Políticas institucionais

David Hursh & Andrew F. Wall: Re-politicizing Higher Education and Research within Neoliberal Globalization

David Hursh & Andrew F. Wall: Re-politicizing Higher Education and Research within Neoliberal Globalization
Paper presented at the World University Forum, Davos, Switzerland, February, 2008

Universities, like education and social services in general, are increasingly pressured to adopt neoliberal principles that encourage privatization, entrepreneurship, standardization, assessment, and accountability. In this paper, we examine recent efforts in the U.S. to develop measurement and accountability systems that commodify higher education and show how they reflect a neoliberal rationale and undermine the historical purposes of higher education, reduce faculty autonomy, and harm the common good. However, because assessment and accountability have a role not only in higher education but all education, we propose how assessment and accountability might be implemented in higher education to promote teaching and learning responsive to the interests of students, faculty, the university and wider communities.

We begin, therefore, with a general description of neoliberalism and its influence on education policy and practices. We then turn to showing how some of the recent higher education initiatives embody neoliberal rationales. These reforms include the Charting The Future Report that calls for quantitative assessments promoting institutional comparisons and market competitiveness; proposals by higher education groups to create self-reported and “voluntary” forms of assessment that are quantitative, technical and formulaic ( i.e. institutional report cards); the press for apriori definitions of student learning and success; individual tracking of students; and the push for ranking schemes popularized by the American media.

António Nóvoa: Quem quer bater-se pelas Universidades?

António Nóvoa: Quem quer bater-se pelas Universidades?
António Nóvoa, reitor da Universidade de Lisboa

Quando se aceita um convite, quando se toma a palavra, nem que seja por breves Instantes, temos o dever de dizer o que pensamos e o que sentimos. Palavras de circunstância não fazem parte da minha circunstância, da minha maneira de ser e de estar. 

Cinco anos é o meu tempo como reitor. Tempo intenso, difícil, ainda que insubstituível no plano pessoal. Cinco anos é o tempo de um país que se afastou das suas universidades, através de políticas que procuraram fraturar e enfraquecer as Instituições, retirando-lhes vida própria e independência.

A primeira fratura, cuidadosamente pensada e preparada, foi com a ciência. As universidades, acusadas de imobilismo, transformadas em "barrigas de aluguer" dos centros de Investigação, esses sim dinâmicos e inovadores. Da ciência só vinham luzes. Da universidade só vinham sombras. Uma narrativa dual, de separação, de divisão. Triste narrativa.

A segunda fratura, legitimada, como sempre, por instâncias internacionais, deu-se no governo das universidades. A participação e a democracia vistas como empecilhos e a ideologia da Nova Gestão Pública invadindo, de rompante, o espaço universitário. As novas instituições passariam a ser governados por órgãos mais manejáveis e o Reitor passaria a ser o CEO da Universidade. Foram estas as palavras ditas na apresentação do Regime Jurídico das Instituições de Ensino Superior no Centro Cultural de Belém, em 2007. Pobre ideologia, falsamente modernizante.

A terceira fratura, complicada, mais pelo processo do que pela ideia, promoveu a tendência privatizante das universidades, através de fundações sem fundos, de falsas fundações. Fraca história, feita de provincianos oportunismos.

É justo dizer que grande parte destas evoluções se verificou também em muitos outros países por esse mundo fora. A Ideologia do valor económico das universidades tem vindo a dominar o mundo universitário.

O nome do departamento governamental do Reino Unido que tutela o ensino superior fala por si: Ministério dos Negócios, da Inovação e das Competências. O novo Ministério tem a tutela das Universidades, da Ciência, da Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida (transformada em avatar da empregabilidade), do Investimento e Comércio e dos Negócios e Empresa.

Estas orientações conduziram, na maioria dos países, a um reforço do financiamento público. No caso português, deram origem a um desinvestimento ao longo dos últimos anos. Entre 2006 e 2012, a preços constantes, as transferências do Orçamento de Estado para a Universidade de Lisboa, depois de descontadas as contribuições para a Caixa Geral de Aposentações, diminuíram 50%. Metade desta redução representa o empobrecimento da instituição; a outra metade, o empobrecimento dos seus profissionais.

A grande reforma do ensino superior serviu para esconder o desinteresse dos governos pelo destino das universidades, arrastadas para lógicas de sobrevivência. As reformas sucedem-se às reformas, consomem-se umas às outras, servindo para justificar a instauração de novos poderes e de novas regulações. Raramente (ou nunca) servem os propósitos de uma transformação, de uma renovação das instituições. São estratégias de controlo. Não são estratégias de mudança.

Face a este panorama, confesso-vos que o meu principal espanto, direi mesmo a minha maior desilusão, foi a forma resignada como as comunidades universitárias viveram esta situação, sem uma verdadeira discussão de temas centrais para o seu futuro.

Como é frágil a nossa cultura de liberdade, mesmo nas Instituições que a deviam cultivar acima de tudo. No Centenário da Universidade de Lisboa, fomos buscar a Coimbra, à oração de sapiência de Bernardino Machado, o nosso lema: "Uma Universidade deve ser escola de tudo, mas sobretudo de liberdade".

Curiosamente, o silêncio público traduziu-se, muitas vezes, num ruído dentro das instituições. A conflitualidade transferida do espaço político para o espaço institucional. Voz fina para fora. Voz grossa para dentro.

As situações de mal-estar Institucional têm um conjunto vastíssimo de razões. Não são apenas consequência das políticas recentes. Há uma longa história de corporativismos e de protecionismos que marca a vida das universidades. São imensas as mudanças que temos a obrigação de fazer.

Mas é evidente que as evoluções recentes, que alguns, como Hermínio Martins, designam por "capitalismo académico", promovem lógicas de controlo, de produtivismo e de intensificação do trabalho docente que, num quadro de desvalorização salarial, geram um enorme mal-estar.

