We’ve consolidated and reduced the reading for the final two class sessions in December, as you can see from the updated syllabus in the pulldown menu above. On December 2nd we are asking you to focus on the Todd-Breland book exclusively, given that she’s joining us for our discussion. And then on December 9th, the final class, we are focusing on charter schools with two readings (Rooks and Lewer) and the “School Colors” podcast.
Land inheritance, acquisition and inhabitance are all intermingled in the history of education where people have fought for a literal “place” in an equitable classroom. As Nash (2020) points out, dating back to colonialism, “The object in settler colonialism is to acquire land and gain control of resources” (p. 443). This acquisition of land and control over resources continues to surface as a way to displace and subjugate groups of people.
Land-grant colleges, created in the mid-nineteenth century, were institutions in higher education funded by Morrill Acts (the first one signed into law in 1862), which granted federally controlled land to states for them to establish colleges. They were created with a mission to meet the growing demands of the industrial revolution, anchored in science, agriculture, and engineering, rather than the “elite” liberal arts education. Critical to the narrative is the fact that around the mid-19th century “the federal government expropriated approximately 10.7 million acres of land from 245 tribal nations and divided it into roughly 80,000 parcels for redistribution…each state received 30,000 acres of federal land towards establishing the aforementioned institutions”. The land that was sold to support colleges was available because of a deliberate project to dispossess American Indians of land they inhabited and called their home (Nash, 2020, p. 437). All of this makes me wonder, why it is, or was ever, acceptable to displace groups of people for the advancement of some.
The same displacement continues to happen today, evident in places like Harlem, NY and Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. Displacement invariably leads to a cultural and social uprooting where groups of people have to situate themselves in a new space, which can present a plethora of challenges. Efforts such as busing exist(ed) to support students who have either been displaced, or live in neighborhoods with failing schools. However, those efforts have been thwarted due to resistance from local residents, and, in some cases, systemic avoidance. “In New York City, in the years following the Brown v. Board decision, white (primarily middle- and working-class) residents vehemently resisted school integration plans, fighting against rezoning and the busing of Black and Puerto Rican students into their neighborhood schools. The New York City Board of Education, fearing the looming specter of white flight from the public schools, capitulated to this resistance and largely avoided, for a dozen years after 1954, making the necessary changes called for by integration activists (Podair, 2004).
Land, residency, and access continue to be inextricably linked. We will only be able to address educational inequities that exist based on place and space when we address other issues such as land ownership, equity and discrimination.
Eureka! A definitive moment in American public education history, when higher education (particularly in science) finally becomes available to larger masses, with intent to add value and commodify scientific knowledge. In Austerity Blues, Michael Fabricant and Steve Brier trace the investment and federal incentives toward higher education in America, from the Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 through the Great Depression and World War II. Chapter 2 introduces two significant government exercises that change the landscape of access to undergraduate studies: The G.I. Bill and the Zook Commission’s report on Higher Education in American Democracy.
In 1940, the Roosevelt administration supported the training of scientific and technical personnel essential for the war effort. New Deal policies created opportunities for universities to adapt to changing, racially segregated landscapes requiring healthcare and job creation. Though the GI Bill attempted to equalize the playing field in higher education, it was not able to break through racial barriers. By the mid 1940s, “public and private universities across the country were educating several hundred thousand GIs drawn from all branches of the military in specialized courses in engineering, medicine, dentistry, law, mathematics, physics and foreign languages,” (F&B 43). However, this expansion often excluded Black G.I.s from entering segregated spaces. Yet again, attempts to equalize access to education for Americans was followed by subsequent blockades to Black participation.This pattern of advancement in higher education for all Americans, followed by betrayals of access to minorities accentuates the ever-widening gap between this country’s rich elite and poor/middle-class workers. The Zook Report was an attempt to intervene through analysis and reflection, offering equality of opportunity to all in this constantly shifting democracy. Prophetic but not viewed as practical at the time, the Zook Report provided an utopian vision for higher education, embraced early by two states of the union, California and New York.
In America, access to viability in the capitalistic market with scientific innovation was monopolized historically by the academic elite, funded by wealthy, (and again) elite capitalists, in both academia and invention respectively. Science education was polarized between Industrial training and medical professionalism. During Booker T. Washington’s life at Tuskegee, despite creating goods and services needed by Whites in the community, Black American products and inventions were not welcome in the open market. Particularly prevalent throughout Black American history, product patents were often stolen by white land and slave owners, who later capitalized on Black inventions. It wasn’t until the introduction of the G.I. Bill that 4-year scientific studies become an educational pathway for larger public participation in scientific study and professional pathways, based on meritocracy and necessity. Patriotic allegiance and military service earned tuition for otherwise inaccessible amounts of tuition to sons of the working class. Veterans packed public and private universities in New York and California. Both states were, “at the forefront of a national movement to expand higher education opportunities for citizens from the late 1940s through the early 1960s by providing expanded college access, supported by state and federal funds and at little or no cost to students” (F & B 58).
