Put An End to the Crisis in Education and its Funding!
Education Is A Right – Increase Investment in Education!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Put An End to the Crisis in Education and its Funding! Education Is A Right – Increase Investment in Education!

NUS Demands that HE Must Not Be Abandoned to Market Forces and that “All American” Style Funding Is Not the Solution

Preparing the Crime of War against Iran:
Bush State of The Union: Preparing Crime of War against Iran

Deflecting attention from the crisis in funding education and in the gearing of education to the concerns of the monopolies, Tony Blair declared on Thursday that the identification of crises is hugely overdone.

            He was referring to the crisis in higher education when New Labour came to power in a speech to an audience at Brunel University. He pointed out that the crisis then in funding university education had become acute. But what is Tony Blair is saying is the saviour of the funding of higher education? Tuition fees, and now the government’s focus on encouraging former students, businesses and philanthropists to donate money to universities.

            According to Tony Blair, tuition fees are now the conventional wisdom. In fact, the government is increasingly following the US model and style of university funding and fees structure. It is predicated on meeting the needs of big business, linking the content of higher education to the demands of the monopolies, and pursuing the fetish of competition, as though the educational institutions themselves could only justify themselves by engaging in intense competition internationally with the US and Europe, and, increasingly, as the Prime Minister points out, with China and India. Indeed, this rationale is leading to the situation where the paramount criteria for degree courses is whether they will attract funding. In this scenario, the humanities particularly are under attack. Languages, history and similar courses are being axed, and even the sciences are not exempt, with universities such as Newcastle and Reading shedding their Physics departments completely, and chemistry and other science courses are being closed at other universities.

            It is only in words that Tony Blair pays tribute to colleges as sites of disinterested learning (as part of “our civilisation”). The whole focus in the government’s policy is on competing in the global market place, so as to encourage more students to come to Britain and hence attract greater funding. Research should be geared to industry and universities must develop research parks with business, setting up spin-out companies and consultancies. Thus, in this programme, Britain will compete with better-funded competitors abroad, not least in the US. Therefore, Tony Blair’s logic goes, the funding of higher education in Britain must ape that of the United States. Despite the fact that students in Canada are also fighting a bitter battle to defend the right to higher education, reduce tuition fees and increase government funding for college education, Tony Blair has a special mention for Ontario’s match-funding scheme.

            The level, quality and content of education in a society is a measure of its progress. The issue is not some 19th century notion of “disinterested” education, but the fact that an advanced society will take pride and care in educating its young people and students so that they become human beings who are enlightened and will take up responsibility for the fate of society and its members. The potential of the youth as a whole to advance along this path is being blocked, sacrificed on the altar of competition in the global market and kow-towing to the dictate of the monopolies.

            Pursuing the anti-social offensive in education and refusing to provide the investment that education programmes require, the government is actually exacerbating the all-round crisis of society, and entrenching the strangle-hold of the monopolies and their values, or lack of them, over every facet of society, including the content and direction of education.

            In opposition to this, students are upholding the principle that education is a right, that the government take responsibility for the funding of higher and further education. They are stating that the government’s programme for education is not the solution, but that solutions are to be found in the course of building resistance to the all-round programme of retrogression of the ruling elite.

The National Union of Students has made it plain that the NUS remains committed to lobbying for greater, direct public expenditure to ensure quality as well as to prevent the cap on fees being lifted. It has warned that politicians’ apparent determination to emulate the American system, if they intend to emulate it wholesale, is deeply worrying.

            Endowments on the scale of those reported in America’s elite universities may be a welcome relief if similar alumni and corporate donations can be raised in Britain, according to the NUS, but this should be complemented by greater public investment and not by adding huge debt burdens onto students.

            The NUS says that maintaining the status quo in HE is not enough:

            · Massaging stats on overall admissions says nothing of mere “modest” rise in admissions from poorer students;

            · Stable or even rising admissions disguise failure on widening participation and must not be an excuse for lifting the cap on fees;

            · Bursary system not fit for purpose.

            NUS President Gemma Tumelty speaking in advance of Tony Blair’s speech said that universities must do more to encourage applications from non-traditional students and to exceed their own target to see 50 per cent participation rates under the current system – and they must acknowledge the risks of further developing the tuition fees regime well ahead of the 2009 review regardless of the very welcome percentage increase in admissions to be reported by UCAS.

            Further marketising the HE sector will jeopardise admissions from non-traditional students as well as creating a cavernous split in the quality of institutions, the NUS believes.

            We stand firm in our belief that the HE sector should be publicly funded, she said. We must step up public investment in the system to keep pace with other countries and to ensure quality and equity.

            Furthermore, the current system of bursaries and grants is clearly confusing and needs a complete overhaul to boost take up and end inconsistencies. The NUS is calling for a national bursary scheme to ensure that all students receive the support they need regardless of where they study and that unspent funds are not left in the pockets of vice-chancellors.

            Gemma Tumelty said that any new system must ensure that universities with less capacity to raise funds are not penalised compared to the Russell group, who can already boast decent endowments and whose alumni may provide a riper market. New funding structures must benefit all institutions in the HE sector.

Voice of Revolution*, February 3, 2007

President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address January 23 and again made clear US preparations for aggressive war against Iran. Bush also raised the need to expand the military and create an additional “Civilian” Corps of mercenaries to try and rescue US efforts at world domination. He received broad applause for both proposals. Taken as a whole, the speech reflected the exhausted character of the US ruling class, which has no solutions for any problem. Instead, cornered by failure on all sides, it is desperately trying to save itself by lashing out, imposing fascism and war.