Como transformar este mal-estar, de conflitualidades Internas, de quezílias e litigâncias num debate público sobre o futuro das universidades, sobre o futuro que queremos para as universidades?

Não vos quero deixar com um retrato negro. Peço-vos que não confundam a crítica com o pessimismo. Nem tudo são espinhos.

Não tenho quaisquer saudades da Universidade do passado. Nem do passado distante da Ditadura, essa universidade medíocre e elitista fechada ao mundo da ciência e da cultura. Nem do passado recente dos anos 80 ou 90, quando a universidade se abriu à cultura, é certo, mas não à ciência, e quando manteve políticas que impediram o acesso de muitos ao ensino superior. A universidade do passado não merece que dela tenhamos saudades.

Temos, hoje, instituições mais fortes e mais responsáveis, instituições que percebem a importância de acolher mais estudantes, que reconhecem a necessidade de prestar contas à sociedade, que têm uma consciência clara de que não há universidade sem ciência.

Falta-nos, é verdade, uma cultura académica mais crítica e mais independente. Quando tantas instituições falharam, não podem falhar as universidades. Precisamos de universitários que pensem o que os outros não são capazes de pensar, que digam o que os outros não podem dizer, que façam o que os outros não têm conseguido fazer por Portugal.

O futuro não passa por pequenas universidades. Passa por grandes universidades, não necessariamente no tamanho, mas na "massa crítica", na capacidade de integrarem todos os saberes, de juntarem a melhor ciência ao melhor ensino, de atraírem jovens de todo o mundo, na capacidade de serem, como dissemos ao longo deste ano, Universidades, instituições da cidade, da polis, da sociedade.

Nada define melhor uma universidade do que a capacidade de se rejuvenescer, de se abrir às novas gerações, de as acolher, de as formar, de as ver superar as gerações anteriores. A minha maior mágoa é a dificuldade que estamos a ter para dar uma oportunidade a tantos jovens de imenso mérito e talento, permitindo-lhes a entrada na profissão académica.

As universidades só merecerão este nome se souberem estar à altura das suas responsabilidades, numa época tão exigente como aquela que vivemos. Independência e espírito crítico. Recusa de qualquer lógica de controlo ou de redução da autonomia, a não ser quando resultem de processos legítimos e necessários de avaliação e de garantia da qualidade.

E por último, e sempre, um sentido exato, preciso, profundo, da nossa dimensão pública, da nossa responsabilidade social, do nosso compromisso com o país.

Disse, e repito, prefiro um mundo imperfeito, com liberdade, do que um plano perfeito, sem ela. Estou disposto a renunciar a tudo, menos à liberdade.

Sei bem que, nos tempos que correm, não podemos perder tempo com pessimismos. Fala-se das universidades como instituições com um grande passado (em Portugal, nascemos há mais de 700 anos) e com um glorioso futuro (dizem-nos que somos as instituições centrais das sociedades do conhecimento).

Um grande passado e um glorioso futuro. E o presente? Parece que o presente "desapareceu" no meio de tanto passado e de tanto futuro. A mim, interessa-me o presente, o presente futuro certamente, o presente como futuro.

O futuro? Mas o futuro não existe, exclamou um dia António Sérgio! Existe, sim. Existe o futuro como ideia. O que constitui uma nação não é uma causa eficiente: é sempre sim uma causa final: um projeto, um plano, uma ideia do que há de ser.

E sobre isto que devemos concentrar as nossas energias: Que universidades queremos para o século XXI português? E quem está disposto a bater-se por elas?

CRUP, 14/12/11

Henry Giroux: Why Faculty Should Join Occupy Movement Protesters on College Campuses

Henry Giroux: Why Faculty Should Join Occupy Movement Protesters on College Campuses

In both the United States and  many other countries, students are protesting against rising tuition fees, the increasing financial burdens they are forced to assume, and the primacy of market models in shaping higher education while emphasizing private benefits to individuals and the economy. Many students view these policies and for-profit industries as part of an assault on not just the public character of the university but also as an attack on civic society and their future. 

For many young people in the Occupy movement, higher education has defaulted on its promise to provide them with both a quality education and the prospects of a dignified future. They resent the growing instrumentalization and accompanying hostility to critical and oppositional ideas within the university. They have watched over the years as the university is losing ground as a place to think, dissent, and develop a culture of questioning, dialogue, and civic enlightenment. They are rethinking what should be the role of the university in a world caught in a nightmarish blend of war, massive economic inequities and ecological destruction.

What role should the university play at a time when politics is being emptied out of any connection to a civic literacy, informed judgment, and critical dialogue, further deepening a culture of illiteracy, cruelty, hypermasculinity and disposability? Young people are not only engaging in a great refusal; they are also arguing for the social benefits and public value of higher education while deeply resenting the fact that, as conservative politicians defund higher education and cut public spending, they do so in order to be able to support tax breaks for corporations and the rich and to ensure ample funds for sustaining and expanding the warfare state.

The Occupy protesters view the assault on the programs that emerged out of the New Deal and the Great Society as being undermined as society increasingly returns to a Second Gilded Age, in which youth have to bear the burden of an attack on the welfare state, social provisions, and a huge wealth and income inequality gap. Young people recognize that they have become disposable, and that higher education, which always embodied the ideal, though in damaging terms, of a better life, has now become annexed to the military-academic-industrial complex. 

What is important about the Occupy protesters' criticism of being saddled with onerous debt, viewed as a suspect generation, subjected to the demands of an audit culture that confuses training with critical education and their growing exclusion from higher education is that such concerns situate the attack on higher education as part of a broader criticism against the withering away of the public realm, public values and any viable notion of the public good. To paraphrase William Greider, they have come to recognize in collective fashion that higher education has increasingly come to resemble "an ecological dead zone" where social relevance and engaged scholarship perishes in a polluted, commercial, market-driven environment. The notion of the university as a center of critique and a vital democratic public sphere that cultivates the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for the production of a democratic polity is giving way to a view of the university as a marketing machine essential to the production of identities in which the only obligation of citizenship is to be a consumer.