In New York, Governor Rockefeller continued expanding campuses in the SUNY system, while stubbornly pushing to abolish CUNY’s free tuition system. Despite his unsympathetic efforts, CUNY remained tuition free and welcomed Albert Bowker as CUNY’S second chancellor in 1963, ushering in the idea of open admissions for all New York City high school graduates. CUNY pioneers the, “long deferred dream first fully articulated in the 1947 Zook Commission report…: ( F&B 84) offering tuition free higher education available to any high school graduate.
Dispersal of knowledge in America is highly controlled throughout education history. The battle between democratic ideals and caste-based social hierarchy determines which citizens (and non-citizens) are allowed to enjoy freedom’s success. Higher education has evolved into the most powerful tool in building the country’s wealth for the wealthy. Interestingly, access to technology and the internet rapidly erodes the knowledge gap for learners today, providing foundational access to thrive in higher education.
In Chapter 11 of Harold Wechsler’s The Qualified Student: A History of Selective College Admissions in America, we learn about the extensive back and forth narrative between the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York (BHE) and multiple pubic entities in the pursuit of accomplishing greater/equitable access to education for students, which during this time was majorly non-white students due to the shifting demographics of New York City communities. Succeeding John Rutherford Everett, City University of New York’s (CUNY) 1st Chancellor, who, according to Wechsler, “served a short and unhappy tenure as chancellor” (267), Dr. Albert H. Bowker served as CUNY’s 2nd ever Chancellor from 1963-1971, during which he worked to unify the clearly segregated student populations by expanding the boundaries of our admissions criteria.
What’s fascinating about Bowker’s career with CUNY was that he seemed to have encountered obstacles at nearly every tier, ranging from political gatekeeping of certain government officials to student-organized protests disrupting campus activity. Upon arriving, he immediately encountered issues involving racial disparities and had trouble overcoming them due to the impact of Gustave Rosenberg, who chaired the BHE out of his desire to further his political career (266). Having selected a committee for the BHE, which consisted of 22 White people and 2 Black people, eight of whom were lawyers, Rosenberg gave Bowker the challenge of implementing these initiatives despite working with a committee unwilling to commit to his proposed plans (269). This dynamic came to a boil when the conversation surrounding imposing tuition fees reached the public, resulting in Bowker offering a resignation (271). Comments were made by both Bowker and Harry Levy (Dean of Studies) regarding Rosenberg’s board’s medieval nature, leaving Rosenberg needing to perform some crisis management to recover from this publicity flop. After much mediation and deliberation, Bowker was able to obtain more administrative power as chancellor and made it known that CUNY’s mission was to “offer the benefits of post-high school education to all residents of New York City who are able and eager to avail themselves of such benefits” (274).
Now looking towards the ground level of the university’s function, Bowker also encountered increasing tensions amongst student-bodies as more inclusive programs were introduced to the campuses. With the increase of acceptance rates from “ghetto high schools” (very uncomfortable with this word-choice), white students became frustrated and eventually enraged over these opportunities given to students who they believe received “unmerited favoritism” (278) and were not qualified to be there. With us now in 1968, there was heightened racial tension independent of the university due to the assassination of Martin Luther King. Still, it manifested in student activists’ efforts across several campuses where they conducted sit-in protest, demanding more equity and autonomy of their education. In response to the “South Campus Seizure,” as well as other protests taking place, Bowker and the BHE decided it was time to implement their 100% Admissions Plan (284). This required a lot of tinkering due to the fact that this planned was aimed to aid neighborhood/school districts comprised of mostly Black and Latinx students, with only a few White neighborhoods qualifying. This, ironically, violated the BHE’s policy on ethnic integration (284). Eventually, we arrived at the Open Admissions policy that grouped and considered secondary school students based on their schools’ varying grading policies and student rankings for admission (286).
