• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Get Off My Lawn

November 16, 2011, 1:25 pm

The curious story of the Occupy movement is getting more curious still. In the early morning hours of November 15, Mayor Bloomberg had the police shut down the encampment in Zuccotti Park. He held a press conference at dawn that morning to explain that he remains a friend of the Occupiers and values their right to protest, but because “health and safety conditions became intolerable,” he had been forced to send in some well-armed evictors. He offered the evictees assurances that they could recover their camping gear at a depot in mid-town. And while he would have been personally happy to welcome them back to Zuccotti for some diurnal speechifying and drum beating, a New York judge, Lucy Billings, had issued a temporary restraining order, which requires the park to stay closed.

Meanwhile, on Monday, the University of California Board of Regents decided to postpone meetings it had scheduled for November 16 and 17 at the UC San Francisco campus, “citing a real danger of significant violence and vandalism” from Occupy-inspired protesters. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is only the fourth time in thirty years that the Regents have canceled a meeting. A war, the 9/11 attack, and a major earthquake prompted the previous delays. This one is officially blamed on “rogue elements” within the Occupy movement. The protesters are now protesting the Regents’ decision to cancel the meeting. A student who serves on the Regents, Alfredo Mireles Jr., opposed the cancellation as eliminating students’ opportunity to “make their voices heard forcefully.”

Meanwhile Robert Birgeneau, chancellor of UC Berkeley, announced an amnesty for the students who rioted and resisted the police when Alameda County sheriff’s deputies tried to clear the Occupy Cal protest at Sproul Plaza.

Meanwhile. Other protesters are attempting to launch a lawsuit against the University for “violent police brutality.”

Meanwhile…this gets better.

Meanwhile, Bob Samuels, a lecturer in the UCLA Writing Programs and president of the University of California American Federation of Teachers, sent an e-mail to “UC-AFT represented lecturers and librarians” noting the student strike scheduled for Thursday, November 15, “to reject the excessive police force used against our protests to make Wall Street — and the corporate elite on the boards governing our universities — pay for refunding public education.” Samuels encourages the union members “to support the strike in any way possible that does not violate the no strikes language in our contracts.”

Supporting what is ostensibly forbidden requires some hair-splitting, and Samuels the writing instructor is up to the task:

One option for lecturers is to teach their courses outside on November 15th and to tell students about the meetings on the 16th. While lecturers and librarians cannot withhold their labor, they may arrange to hold classes in alternate off-campus locations, and they may join the pickets and strike activities during break time or other non-work hours. For more suggestions on how you can support the November 15th strike, and some limitations on our involvement set by our contracts, please follow this link.

Holding class out of doors so that one can evade the restriction on supporting the strike in the classroom is sort of cute. I wonder, however, if union members would be amused if the University of California decided to exercise similar creativity in its interpretation of the contract?

Meanwhile, the New York Times declares on the front page that “Occupy Wall Street Protestors Shifting to College Campuses.” This has numerous advantages. College quads aren’t far from restrooms and laundries. Dining halls and dorm rooms are nearby. And college officials are typically reluctant to call in the police if things get out of hand. Many would do what Chancellor Birgeneau did: issue a pre-emptive amnesty.

Baffled Resentment

Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is not alone in moving against the Occupiers. Municipal authorizes in a variety of cities have decided they have had enough and have sent in the police to carry out evictions. In a sense, the Occupy movement is coming home for the winter. It was always, deep down, about the concerns of college students. The overlays of “community organizers,” socialist schemers, anarchist utopians, and hangers-on of all types didn’t define the character of the protests. The dominant note was the distress of students and recent graduates in the midst of realizing that their educations are drastically misaligned with the world in which they will have to live.

Their bafflement has made them an easy target for satire. What did they think they were doing when they took out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to pursue college degrees in fields that equipped them mainly to be “citizens of the world?” Their dreams of becoming well-paid consultants for UNESCO and prosperous sustainability advocates have gone the way of Solyndra investments. Victor Davis Hanson has caught the spirit of thing:

Many are furious that they have or soon will have very expensive degrees, bought at the price of either exorbitant loans or near insolvent parents who paid the $100,000-200,000 for today’s BAs.