"Debt, Democracy, and the Future of the Public University": A Series

"Debt, Democracy, and the Future of the Public University": A Series

Last Wednesday (December 7) qui parle, Reclamations, and Representations organized a public forum on the present crisis, ongoing protests, and future prospects of the public University.  Each Journal has recently put out a special issue on the topic: qui parle's "Higher Education on its Knees," Reclamations' "Generation of Debt," and Representations' "The Humanities and the Crisis of Public University."  But the talks were not simply about the special issues.  Instead they ranged farther afield to address the questions of where we are and what is to be done.

We will be publishing texts of talks from the Forum this week.  We will begin tomorrow (December 12) with James Vernon's Introduction to the Forum and Chris Newfield's presentation, and then followed up the talks of Wendy Brown, Rei Terada and others.  Please check back for the actual papers and please use the comment space as a way to further discuss and extend the issues raised.

James Vernon: Debt, Democracy, and the Future of the Public University: An Introduction

The restructuring of higher education and the privatization of the public university has operated through a series of vectors: the push for online education, the challenges to access and diversity, the tremendous increase in studentfees and student debt, the growth of management bloat. It has been met—point by point—by a politics of protest. These protests have made clear that those defending Public Higher Education at UC must confront a number of problems. I’ll highlight just three:

Firstly we must recognize that whatever the particular nature of the crisis at UC it must be understood as part of a broader transnational restructuring of higher education and the privatization of public goods.

Secondly at the heart of this resistance is not simply a critique of the corporatization or privatization of the university – for these have a deep history – but a diagnosis of a new and distinct mode of contemporary transformation: the financialization of university. Universities are now in the grip of a culture of finance that produced a global recession and an insistence upon austerity cuts to public services, while redirecting the burden of higher education on to student debt through the very type of sub-prime loans that got us in to this mess in the first place.

And thirdly, as I suggested above, our current crisis has been a catalyst for critical thought and has been generative of new forms of politics on and beyond our campuses. It is no coincidence that the humanities have been central to the debates over the future of the public university. The value of the humanities seems at best precarious in the new financial culture of higher education. But as has been continually shown, humanities scholarship remains analytically and politically necessary for our universities and our democracies.

But we are here today less to discuss the content of arguments already made than than to take stock of where we are now as the restructuring of higher education proceeds apace and has been met these past months by the Occupy movement and the criminalization of protest on our campuses.

In that spirit let us begin.

Remaking the University, 12/12/11

Rosmerlin Estupiñan Silva: Réforme « à la chilienne » dans les universités colombiennes

Rosmerlin Estupiñan Silva: Réforme « à la chilienne » dans les universités colombiennes

Au Chili, le mythe de l’éducation inclusive favorisant la mobilité sociale s’est brisé après la prise de contrôle de la finance sur le système éducatif. L’espoir individuel d’ascension sociale est anéanti par la réalité écrasante du chômage et du surendettement des familles, lié la plupart du temps à la nécessité, pour ces dernières, de contracter des dettes pour financer les études de leurs enfants.

Non loin de là, en Colombie, les secteurs financiers se préparent également à mettre la main sur l’enseignement supérieur. Le 3 octobre 2011, le ministère de l’éducation nationale a présenté devant la seizième commission de la Chambre du Congrès de la République le projet de loi 112/2011C dont l’objectif est de « réformer » l’enseignement supérieur en révisant l’ancienne loi 30/1992.

A cette occasion, le gouvernement dirigé par Juan Manuel Santos et le mouvement social pour la défense de l’enseignement supérieur se sont livrés à leur première confrontation. Résultat : le retrait provisoire du projet de loi, le 9 novembre 2011. Cette situation laisse ouvert le débat public sur le modèle d’enseignement souhaité en Colombie.

La réforme envisagée par le gouvernement constitue une caricature importée du système éducatif étasunien. Il s’agit, entre autres, de promouvoir le développement du modèle des universités mixtes de droit privé (article 37), l’augmentation des droits d’inscription (jusqu’à 20% selon l’article 149 du projet de loi), les gels d’augmentation du budget de l’enseignement (article 145), la fusion, sans le moindre contrôle de qualité, des instituts techniques et des universités (articles 57-59).

Le projet vise à soumettre l’enseignement supérieur aux milieux financiers. En pratique, un système d’emprunt est imposé à tous les niveaux pour les étudiants, les universités, ainsi que pour le ministère de l’éducation nationale lui-même. Si cette « réforme » voit le jour, l’endettement constituera la principale source de financement de l’enseignement supérieur (articles 152-162).

Depuis le 12 octobre, 32 universités publiques et 67 universités privées sont en grève, et le mouvement pour la défense de l’enseignement supérieur a multiplié les mobilisations dans les rues. Depuis, il ne cesse de se développer malgré le silence assourdissant des médias nationaux et internationaux.

A Cali, ce même 12 octobre, un étudiant en médecine, Jean Farid Chan Lugo, a été assassiné alors qu’il participait aux protestations au côté de 15 000 autres personnes. Deux universités publiques parmi les plus importantes du pays (l’université d’Antioquia et l’université industrielle de Santander) ont été investies par l’armée. Celle-ci y est toujours présente. Le bilan de ces interventions est lourd. Les étudiants blessés ou détenus se comptent par dizaines.

Les 19 et 26 octobre, ainsi que le 3 novembre, des audiences publiques télévisées se sont déroulées au sein du Congrès de la République. Un groupe de parlementaires a réussi à faire convoquer la ministre de l’éducation nationale afin qu’elle soit confrontée à la communauté universitaire (étudiants, professeurs, personnels administratifs, recteurs et parents) qui, depuis 7 mois, réclamait l’organisation d’un débat public. Le premier projet de réforme avait en effet été annoncé le 12 avril.