Throughout this reading, something that stuck out to me was the way in which these scholars engaged with the media and the public to progress their respective missions. It was very reminiscent of the way people engage with politics in the present-day, often reading and/or misinterpreting information, particularly headlines, in an attempt to undermine certain politics. Thinking of how the Top 100 Scholars Program received heavy criticism due to people reading it as “Top 100 Blacks and Puerto Ricans” (279), it makes me curious about the specific rhetoric that was used to describe these programs, and if there was any level of malintent behind the portrayal of the program’s success. In addition to the media’s response to these outcomes, Bowker was not hesitant to stir the pot and make incredibly bold statements to the public. This was evident in his response to the funding threat to the College Discovery Program (CDP) and the Search for Education, Elevation, and Knowledge (SEEK) program, announcing that the CUNY would not be accepting a freshman class during that admissions cycle (280). In doing this, he essentially enlisted the voice of the public to do the talking for him. With many students across the city relying on the City University’s accessibility, his announcement evoked demonstrations across the city. While this was helpful under these circumstances, I can’t help but reiterate Wechsler’s concern in his concluding paragraph, what would have happened if the government wasn’t receptive to his (many) requests (288)? Should we consider these actions brave or reckless at the expense of the future of many marginalized students?
A final connection I was drawing while reading was the complicated nature of the question “who was qualified” for admissions and under what programs in the 1960s/1970s versus who is qualified for admission under the Excelsior Scholarship available in 2020. While appearing to be a wonderful opportunity, the Excelsior Scholarship has so many requirements/stipulations that are simply unfeasible (and generally unreasonable) to a great deal of New York’s students and incoming undergraduate students in general. With something as common as changing your major placing you at risk for being defunded (due to the strict requirement to complete your program within a specific timeframe), and additional lasting contingencies post-degree completion, one must question who this program is really meant to serve: students or the state?
The original mission and vision for the “Free Academy” (the establishment we now refer to as CUNY) was to provide NYC residents (although mostly male at the its earliest phase) that graduated from common schools with a “free” higher education. This goal seems to have been lost to the economic pressures encountered within NYC in large part, and as as a result of, an increase in NYC residents and post-war conditions. Schooling within higher education had to respond to a growth of student enrollment, referred to as the “Golden Age of higher education in the U.S.”
There have also been tensions between private institutions for higher education and public institutions with regards to who and how they obtain access to state economic aid mostly because the NYS State Board of Regents chose to use their “expenditure of unrestricted funds to [provide] state aid to students attending private institutions.”
This reading made me question the use of the term “free tuition” as it seems to have taken on contradictory meanings depending on what context and policy was being pushed. Throughout the historical analysis Butt provides us with, we learn that students have technically always had to make some form of payment to public universities in order to obtain their degree. Early in the development of CUNY, students were charged a fee to access libraries, laboratories and other similar resources. There was also a difference in fee structure, and access to economic aid- depending on whether or not the student was full-time, and/or an evening student (which continues to be an economic barrier today). At the turn of the 20th century, when access to education was segregated, and highly inequitable, the dominant form of economic aid- or “free tuition” offered to students was largely based on merit.
During the 1930s municipal colleges responded to the increased demand in higher education by making the admissions process more selective, which resulted in a specific demographic of students labeled “talented and capable” with access to college admission. I argue that this point Butt makes, lacks an analytical reflection about which children are labeled “Talented and Capable” when access to resources and quality- “college ready”- education was limited to a mostly white, working- and middle-class population, invisibilizing (?) historically marginalized and minoritized students of color (also talented and capable) that were not given access to the information and resources needed to meet the imposed college entrance qualifications.
Mid-century the argument and battle to keep the growing NYC public higher education “free” was led by a commission that wanted to respond to the golden age of higher education while also lowering economic barriers to higher education, by increasing scholarships and loans. This would provide direct support to the growth of the financial structures of CUNY, while burdening students with a somewhat hidden tuition fee tucked under the terms “scholarships” and “loans”. This commission responded to the economic need of the city instead of focusing on equitable access to public education.
Well, today we have many generations of students enduring years and years of student loan debt, and an increased competition and even deeper inequitable access to scholarships or grants for higher education in large part due to these administrative decisions made decades ago. It permeates public education and also plagues private institutions. CUNY students are still confronting an infinitely increasing tuition rate.
Quick note about my own research relating to this article: I read this with prior knowledge about the struggle to make CUNY Open to all students (Open Admissions) and with a fair amount of knowledge relating to the intergenerational, grassroots, student-led struggle to keep “CUNY tuition free”. Based on interviews with CUNY student-activists from the 60s and 70s, I understood this struggle as being fought against and tied to a resistance against a racist ideology embedded within the CUNY system, and network of stakeholders, which students believed were reacting to the influx of minoritized, and marginalized student population (identified within the reading as Black and Puerto Ricans during the 1960s and 70s). While this article did not provide me with enough content to counter this perspective, there are historical instances embedded within it, such as the increased “Black and Puerto Rican” city resident population, to affirm these narratives shared by the student-activists I interviewed.