But Hanson also sees the psychological dilemma: the students now huddle back at the university, unwilling and unable to recognize it as the real source of their distress. They rage, but not “against the modern corrupt, but ideologically sacrosanct, university [where] diversity czars outnumber French professors.”

And:

They are consumed with contemporary furor as the education bubble of nearly a trillion dollars in debt is about to burst. They are mad at the system that they were taught oppresses them, but also at themselves. Who would not be after spending so much money for something of so little value? Nothing is more embarrassing to watch than arrogance coupled with ignorance — and spiced with occasional glibness and the slow realization that they’ve been had.

Hanson may be a beat ahead of some of the students. For many of the protesters in California, that slow realization is at this point no more than a furrowed brow. They are upset about the rising cost of tuition, and they are bursting with indignation that they cannot get what they want at the price they want to pay. If only they were willing to bear down on the actual costs that underlie the price of UC education, we might witness a student rebellion against those diversity czars, and the rest of the administrative bloat and ideological claptrap that is rolled into the package.

As Heather MacDonald pointed out last summer, UC may declare it is “near penury,” but it still finds the resources for the things it counts as really important. UC San Diego, for example, this year created a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position:

would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisers, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.

Faculty union president Samuels calls for those alfresco classes to gin up support for the student strike over tuition increases. He is no doubt safe in his assumption that the protesters will never get near the question of how much of their tuition is spent on activities that contribute a sum total of nothing to their education. The students want to blame the banks that are loaning the money, not the administrators who are burning it.

The Occupiers repatriation to the campus quad probably marks the moment when this movement will begin to fade from public prominence. Colleges in their own view are microcosms of society, but the public more judiciously rates them as sideshows. The main issues—insupportable student debt, a mal-educated generation that has yet to come to terms with its folly, a system of higher education built on an obsolete financial model—won’t go away. But we will deal with them now in venues other than public sleepovers: in bankers’ offices, boardrooms, and small businesses willing to give some sadder but wiser college grads a second chance to start where they are, unfortunately, really qualified: at the bottom.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • jeff_winger

    Wow!
    Yeah that is fair and balanced.

  • kerchner

    Alas, much of it was also true.

  • 11122741

    Oh peter, I was about to lambast you by the second paragraph and the Chronicle too for yer another give-me-break-before-I-barf article but you won the little bit of my heart that remains after witnessing
    40 years of the the non-stoppable higher education death wish juggernaut with required Koolaid drinking by all on-board or in its way and particularly so if they never actually experienced first the “days of rage(s)” in the 60′s and the beginning-the-end democratic convention and accompanying occupying protests or actually knew someone who had experienced the Chairman and his little red book or the wonders of Europe in the 70′s.  Very few of those who really experienced this stuff the last time round really want to re-experience it again or have their kids experience it and particularly where it is going to go pretty much “according to the laws of physics” if folks do not sober up and say calm it down right now and enough and let’s stop what is essentially child abuse by many of the actors and instigators involved in all of this because that it essentially what it is at one level when it comes to acting responsible socially and intellectually and providing something of value and enduring for the salary or contributed funds you collect.

    Things in our society are most definitely way, way out of wack and I am the very first one to argue that but the questions are (1) out of wack with reference to what true or truer north or ethical standards and (2) how did things get so out of wack relative to this true or truer north and who are the parents, enablers, participants and apologists of this “wack” as well as who benefits how from it
    or more prosaically, “Follow-the -Money,” as Peter West has every so politely tried to start addressing in this article (but too politely).

    Being had and had big time as well as a willing chanting robot stereotype and sheep (and there are a lot of ranting and mindless chants out there and actually published and assigned as required readings by current and former tenure track profs) is not something that is easy to stop being in denial about and perhaps takes some acting out to get there, and where better, as you say, than on the very campuses that fooled them and launched the very pricey but fairly worthless ship they took a ride on.