La montée de la pression a poussé le gouvernement du président Santos à annoncer, le 9 novembre, le retrait temporaire du projet de loi jusqu’à la prochaine session parlementaire qui débutera en juillet 2012, en échange de la levée immédiate de la grève. Ainsi, depuis le 16 novembre, le retour des étudiants dans les cours coïncide avec l’ouverture d’un débat sur l’avenir de l’enseignement supérieur colombien. L’enjeu est de taille : quel modèle de société souhaitons nous ?

Representations: The Humanities and the Crisis of The Public University

RepresentationsRepresentations: The Humanities and the Crisis of The Public University
Vol. 116, No. 1, Fall 2011
Published by: University of California Press
Issue Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rep.2011.116.issue-1

Cover

Front Matter

Table of Contents

Articles

Humanists and the Public University (pp. 1-18)  
Colleen Lye, Christopher Newfield, James Vernon

The End of Educated Democracy (pp. 19-41)  
Wendy Brown

From Eternity to Here: Shrinkage in American Thinking About Higher Education (pp. 42-61)  
Geoffrey Galt Harpham

Beyond All Reason: Spaces of Hope in the Struggle for England’s Universities (pp. 62-87)  
Sarah Amsler

Marches Through the Institutions: University Activism in the Sixties and Present (pp. 88-101)  
Christopher L. Connery

Humanities 2.0: E-Learning in the Digital World (pp. 102-127)  
Suzanne Guerlac

Debt and Taxes: Can the Financial Industry Save Public Universities? (pp. 128-155)  
Bob Meister

Taking an Administrative Turn: Derivative Logics for a Recharged Humanities (pp. 156-176)  
Randy Martin

Reflections on a Year of Protest at Berkeley

“We Are All Students of Color Now” (pp. 177-188)  
Ananya Roy

We Are All Arts Departments Now (pp. 181-184)  
Shannon Steen

The Brain, The Mind, and the Threat to Public Universities (pp. 185-188)  
George Lakoff

Back Matter

Estrema criticità dell’Università italiana

Estrema criticità dell’Università italiana
ADI, ADU, ANDU, CISL-Università, CNRU, CNU,CoNPAss, FLC-CGIL, RETE29Aprile, SNALS-Docenti Università, SUN, UDU, UGL-Università, UIL-RUA, USB-Pubblico impiego

Le Organizzazioni e Associazioni universitarie denunciano lo stato di estrema criticità in cui versa l'Università italiana.

Questa situazione sarebbe destinata a diventare ancora più grave per l'Università pubblica statale se si dovesse proseguire nella politica dei progressivi e costanti tagli al finanziamento dell'Università, nella drastica riduzione del diritto allo studio, nell'aumento a dismisura del numero dei precari con l'espulsione di quelli attuali, nella differenziazione tra gli Atenei (atenei di ricerca e insegnamento e atenei di solo insegnamento), nella cancellazione della partecipazione democratica alla gestione degli Atenei, nell'annullamento della rappresentanza democratica del Sistema nazionale universitario, nel blocco della carriera e della retribuzione dei docenti.

L'opposizione del mondo universitario alla Legge 240/10 esprimeva tutte queste preoccupazioni, assieme alla convinzione che i suoi contenuti e i tempi di attuazione, sommati ai pesanti tagli al finanziamento (diversamente da quanto accade negli altri Paesi), avrebbero portato alla paralisi degli Atenei, così come, purtroppo, sta avvenendo. Peraltro, nelle more dell'attuazione della Legge, il processo di lentissima approvazione degli statuti e il ritardo nella emanazione dei più importanti decreti attuativi accentuano una condizione di blocco che pesa prevalentemente sulle retribuzioni, i diritti, le carriere del personale universitario e lascia gli studenti nell'incertezza dell'offerta formativa per i prossimi anni.

Da parte loro, le Organizzazioni e Associazioni universitarie - convinte che il Paese abbia bisogno di una Università pubblica, autonoma, democratica, di qualità e aperta a tutti – hanno denunciato da tempo quanto stava accadendo e, in particolare:

  • l'ulteriore divaricazione fra pochi Atenei 'eccellenti' e tutti gli altri;
  • la scarsa considerazione delle esigenze della ricerca;
  • il ridimensionamento della già ridotta autonomia degli Atenei;
  • lo snaturamento del diritto allo studio, con la drastica riduzione dei fondi ad esso destinati, il tentativo di tagliare a migliaia di studenti idonei la borsa di studio e l'introduzione dei prestiti d'onore e di altri strumenti di indebitamento.
  • il drastico ridimensionamento dei docenti di ruolo, con la costituzione di una 'base' amplissima di precari, senza reali prospettive di accesso alla docenza;
  • le conseguenze della messa ad esaurimento dei ricercatori, senza neppure il riconoscimento del ruolo docente, senza adeguati sbocchi e con una diminuzione della retribuzione rispetto a quella degli ordinari;
  • lo svilimento della figura dell'associato, trasformata in affollata fascia d'ingresso alla docenza, senza prospettive di carriera e con una diminuzione della retribuzione rispetto a quella degli ordinari;
  • il ridimensionamento del ruolo del personale tecnico-amministrativo.

Ma oltre ai contenuti della Legge approvata, le critiche sono state rivolte anche alla totale chiusura al confronto che ha caratterizzato tutta l'azione del precedente Ministro; una indisponibilità che è proseguita nel corso dell'elaborazione dei decreti attuativi.

Con questi decreti si sta attentando alla libertà di ricerca e di insegnamento e si sta consentendo che i Ministri dell'Economia e dell'Università e l'ANVUR  possano commissariare gli Atenei e decidere la nascita, la vita e la morte delle strutture universitarie.

L'azione del Ministero volta a ridurre i già limitati spazi di democrazia si è espressa pesantemente nel tentativo di cancellare dagli Statuti quelle norme che consentirebbero una più ampia partecipazione democratica.

