Today a joint student-faculty strike was called in opposition to cuts to California’s university and college budget. The strike received a great deal of publicity, at least on campus. In the end it was simply a noisy nuisance. My primary professor, whose class I had at the time the walk-out, continued to lecture as usual and class went on much as it always has. Well, except for the noise-patrol chanting the same tired slogans from the 1960s over and over again. “Affordable quality education is a human right”.
No, a basic education is a universal right — university is a privilege. Frankly, it is a privilege too freely given to the inept and hopeless. There should, in fact, be fewer spaces available and fewer programmes offered. That taxes go to support degrees in dance, theatre management, and “liberal studies” is simply beyond and rationale. If people wish to learn to dance, by all means they should — there are always a number of private dance academies that offer lessons, some at reasonable prices. If people wish to learn theatre management they should be allowed to — at theatres and private schools. Studying Japanese is a hobby, so I take it privately at both a language school and with a tutor. My whim, my money, my time. As for cost… Grants pay for my tuition and even then there is money left over. My debts are incurred not because of university fees, but because I insisted on living in one of the USA’s most expensive cities and having my own flat.
As for liberal studies… If students are so utterly inept as not to be able to choose a primary course of study, why should they be allowed to create one for themselves? Am I supposed to somehow, hearing the plight of mediocre dance students whose marks in actual subjects such as language, history, and the sciences, be moved?
Perhaps unsupported accusations that the chancellor of the California State University system is corrupt and spelling his name as (G)reed. Is he inept, clueless, and out of his depth? Likely so, yes. These points are subjective and can be argued either way. But to label him as corrupt? That is somewhat more an objective term, one with legal definitions. Actually, libel as legal definitions, too. Rant over.
You must be logged in to post a comment.