Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Volume 3, Number 30 August 31 - September 6, 2003 Quezon City, Philippines |
WTO's
Attack on Public Education by
Yves Engler
Back
to Alternative Reader Index
As a result,
organizers are calling for an international student day of action on September
13th against the World Trade Organization’s possible inclusion of education in
the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations. Students worry that
if GATS negotiations include education, this could seriously imperil public
post-secondary institutions. If the WTO’s “non-discriminatory” clause came
into effect it could require governments to provide at least equal amounts of
funding to private enterprises (universities) as is given to public entities,
irrespective of tuition and housing rates that are levied at private
institutions. This would seriously
undermine public post-secondary education around the world, especially in those
countries with decent public systems. While blocking any
inclusion of education in WTO or Free Trade Area of the America negotiations is
certainly a laudable objective, defenders of public post-secondary education
need to broaden our analysis. Capitalist globalization harms public
post-secondary education in a myriad of ways. What is commonly
termed “globalization” is actually the process of re-structuring the world
economy in the interests of transnational corporations and international
investors. It is being orchestrated through the ascendance of neo-liberal
ideology. Neo-liberalism can
be summarized as free trade and investment, privatizations or commercialization
and a reduction in social spending (corporate subsides seem to be okay).
Basically, neo-liberalism is an attack against social entitlements through the
championing of capitalist entitlements and the capitalist marketplace. All of
which harms public PSE. Central to the
process of corporate globalization are “free” trade agreements, which in a
more honest world would be known as free investment agreements. Agreements such
as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), WTO and the proposed FTAA,
reduce governments’ ability to fund social programs. These agreements give
corporations and their wealthy shareholders increased power to demand lower
taxes to “compete” with lower-taxed regions. This reduces governments’
ability to tax corporations and their wealthy shareholders, thwarting the
necessary redirection of this money toward social spending. According to a
Financial Times editorial, “since 1996 the average corporate tax rate across
the 15 nations of the European Union has declined from 39 per cent to just under
31.7 per cent. The story is similar among the 30 industrialized countries of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, where the average tax
rate has fallen from 37.5 to 30.8 per cent … The reason: Competition (FT May
2, 2003)” Governments have
entered a race to attract businesses by driving down the rates at which they
levy tax on companies. Similarly, there has been a reduction in personal income
taxes, disproportionately to the benefit of the wealthy. These reductions are
sometimes justified with references to ideology but proponents also often claim
they attract corporations whose ‘skilled’ (high-paid employees) desire lower
taxes. While the business
friendly FT may praise a reduction in corporate taxation, the benefits to those
of us not connected to the corporate world are less evident. In fact, a reduced
tax base usually leads to a decline in spending on important social services
like university funding. According to Statistics Canada, between 1990 and 2000,
government money as a percentage of the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) budget
dropped from 69 per cent to 55 per cent. In the U.S., “state aid to public
universities has been falling, now accounting for just 25% of the budget at the
University of Wisconsin, 13% at the University of Virginia and a bare 10% at the
University of Michigan.” (April 18 2003, WSJ) Overall, “state aid accounted
for 36% of university budgets nationwide in 2000, down from 46% in 1980.”
(April 18 2003, WSJ). The effects of a
decline in funding are many, but most importantly, at least from a student’s
(and probably societal) perspective, is a reduction in accessibility through
rising tuition. Between 1992 and 2002 Canadian undergraduate arts tuition
increased by 135%, approximately six times inflation. Today, adjusted for
inflation, tuition and incidental fees are at their highest recorded level ever,
and more than six times what they were in 1914. Families in the bottom quintile
of Canadian wealth, for example, would have had to put aside 14% of their
after-tax income in 1990/91 to pay the costs of university tuition and fees, but
by 1998/99 they would need to devote 23%. American students
have been subjected to a similar assault. “The American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, projects that, on average, tuitions at state schools
will increase about 12.5% for in-state undergraduates” in 2003/04 in addition
to an already sizable increase of 9.6% in 2002/03 (WSJ June 4 2003). According
to the Reno Gazette, “The percentage of family income required nationwide for
tuition at public colleges and universities has doubled since 1980. The amount
of family income that went to pay for tuition at four-year public institutions
increased from an average 13 percent in 1980 to 25 percent in 2000.” In
addition to increased tuition costs as a percentage of income, loans are
dropping. “The average federal Pell Grant award given to financially strapped
students going to a public four-year college or university covered 98 percent of
tuition in 1986, but only 57 percent in 1999, the report said. State grant aid
awards for both low-income and non-need-based students paid 75 percent of
tuition in 1986 but only 64 percent in 1999. (Online Reno Gazette Journal
5/1/2002) Basically, poor and working class children in North America are being
told that unless they have terrific grades or that they are willing to incur
huge debts, university is not for them. Around the world a similar pattern is
developing. It would be wrong to
attribute reductions in government spending on public post-secondary education
and tuition increases solely to reduced tax bases brought about by
government’s need to “compete” for investment. Aside from promoting trade
and investment agreements that weaken government’s ability to tax
corporations, neo-liberal ideology opposes social spending (of course military
and road spending doesn’t seem to count). At its core
neo-liberalism is antagonistic to social entitlements, preferring capitalist
entitlements. Neo-liberal ideologues oppose the concept of people’s universal
right to post-secondary education. Similarly, dominant discourse today is that
the individual who benefits from education should pay for it. In this conception
of society, post-secondary education has little social value. PSE is only about
getting a better corporate job not learning for the sake of it or bettering
society. In addition, neo-liberalism claims that the private sector does a
better job in providing services, post-secondary education included —
privatization is central to neo-liberalism. After tuition
increases, the replacement of government funding with private “donations” is
one of the most obvious ways by which universities recoup lost public moneys.