Di fronte a tutto ciò chiediamo al Governo e al Parlamento una inversione di marcia rispetto alle scelte finora operate, riconoscendo il ruolo fondamentale dell'Università per lo sviluppo sociale e economico del Paese.

In questa direzione, chiediamo interventi per rendere democratici gli Atenei e realmente autonomo il Sistema nazionale universitario.

Chiediamo infine che il nuovo Governo avvii con urgenza un costante confronto con le  Organizzazioni e Associazioni universitarie e sollecitiamo il Ministro a dare risposta alla nostra richiesta di incontro.

Roma, 13 dicembre 2011

ANDU, 15/12/11

Louis Cornellier: Contre la hausse des droits de scolarité

Louis Cornellier: Contre la hausse des droits de scolarité

Éric Martin et Maxime Ouellet:  Universités inc.: Des mythes sur la hausse des frais de scolarité et l’économie du savoir
Lux
Montréal, 2011, 156 pages

Le débat concernant la pertinence d’une hausse des droits de scolarité offre un solide démenti à ceux qui affirment que la distinction gauche-droite est dépassée. Le discours selon lequel il convient d’augmenter ces droits parce que les étudiants seront les principaux bénéficiaires de leur formation reprend l’idée générale de la droite, qui conçoit la société comme un regroupement plus ou moins fortuit d’individus en quête de leur intérêt personnel. À l’opposé, le discours selon lequel il convient de geler ou de réduire ces droits parce que l’éducation est une responsabilité collective dont tous sont les bénéficiaires — former plus de professionnels rend la société meilleure, même pour ceux qui ne sont pas professionnels — s’inscrit dans une logique de gauche, animée par cet idéal de la solidarité qui consiste, selon la formule d’André Comte-Sponville, à « être égoïstes ensemble ». Il n’y a pas, dans ce débat, de solution « technique » ou de « gros bon sens ». Il y a un choix idéologique.

En s’en prenant, dans Universités inc., à l’argumentation favorable à une hausse des droits de scolarité (rappelons ici que le terme « frais », dans ce contexte, est considéré comme une impropriété par le Multidictionnaire de la langue française), Éric Martin et Maxime Ouellet ne disent pas autre chose. « Cette rhétorique, écrivent-ils, vise à inverser la conception historique de l’éducation : on ne considère plus que la formation des individus relève de la responsabilité de la société, mais qu’il s’agit plutôt d’un investissement individuel au service de l’accumulation de richesse personnelle et de la croissance économique des entreprises. » On peut, ajoutent-ils, choisir cette voie, mais il faut savoir que, ce faisant, on choisit de mettre l’« université au service de l’économie », en la détournant de sa mission fondamentale qui devrait être de « former des êtres humains capables de vivre ensemble ».

Certains les qualifieront de rêveurs et d’idéalistes. Martin et Ouellet, pourtant, respectivement doctorant et docteur en science politique, ont fait leurs devoirs et présentent une argumentation solide, basée autant sur des données statistiques que sur des valeurs. En huit chapitres, ils dégonflent autant de mythes destinés à justifier une augmentation des droits de scolarité.

In Defence of Public Higher Education

In Defence of Public Higher Education
Hundreds of academics have signed a document that warns of the dire consequences of the government's white paper on higher education. Their names are below

In Defence of Public Higher Education was prepared by a working party of academics and students representing the following campaigns:

Campaign for the Public University,

Oxford University Campaign for Higher Education,

Sussex University Defends Higher Education,

Warwick University Campaign for Higher Education,

Humanities Matter,

No Confidence Campaign,

Cambridge Academic Campaign for Higher Education.

The document was drafted by John Holmwood.

The members of the working party were:

David Barclay, Bruce Beckles, Gurminder K. Bhambra, Thomas Docherty, Naomi Eilan, Robert Gildea, Juliet Henderson, Tim Horder, Howard Hotson, Laura Kirkley, James Ladyman, William McEvoy, Andrew McGettigan, Martha Mackenzie, Dave Legg, David Mond, Kate Tunstall, Simon Szreter, Bernard Sufrin.

Additional contributions from:

Stephen McKay

Claire Callender.

Groups and associations

As well as the above campaigns, the document was endorsed by the following groups and associations:

British Association for American Studies (BAAS);

British International Studies Association Board of Trustees (BISA);

British Philosophical Association (BPA);

Committee of the Free University of Liverpool;

Education Activist Network Steering Committee;

Feminist and Women's Studies Association (FWSA);

Goldsmiths UCU Executive;

Institute of Education UCU Branch;

International Relations Department, University of Sussex;

Justice Violence and Rights Centre, University of Sussex;

King's College London Branch of the University and College Union;

Local Schools Network;

National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts;

Political Studies Association Media and Politics Specialist Group.

José Carlos Bermejo Barrera: Gatopardos en Fonseca

José Carlos Bermejo Barrera: Gatopardos en Fonseca

G. de Lampedusa trazó en El gatopardo el retrato de la decadencia de la aristocracia terrateniente italiana, que estaba muy orgullosa de su status, sus ideas y sus costumbres, considerándose a sí misma la pieza clave de todo el orden social. En esa novela uno de los protagonistas acuñó un famoso lema: “cambiar para que nada cambie”, que ha dado nombre a la expresión gatopardismo. Un magnífico ejemplo de actual gatopardismo son las universidades, dispuestas a llevar a cabo innumerables reformas construidas a base de remiendos jurídicos, que consiguen cambiar y complicar las formas y dejar que en lo sustancial todo siga igual. Todo debe seguir igual para que sus miembros, que también se consideran la pieza clave del orden social y económico, sigan disfrutando de sus privilegios sin ver mermadas sus rentas, en este caso las que provienen del dinero público.