    I am a firm believer in parents having to deal with, live with, and face the consequences of what they’ve done or failed to do for their off spring, and I am not talking primarily about the biological parents of these students.  If these students come home and produce the “Pogo-experience” for academia, academia will be much better for it as will our country and society.  One must be intellectually as well as socially and ethically responsible, but the intellectual part has more or less gone out the door in the last 40 years in many quarters.  It is time it returned as well as the requirement that balanced views of issues be presented and considered because social and economic justice is a concept (and right) that applies to every citizen and stake-stock-holder in our society and not just to some or the politically and fashionable blessed and approved some and all equations must be balanced, fair and just for all citizens with skin and tangible assets in the game because it is now and not 100, 200 or 300 years ago and now is not then and a different time.

    Somehow, 50 and more years ago students got well education on a lot, lot less and faculty and others were paid a decent wage and had reasonably acceptable working conditions and their wasn’t all of this rage and acting out.  Now how did that how and could could that be when the rant-chant for 40 years is that we must have more money for education.  Do any of you have any real idea of how much more education at all levels is funded now in constant dollars than 40 years ago —
    with how much the increase has actually been? …it exceeds a factor of 100!  And what have we gotten for this enormous increase??? …..yeah, right; exactly my point.

    I can also tell you that when higher education was much less costly it was also much, much less contentious, controversial, polarized, and in a constant gaming state with every “special interest” group trying to maximize what was done and the outcomes so that it most benefited them and their agenda no matter what other ox got gored or what other “interests” got gored.  education was better in so many ways when it wasn’t the answer to everything and for everything including the pursuit of happiness, personal well being and both eartly and unearthly diasters of every conceivable kind which trillions where needed for for research labs and educational program to prevent.

    Beware the academic-academic complex and particularly if there are prestige and status seeking parents and academics are involved who believe that an education, decent job, or happiness can be bought or is some kind of entitlement that is inherent in quantum theory and other laws of the universe that will collapse everything to a singularity if not obtained, or the politicians looks for their vote or the business person, news mogul or entertainment industry person looking for a cash cow or some alumna who wants or is hoodwinked into wanting a little bit of fame and immortality (well at least for 15 minutes in today’s fast changing heaven).

    Good start Tom.  I don’t know about you but I think I see some buzzards looking for a place to land and wait for awhile to see what happens.

  • geochaucer

    I’m a 55-year old reasonably conservative professor who is sympathetic to the issues that motivated OWS if not particularly fond of its methods.  I read this expecting “Innovations,” as the blog promises.  Perhaps if the blog had been titled “Knee Jerk Diatribes,” I wouldn’t have been disappointed.  It’s been about 15 years since I quit the NAS in disgust, and I’m glad Wood has saved me having to see if there’s any serious analysis happening in that organization for another 15 years.

  • eberg

    So, complaints against Wall St. malefactors can be morphed into student complaints about degree expectations….which came not from UNESCO (really, Peter) but Wall St. itself.

  • eeels

    I suppose if you’re on a university campus, the whole Occupy movement might seem to you to be all about “the concerns of college students.” Here in NYC, I can assure you it’s not.

  • betterschool

    Nice piece. Thanks. I’m not certain that I agree with your thinking that much of the Occupy movement is about student loans. This time at least, I think Occupy students give voice to concerns held by a majority. They protest with their time because they can. We are not in their midst largely because of the demands of adult life, and perhaps because we have subordinated our actions to the filters of cynicism and pragmatism, and not because we find their anger unjustified.

  • peterwwood

    Actually, I am not on a campus, and I spend a lot of my time in New York City.  Much of what I know about the Occupy movement comes from talking with its NYC participants, though I have been talking with them elsewhere as well.  The movement is certainly not “all about” the concerns of college students.  There are numerous other threads.  But in the main this is a movement of college students and recent graduates.

    Peter Wood

  • peterwwood

    Ask participants about their ideal careers and you quickly find their enthusiasm for working in NGOs, especially NGOs that are transnational.  My mention of UNESCO is a rhetorical device in which one example stands for a larger whole.  It is called metonymy,  Sorry it soared above your head.

    Peter Wood

  • peterwwood

    Glad to be of help, geochaucer.  I wouldn’t imagine that someone who quit the National Association of Scholars “in disgust” in the 1990s would be very likely to rejoin in 2011, nor would I especially welcome the company.  But I do want to be clear that what I write on the Chronicle’s Innovations blog expresses my personal opinions, not the policy views of the NAS. 

