Absent from the occupy protests throughout this country, as with most meaningful movements in recent memory, are faculty of our major universities. Aside from the symbolic arrest of Cornel West and passive words of support from Noam Chomsky, the academic profession has been notably absent from this exhilarating movement.
This is particularly bothersome because one of the primary grievances of the protestors is the cost of higher education, and the larger role of indebtedness in informing the present precariousness of young people. Education debt, even more than housing debt, plays a repugnant role in this society, insofar as it preys on the young and ambitious, ultimately leaving citizens shackled to the financial industry for the bulk of their adult lives. Before anyone is capable of making sound fiscal decisions in life, they find themselves five-figures in the red, just for doing what they grew up believing to be the “right thing.”
When British students rallied against fee increases last year, professors were present alongside. The same goes for several waves of protests dealing with fees and the precariousness of youth in France, dating back to the CPE protests of 2006. These alliances between students and faculty were integral to the growth and widespread popularity of these movements. Meanwhile, the student-professor alliance has historically explained the affordability of higher education throughout Western Europe.
In the United States, we see no such alliance. Professors will offer themselves as speakers at rallies or teach-ins, maintaining a top-down relationship with students, but will rarely support as brothers-in-arms. This stems from a social authoritarianism in this culture, where the opinions of the credentialed are taken more seriously than the “commoner.” As someone who has experienced living on both sides of the Atlantic, I can say that Americans have a problem trusting your average person. Rather than judging someone based on the merit of their argument, the American tends to ignore the argument and judge based on ceremonial merit (such as whether the person has a PhD or not.) As such, professors have generally only been involved as credibility lending figureheads in American social movements.
I am happy that Dr. West has participated in this protest, but wish that it wasn’t such a breaking story. He possesses no more intrinsic value than the other 99%, and should be busily organizing his colleagues at Princeton to join along on next visit. The same goes for Chomsky and his colleagues at MIT. If this vigorously anti-totalitarian movement is to thrive, we need the academic egos to dissipate and the academic masses to bring numbers to the protests.
For this to occur, they will have to identify their support as a moral imperative, rather than mere intellectual exercise. By allowing the present system of higher education to continue without their condemnation, professors become complicit in the overarching moral crisis this country is facing. Since the beginning of the 80’s, American wages have been stagnant, while the average cost of a college education has risen over 4-fold (adjusted for inflation)[1]. Meanwhile, we have seen nary a peep of moral outrage from faculty. By excluding Americans of modest means from the enrichment of the university experience, this country is hampering the human potential of millions of young people. By not providing quality higher education to all Americans for free (or a nominal fee), we remain a second-rate society.
Academics are ostensibly progressive in nature: you would expect such of open, intelligent minds. However, they have proven particularly meek in the United States. There are several reasonable explanations for this. For one, we have a climate of repression and anti-intellectualism that is simply not known throughout Western Europe. The recent experiences of Ward Churchill and Norman Finkelstein are evidence enough of this. Furthermore, large American research institutions tend to be located in small “campus towns” rather than inside major urban hubs, thus dislocating professors from the bulk of the industrial workforce. This design has served to de-radicalize labor through the last century, and also explains the lack of involvement of professors in the ongoing protests (though there are a few notable universities on Manhattan). Moreover, many professors enjoy tenure and six-figure salaries, thus outpacing their Western European counterparts. This serves to supplement their geographic isolation from labor with added socioeconomic distance.
Nonetheless, this professorial passivity must end: not solely for the aforementioned moral reasons, but also because professors have an important stake in this political moment. As austerity measures have placed an increasing pinch on the higher education system, knowledge is treated as more of a commodity than a social good. Universities are forced to run more like businesses than loci of the grands discours. This commodification of knowledge has resulted in the increasing social alienation of professors. Tight university systems, intent on cutting costs and increasing class sizes, will increasingly see professors as expendable. You compound this with the growing authoritarianism in post 9-11 America and professors will increasingly feel pressured to conform or produce favorable results ( a la the University of Chicago Economics Department ).
Lastly, professors possess great power to change the financial racket that poses as higher education in this country. They are the mode of production for that industry. A national professor’s strike committed to the long-haul will force states to close their budget shortfalls through progressive tax measures or sane monetary policy. The latter is just one way to address systemic pre-tax injustices in our economic system: spend money into existence rather than charging the people interest by lending into existence. Either way, forced with a non-compliant faculty at their flagships school, states will have to learn to get innovative, if that is possible with the class of charlatans that governs from both political parties.