Los gatopardos académicos no son capaces de entender por qué han de recibir menos rentas en un momento de gravísima crisis económica y creen que, como en su mundo todo es perfecto, el único problema es que se les recorten sus ingresos y se les haga reembolsar las deudas que ellos mismos contrajeron. Creen los gatopardos que en la universidad no se deben exigir responsabilidades a quienes las gobernaron, puesto que el único problema real que ha habido es que no se les ha dado todo el dinero que se merecían. Y lo merecían porque el desarrollo económico ha dependido y dependerá de ellos y de sus sucesores. Pero esto no es cierto.

Las universidades, cuya financiación creció a la par que la burbuja inmobiliaria, no han cambiado ni cambiarán la estructura económica del país. El empleo que han creado es básicamente el de sus propias plantillas, cuyo incremento no cesan de pedir. Se piensa en ellas que en la función pública los puestos de trabajo deben servir primariamente para la promoción de los trabajadores, y solo secundariamente para el desempeño racional de unas funciones. Y todo vale a la hora de justificar su creación. Si no se puede crear una plantilla de investigadores, inviable por no responder a las necesidades económicas reales, se pretende convertir en profesores, con cada vez menos docencia y siempre en los mismos departamentos y facultades, a aquellos jóvenes, víctimas del sistema, que han pasado procesos de selección, diseñados muchas veces por sus profesores metidos a políticos, que crearon los parámetros con los que midieron sus méritos, designaron a quienes habían de medirlos y al final acabaron por decir que siempre seleccionaron a los mejores, que son aquellos que ellos llaman así y que acabarán por creerse que también lo son, convencidos de su derecho a ser promocionados como lo han sido los demás, y de su papel de clave de bóveda de todo el edificio económico del futuro.

Nuestros gatopardos, viejos y jóvenes, están tan orgullosos de sí mismos que no son capaces de entender cómo el mundo no se da cuenta de su importancia. Y creen que todos sus males derivan de la falta de dinero, de dinero público. Por eso, tras alabar el mercado, dicen ahora que quieren salvar a la universidad pública, a la que se le reducen sus rentas. Y como en ella nadie es responsable de nada, los que la llevaron a la situación en la que está - como en el caso de la Universidad de Santiago - buscan chivos expiatorios en el exterior ofreciéndonos públicamente su metamorfosis, haciéndonos creer que también los felinos pueden cambiar de especie.

La CEOE pide que se pueda despedir a los funcionarios

Precarité totalLa CEOE pide que se pueda despedir a los funcionarios
Juan Rosell asegura que en España sobran empleados públicos y pide despedirlos, "lo mismo que en las empresas"

La CEOE sigue apretando con sus demandas. Si en la reunión con Mariano Rajoy ya apuntó al abaratamiento del despido y al cambio en la negociación colectiva, ahora su objetivo son los funcionarios. Su presidente, Juan Rosell, pidió este miércoles que se pueda despedir a los funcionarios, "lo mismo que en las empresas" y para ello ha propuesto "expedientes de regulación de empleo".

En sus últimas intervenciones, Rosell ha calificado el tijeretazo de Mas "de sentido común", ha tildado calificado el puente de diciembre de "verdadero escándalo", y ha pedido a Rajoy tomar nota de los recortes en Italia. El pasado mes de octubre también propuso "con toda la buena intención del mundo" rebajar las indemnizaciones por despido.

Así Rosell pidió que se acaben con los privilegios de los funcionarios y empleados públicos, y que se les trate "lo más parecido posible" a los trabajadores del sector privado.

En rueda de prensa, el máximo dirigente de la patronal sostuvo que es necesario que las condiciones de los empleados públicos "sean parecidas al campo privado" y que se pueda hacer "lo mismo que hacemos en las empresas", incluyendo el despido de los trabajadores que sobren.

En concreto, Rosell afirmó que en España sobran funcionarios y empleados públicos que "no hacen bien su labor" o que, debido a las transferencias de competencias, "se han quedado sin trabajo y no tienen nada que hacer".

Preguntado sobre qué se debe hacer con estos empleados públicos "sobrantes", Rosell afirmó que "lo mismo que hacemos en las empresas", es decir, "expedientes de regulación de empleo".

"Hay que recolocarlos, formarlos para que puedan hacer otro trabajo, y, si no hay más remedio, despedirlos, aunque esa es la última solución", subrayó. "Si no hay más remedio, no hay más remedio", sentenció el presidente de CEOE.

En cuanto a la cifra de funcionarios y empleados públicos que según la patronal sobran , Rosell no quiso dar cifras concretas aunque apuntó que en las comunidades autónomas se traspasaron 821.357 trabajadores fruto de la transferencia de competencias, pero el empleo en estas administraciones ha crecido en 1.744.000.

No obstante, el presidente de CEOE matizó que buena parte de este desfase se explica por el incremento poblacional y la mayor demanda de los servicios públicos. Así, señaló que la cifra total se situaría por debajo del medio millón.

"Responsabilidades personales"

Por otro lado, Rosell subrayó que es necesario controlar el gasto público y "gastar sólo lo que podemos y no más", por lo que reclamó que se establezcan "responsabilidades personales" para los gestores de las administraciones públicas que gasten más de lo que se pueden permitir.

En su opinión, aún es necesario más medidas de recorte del gasto público ya que "las medidas de austeridad han sido pocas y el control del gasto ha sido poco".

En este sentido, el máximo responsable de la patronal criticó que en los últimos 30 años el empleo en el sector público se ha duplicado, mientras que en el sector privado sólo ha crecido un 50%. Además, el incremento de los salarios de los empleados públicos ha duplicado al de los trabajadores del sector privado.

El presidente de CEOE subrayó también que el país necesita hacer reformas "en calidad y en cantidad", y apuntó que éstas son las que están tomando otros países europeos y las que "terminarán haciendo todos los países con los que estamos en competencia".