    Peter Wood

  • betterschool

    Don’t stoop.

  • marktropolis

    “Ask participants…”

    Have you actually done that? Did you (the anthropologist) actually collect some data on the career expectations of Occupy participants? And let’s not forget the activities happening on campuses are but one piece of the entire movement. DC, Oakland, Portland, Denver, not to mention across the world (Switzerland anyone?). Or are you just engaging in the kind of sloppy rhetorical banter that conservative columnists and pundits have cultivated into a multi-million dollar industry?

    But I guess if you took into account actual data, your “rhetorical device” wouldn’t fly so well.

    I think it’s curious that you, the president of an organization whose mission is “to foster intellectual freedom and to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate” would both demean the intellectual choices that students make, as well as dismiss their activities with both a lack of scholarship and a flippant disregard for the very discipline you lay claim to.

  • peterwwood

    Thanks, betterschool.  Good advice.

    Peter Wood

  • susanda

    “we might witness a student rebellion against those diversity czars, and
    the rest of the administrative bloat and ideological claptrap that is
    rolled into the package.”

    Oh, please.  There are lots of things wrong with how higher education works, but this is just nonsense.  On my campus, the “diversity claptrap” is less than three people.   I can’t count the people engaged in making sure that no one spends a dime on alcohol from state funds, or to report everything we do for all the gazillion reports that state and federal governments ask for.  We’ve just added 4 staff people to help us do assessment, because we have to report our assessment in ways that does not make sense within our disciplinary norms.

    Every time someone wants more accountability, they should be asked how much time it will take to gather the data that are needed to be accountable, and produce it in the exact form that they want.  If all the agencies that regulate higher ed would agree on standard reporting forms and categories, we’d save tons of time.

    And 11122741, 50 years ago we educated a far smaller proportion of the students, and the government didn’t want to know how many crimes there were on campus, and what we did with every chemical that was used in a lab, etc.  

  • ederieux

    I am ready to stipulate that the problems Peter Wood identifies are real and higher education is past due for some changes.  Where are the innovators who are creating options for funding higher education?  I do not intend this as a rhetorical question that implies that there are none.  There are bound to be experiments out there struggling to survive and succeed.  Is someone compiling a list of them?  If not a list, can you reply here if you know of at least one?   Or send examples to me at ederieux@capshawlaw.com and I’ll compile them and repost.

  • eeels

    I can’t tell you how many middle-aged people I know who are participating. Not only political organizations but many faith communities are involved, including a wide variety of traditions. Then there are unions, veterans, self-proclaimed “grannies,” and any number of other groups.

    College students may be disproportionately visible because they have more flexible schedules (and more resilient bodies) than most of us older folks. That doesn’t mean they’re the whole story or even the primary thread. There are lots of us older folks contributing in different ways: organizing faith communities to offer temporary overnight shelter for out-of-towners; a “ministry of soup”; volunteering; donating books, warm clothes, and blankets; showing up when we can, etc.

    You seem to be confusing the content with the cast of characters. You write:

    “It was always, deep down, about the concerns of college students. The
    overlays of ‘community organizers,’ socialist schemers, anarchist
    utopians, and hangers-on of all types didn’t define the character of the
    protests.”

    Aside from the fact that the caricatures you list are only a small part of the non-student population, how does their presence make the SUBSTANCE of people’s concerns irrelevant? You seem to be saying that the enormous nationwide frustration and anger with the vast disproportion in wealth, the role of that wealth in buying policy and politicians, the relative immunity of corporations from accountability, the vicious and self-serving policies proposed by so many candidates and lawmakers, and all the rest of it doesn’t really count because there are some “‘community organizers’” and “hangers-on” involved.

  • eesc2009

    Hm. I find it offensive to hear Occupy Wall Street characterized as being “always, deep down, about the concerns of college students” with “overlays of ‘community organizers,’ socialist schemers, anarchist
    utopians, and hangers-on of all types.” Sounds like an ivory-tower point of view to me. This dismissive generalization does not define the character of the
    protests or the people participating in them in other parts of the nation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=26401091 Julie Ward

    “The students want to blame the banks that are loaning the money, not the administrators who are burning it.”