            In 2007, Bush again used the justification of September 11 for US crimes. He declared: “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war.” He again emphasised the plan for more aggressive wars, saying that “to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy”. And, far from striving to solve any problem, he repeated the refrain that “America must not fail in Iraq”.

            Despite the broad demand by the peoples to end the war now and thus contribute to solving the problem of ending aggressive wars, Bush claims that repeating, again, the use of more aggression against Iraq is the way to go. He also more broadly branded “the enemy” by basically saying any form of “extremism” and “violent radicals” are a threat. And this applied simply to people’s views. “This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance.” So those with what Bush decides is an “extreme ideology” are also enemies. In this manner the president is not only warning those he specifically named, such as the resistance movements in Iraq (including Sunnis and Shias) and Lebanon (Hizbollah), but also anyone, inside the country and out, who stands in the way. Indeed, he even cautioned Congress, saying, “We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies – and the wisdom to face them together.” Few could miss the echo of “you are with us or with the enemy”.

            Bush directly targeted Iran several times. He said the US faces “an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America [as al Qaeda] and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hizbollah – a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken”. Hizbollah successfully led the resistance in Lebanon to US-Israeli aggression and continues to do so. Bush added, “Hizbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region…” He claimed, “Radical Shia elements, some of whom received support from Iran, formed death squads [in Iraq].” He threatened that if the US withdraws, “we could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda”.

            Bush repeatedly attempts to claim that the cause of the violence and terrorism in Iraq is the Iraqis themselves, when it is clear that it is US occupation. Now Bush is claiming Iranians are also responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. No evidence of any kind has been presented. It is simply asserted over and over by the Pentagon disinformation machine that Iran is responsible for American deaths.

            This emphasis on American deaths is an attempt to push the US anti-war movement backward, away from its stand that Iraqis deaths and Iranian deaths and Lebanese deaths are not acceptable. The movement stands as one with the peoples of the world against all the death and destruction of US imperialist wars. It also makes clear that there would be no US deaths if all US troops were brought home.

            The Iraqis and Iranians are not the source of the problem, occupation is. The Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese and Palestinians are all capable of governing themselves and living in peace if they are left to do so by the US and its client state of Israel. Respect for sovereignty and non-interference by all the big powers, the US first and foremost, is necessary.

            Bush rejects withdrawal of all US troops as the solution for success and instead outlines the US plan for revenge against the Iraqi resistance, focused on Baghdad. Increased US troops will be organised as gangs to go into neighbourhoods to “find the terrorists and clear them out”, and then “hold” the neighbourhood. Using the US-Israeli model in Palestine and that of Falluja and elsewhere, this can only mean more mass civilian killings, destruction of housing, hospitals and civilian infrastructure, terrorising the population, especially women and children, and then making the neighbourhoods prisons, with checkpoints, restricted movement and dusk to dawn curfews. This is what US-style democracy looks like in Iraq.

            Plan for Expanded Military & Civilian Corps

            It is well known and admitted by the Pentagon that US military forces are already stretched thin and are losing in Iraq. Yet Bush plans to escalate the war to Iran and elsewhere. To do so, he is demanding to increase the Army and Marine Corps – the occupying ground forces in any war – by 92,000 troops, over the next five years. But it is clear this is not enough, especially given the increasing resistance among the youth to be cannon fodder for imperialist war. So Bush is also calling for a “Civilian Reserve Corps”.

            According to Bush, this Civilian Corps “would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.” This is an effort to entice yet more youth into war, while claiming to do otherwise. It very likely will also be directed toward undocumented immigrant youth, with the promise of citizenship for “civilian service.” It could also be used to justify hiring “civilians with critical skills”, from other countries.

            This Corps would be in addition to the existing mercenary army in Iraq, utilising forces like Blackwater, Inc. There are an estimated 100,000 private “contractors” in Iraq, including at least 48,000 soldiers. Blackwater, with hundreds of millions in government contracts already, also provided mercenaries to occupy New Orleans after Katrina.

            The government mercenaries in Iraq have been responsible for torture and other crimes. They are considered outside any law and have not been subject to any punishment for known crimes. Given this existing reality, it is very likely that such a Civilian Corps, once established, would serve to create a private army directly controlled by the president. It likely will not come under the authority of Congress, or even the military. And it could be used as a fascist force of the executive inside the country as well. It represents a significant and dangerous development in government arrangements.

            Alongside the call for this Civilian Corps, Bush proposed what he called a Congressional “advisory council”. Emphasising the power usurped by the Office of the President that reduces Congress to a consultative body, Bush said “Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It’s why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We’ll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.”

            The proposal for an “advisory council”, if implemented, represents an effort by the president to complete new arrangements of governance whereby Congress and the Courts have only an advisory and consultative role, and all power resides with the president. Bush emphasises that he, and he alone, is the “decision-maker”, and that Congress cannot stop him. He has made the decision about sending more troops to Iraq. By implication, he will also decide about bombing Iran.

            A serious clash is underway on this matter. But Bush and the ruling circles generally do not want an open constitutional fight if it can be avoided. An advisory council is a possible means to do this. It could serve to keep Congress as an elected body, but essentially eliminate any power it has. It could also eliminate the current role of Congressional committees and concentrate them in this “advisory council” of top leaders. This select few would be in on the deal making and decision-making and the rest would simply be consulted with. It is a significant proposal that bears watching, especially as the current battles over bills and resolutions on Iraq and Iran unfold.

            Americans met Bush’s speech with a massive outpouring on January 27, demanding an end to the war now. The action also put Congress on notice. Americans do not want a pro-war government. The failure by Congress to act, like Bush’s failure, will be met with determined resistance, including working step by step to create an anti-war government of the people themselves.

* Voice of Revolution is the publication of the US Marxist-Leninist Organisation.