Público, 14/12/11

Outras novas relacionadas:

Peters, Michael A. & Bulut, Ergin (eds.): Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor

Cognitive capitalismPeters, Michael A. & Bulut, Ergin (eds.): Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor
Year of Publication: 2011
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien, 2011. XLII, 341 pp.
ISBN 978-1-4331-0981-2 pb.
Peter Lang International Academic Publishers

Cognitive capitalism - sometimes referred to as 'third capitalism,' after mercantilism and industrial capitalism - is an increasingly significant theory, given its focus on the socio-economic changes caused by Internet and Web 2.0 technologies that have transformed the mode of production and the nature of labor. The theory of cognitive capitalism has its origins in French and Italian thinkers, particularly Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Michel Foucault's work on the birth of biopower and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire and Multitude, as well as the Italian Autonomist Marxist movement that had its origins in the Italian operaismo (workerism) of the 1960s. In this collection, leading international scholars explore the significance of cognitive capitalism for education, especially focusing on the question of digital labor.

Contents

- Antonio Negri: Foreword
- Michael A. Peters/Ergin Bulut: Introduction
- Timothy Brennan: Intellectual Labor
- George Caffentzis: A Critique of «Cognitive Capitalism»
- Silvia Federici: On Affective Labor
- Christian Fuchs: Cognitive Capitalism or Informational Capitalism? The Role of Class in the Information Economy
- Jonathan Beller: Cognitive Capitalist Pedagogy and Its Discontents
- Ergin Bulut: Creative Economy: Seeds of Social Collaboration or Capital's Hunt for General Intellect and Imagination?
- Mark Coté/Jennifer Pybus: Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: Facebook and Social Networks
- Emma Dowling: Pedagogies of Cognitive Capitalism - Challenging the Critical Subject
- Alex Means: Creativity as an Educational Problematic within the Biopolitical Economy
- Toby Miller: For Fun, For Profit, For Empire: The University and Electronic Games
- Michael A. Peters: Algorithmic Capitalism and Educational Futures
- Alberto Toscano: The Limits of Autonomy: Cognitive Capitalism and University Struggles
- Nick Dyer-Witheford: In the Ruined Laboratory of Futuristic Accumulation: Immaterial Labour and the University Crisis
- Tahir Wood: The Confinement of Academic Freedom and Critical Thinking in a Changing Corporate World: South African Universities
- Cameron McCarthy: Afterword. The Unmaking of Education in the Age of Globalization, Neoliberalism and Information.

About the author(s)/editor(s)

Michael A. Peters is Professor of Education at the University of Waikato (New Zealand) and Emeritus Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the executive editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory and editor of two international e-journals, Policy Futures in Education and E-Learning. His interests are in education, philosophy and social policy and he has written over fifty books, including Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy (Lang, 2009) (with Simon Marginson and Peter Murphy).

Ergin Bulut is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is interested in political economy of labor and its intersection with education, communication and culture.

Reviews

«'Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor' provides us with a series of very thoughtful and provocative analyses of the relationship among political economy, education and new forms of knowledge and labor. It is definitely worth reading and then discussing its implications at length.» (Michael W. Apple, John Bascom Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison)

«This volume is a 'tour de force'. Through its chapters, a new space is opened for understanding education in the contemporary world. With an magisterial introduction by its indefatigable editor, Michael A. Peters, and his colleague Ergin Bulut, 'Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor' implicitly shows the limitations of postmodernism and offers a large conceptual framework that will surely be mined and critically examined for some years to come.» (Ronald Barnett, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education, Institute of Education, London)

«'Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor' is extraordinarily instructive in studying the living bestiary of capitalism, a provocative text that enervates capitalism through helping us cultivate our critical faculties creatively and exultantly in the service of its demise. An important advance in our understanding the production of subjectivity in capitalist societies.» (Peter McLaren, School of Critical Studies in Education, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland)

«This valuable, lithe volume explores the ever-evolving, mutating forms of capitalism. It is a work of craft, intelligence and provocation. It reflects on some of the most important subterranean trends in contemporary societies. These unite the material and the immaterial, biology and power, economics and education. The contributors parse the intersections of intellectual and physical labour, paid and unpaid work, labour and pedagogy, research and gaming, free information and multi-national corporations, autonomy and liberalism, accumulation and enclosure, class and creativity. They do so with verve, steel and tenacious insight.» (Peter Murphy, Professor of Creative Arts and Social Aesthetics, James Cook University)

«If you read just a single book in the field of educational theory this year, make sure it's this one. Drawing on the rich tradition of Marxist autonomism, the contributors pinpoint what the transmutation of labor and opening of new domains of class struggle under cognitive capitalism mean for education. The editors have assembled an impressive team, all accomplished scholars adept at envisioning changes in the sites and forms of knowledge-making, acquisition and contestation. For anyone interested in the educational implications of technologically-driven shifts in capitalism's socio-economic structures, this is the volume to buy. Brimming with insight, balanced and lively - it will attract attention from scholars and students well beyond the confines of education faculties.» (James Reveley, Associate Professor, Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong)

«We have now for some time been undergoing intense technological and social revolutions that transformed the nature of labor, education and the capitalist economy. Peters and Bulut and their collaborators in 'Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor' chart out the changes in the new economy and social life and explore its consequences for education. All educators and those concerned with transformations of contemporary culture and society should be concerned with these issues and learn from this book.» (Douglas Kellner, UCLA; Author of 'Guys and Guns Amok' and 'Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy')

«The mainstream discourse of the knowledge economy is empty. The digital-Taylorist routinisation of much of the work that was once the preserve of knowledge workers and the offshoring of knowledge jobs to countries where skilled labour is much cheaper have given the game away. But it would be wrong to assume that the electronic/IT revolution has not changed our lives and our labour when it clearly has. This outstanding collection raises fundamental questions about knowledge, the role of education and labour in the digital world. It brings current debates to a new level and should be read by students, academics and policy makers across the globe.» (Hugh Lauder, Professor of Education and Political Economy, University of Bath)

