The Day the Purpose of College Changed
High taxes threatened "economic ruin," said the newly elected Ronald Reagan. Welfare stood to be curbed, the highway patrol had fat to trim. Everything would be pared down; hed start with his own office.
California still boasted a system of public higher education that was the envy of the world. And on February 28, 1967, a month into his term, the Republican governor assured people that he wouldn't do anything to harm it. "But," he added, "we do believe that there are certain intellectual luxuries that perhaps we could do without," for a little while at least.
Governor," a reporter asked, "what is an intellectual luxury?"
Reagan described a four-credit course at the University of California at Davis on organizing demonstrations. "I figure that carrying a picket sign is sort of like, oh, a lot of things you pick up naturally," he said, "like learning how to swim by falling off the end of a dock."
Whole academic programs in California and across the country he found similarly suspect. Taxpayers, he said, shouldn't be "subsidizing intellectual curiosity."
snip:
Still, there were dissenters, Michael S. Roth notes in Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters. Benjamin Franklin mocked liberal education for focusing on the frivolous accouterments of privilege. Harvard Colleges students "learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely and enter a room genteelly," Franklin wrote. When they graduated, they remained "great blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited."
snip:
The new governor didnt spend time talking about the tension between Jeffersons and Franklins visions. There was little political payoff in nuance. Reagan, one of his campaign aides told The New York Times in 1970, doesnt operate in shades of gray: "He lays it out there."
snip:
That year students were most likely to major in business. The disciplines rise seemed inexorable. In the 1930s, around the time Reagan went to college, about 8 percent of students studied in "business and commerce." When he was elected governor, that share was 12 percent. By the time he moved into the White House, more students majored in business than anything else. Its held that top spot ever since. In the early 80s, most freshmen said theyd chosen their college because they thought it would help them get a better job. The previous top reason? Learning more about things that interested them.
It was a rational response to changing federal policy. Under the Reagan administration, the maximum Pell Grant decreased by about a quarter. Student loans became a more common way to pay for college, even as the president made their interest payments ineligible for tax deductions. As student debt rose, so did the urgency of earning a living after graduation.
Free-market ideas permeated higher education. "The curriculum has given way to a marketplace philosophy," wrote the authors of "Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community," commissioned by the AAC in 1985. "It is a supermarket where students are shoppers and professors are merchants of learning."
snip:
When politicians mock particular disciplines, it doesnt exactly bolster popular opinion of liberal education. "If you want to take gender studies, thats fine, go to a private school," Pat McCrory, the Republican governor of North Carolina, said on a radio show a couple of years ago. "I dont want to subsidize that if thats not going to get someone a job." In other words, its an intellectual luxury.
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Day-the-Purpose-of-College/151359?cid=megamenu
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)I'd read this article earlier today, and was about to post it. .
This article rings very true to me. I LIVED this. I endured Reagan as governor and I endured his attempts to destroy the University of California (starting, most tragically, with the Regents' firing of Clark Kerr from the UC presidency).
I remember well the stunts of Reagan et al in California- and then to have him and That Crowd show up again in the White House only 5 years or so later. . . just the ultimate nightmare.
As an example of Reaganite anti-intellectual priorities as they manifested themselves in California: their infamous, preposterous cost-costing suggestion that the rare book collection of UCLA be sold because "no one ever checked out the books"
Much of the important innovation in university education that took place in the 1960's -- not just at UC, but elsewhere -- would not be possible today-- not just because of money issues, but because of the deterioration in liberal arts education and the change in educational and national priorities so eloquently outlined in this article.
We will pay for this damage to our universities and to the education of our citizenry for a very long time.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
czarjak
(11,306 posts)Initech
(100,118 posts)Ah fuck it. I'll say it to their face: shove your mainstream values up your ass, you stupid, hypocritical republicans! This BS has been destroying America since the "good old days".
calimary
(81,557 posts)"My mother said you should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good. Joan Crawford is dead. Good." Joan Crawford was her rival in Tinseltown. Instead of the name Joan Crawford, I would substitute the name ronald reagan. That's really the only thing I can think of that's good about him.
But he won't be dead until the electorate finally wises up to the damage he caused to our country. The continuing veneration of "Saint Ronnie" drives me wild. Every time I see that @#$ bronze statue of him at DC's National Airport (of all airports to name after him, given what he did to the air traffic controllers there. . ), I just seethe
calimary
(81,557 posts)um - I mean the reagan presidential library.
I STILL call it the 118 - or the Simi Valley Freeway.
I WON'T give in.
Just think of it this way - that statue? Is it outside? If so, then there's more places for pigeons to poop on!
