“What was educational was the struggle against education!”
—libcom.org/ZEROWORK
The way the endowment and budget cuts have been talked about this year is a perfect demonstration of hegemonic ideology at work: consent as culture. Every commentator starts from the same assumptions and arrives at the same conclusions—these having already been set by the trustees/administration. The WSA as willing collaborator, “advocates for the long-term proposal for reduction” (10.07.05). The Argus editorial (11.04.05) infantilizes students by “leaving [budget cuts] up to the administration”; its reporting does much of the same. Thus, the entire discussion has proceeded from the double assumptions that 1) the endowment spending must be cut for certain ends, and that 2) these ends are mutually agreed upon by everyone.
1. Universities acting as venture capitalist has much to do with the corporatization of higher education; how much it has to do with students is debatable. It’s part of a wider movement of non-profit organizations acting like for-profit corporations, from universities to hospitals to HMOs to museums. And it’s not just my idea: actors across the social and political spectrum—from the massive California Nurses Association (CNA!) to (neo-lib) economists like Kenneth Arrow—have in some way engaged both its abstract ideology (neo-liberalism, authoritarianism) and its material reality (austerity, dying, death).
The “problem” with Wesleyan’s endowment, in the official story, is not that it isn’t big—$530 million in 2000 (Wall Street Journal 3.01.00)—it’s that it isn’t big enough when compared to other school’s endowments, namely Amherst and Williams. Spending 6.4% will not bankrupt Wesleyan or prevent growing the endowment, but the endowment will grow faster if ‘we’ spend 5.5%, and in their words, if we can’t “catch up with Amherst and Williams,” we can at least remain “competitive” with them (09.09.05).
Such is the absurd logic of capitalism; accumulation for the sake of accumulation, and in this case, for its very imagery. For the capitalist, nothing is never enough; a la Max Weber, the capitalist finds both his “calling” and his ultimate “salvation” from original “sin” in the endless pursuit of wealth—AT THE SAME TIME REMAINING DEATHLY AFRAID OF SPENDING IT (on certain things—below). Justifying “belt-tightening” now to benefit “freshmen twenty years from now” (11.18.2005) Astounds the Mind; according to this logic, students are supposed to sacrifice for people who haven’t even been born yet. And who is to say in 2025 that the race will have ended—will there “really” be “enough” then? The answer is of course indeterminate, and this is precisely how the game is played. Look at Yale: even with an endowment of $15 BILLION in 2004 (WSJ 12.17.05), President Levin oozes insecurity; “You can’t count on the good times forever,” he says. “That’s why you don’t want to overspend.”
2. More money for Wesleyan automatically does not automatically mean more money for students’ needs and wants. I don’t pretend to know exactly what these are but I certainly don’t think students should settle for less. What I am asking is: when money is spent here, is it really about students? Cause what I see is “Ivy League envy,” and a long-term, expensive effort to appropriate this imagery (i.e. the “mainstreaming of Wes”). About six years ago, Wesleyan paid a consulting company $150,000 to come up with a four-word slogan: “Wesleyan: The Independent Ivy.” Students fought this re-definition and it was scrapped, but this did not halt the push in this direction. In four years here I have seen what playing to image means: playing to political agnostici$m (“don’t politicize the academy”), conservati$m [“we need more” rich alumni], and $helling out millions for trea$ures like a Zelnick Pavillion, a $tudent center-Mall, a “mu$eum,” and email terminals every five feet. Funny how we can have all this (and more—look at the plan), can buy Long Lane, can pay officials $ix figures, etc, but there isn’t money for, say, Spanish classes (‘The Administration is Loco,’ 04.30.04), or student counseling (mad? YOU BET! Alone? Naw—and what’re the SOCIAL causes?), to name a few Minor (minor) issues. Get my drift?—I’m asking about causality, like if connections can be drawn between any or all of those events; what sort of larger narrative does this construKt???
Austerity in the midst of plenty is a tragic farce. Wesleyan doesn’t have to act like this; it’s choosing to. But—the history of this place shows that students can and do push back.
Leave a Reply