the American people and mass delusion. From a ruling class perspective, one could consider ACTA’s report a “weak link” in that it betrays the ruling class’s greatest fear, namely: a well-educated public. What could be more undermining to a militaristic agenda than for the American people to raise serious questions about their history and foreign policy? How might CEOs in the petroleum industry explain the U.S. invasion of Somalia 1993 if the falsehood of the U.S.’s concern for starving people were ever exposed? What would be the rationales proffered by directors of agribusinesses if the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 were to become a topic of public discussion? What could be more rankling to the Bush administration than having to publicly explain the massive failure of U.S. intelligence on the morning of September 11? Moreover, imagine the profanity of reactionary radio talk show hosts if suddenly taken to task by the Ramsey Clarks of our society, instead of being egged on by the Archie Bunkers. Clearly, an educated (as opposed to indoctrinated) population is a liability to any government that must resort to systematic subterfuge and propaganda to win the sheepish cooperation of its people.
During the Red “scares” of yesteryear, academics and other professionals were forced to sign humiliating loyalty oaths as a condition for employment. Unfortunately, this is not entirely a past practice. At least one university in Westchester County, New York (not one that this writer is associated with) requires prospective faculty members to waive their academic freedom with written pledges not to discuss the United States unfavorably. Would loyalty oaths not seem oddly superfluous were it not for the long history of U.S. plunder and pillage that the establishment works so tirelessly to conceal?
How then, can a politically progressive movement prevail in a society that views any form of fundamental change with such disapprobation?
Education is our most vital weapon. In particular, our system of higher education must continue to be a forum for all political views to be aired. As this writer has experienced, heterodox views are received most favorably within the context of a college course (deviations from syllabi—ergo, academic freedom, are usually prohibited in public secondary schools). When iconoclastic views are introduced in such interpersonal group situations, as say—among co-workers in an office discussion, among parishioners during a church social event, or among family members over Thanks-taking dinner—there tends to be far greater skepticism and even hostility to such information. As a frequent outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy in local media, this writer has often been judged by irate citizens to be mouthing licentious blather. Yet, in six years of teaching college level Political Science and History from a radical perspective, one has not experienced a single instance of student hostility, and the infrequent cases of student skepticism have never been met with unconstructive exchanges.
That working Americans live under a totalitarian system of calculated censorship is common knowledge to most dissidents. Although some Americans have had their suspicions about the legitimacy of the capitalist social order, most might respond with anything from a dismissive smirk to a psychotic tirade at the suggestion that the United States is anything less than a pluralistic democracy. Americans, mostly, do not know the truth about their country, but what is more, they do not know that they do not know the truth.
To be sure, not all academics are allies of the working class, especially not those in vocational or business oriented disciplines. One would not expect a professor of business to tender a criticism of global capitalism and the resultant marginalization of millions. In addition, there are many who teach in more theoretical areas such as Political Science, Sociology, History and Philosophy, who disseminate information that is hostile to working class interests.
After the capitalist order is dismantled and replaced, the people must assume the task of changing our educational system from its capitalist, Eurocentric foundation, to an institution that promotes inclusive working class ideals. Until that time, our present system of higher education—whatever its shortcomings—is our most valuable vehicle for communicating our message to the masses.
To the extent possible, we must use our educational system to undo what the educational system, itself has done. We must continue the fight for free and/or affordable education and we must fight for the preservation of academic freedom. We must fight for the rights of academics to challenge the established order. We must not allow college administrations to persecute academics who present information that exposes the venality of the imperialist-capitalist system.
As historian Howard Zinn writes in his book Declarations of Independence: “If those in charge of our society--politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television--can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves”.
The elite are presently secure in their power because they continue to rely on the currency of disinformation and a favorable cultural hegemony. We know this, and if there is to be change, the masses must know it too.
by Joseph P. Diaferia • Tuesday June 18, 2002 at 02:35 PM
progress1917@hotmail.com New York City Higher Education and Academic Freedom: Allies in the Struggle.
Higher Education and Academic Freedom: Allies in the Struggle.
By Joseph P. Diaferia
June 18, 2002
Many progressive critics of United States foreign and domestic policy correctly assert that radical social change will be possible only when the masses are ready for such an undertaking.
While social change should not be an unpopular concept to the masses—especially not during periods of economic despair—the radical changes necessary to end all forms of want and oppression have been subjects of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation in our society for generations. Indeed, total economic doom may have to appear imminent, before the American people may be willing to embrace progressive or revolutionary alternatives. Therefore, the struggle for radical change must consist principally, of educating and re-educating the working class; it must be a process of learning and unlearning history and bringing to people an understanding that ruling class interests and working class interests are not one and the same; that when Wall Street has had a good day, it does not mean it has been a good day for all.
In everyday American parlance, even “liberal”—hardly a revolutionary concept, and very often a reactionary one—has become a term of opprobrium. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that proposals for radical policy changes in any public discussion are sure to elicit anaphylactic responses from the chronically indoctrinated.
Many reactionary media pundits have devoted their careers to heaping ridicule upon so-called liberal political “leaders” who harbor mere tactical (as opposed to ideological) differences with conservatives who are more popular. Voices of the political Right are more popular, not because of their substance but because of their availability, and because of the deliberate exclusion of voices from the political Left. It is increasingly difficult for elected officials and commentators, who bear the “liberal” designation, to even pretend to fundamental differences with the establishment that they are very much a part. Therefore, it is still more difficult for progressives and radicals—whose agenda calls for substantial and legitimate redistributive policies—to reach mass audiences. (In effect, conservatives who engage in liberal bashing are untrue to their own philosophies by attacking political proposals that are intended to preserve the scourge of capitalism by making it appear more palatable.)