And think of this, too: A comment I think I saw here from some liberal activist out there in the active fight who said something to the effect of - "yeah, ronald reagan's 'legacy.' Don't worry. We're working on it." (As in - we're working to DISMANTLE it.)
There's this stupid-ass "reagan legacy project" whose ridiculous addle-brained "mission" (hmm - those addled brains flock together don't they!) is to rename everything possible from coast to coast after ronald reagan. Every bridge, every school, every dam, every highway, every public building, every town square, every everything. Well, there are those of us who believe that the best thing to do is to follow along behind them and undo whatever they just did. It'll take time. Because all the pizzazz of that Hollywood fairy-tale glaze doesn't melt away from the eyes overnight. But he will fade. Time marches on. The worshippers will die out. And eventually nobody will remember why they simply HAD to rename everything on the planet, AND the planet too, after this dead piece of meat. He does NOT stand with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and CERTAINLY NOT FDR. Historians will begin to take over.
I look forward to the day when people start realizing that saint ronnie did NOT singlehandedly beat down the "Iron Curtain." Let's all remember - it would NOT have been possible if there wasn't this Polish dude in Rome named John Paul II who started chipping away at that from a lot closer to home. AND it would NOT have been possible if there wasn't somebody who'd risen to power on the OTHER SIDE of that "Iron Curtain" who brought a different mentality into the picture and was receptive to different ideas and open to change - even actively looking for opportunities to change. Some dude named Mikhail Gorbachev. reagan was around trying to win points from Leonid Brezhnev, and then Yuri Andropov, and then Constantin Chernenko. One after another they each rose to power over there and ruled for awhile and then died. Buncha old men in succession. With the same stale old mindset that nobody in the West could work with, and that was slowly becoming increasingly obsolete as the world changed. And then came Gorbachev who was younger, and had different ideas, and this new thing he called "glasnost" - which referred to opening windows and letting the fresh air in. And suddenly, there was a new climate behind the Iron Curtain that hadn't been there before. So all reagan did was survive long enough for somebody better over there to step up and take over. ONLY THEN were there favorable conditions with which the West could work. Even Maggie Thatcher in England noticed that, too. I remember her quote about Gorbachev: "I think we can do business with him."
In the UK, from what I've noticed, there are growing numbers of people who are not exactly enthralled with the idea of worshipping Margaret Thatcher, either. Eventually I think a critical mass of people here in this country will realize what ronald reagan's REAL place in the pecking order is. Especially as his worshippers age and die out, and the historians and objective historical records take over. ESPECIALLY if enough of US make sure of that. Just watch. I suspect that as the years pass, and that list comes out year after year with public opinion surveys of the five best Presidents. As time passes there will be more names to consider. I suspect Barack Obama's name will start appearing in the top-ten lists and then eventually the top five. And ronald reagan's name will start sinking. He'll probably wind up somewhere in the middle. Especially as the historical record starts speaking louder and more forcefully with time. History, I suspect, will be VERY kind to Barack Obama, considering his record, his legacy, what he was up against, and what he still managed to accomplish in spite of that. I think his achievement in affordable health care will be a HUGE part of that, especially considering how many presidents before him tried to enact some form of it and repeatedly failed. I may not live long enough to see that, but I suspect it's what will ultimately be true.
FACTS will ALWAYS trump bullshit. Because FACTS stand on solid ground and bullshit is nothing more than just another house built on sand. May take longer than we like. But eventually the clouds part and the sun breaks through.
MBS
(9,688 posts)"Ronald Reagan Worship Center": perfect
(my dad would have loved this!)
May your predictions about the judgment of history prove true:
IMHO, Ronnie's popularity is/was a symptom of a general national sickness that first manifested itself with his election, first as governor of CA, then US president . I keep hoping we're recovering, but (see: Republican party, Fox News, etc) too large a chunk of our electorate still seem to be in its thrall.
I won't give in either.
And yes, the facts do eventually win.
Thanks for your post.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Pat Brown as governor and Clark Kerr as UC president built the UC system , along with the state colleges and community colleges, into an outstanding, financially accessible and (in the case of some campuses) innovative system of public college education -- easily the best system of public college/university education in the country.
But after Reagan and his minions took over, and voter support for educational bond issues waned, it's been embattled ever since. Not that there aren't still quality programs or faculty among the campuses; but it's not the same as it was when the state, and voters, gave the system unstinting public support. (As a symptom of how voter attitudes changed: California voters continued to approve educational bond issues right through the Depression. But as Reaganism and short-term thinking took hold, voters -- even though they lived in more prosperous times than voters in the Depression -- began to adhere to the meme that the state couldn't "afford" to support taxes or bonds for education and other elements of civic society.)