    Where does this idea come from? You cite the UC system, yet seem to overlook the widespread calls for Chancellor Birgeneau’s resignation, and the frustrated attempts by the administration to co-opt the movement. Your characterization of students participating in the protests as ignorant and unwilling to look at the university as the source of their problems is not only insulting, it is also incorrect.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=26401091 Julie Ward

    “The students want to blame the banks that are loaning the money, not the administrators who are burning it.”

    Where does this idea come from? You cite the UC system, yet seem to overlook the widespread calls for Chancellor Birgeneau’s resignation, and the frustrated attempts by the administration to co-opt the movement. Your characterization of students participating in the protests as ignorant and unwilling to look at the university as the source of their problems is not only insulting, it is also incorrect.

  • _perplexed_

    susanda, you are just exactly right:  Staff dedicated to compliance and accountability outnumber diversity missioned staff by about 50:1 at my R1.  It is not hard to imagine the day they will outnumber tenured faculty.

  • _perplexed_

    Anyone with any familiarity with what is going on at UC fully understands that the students  blame the administration for the ever-increasing tuition that they are charged.  Mr. Wood lacks that familiarity.

  • ellenhunt

    Yet another utterly clueless article. The situation is very clearly defined by Bill Black. The United States has become a banana republic and is now dominated by the criminal gang that runs Wall Street. Our country is in the throes of being destroyed.

    1, They crashed the world banking system executing a huge fraud. They knew the loans they were re-selling were garbage. When assessment reports came back saying so, they dealt with it by ceasing to contract for such reports. They bought insurance policies (CDSs) and sold bundles of these garbage loans as securities. Bank of America kept its older, good loans though. They didn’t sell those on downriver.

    2. The bailout was prompted by the fact that after raping the world’s financial system, there was not enough money to service the wire transfers and redemptions. So the taxpayer bailed them out with TARP. We gave these criminals $700 billion. The criminal gang that includes Paulson and Geithner told the president, and the president told the public that it had to go to banks because of the banking multiplier.

    3. But the banking multiplier is demand driven. And – every one of those guys knew that if a creditworthy borrower were available, they could loan the money. In the modern world, banks settle up on the back end. So they were lying, again.

    4. We have now given them over $2.5 trillion. And they, the bankers, are sitting on that money, not loaning it. Why? Because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers.

    5. If we had spent that money domestically, it would have created tens of millions of creditworthy borrowers. That $2 trillion would have been expanded to at least $20 trillion. At $80,000 a year per job, that is at least 20 to 40 million jobs and a lot of sunk capital.

    6. When the government spends money to seed the economy, all that money goes into banks. Duh.

    7. After being handed trillions in reward money for criminal fraud, the gangsters who gave so generously to this president’s campaign went further. They forged thousands of loan documents they had lost. And, they have foreclosed on loans that required the buyer hold it as primary residence, even though the loans were current!

    8. The administration has cut a deal with them once more. In return for a few hundred million (a small fraction of what we have given them since the global financial crisis) the bankers get off on all charges in the massive felony forgery fraud. And the little guy gets held to the letter. That is what a banana republic does.

  • ellenhunt

    It reveals a total lack of the slightest clue about what is transpiring.
    Why is Bill Black out there with the Occupiers?

    Because he knows the stakes. Whether or not the USA will remain a democracy is at stake. These gangsters with their backed boy in the white house know no limits. We are already a banana republic. The question is, can we reverse it?

    But – even Bill Black joined them late in the game. Occupy did not start with students, is not primarily about their concerns, nor will it end with students.

    The reason for the Occupy protests is precisely the same cause as the lack of money for campuses. It is the gangsters like Blankfein who are steering the world over a cliff to save their criminal hides.

  • ellenhunt

    Even most professors have no idea what a bank is, how it works, or how it creates money. Few can tell the difference between fiat money and bank created money. Without understanding that, nobody can really comprehend what these gangsters have done.

  • http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com Richard Grayson

    What a nasty guy you are.

  • 22118130

    You’re calling the President of the United States a “boy?” Hmmmm. Interesting choice of words.

  • jbowers

    Right on target — and more historically “middle class” groups are going to be among those on whom the door closes.