Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 19, 1997)
COHTAQTIHG US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: PO. BOX 3159 ode@oregon. uoregon edu Eugene. Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/--ode - Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Carl Yeh Proposals to ensure the University trains students for high-tech jobs hurt workers and hinder education Politics, wrote John Dewey, America’s leading 20th-century philosopher, “is the shadow cast on society by big business.” This shadow’s ad vance, he warned, can threaten the process of democracy itself because “business for private profit can be reinforced by ... means of publicity and propa ganda.” American thinkers have a long tradition of resisting the homogenizing tendency of profit motive run amok. One of the tools they have used is free and in spiring education. It is enlightening to keep this in Jeff Shaw ilium vviicil i.uwsiuci mg ouue oeiiciitJ I Bill 504, an industry-designed bill to | boost funding for high-technology I education. This $5 million plan was submit ted by the Engineering and Technol ogy Industry Council and approved by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, By the end of this month, the education board hopes to per suade the Oregon State Emergency Rrvo r/l f I h /» To the credit of the bill’s sponsors, they have been refreshingly honest about their motives. The plan was created “in response to industry needs,” to quote Lisa Stevens of the Oregon State System of Higher Educa tion, and not student concerns. This action by the in dustry council, according to Chancellor Joseph Cox, “sets a precedent for higher education — industry partnerships” and, more ominously, “directs the de livery of educational services toward targets set by in dustry.” That’s right, they’re using tax dollars to mold the de livery of educational services. Students have no role in the equation. Their place is not to give input on pro- 4 grams they want or need; they are simply “targets set.” This choice of language is not insignificant: Rather than people with concerns, students and workers are relegated to instruments, tools. This kind of thinking reverses the way we should make decisions about ed ucation in a democracy. We have been warned, after all. Dewey noted that since “a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in volun tary disposition and interest; these can only be created by education." That is, the purpose of education is not to simply funnel resources where private profit can best be wrung from them; education is designed to fos ter tlie kind of critical drinking that keeps any “exter nal authority” honest. This line of thinking has far-reaching roots. John Locke, for instance, concluded, "The business of edu cation is not to make the young perfect in any one of tire sciences, but so to open and dispose their minds as may best make them capable of any, when they shall apply themselves to it.” There is also the fact that this legislation is designed to use public funds to bolster private profits, to the ex pense of most workers in the high-technology indus tries. In utilizing state funds, the corporations in volved continue a long tradition of public subsidies for high-tech businesses. We pay to provide the raw mate rial, and they reap the benefits of a bountiful supply of workers. Indeed, the most disturbing part of policies like this bill is how normal they seem to economic writers in the mainstream media. Joel Kotkin of The Los Angeles Times worries that the lack of high-tech personnel could cause “wage pressures” that might “cut into cor porate profits.” hi translation, that means workers might get more of the pie and corporations less. Consider Senate Bill 504 in this context: The public pays the bill for employee training, eliminating an ex pense for the businesses involved; the fact that tliere are more workers means they can pay less for existing workers due to the new lack of “wage pressure.” As an intended side effect, the bountiful labor pool also gives workers who choose to organize less leverage in a la bor dispute. No wonder Cox is so excited about these “partnerships.” Unfortunately, Cox and the public re ally are partners in a sense. We, the pub- \ lie, play the traditional role of a “silent partner” by providing the fi nancial backing for such a venture without hav ing a say in it. The politics of business cast a shadow that continues to spread. The more it spreads, though, the more likely people are to no tice— and if they are unwilling part ners, to refuse to be silent. Senate Bill 504 provides an opportunity to do just that. JeffShaie is a columnist for the Emerald. His work appears on alternate Wednesdays. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. Community Briefs "4
