In a response to Allister on the "socialism of public Universities" (
Allister thinks calling Public U's "socialist" off the mark)  Martin writes:


>A public university is supported by public funds.  Doesn't that make it
>the slightest bit socialist?

        Public universities, schools, social security, welfare are often
enough attacked by the right as "socialist."  FDR's concessions to the
working class are often refered to as "socialist," so I know where you are
coming from when you use to term. I'm suggesting that you are attacking these
things or that you are an extreme rightist ( libretarian capitalist ;-).
        Allister and Brett are  suggesting that the socialism involves having
the people who an institution like the public university serves and is
serviced by having direct control over the institution.
        This would involve running it through a general assembly, having
forums, media vehicles where issues could be discussed and debated, etc....
Most importantly, the people whose daily lives are intertwined with the
university would need to control it.
        Now this was never the case in the public university I attended, the
City University of New York which happens to be in the news lately.  New York
City has always had a large immigratn population and CUNY's historic mission
has always been to provided that population, and working class young adults
with a higher education. When my older brother attended CUNY 25 years ago,
there was no tution charge. When I attended CUNY 20 years ago, there was a
small tution imposed. The tution has steadily increased over the years from
about 90 dollars for a 3 credit course to the current cost of about 400
dollars. Most of the professors, and just about none of the students ever
wanted this tution imposed,  and every increase has been fought. In addition
to the tuition hikes there have been major budget cuts to the system, also
opposed by the faculty and students.
        Recently, the governing board of CUNY (not a board elected by
professors and students, naturally) has decided to impose "higher standards"
on admissions policy having to do with math and English skills. Prior to this
many of many immigrant students recieved support for English language
development in the Four year schools of the system. This will no longer be
provided in CUNY's four year colleges. Again this was opposed, and for good
reason, since academic language proficiency takes anywhere from 4 to 10 years
to develop. Many students at CUNY comlete their degrees, but not in the
traditional four year time span. They take longer.
        The initiative for these changes has never come the people who live
and work in New York, or from the people who work at or attend CUNY. The
iniative comes from the Governor and the Mayor both of whom take their orders
from the banks who have lent the city and state money. Banks have the same
relationship to New York city and state as the IMF has to debtor nations, and
the banks here impose the same sorts of restrictions on social spending the
IMF imposes on nations. Capital, not the general public,  rules.
        The recent history of CUNY parrellels the general economic trends in
the United States over the past 20 to 30 years which have seen a remarkable
shift upwards in wealth distribution. Noone in the working class knowingly
voted to take less money home each week and to give more to the rich, but
this is what as happened dramatically, but very gradually. I know this from
from reading census bureau statistics available on line.
        My theories about the changes to the the University system here are
these. They are  theories because I am not in attendence at banker's meeting
or the gov's office:

-Cuts to CUNY could make sense to capital because it doesn't need a lot of
highly educated people for the economy. It needs a certain number of educated
managers, and that's it. Most immigrants get low  paying service jobs.

-An educated working class is often troublesome. Particularly if they are
educated at CUNY. CUNY has a pretty large number of leftist professors. There
have been articles about "Marxists in the Universities !!! " I have seen in
the business magazines.

-who knows????

        In general the concessions, socialist-like in nature, won through
working class struggle, and ceded by capital to prevent its own fall from
power starting sometime in the 1930's,  have all been under attack since the
1950's, and the attack has been stepped up since the 1970's. The 1980's under
Reagan and Bush were a period of lawlessness on the part of capital.
Traditional trade unions have lost membership. The bottom forty percent of
population receives 15 % of the nation's aggragate income.
The top 20% receives of 47% of the nation's aggragate income. ( US census
1996).
        When wage slaves are given a little education so they can be of
better service to their masters, this that socialism? When they are thrown a
few crums, to quell their discontent, is that socialism? When they are
plucked out of high school, by lying bastard military recruiters and sent to
the army where they will be trained to fire on their own brothers and
sisters,  is that socialism?
        It damn well isn't in my book, nor in my heart and mind. Not the
least bit.

Good night folks,

john korber