From the Editor’s Desk: BoT 2.0

 

A special creepiness has characterized CUNY politics of late, specifically around the fight over the Pathways initiative. No, it hasn’t been the condescending tone of the chancellor, or the egregiously destructive proposals being rammed down the throats of those laboring in the system. These are to be expected–strains of authoritarian arrogance have always colored politics at our university. But traditionally, there’s been an almost quiet quality about it, and more often than not, school policy has been the product of an overconfident entitlement, assured in the knowledge that no one was paying attention. Take for example the now-famous fight over Tony Kushner.  What began as a throw-away comment from Jeffrey Wiesenfeld during an otherwise humdrum voting procedure became the basis for stripping the playwright of the opportunity to receive an honorary degree from John Jay College. In this case, it seemed like the board took action simply because it thought it could. Or maybe it wasn’t even given much thought at all. Either way, the decision exploded into a nationwide controversy, which clearly caught Mr. Wiesenfeld and the board off-guard, and finally forced the chancellor into silly rhetorical contortions that opened the way for a reversal by the Board of Trustees.

What is striking about recent events has been the unexpectedly careful deliberation informing CUNY administrative action. That’s not to deny that the university has long operated according to the pulsing logic of neoliberal capitalism. Clearly, the board’s fetish for the bottom line—witnessed in its zealous chopping up of faculty, course offerings, departments and payrolls, its rolling decisions to raise administrative salaries and student tuition, and its strident efforts at rendering what’s left of CUNY’s public face private—has been longstanding.  But it appears, if recent events are any indication, that they have learned from their recent run-ins in public, with the public, and have adopted a new approach in fighting the battle over Pathways.

The strategy seems to comprise three components. The first is baldly disingenuous—the chancellor and his cronies, they’d like us to believe, have come to embrace the “liberal” in their neoliberalism. Suddenly, we are routinely reminded by Matthew Goldstein and the board that Pathways was the product of transparent, inclusive, deliberative procedures and decision making. Don’t we remember? This unexpected embrace of inclusive decision making, of course, serves a purpose. Two, in fact. The chancellor can argue to interested outsiders (and members of the CUNY community) that the university-wide curricular overhaul is embraced by a majority of stakeholders in departments throughout the system, and that the vociferous criticism against it comes from a disgruntled minority of rebel faculty and staff. And at the same time, he can claim exclusive authority over the process. Now that the deliberative phase of Pathways has concluded, Mr. Goldstein contends, it’s time for him to do his thing: execute.

Which brings us to the second line of attack. An unpleasant melody of aggressive legalism has provided background music for the chancellor’s recent public statements on Pathways.  Such attention to the formal channels of administrative power has been absent in previous controversies, largely because the chancellor and his board were without any rules to lean on in defense of their actions. This time is different. References to state law and university bylaws and procedures have been frequent, well thought-out, and purposeful, serving as rhetorical sleights of hand that underscore the chancellor’s efforts to craft debate over Pathways as a governance issue over which he has the final say. Within this framework, after all, it’s hard to challenge the chancellor’s decision making authority. Moreover, the constant allusions to rules and regulations construct a kind of cage that traps the opposition within a blueprint of the CUNY hierarchy, thereby limiting possibilities for maneuver. That is, as long as you accept the central premise that this is a matter of governance.

For those that don’t, a third approach is taken by the administration that is the ugliest, and most familiar. The chancellor and his people haven’t shied away from dusting off the same playbook that Rahm Emanuel employed during the Chicago teachers’ strike: impugn the morality of the opposition, and then intimidate them. Just as Emanuel accused his city’s teachers of harming “the children” by going on strike, the chancellor implicitly (and ironically) suggests that opposition to Pathways effectively equals the obstruction of student achievement. This was most clearly laid out in Mr. Goldstein’s admonishing letter to the American Association of University Professors, where he chastised the AAUP’s Robert Krieger for sacrificing the needs of students by advocating for, well, the needs of students. “CUNY students,” the chancellor scolded, “have waited long enough for an efficient transfer system for their general education, major and elective courses. I see no reason to suspend the process for achieving that goal.”