Rights Vs. Privilege
The open admissions experiment at CUNY reflects how race and class was also indicative of equal/quality access to higher education, very similar to the debates that were taking place regarding children in primary school. Historically, CUNY and or The Free Academy offered admission to all, according to Lavin, ” The Free Academy offered admission to all those who had been pupils in the common school of the city for at least one year and who could pass and entrance examination”(p.2). In this sense I argue that higher education was viewed initially as a right for largely white protestants, and later would include white Catholics and by 1905 Jews. With this being the intended student base, CUNY was viewed as the “the most able in the nation, and the college was referred to as the Proletarian Harvard”(p.3).
The irony is in the swift ways in which the perception of CUNY and its ability to provide effective education changed with the inclusion of Black and Hispanic students and the move towards open admission, with its intended purpose of providing access to communities that had been historically underrepresented. I argue it was during this time that education was seen as a privilege, albeit and earned privilege for non-white students. Historically, the dichotomy of right vs privilege and deserving vs non deserving has been the deciding factor of who is given access,. I believe open access was viewed as a threat because the implied implications would suggest the centering of minority voices as well as a move away from white centered narratives.
Lavin explains, “when less privileged groups suddenly gain access to spheres from which they previously have been excluded, they are seen as a direct threat to those who are already here” (p.40). CUNY’s open admission I argue achieved the purpose of access for minority students, while it still struggled with equal access. This was shown by the ways in which minority students had a greater chance of attending a community college than that of a four year college, where the rate of drop out was disproportionally higher for students of color and that the drop outs were an expected outcome.
The final paper assignment is now posted under the “Assignments” tab in the pull-down menu above.
Please use this link to sign up to meet with either Steve or Judith. Then send that person an email and let us know when might work for you in terms of dates and times and we’ll figure it out from there. These meetings are not mandatory but are HIGHLY encouraged.
November 11: The Expansion of Public Higher Education, the Birth of CUNY, and the Struggle for Open Admissions, 1946 to 1970
A List Readings: Read All
B List Readings: Choose One
Primary Sources to Explore, Depending on Your Interest:
In chapters 8 and 9 of the book The Strike that Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis, Podair first focuses on two white communities, Forest Hills and Canarsie, and their appropriation of the community control argument in order to resist entry by people (of color) not from their community. Podair argues that the legacy of this appropriation lived on in the strengthening voice of middle-class white communities in mayoral politics in the city. In Chapter 9 he posits that the legacy of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville conflict represented a lot of what was happening in the country as a whole–where black and white communities had different understandings of equality that resulted in the continued isolation of black communities geographically, economically, and politically. For black communities equality had to do with removing barriers in order to allow for equal outcomes, whereas, for those who identified as white, competitive elements like civil service exams “express a results-oriented understanding of equality.” (p. 210)
One thing that stuck out for me was the mention that people like Shankar, Nauman, and even Mayor Ed Koch at some point each participated in civil rights activities and were even supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. They each shifted their perspective when concepts of equality went beyond measuring people ‘by the content of their characters’ and asked them to acknowledge the genocide of black and indigenous people in America as the path that impacts their place in current society. It seems easier to ignore that component and focus on a definition of equality that is based on a judgment of a person’s capacity to pull ‘themselves up by their bootstraps.’
What was also interesting was Podair’s definition of working-class becoming defined as ‘black’ and middle class being defined as ‘white.’ Learning that during the time of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville experiment “New York had the nation’s highest levels of public and social services and offered the most generous amounts of welfare assistance in the United States.” (p.192) When you think of the fact that prior to this time, ‘working class’ included Italians, Irish and Jewish communities that most likely also benefited from these social services in addition to black and Latinx communities. However as those numbers shifted for example as Jews were able to take on leadership roles in education and other civil service jobs and therefore move into a ‘middle class’ status, the decision to cut those services during the financial crisis appears a bit more complex than the way it was described by Podair to be the result of the fiscal crisis and the need to balance the city’s budget. For as the diversity of the ‘working class’ diminished so did the support of social services.
I remember seeing once a demographics chart of the population of students in the New York City Public school system on the DOE website. I have not been able to find it again, but what I remember was a similar shift in the population from mainly white to what we have now which is mainly students of color. It would be interesting to correlate the years this shift began to occur with the shift in how services to young people in the system were structured. For example, several non-profits were created in the late 1970s in response to the firing of 15,000 teachers from the school system, a large number of which were arts teachers. While the intention was to bring the arts back into the schools, the creation of what is now about 300 non-profit arts organizations that work with the DOE allows funders to reap several benefits including tax credits through funneling their money in the non-profit industrial complex. And so while Podair speaks of the legacy of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville controversy encapsulating “the angst and irony of our nation’s” race relations in the 1960s and 1970’s” (p. 206), I would argue that it is a case of history repeating itself based on the structure of society that capitalizes financially on the backs of black, brown and indigenous populations in this country.
