Funding Education Without a Revolution of Values?

Funding Education Without a Revolution of Values?
by The Ox
“On November 9, 2008 George Shultz conducted a high-profile tour of the NIF with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, generating a photo op colored by the governor’s carefully crafted ‘green’ credentials. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Schwarzenegger as saying, ‘This laser has many exciting applications. What’s most exciting about it is the potential to revolutionize our energy future.’ Nowhere did the article mention the NIF’s critical role in the modernized nuclear weapons testing regime.” — from [underscoring mine.]

In the Good Times of Santa Cruz, News Editor Elizabeth Limbach — with a helluva huge influence (potentially) — “takes a close look at the movers and shakers of UC Santa Cruz.”

The cover story (”Top of the Class”) highlights five UC innovators trying to “break the creative mold with projects destined to make a positive difference.” Wentai Liu, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Michael Mateas…. oh hell, I’m not going to go through the list. Nor am I going to delineate the hard-to-not-applaud projects for which they’re getting funded up the kazoo. No, I’m going to move onto my main point… even though I’m dying to criticize the specifics surrounding the “cure for cancer” work.

MAIN POINT: YOU CANNOT BENEFIT FROM FUNDING FOR EDUCATION IN ANY FORM IF THE UC IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ITS SUPPORT OF OUR MILITARY-NUCLEAR-ACADEMIC COMPLEX as per UNIMPEDED. Or… if funds are secured from $$$ taken in from expanded off-shore drilling. Or… if to do so… $$$ has to be shifted from providing health care for children in the state to make your degree on time possible or to make any academic project stay afloat. There’s plenty of money to secure from other sources… TO FUND EDUCATION… but getting our hands on that will require what many too easily dismiss as DEMANDS FOR REVOLUTION. [Pause.] We owe it to ourselves and everyone else, though, to talk about gaining access to those sources.

Put “revolution” aside for the moment because the word clouds everything. But do not put aside the notion that we need a revolution of values.

Start, simply, with the fact that the above is going to require DISCUSSION… in depth… ongoing. We are not going to be able to avoid that necessary dialogue by sticking to arbitrary temporal parameters set up for January 10th any more than we can avoid such exchange by taking over a university building. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR LEISURELY (BUT EXPEDITIOUSLY) THRASHING THROUGH OUR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT.

Elizabeth Limbach might have served the public better if she had chosen to focus on the above rather than dwell in the pits of UC self-congratulation compounding ignorance with ignorance… guaranteeing that one and all stay within the neat parameters carefully laid out by the powers that be.

I’m not saying that that editor was conscious of what she was doing. I’m saying that you should be.

I have no heartbeats for anyone who is only concerned with getting theirs.

In solidarity,
P.S. Judging from how many people have written to me relieved that Arnold has now decided to fund education because of UC protests… without understanding WHAT he said or WHY… I’d say that we need to begin our dialogue… YESTERDAY! Or, at the very least, pronto. None of this is to say that taking over buildings is not helpful, but is, rather, to underscore that we don’t want to be following old paradigms of protest on automatic… without careful consideration of current variables. We do not want to be playing roles straight out of Central Casting, that’s for sure.

[I say that I can save our front line friends in a proper furor facing down the powers that be a tooth or two.]