At the same time, the tried-and-true tactics of threats and bullying have also been rolled out against faculties standing up to the chancellor’s project.  After a courageous vote against curricular changes to English composition courses at Queensborough Community College, the school’s vice-president, Karen Steele, issued an email to the department chair announcing reprisals.  Among other things, it noted that:

“We will no longer be able to offer EN-101, 102, or 103 in their current configuration (i.e., four contact hours) as of fall 2013. Since we don’t have in place courses that will meet the Pathways requirements for the Common Core, we can’t put forward a Fall 2013 schedule of classes that includes English Composition courses. Given that fact, and the resultant dramatic drop in enrollment, we will have to take the following actions: All searches for full time faculty in the English Department will be cancelled immediately; the existing EN 101, 102, and 103 will not be included in the common core, and therefore will not be offered in Fall 13; beginning March 2013 (our Fall 13 advisement cycle), continuing and new students will be advised to take the common core requirement for I A at another CUNY institution, since the courses will not be available at Queensborough; neither EN 101 or 103, nor EN 102 will be submitted to the University in the QCC list of ‘gateway’ courses for the English Major;  of necessity, all adjunct faculty in the English department will be sent letters of non-reappointment for Fall 2013; the reappointment of full time faculty in the English Department will be subject to ability to pay and Fall ’13 enrollment in department courses.”

Thankfully, faculty at Queensborough and other campuses have refused to wilt in the face of these tactics.  In fact, if anything, top-down harassment has sparked a more concerted response.  Supporting statements from English faculty colleagues around the university system have been written, signed, and publicized, including an especially strong declaration from the department at the Graduate Center. Quiet rumblings on far flung campuses suggest, too, that we’re likely going to see similar stands taken by faculty at other schools, as well.

Pushback from departments has likewise been met with support from the PSC, who has been excellent on this issue.  Immediately after Vice President Steele’s email to the department chair, Barbara Bowen announced in no uncertain terms where the union stands. “The PSC firmly stands with the faculty at QCC who were exercising their rights as faculty and citizens. Vice President Steele’s response signals the clear intention to undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech. If the threatened actions in Vice President Steele’s message are not rescinded immediately, PSC legal counsel will file a charge with the Public Employment Relations Board regarding this act of retaliation. The union is also exploring filing a federal lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.”  There was no need.  The vice-president’s message was quickly walked back, and the chancellor himself was forced to apologize on the administration’s behalf, all the while embarrassingly having to uphold his commitment to a harassment free workplace.

But in order to succeed in this fight against efforts to perversely reconfigure our university system—part of a larger movement to dismantle what remains of a functioning public education apparatus—it will take a lot more than a few brave pockets sprinkled around the system of faculty willing to take a stand, even with the support of the PSC. The fight to disrupt the Pathways initiative will demand, among other things, an appropriate response to the new strategy and tactics being deployed by 8oth Street. From one vantage point, the new posture adopted by the chancellor and his board members is daunting. It suggests that Mr. Goldstein and his team have considered lessons learned from previous controversies and figured out ways to more forcefully, and carefully, achieve their objectives.  On the other, it offers new opportunities for action.

Mr. Goldstein and his team are wrong, and wrong-headed, in their arguments and approach. It’s important to keep this in mind. They are wrong to continue emphasizing the collaborative nature and genesis of the Pathways project—they’re intolerance for opposing viewpoints throughout the process are testament enough that Pathways has been anything but. They are wrong to keep whining about supposed violations of and disregard for the rules underpinning the authority of the chancellery for the simple reason that curricular redesign does not fall within the silo of university governance. They are wrong to argue that faculty members who have dedicated their entire careers to advancing the welfare of students are somehow keeping them back by demanding the preservation of basic standards of excellence in the classroom.  And they are dead wrong to assume faculty and students will fold under the nasty pressures of administrative intimidation.

So, while the brass may have remodeled their approach to getting things done, we must recognized that they remain essentially the same—rich in resources, small in number and poor in ideas. In this respect we enjoy the advantage. If we hold the line, make better arguments, and keep reminding ourselves about what the goals of the Pathways initiative are really about, the fight is ours to win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY