Author Archives: Diana Melendez, LCSW

Biondi’s- The Black Revolution on Campus

Hi all- I apologize for the late post. It took me longer than I expected to get through the book- but very glad to have done so.

Biondi’s book offered a welcomed insight into a particular chapter of the ongoing struggle for equity and justice within the context of an education system.

One of the aspects which I appreciated was the way in which the nuances in activism and mobilization of students were explored as part of a larger social and political context. Biondi not only told the story of the social action days and moments of visibility but also some of the behind the scenes collaborations, negotiations and conflicts within and between groups.  In addition, there is an exploration of how the community-based grassroots organizations and the arts and media intersected with the push for Black Studies in higher education. One also could get a sense of the ways various events and individuals were interconnected in the larger historical thread. 

In thinking of our current political climate I think there may be some nostalgia around the stories of students mobilizing to demand change- yet this account gives some insight into the day to day realities of this time period and many examples of the brutality with which the higher education system and government responded. I wondered if the way so many stories of state sanctioned murders, suspension of civil liberties, blatant hostility have been ignored or forgotten is a predictor of how future generations may remember our current social political climate- taking pieces here and there of the large narrative based on media coverage-or if the spread of social media will allow for a fuller and more accessible account of attempts at resistance and the ways power continues to be misused and abused. Has social media afforded us some protection?

In some of relatively brief moments when Black students and other students of color came together, I was intrigued regarding the rationales or dynamics which may have led to ultimate separations of “issues” or “causes”. I was not surprised to learn of how the strategy of divide and conquer was applied but I also got the sense that there were some fundamental positions or demands the Black student organizers sought which stood apart from other groups of color or vice versa. Was this reflective of an undeveloped analysis of internalized anti-black racism and ethnocentrism? There was some attention to the question of white people’s involvement in the movement but also in the building of Black studies that followed- which I believe is a debate which goes on today when schools react to racist incidents and look to implement trainings or level personnel changes. This perspective was in many ways a contrast with the recurrent theme around international solidarity built on anti war and anti colonial ideologies.  I really found this exploration of the interworks of faculty and students’ activist work fascinating and an often ignored topic- I think there is a tendency to homogenize the category of “student activists”  or think of participants of a movement as being harmonious and cohesive groups. It was particularly interesting to consider the way patriarchy and homophobia were either identified and challenged- or what seems to be more often the case- tolerated or ignored for the sake of elevating black (male) identity. In the coming together of liberal and progressive circles in response to a “common enemy” in our current administration, I wonder how much of this lack of acknowledging the importance of viewing the struggle for liberation as an intersectional endeavor continues to exist and get in the way of effective social action. 

The accounting of the ways universities and governments colluded in the use of state violence against students brought up for me the question of how do we measure success following the fact lives were lost in the process? So many young people of color, in particular Black students, were harmed in so many ways to force higher education to think and exist outside its box- and yet so many solutions continued to come from “boxed” thinking.  I am not minimizing the gains and opportunities which were created on the backs of the number of young people who literally put their bodies on the line. How can those of us who agree with the values of equity and justice reconcile our participation in the often watered down, marginalized, white washed versions the institutionalized “Black perspective” in higher education given those before us paid such a high price? While the acknowledgment of Black Studies as an actual field of knowledge, research and study opened the doors to further cracking the colonial education machine for other groups, have people of color and their white allies today compromised the particular the emphasis on Blackness which transcends white concepts and the honoring of close ties to the community which was a big part of the success and vision of this movement?  In many ways, the creation of Black Studies, reminds me of a metaphor I heard once: You can’t stand up straight in a crooked room. And yet, what does the next step in this historical thread of movements towards justice and freedom looks like for our generation as faculty and students? How does this history inform our understanding of the role of higher education and our consideration of the possibilities of what could be?

Sheila Gordon’s Chapter IV- The Decision for Open Admissions

In this chapter of Sheila Gordon’s dissertation on the history of CUNY the “battles” for open free tuition, open admission and control over higher education in NYC are laid out through an analysis of the role politics and politicians played in the period following WWII and more particularly throughout the 1960s into early 1970s. This perspective presents an integration of the chronology of NYC Mayors, Governors and other important political figures woven into the narrative of events. I found it particularly interesting that in certain parts somebody like Bowker is described almost affectionately- with admiration and respect. He is presented as a hero-like figure with mentioning of his social justice values and his negotiating abilities. I wonder if this is related to him being perceived as someone with a lot of charisma as he is described to have been able to connect with people across racial and class lines and this having served him in the long run in having support for his agendas.

