I get the impression that trying to convince Nathan that there might be some value in LM articles is like trying to convince him that NATO was wrong to intervene in Yugoslavia. I would point out though that there are many brands of feminism and a criticism of one type does not mean that the critic is anti-feminist. Otherwise Bell Hooks would be a rabid anti-feminist. The same applies to criticism of environmentalists. Murray Bookchin, a social ecologist, is quite critical of groups such as Earth First for ignoring the social consequences of their environmentalism. LM articles have criticised the anti-GM movement not because there are no possible dangers in GM seeds, but because the movement ignores for the most part the positive potential of biotechnology and GM seeds. Vandana SHiva for example has blasted Oxfam for suggesting the GM modified plants resistant to drought might be an aid to subsistence farmers in areas of Africa experiencing prolonged drought.
By the way GM technology is widespread in making vaccines and drugs. I expect that the majority of insulin is now human and not animal insulin and is produced by biotechnology-using bacteria I believe. Is there to be a moratorium on this too or are we to return to animal insulin? (Actually there are some benefits to the latter but since we have no manufacturers in the public sector there is no motivation to keep on producing the animal insulin. There is just not enough profit and major producers just stopped making it.)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> .
>
> I haven't read the LM article Ken describes, but going by Ken's
> description, while I disagree with the LM conclusion & policy suggestion, I
> think that LM correctly called attention to one of the problems of higher
> education. The post-60s reaction to post-secondary education has created
> the coincidence of greater inclusiveness & more onerous tuition & fees.
> And the rhetoric of restructuring higher education has been couched in the
> language of quality control. James O'Connor puts it this way in _The
> Fiscal Crisis of the State_ (1973):
>
> ***** Every economic and social class and group wants government to spend
> more and more money on more and more things. But no one wants to pay new
> taxes or higher rates on old taxes. Indeed, nearly everyone wants lower
> taxes, and many groups have agitated successfully for tax relief.
> Society's demands on local and state budgets seemingly are unlimited, but
> people's willingness and capacity to pay for these demands appear to be
> narrowly limited. And at the federal level expenditure has increased
> significantly faster than the growth of total production. In the words of
> the head of the Federal Reserve System,
>
> "We stand at a crossroads in our fiscal arrangements. Many of our citizens
> are alarmed by the increasing share of their incomes that is taken away by
> Federal, State, and local taxes....The propensity to spend more than we are
> prepared to finance through taxes is becoming deep-seated and ominous. An
> early end to Federal deficits is not now in sight. Numerous Federal
> programs have a huge growth of expenditures built into them, and there are
> proposals presently before the Congress that would raise expenditures by
> vast amounts in coming years."
>
> We have termed this tendency for government expenditures to outrace
> revenues the "fiscal crisis of the state." There is no iron law that
> expenditures must always rise more rapidly than new revenues, but it is a
> fact that growing needs which only the state can meet create ever greater
> claims on the state budget. Several factors, singly or in combination, may
> offset the crisis. People who need government-provided services may be
> ignored and their needs neglected, as happened in New York's welfare
> cutback during the 1970-71 recession....Government employee income may fall
> behind private sector income or below the cost of living, but this does not
> mean that these workers get automatic pay increases. In fact, the
> government may even freeze wages and salaries in an attempt to ameliorate
> the fiscal crisis. Furthermore, people can be forced to pay higher taxes.
> Should they be unwilling to pay taxes directly because large numbers oppose
> particular spending programs, the government can force them to pay taxes
> indirectly by financing increased expenditures via inflation or credit
> expansion -- as the Johnson Administration did during the peak years of
> American aggression in Southeast Asia.
>
> A combination of some of these coutertendencies resulted in budgetary
> surpluses in many state and local governments in 1972....
>
> The volume and composition of government expenditures and the distribution
> of the tax burden are not determined by the laws of the market but rather
> reflect and are structurally determined by social and economic conflicts
> between classes and groups.... (pp. 1-2) *****
>
> In the case of the United States, the fiscal crisis of post-secondary
> education has been resolved by cutting back teacher salaries through an
> increase in part-time labor; creating larger classes; making students take
> on loans whose weight becomes heavier each year; instituting many fees;
> enticing more foreign students who must pay non-resident tuition and fees;
> shunting working-class students onto community colleges; attacking
> affirmative action; excluding women on welfare from post-secondary
> education through the welfare "reform"; and so on.
>
> Now, the U.S. government is in the black, but the rhetoric of the fiscal
> crisis remains in educratese, still expedient for further restructuring of
> post-secondary education in the name of quality control & responsiveness
> for "customer" (= student & parent) needs. For instance, at the Ohio State
> University, the budget is being restructured to privilege the departments,
> programs, & faculty members who bring in more grant money & tie-ins with
> corporations. (You know what this means for the humanities!) Now, we are
> to deliver "customers'" money's worth via increased productivity &
> higher-quality services, which means, in reality: (a) faculty are asked to
> re-dedicate themselves to teaching (as if they had not!), for it is their
> alleged "neglect" of teaching in favor of "research" that has created the
> problem; and (b) all teachers -- even the lowliest part-time teachers (who,
> btw, actually teach more than full-time teachers) -- are subject to more
> administrative "reviews" of our "performance," in the name of weeding out
> deadwood & making our service more "professional" (in what sense part-time
> humanities teachers -- who are paid, at OSU, a monthly post-tax wage of
> about $740 per course and whose service is called upon sometimes a couple
> of days before the quarter begins -- can be said to be "professional" is
> left unexplained; once, I was asked to teach a course _after_ the quarter
> began -- I had to turn it down).
>
> Meanwhile, the top administrators' salary increases have outpaced increases
> in teacher salaries. (See, for instance, Joel Moroney, "Administrator
> Raises Irk Faculty Group," _The Lantern_ 21 February 2000 at
> http://www.thelantern.com/archives/gendisp.asp?id=951151636934.) The OSU
> chapter of the AAUP began a faculty review of the administration (see,
> "Faculty to Partake in Review," _The Lantern_, 21 February 2000 at
> http://www.thelantern.com/archives/gendisp.asp?id=951151989544), but
> part-timers are not included in this review process (alas, I found out
> about this exclusion too late to take part in the review this year!).
> Anyway, the review is a (baby) step in the right direction, in my opinion.
> (BTW, the top administrators' salary increases are often justified in the
> name of the "need" to schmooze with corporate donors to bring in more
> private donations -- here, the rhetoric of the fiscal crisis of the state
> has actually contributed to more overhead.)
>
> Now, what is to be done? My cyber-pal Dennis Redmond, etc. would correctly
> argue for unionization (I'd like a union indeed), but unions alone can't
> solve the fundamental problem: one of the secondary contradictions --
> unlimited demands on the state, limited capacity & willingness to pay
> taxes, in the context of the forced reproduction of the social conditions
> that would maintain profitability of capital -- that James O'Connor has
> discussed in his work.
>
> Yoshie