Professors largely supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election. As with most other progressives in this country, they fell into the passivity of hope. At this juncture, we need them to muster the courage for action. It is their moral imperative, and also in their own interest. In order to defend the integrity of the academic profession, the vision of education as a social good and a right to all regardless of class, professors need to join the 99%. When is it going to happen?
[1] http://www.healthcarecolleges.net/blog/college-tuition-increases-the-rising-cost-of-college-education-in-america/



9 Comments

Academia in this country as for the most part felt that they are above all this. And for a large portion of them their salaries surely are. But more to the point, education in this country has been over sold as some kind of “snake oil cure” for ones income. A promise it can no longer keep, if it ever really could.
And a large number of private universities and nearly all state universities have clauses in their contracts forbidding involvement in any such activity.
This is all, of course pure crap.
One can see from the “Progressives for Obama/Progressives Rising,” “Campaign for America’s Future” and the other “progressive” think tanks that professors are still largely committed to backing Obama lest they, and the universities employing them, lose their funding from the great “philanthropists” who are in fact nothing but Wall Street robber barons.
The professors are slow to act in defending their own livelihoods although most people would be thrilled to paid like tenured professors.
Ironically, it is often the adjuncts who are most involved in the movements of the people even though most lack union contracts and are often paid poverty salaries— which tells us a lot about why adjuncts are often in the forefront of many social struggles.
Professor Immanuel Wallerstein recently penned an interesting commentary:
Becky Dunlop dunlop@binghamton.edu to COMMENT
show details Oct 15 (4 days ago)
Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write
immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email
address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.
Commentary No. 315, Oct. 15, 2011
“The Fantastic Success of Occupy Wall Street”
The Occupy Wall Street movement – for now it is a movement – is the most important political happening in the United States since the uprisings in 1968, whose direct descendant or continuation it is.
Why it started in the United States when it did – and not three days, three months, three years earlier or later – we’ll never know for sure. The conditions were there: acutely increasing economic pain not only for the truly poverty-stricken but for an ever-growing segment of the working poor (otherwise known as the “middle class”); incredible exaggeration (exploitation, greed) of the wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population (“Wall Street”); the example of angry upsurges around the world (the “Arab spring,” the Spanish indignados, the Chilean students, the Wisconsin trade unions, and a long list of others). It doesn’t really matter what the spark was that ignited the fire. It started.
In Stage one – the first few days – the movement was a handful of audacious, mostly young, persons who were trying to demonstrate. The press ignored them totally. Then some stupid police captains thought that a bit of brutality would end the demonstrations. They were caught on film and the film went viral on YouTube.
That brought us to Stage two – publicity. The press could no longer ignore the demonstrators entirely. So the press tried condescension. What did these foolish, ignorant youth (and a few elderly women) know about the economy? Did they have any positive program? Were they “disciplined”? The demonstrations, we were told, would soon fizzle. What the press and the powers that be didn’t count on (they never seem to learn) is that the theme of the protest resonated widely and quickly caught on. In city after city, similar “occupations” began. Unemployed 50-year-olds started to join in. So did celebrities. So did trade-unions, including none less than the president of the AFL-CIO. The press outside the United States now began to follow the events. Asked what they wanted, the demonstrators replied “justice.” This began to seem like a meaningful answer to more and more people.
This brought us to Stage three – legitimacy. Academics of a certain repute began to suggest that the attack on “Wall Street” had some justification. All of a sudden, the main voice of centrist respectability, The New York Times, ran an editorial on October 8 in which they said that the protestors did indeed have “a clear message and specific policy prescriptions” and that the movement was “more than a youth uprising.” The Times went on: “Extreme inequality is the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, dominated by a financial sector that is driven as much by speculation, gouging and government backing as by productive investment.” Strong language for the Times. And then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee started circulating a petition asking party supporters to declare “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.”
The movement had become respectable. And with respectability came danger – Stage four. A major protest movement that has caught on usually faces two major threats. One is the organization of a significant right-wing counterdemonstration in the streets. Eric Cantor, the hardline (and quite astute) Republican congressional leader, has already called for that in effect. These counterdemonstrations can be quite ferocious. The Occupy Wall Street movement needs to be prepared for this and think through how it intends to handle or contain it.