«'Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor' presents a new theory of capitalism and digital labor. It is a very valuable resource and will spark an industry of debate and elaboration. This book presents such a wealth of diverse material that any reader will find something new and challenging, and each chapter in this collection makes a welcome contribution to the growing literature in the field.» (George Lazaroiu, Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York)

«Cognitive capitalism is a crucial category for conceptualizing the workings of contemporary globalization. Using the theories of the Italian Autonomist Marxist tradition, or 'operaismo', Peters and Bulut along with the other authors in this collection present important, fascinating insights into capitalism, education and labor today. It should be read immediately by anyone concerned about how the daily practices of education prepare the multitude for the travails of their immaterial and material labor.» (Timothy W. Luke, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University)

«Peters and Bulut have provided us with a brilliant set of papers that take us to the heart of the political economy. Under 'cognitive capitalism' subjectivity is both the realm of freedom and the source of value, raising the stakes in control (governmentality). Hence the continuing fecundity of interpretations at the intersection of Marx/Foucault/Deleuze. We experience both larger productive community and heightened public surveillance, together with unsolvable tensions in education and research. But this book also reminds us that the circuits of cognitive capitalism continue to rest on a mountain of physical commodities, generated largely in the emerging economies and subject to more traditional (and more traditionally Marxist) forms of manufacture, energy consumption and hyper-exploitation of labour.» (Simon Marginson, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia)

«Education cannot be understood outside of the diverse national and global forces in which it is situated, including the increasing separation of power from local politics. This book brings together a number of first-rate theorists in making clear the relationship among knowledge, power and digital labor. The book is a tour de force for anyone interested in the new registers of power that are now shaping education on a global level. This is an important book and should be put on the class list of every educator who views education central to politics.» (Henry A. Giroux, Global Television Network Chair Professor, English and Cultural Studies Department, McMaster University)

«The exceptional contributions assembled for this timely volume carefully anatomize - and critically question - the category of cognitive capitalism and its composition. This book is a major resource for a generation of academic workers with a very real stake in developments, conflicts and debates surrounding the edu-factory.» (Greig de Peuter, Co-author of 'Games of Empire')

Izabela Wagner: Polish reform of higher education: "Operation was successful and patient is dead"

Izabela Wagner: Polish reform of higher education: "Operation was successful and patient is dead"
Izabela Wagner, Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw

Poland just like several other countries has been touched by dynamic changes in Higher Education (HE). These changes are a consequence of factors that are both external (globalization and EU politics) and internal (transformation post-1989 and demography). Following a global tendency, the increase of access to University made spectacular development. After the installation of a free market economy, we witnessed fast changes: former public university system (free of charges but with the selection at the entrance) was complemented by private high schools and paid studies at public universities. All this new business constitutes a precious source of income for these institutions. If before 1989, only about 7% of the population graduated with a degree (second level of HE), now almost 50% of young people are “clients” of the HE system. But the boom or even the “fashion” for studying is now gone. [On the one hand this is because the fear of obligatory military service is no longer a factor for entering university since the service became professionalized; on the other hand the number of unemployed university graduates provoke the partial loss of trust in HE as a solution to unemployment]. However, the major factor for the decrease in the number of students is demography.

Until today, both categories of colleges/universities live in a symbiotic way. Underpaid faculty from public universities survive thanks to their parallel positions at private schools. On the other hand, the private schools are able to work thanks to the knowledge and professional capital (titles of professors) of public faculty working for them. The faculty were always educated in the public system, which is still largely considered to be of better quality than the private. Unfortunately, soon we will not have enough students to maintain this large offer of HE. The war has started. The 1st October 2011 was the first day for the reform in which the Ministry of HE (MHE) declared the “decontamination of the last bastion of the communist era,” meaning of academia and the science sector.

It is worth noticing that the present Minister in the ultraliberal government comes from the private HE system. The proposed changes indicate that the competition between the private and the public sector have already started. The justification for this competition is the free market rule (the best wins). But this game concerns two very different players: public HE is composed of large institutions (56,000 students and 3,100 faculty at the Warsaw University) and provides all kind of university teaching including science (departments of physics, biology, chemistry) while the private colleges are mainly of modest size and focused on managerial teaching, humanities and social sciences. It is evident that teaching science needs more financial support than teaching management. Consequently, the public universities have to cover all expenses related to buildings, equipment and staff maintenance. Private institutions are in a different financial situation – all students pay tuition and fees, and the maintaining of buildings is incomparably cheaper. State supports financially both systems, but public universities represent the major part of the costs. It is not difficult to understand why the government would want to cast off HE, but not by erasing public HE by a simple law (it is against Polish constitution which guarantees the access of higher education to people who pass the selection) but by privatizing, as much as possible, public universities.

Symbolic attacks on public universities (as a vestige of the old regime and an environment corrupted by nepotism) took place in the Polish mainstream media which supported the liberal changes introduced by the government. This is not only the case of HE – privatization follows the direction of present government and the political changes, which had occurred in Poland during recent years, when the health system, education and transportation have all undergone a process of privatization. However, even if we are deeply engaged in such a process – this is not openly said. The idea of progressive privatization of HE is hidden behind the slogan of modernization, internationalization and a race for the highest place in the world rankings.

If several changes which take place in Polish HE are found in other countries (EU but also South America, for example) there are some interesting specificities. Sociologists like case studies and the extreme cases are always very important for understanding the hidden mechanisms which are present but invisible in an “average” case. The subject of my study (careers of transnational scientists) and extended fieldwork (France, Poland, USA) give me the basis for saying that the Polish case of HE reform is an extreme case. The Polish situation offers an important dose of absurdity and paradoxical mechanisms which destroy instead of improving the sector of HE and research. This sector has existed for hundreds of years and worked despite financial difficulties, leaving some brilliant pages in its history.

From the Polish example, I would like to show how the post-colonial effects of ‘copy/paste solutions’ influenced the renewal of the old career path of Polish faculty/researchers.

Distribuir contido