The fascist orientation of American politics has brought slavery, racism, anti-Semitism, millions dead in numerous wars, nuclear destruction, mass immiseration, a defiled ecology, several economic depressions, and much more. Yet, Americans believe that because they are given a perfunctory electoral system that allows them to choose from among two indistinguishable political parties—they have democracy. Americans believe that because they may offer limited critiques (as opposed to radical analyses) of public policy—they have free speech. Nevertheless, because the American people are constantly and systematically denied information that might lead them to a less favorable and more realistic view of their history and culture, the need for serious fundamental change is far removed from American consciousness. This is especially true in the context of 9/11/01 as the collective American psyche is increasingly imbued with reassuring images of “liberty and justice for all” (omitted from that moronic passage, is the requisite suffix, “..…who can afford it.”). The recriminatory wave that has followed the September attacks is intimidating many advocates for peace and justice into silence—as it is so intended.
In the months since the terrorist attacks, a particularly ruthless assault has been launched against academic freedom in the United States. This offensive is being spearheaded in part by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a Washington-based group founded in 1995 by Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and Lynne Cheney, the wife of our intensely reclusive vice-president. In a recent report, ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the Council asserts that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11, 2001. The report lists various incidents on college campuses as forebodingly symptomatic of anti-Americanism, and accuses more than 40 professors of less than reliable “patriotism”. Included in this list is the president of Wesleyan University, who recently wrote in an open letter that ``disparities and injustices'' in the world can lead to violence and war. Other examples include a Yale professor, criticized for the following statement, ``It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came.'' A professor from the University of Oregon is listed for recommending that ``we need to understand the reasons behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S. and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred for generations to come.''
By referring to academia as a “weak link”, ACTA is apparently admitting that many college professors are all that stand between the American people and mass delusion. From a ruling class perspective, one could consider ACTA’s report a “weak link” in that it betrays the ruling class’s greatest fear, namely: a well-educated public. What could be more undermining to a militaristic agenda than for the American people to raise serious questions about their history and foreign policy? How might CEOs in the petroleum industry explain the U.S. invasion of Somalia 1993 if the falsehood of the U.S.’s concern for starving people were ever exposed? What would be the rationales proffered by directors of agribusinesses if the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 were to become a topic of public discussion? What could be more rankling to the Bush administration than having to publicly explain the massive failure of U.S. intelligence on the morning of September 11? Moreover, imagine the profanity of reactionary radio talk show hosts if suddenly taken to task by the Ramsey Clarks of our society, instead of being egged on by the Archie Bunkers. Clearly, an educated (as opposed to indoctrinated) population is a liability to any government that must resort to systematic subterfuge and propaganda to win the sheepish cooperation of its people.
During the Red “scares” of yesteryear, academics and other professionals were forced to sign humiliating loyalty oaths as a condition for employment. Unfortunately, this is not entirely a past practice. At least one university in Westchester County, New York (not one that this writer is associated with) requires prospective faculty members to waive their academic freedom with written pledges not to discuss the United States unfavorably. Would loyalty oaths not seem oddly superfluous were it not for the long history of U.S. plunder and pillage that the establishment works so tirelessly to conceal?
How then, can a politically progressive movement prevail in a society that views any form of fundamental change with such disapprobation?
Education is our most vital weapon. In particular, our system of higher education must continue to be a forum for all political views to be aired. As this writer has experienced, heterodox views are received most favorably within the context of a college course (deviations from syllabi—ergo, academic freedom, are usually prohibited in public secondary schools). When iconoclastic views are introduced in such interpersonal group situations, as say—among co-workers in an office discussion, among parishioners during a church social event, or among family members over Thanks-taking dinner—there tends to be far greater skepticism and even hostility to such information. As a frequent outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy in local media, this writer has often been judged by irate citizens to be mouthing licentious blather. Yet, in six years of teaching college level Political Science and History from a radical perspective, one has not experienced a single instance of student hostility, and the infrequent cases of student skepticism have never been met with unconstructive exchanges.
That working Americans live under a totalitarian system of calculated censorship is common knowledge to most dissidents. Although some Americans have had their suspicions about the legitimacy of the capitalist social order, most might respond with anything from a dismissive smirk to a psychotic tirade at the suggestion that the United States is anything less than a pluralistic democracy. Americans, mostly, do not know the truth about their country, but what is more, they do not know that they do not know the truth.
To be sure, not all academics are allies of the working class, especially not those in vocational or business oriented disciplines. One would not expect a professor of business to tender a criticism of global capitalism and the resultant marginalization of millions. In addition, there are many who teach in more theoretical areas such as Political Science, Sociology, History and Philosophy, who disseminate information that is hostile to working class interests.
After the capitalist order is dismantled and replaced, the people must assume the task of changing our educational system from its capitalist, Eurocentric foundation, to an institution that promotes inclusive working class ideals. Until that time, our present system of higher education—whatever its shortcomings—is our most valuable vehicle for communicating our message to the masses.
To the extent possible, we must use our educational system to undo what the educational system, itself has done. We must continue the fight for free and/or affordable education and we must fight for the preservation of academic freedom. We must fight for the rights of academics to challenge the established order. We must not allow college administrations to persecute academics who present information that exposes the venality of the imperialist-capitalist system.
As historian Howard Zinn writes in his book Declarations of Independence: “If those in charge of our society--politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television--can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves”.
The elite are presently secure in their power because they continue to rely on the currency of disinformation and a favorable cultural hegemony. We know this, and if there is to be change, the masses must know it too.
Joseph P. Diaferia
e-mail:
progress1917@hotmail.com