I found the way communities positioned themselves in favor or against free tuition and/or open admission were interesting as another example of the way race and class have been used to divide communities who are in search of opportunities to climb the economic ladder. There is a section in which the imagery used to play into the divisions between “city dwellers” and “upstaters” is made so clear and is so relevant today. While all the while there is an element of wanting to present an image of NYC as a place which embraces those in need and offers opportunities for their dreams.   The belief in a free market and values around individual responsibility and meritocracy show up time and time again. Although this was not something new I found it interesting to see that despite centuries of affirmative action in favor of those who came to be white- at moments when the opportunity arose for some sort of reparative process in by which communities of color could have been given access to higher education which may have positioned them at a temporary advantage over their white counterparts- this was considered inconceivable.

In this political analysis I found it helpful for the main issues to be clearly identified and laid out to include: internal power struggles, an ongoing battle between the City and State, emergent social and ethnic conflicts, increasing number of student applicants, a financial crisis, and the ongoing debate about the purpose and mission of the university.  Being that these issues seem to be embedded in the workings of a university system within our political context- I wonder if any of these have a “solution”, “resolution” or will only be addressed with a radical transformation of how we conceptualize of higher education in the first place.

Similarly- the student demands again resonated so clearly with current demands being made by student organizers calling for increased representation of people of color and trainings; this can be disheartening and again raises the question of how much can this system be reformed into achieving equity if it has been so intricately built on advantages and disadvantages for so long. One point listed on the demands by students in 1969-1970 during the debate over open admissions which I had picked up on before was the requirement for Education students to take classes in Black and Puerto Rican studies and classes in Spanish- this I wonder if this was reflective of the make-up of the student activists being students in the field of Education?

 

Lavin, Alba & Silberstein- “Right vs Privilege”

Chapter 1 presents what I would consider a very detailed account of the series of events which led to the establishment of public higher education in New York City.  This is a great example of a play-by-play of social change in which a critical mass of minority groups begin mobilizing, with the support of some white groups. In addition, the leadership of the time was either forced through the political process (upcoming elections) or genuinely committed to making this type of change. There were several turning points with one being the joining of the majority white groups to the dialogue around access to higher education for all through the leadership of the labor unions and a second, much later, being a fire on campus which seemed to have precipitated a final decision on the matter after weeks of conflict; almost as a metaphor for what things were coming down to. I’m sure others may identify other moments as signifiant turning points but these are ones that stood out to me.  After it was all said and done I was left wonder- where did the money to finance public higher education come from ultimately? were other social programs cut?

It was particularly interesting to read about the divisions amongst the student body at the time based on which area of study they were part of – social sciences vs hard sciences. I think it is sometimes easy to forget that in these times of student activism there were students who actually opposed what I may view as the “right thing to do” and that these are likely individuals who now hold leadership positions themselves. From the perspective of a student of history- I wonder what types of attempts there may have been to engage those groups of students (“engineers”) in dialogue around the benefits of public higher education. This seems to be a challenge we as a society still struggle with today. Another level of division that was apparent was the one between Jewish people and Black/ Puerto Rican groups- would this time period be considered within the historical process by which Jewish people transitioned into whiteness? This reminded me of the dynamic around admissions testing for high schools in NY, which became particularly visible over the past year with the seemingly adversarial position between Asian families and black and brown communities.

Lastly, the idea that once open access was established the vision was for the university to be held responsible for student success as much as the student through various mechanisms of support for incoming students and focused on retention. I wonder if this concept attached consequences to the university similar to the current trend to cut funding to “underperforming” schools as I don’t imagine negative outcomes in student retention would instead result in more funding for more support services to better meet student needs.

Gorelick- City College and the Jewish Poor

Hi all- I apologize for the delay in my post- this selection however was an eerie reminder of how many aspects of higher education have not changed much at all; back to our shuffle metaphor- perhaps only some of the order of the songs have changed but the album is still the same. These chapters focused on the history around Jewish communities in NYC and higher education- including themes which very relevant today.