But the second and bigger threat comes from the very success of the movement. As it attracts more support, it increases the diversity of views among the active protestors. The problem here is, as it always is, how to avoid the Scylla of being a tight cult that would lose because it is too narrowly based, and the Charybdis of no longer having a political coherence because it is too broad. There is no simple formula of how to manage avoiding going to either extreme. It is difficult.
As to the future, it could be that the movement goes from strength to strength. It might be able to do two things: force short-term restructuring of what the government will actually do to minimize the pain that people are obviously feeling acutely; and bring about long-term transformation of how large segments of the American population think about the realities of the structural crisis of capitalism and the major geopolitical transformations that are occurring because we are now living in a multipolar world.
Even if the Occupy Wall Street movement were to begin to peter out because of exhaustion or repression, it has already succeeded and will leave a lasting legacy, just as the uprisings of 1968 did. The United States will have changed, and in a positive direction. As the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” A new and better world-system, a new and better United States, is a task that requires repeated effort by repeated generations. But another world is indeed possible (albeit not inevitable). And we can make a difference. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference, a big difference.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
–
Becky Dunlop
Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902
http://fbc.binghamton.edu
There is also a gaping absence of clergy! Cowards.
Recommended. I can understand the reluctance of the nontenured to openly participate in the movement. But the tenured have no political excuse for failing to participate save for principled opposition to the movement.
See Ward Churchill and the University of Colorado.
I think most academics have a ‘top down’ attitude to these struggles, formed by the very manner in which education is perceived in many institutions. I was privileged long, long ago to go to a college wherein the professors frequently took classes along with the students, where the student body was small so everyone knew everyone else, and where there had not yet come into being the proliferation of think tanks, though that new thing was being discussed and hopefully anticipated as a way to educate politicians. It seemed harmless enough at the time. Salaries were not huge either; most professors scrimped and saved much as primary and secondary teachers have to do today.
My school was a very good school and I received an excellent education. I had some scholarship help, student aid job, and a $2000 student loan to pay off after I graduated. This loan had no interest accruing and there was no pressure on me to pay it off. I simply did so over the course of the next few years in painless increments.
Endowments increased, salaries went up, more and more the students came from the welltodo. And one year I saw that a professor was getting a medal from George Bush. A few years later, Greg Palast was not allowed to speak to the students. His scheduled appearance was hastily cancelled at the last minute. This at a college whose patron saint has to be Socrates.
I still love my alma mater. I hope the professors there are reading these forums and will take the message to heart. What they teach they should also do, not just in the coffee shop but out where it matters.
The last “people” you want to show up are academics, aka guardians of the 1%ers. Keep the jerks as far away as possible.
As for the authoritarian religious types, ditto.
OWS is a grass roots movement. You don’t want anyone with a scintilla of power within a thousand miles of it. If they show up, chase them away.
Where are the professors you ask? They are hiding under their desks, too scared and intimidated by the corporate donors and extremely wealthy benefactors, to do anything that would change the paradigm of how education is delivered in this world. Simply put education is another business and professors are nothing more than employees trying to hang on to a job any way they can at this point. Boldness in academia will return when free education is the law of the land and the level of education you get is determined by your ability and aptitude not by how much money you were born into.
Money rules academia now and will continue to do so until public education at all levels is seen as something our society must invest in for all its people.
Universal healthcare and Universal education are the two rails that will guide us to a better world society.
Some other academics who have supported the movement:
David Graeber (He’s one of the founding participants)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-%E2%80%93-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html
Slavoj Zizek
http://occupywallst.org/article/today-liberty-plaza-had-visit-slavoj-zizek/
Frances Fox Piven
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/4/frances_fox_piven_at_occupy_wall_street_we_desperately_need_a_popular_uprising_in_the_united_states
New York (Columbia, CUNY, SUNY) faculty members joined students in a walkout protest on October 10
http://www.westerncourier.com/news/students-professors-join-occupy-wall-street/article_debaad0a-f356-11e0-a785-0019bb30f31a.html
Over 300 Columbia and Barnard professors have signed a statement of support
http://bwog.com/2011/10/07/200-columbia-faculty-members-support-occupy-wall-street/
The National Council of the American Association of University Professors has published a statement of solidarity with OWS
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/newsroom/2011+Web+Highlights/occupy.htm
Here’s another petition, with 1,408 signatures
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Professors-supporting-Occupy/
So, I dunno, that seems like a bit of support anyway.