It took me a minute to recalibrate my reading of “Progressive” in this text  in  contrast to how this label is currently being used.  How does this shifting of the meaning behind the language we use impact our ability to form solidarity across generations?  In understanding “progressives” as representing the business classes the foundation of what we see today in systems of education (as well as other systems) is clear with the following trends and values: centralization, efficiency, americanization, appointed locus of control, professionalism, superiority in exclusivity, anti-socialism, anti-immigrant and “democratization” through greater individual freedom. How are these hallmarks of capitalist white supremacy still seen in our liberal or even “progressive” (by today’s terms) higher education institutions and who benefits from these?

In reading about some of the ways the labor class engaged in resistance, I wondered what did the organizing look like by Jewish folks as they pushed to ensure access to the emerging systems of higher education, while at times recognizing this dehumanizing system was meant to use them as part of the “Americanization” machine. In the examples given of how reform was contextualized under the need to prepare new generations of young men to join the “toil” in the labor sector [in favor of capitalism] it is clear profit and maintaining the status of quo of wealth disparity is never forgotten.  The creating of the Free Academy reminded me of how groups at times take more moderate positions or use language or logic which appeals to the dominant groups.  Ultimately, the middle class ended up benefitting from gains in public education and more rungs on the economic ladder, rather than working class children whose parents likely engaged in the work of making these openings possible.  How much does a social movement’s ideology tolerate it being water downed before it is co-opted in the process of being accepted by the power-wielders? Almost tragically, despite the elite still sending their children to places like Columbia and Harvard- public education was nonetheless created in the image of class hierarchies as a model of liberal democracy.

In a similar line of thought, what lessons can “more palatable” communities of color learn from white Jewish teachers who knowingly or unknowingly were used as a mechanism of anglo- Americanization even when  the school system was anti-semitic and hostile towards Jewish culture- teaching a curriculum which deemed immigrants as a social problem? Their story includes reminders of the power in numbers- where even though a numerical minority, Jewish educators were able to hold on to their radicalism despite social forces against this. How has the process of Jewish people becoming white become another layer for us to address in bridging common causes for justice?

The larger political context for this political unrest is linked to a peak in immigrant population and the mechanization of labor- how is the political and social climate of today similar or different to that which CCNY experienced as a pre-cursor to institutional reform within higher education? What might be the differences between the veiled reification of settler capitalism under the guise of reform of the 1900s and more meaningful transformational change which moves towards a redistribution of power that our generation must consider? Who are the players of today’s conversations and who stands to benefit from no change?

 

John R. Thelin’s A History of American Higher Education

In the Introduction, Chapter 3 and 4, Thelin provides a historical review and analysis of the factors which shaped higher education between 1860 and 1910. He notes that his sources go beyond more superficial comparisons of financial date and include financial data which is adjusted for inflation and demographic changes, as well as looking at documents and secondary sources to trace the stories behind the numbers.

Although Thelin makes mention of the similarities and differences in the development of higher education for all white and black communities and the way white supremacy shaped the structure, funding sources and status of schools, I was curious as to the relative minimal direct reference to the displacement and genocide of indigenous people by the US government in the historical analysis of the Morrill Act, although it was made clear the question of western colonization was central to this legislation. In this regard, I believe one continuing important point of inquiry for higher education today is that of what is owed to the the original peoples on whose land places of higher learning were built; and the relationship between this history and the way universities continue to replicate a pattern of displacement of disempowered communities today? What is the role of students, faculty and administrators in both acknowledging and reconciling this tension given increasingly mainstream discourses of social justice and accountability across intersectionality?

Throughout the two chapters, some of the values foundational to neoliberalism within higher education appear to be woven into the construction of higher education, in both literal and ideological ways: for example, the ways higher education was initially meant to be for white males of higher social status- with this being an expanding category albeit permanently exclusive; the establishment of  Eurocentric “scientific knowledge” as the dominant worldview in research, pedagogy and knowledge production;  the establishment of hierarchies of fields, schools, personnel and generations of faculty; the increased role of business in the leadership of higher education; the professionalization of faculty and students;  etc. Other influences mentioned in analyzing the ideologies shaping higher education include the role of dominant religious institutions, militarism, competitiveness and individualism, values of meritocracy and a reliance on the “Protestant ethic” to guide affluent people to fund the deserving fund requests.  From a more progressive perspective, these values and ideologies are understood to have functioned as barriers to equitable access to education and job opportunities for women, people of color, immigrants, people in poverty and other marginalized groups. However, there are also ways that the space of higher education seems to have created opportunities for community building and openings for these groups to carve pathways into upward mobility and success. How does this contrast in the social costs and benefits to historically disempowered people continue to be reflected in today’s world of higher education? How has it changed?