While some donors are alumni who earnestly care about their alma mater, in the
majority of cases this money is coming from corporations and others with their
own agenda. In Canada, around 20% of university financing now comes from private
sources. U.S., public universities are even more reliant on private dollars.
Some states are even considering completely eliminating state funding. Where
this leads is clear. The Wall Street Journal reports that “about one-fourth of
university-based medical researchers receive funding from drug companies, ties
that sometimes distort study results according to a review done by two
researchers with industry connections of their own.” (Jan 22 2003) Similarly,
a recent report by a team of Canadian professors concluded that “drug firms
compromise research.” The National Post says “the contracts researchers sign
with pharmaceutical companies routinely prevent the scientists from disclosing
drug risks to patients and the public.” Part of the rise of
capitalist entitlement is the ubiquitous ‘privatizing of the commons’ which
at universities has occurred through a change to patent law and shift of focus
towards research for business interests. Since the Reagan administration
implemented the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 the process of privatizing publicly funded
university research has expanded multifold. This bill allowed universities to
patent and profit from inventions discovered with public money. Prior to 1980
research conducted at universities was owned by the U.S. government and was
generally held in the public domain. With the Bayh-Dole Act, however, what had
belonged to the public became private. The effects of this
change go beyond simply allowing universities to profit from research. It’s
part of a process of shaping universities in the interests of the private
sector. The commercialization of research pushes universities to focus on
private profit instead of the public good. It’s also intertwined with an
ideology that demands an increase in funding for research at the cost of other
aspects of the university. In 2000,
universities were granted “3,273 patents; 269 were granted in 1979.”
Moreover, in 2000, American “universities collected $1.1 billion in royalties
from [the] 13,000 patents they hold.” (Boston Globe April 28, 2003) This
increase in patent holdings is leading universities to spawn private
corporations. According to the Wall Street Journal, “roughly two-thirds of the
nation’s academic institutions hold stock in start-up companies that sponsor
research performed at the same institution.” (Jan 22, 2003 WSJ) Canadian
universities are also rapidly learning how to play the patent game. “In 2001,
27 Canadian universities generated $64.5 million US, an 82-per-cent increase [in
patent royalties] over the previous year (Toronto Star May 22, 2003).” The
perceived benefits of “commercializing” universities are such that “the
recent federal budget pledged $225 million a year for more staff and services
aimed at bringing research to market. (Toronto Star, April 10, 2003)” This,
even though commercializing research will realistically only ever add a
relatively small portion to university budgets. It does, however, suit
capitalist ideology quite nicely: The private market is supreme. The Canadian
government’s strategy for universities is to direct funding towards what is in
the interests of the capitalist market. That is why “the total amount of
research funding to universities reached $3.2 billion in 2001 — up one-third
from two years earlier (Ottawa Citizen April 10, 2003). Outside of Canada
and the U.S. a similar process is being pursued. In 1999, France passed the
Allegre law, which, like the Bayh-Dole Act, will increase the patenting of
university-based research. It seeks to “create innovative technology companies
and transfer public sector-funded research to industry.” (Boston Globe) In
other words, it emanates from the ideology that claims universities should
operate as much as possible in the interests of capitalist enterprise. In addition to the
shift of academic focus towards research that is profitable and away from other
socially useful venues, some “say patents stifle innovation by fostering
secrecy among academic peers, instead of promoting an exchange of ideas.”
(Boston Globe April 28, 2003) The Canadian Association of University Teachers
explains that, “the commercialization of a product depends on patenting it.
Patentability, in turn, depends on secrecy. Any public disclosure of a discovery
derails the patent process and the new product’s ultimate commercialization.
From the market perspective, therefore, the tradition of open communication
among scholars is a major threat.” (September 30, 1999) Research done
collaboratively is usually more efficient. After all, two or a hundred heads are
better than one. The research accomplished in the aftermath of the SARS (Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome) scare, exemplifies the effectiveness of open
research. According to Dr. David Heymann, Executive Director, World Health
Organization Communicable Diseases programs, “the pace of SARS research has
been astounding. … Because of an extraordinary collaboration among
laboratories from countries around the world, we now know with certainty what
causes SARS (16 April 2003).” In fact, it took less than two weeks to find the
virus responsible for SARS. As a result of the scare, research norms were pushed
aside and scientists around the world collaborated openly. The World Health
Organization in March of 2003 asked 11 laboratories from around the world to
participate in a collaborative research project on SARS diagnosis. Canadian researchers
who knew each other only on a first name basis from a number of different
institutes across the country worked at it together while in Singapore they
created a SARS Clinical Consortium, comprised of 15 research institutes. Seth
Shulman writing in Technology Review explains; “the success of a global
research network in identifying the [SARS] pathogen is an example of the huge
payoff that can result when researchers put aside visions of patents and glory
for their individual laboratories and let their work behave more like, well, a
virus. (August 2003)” Another result of
money being moved to areas that are more conducive to innovation (i.e. private
profit) is that students become increasingly neglected. Economically and
ideologically, universities are increasingly becoming institutions of research
directed towards endeavors beneficial to private interests. David Robinson of
the Canadian Association of University Teachers claims that, “in the current
climate, research is weighted far more highly than teaching is, and it creates a
culture where professors are rewarded for bringing in research and corporate
funding.” (Globe and Mail October 23, 2002) Students’ ability to bring in
“corporate funding” is limited. Thus, so is their value to both the academic
community and governments. The numbers
corroborate David Robinson’s fear. “In the decade ending in the 2000/2001
school year, the operating grants collected by universities for every full-time
student dropped from $8,607 to $6,991 in constant year-2000 dollars. Over the
same stretch of time, federal research grants rose by $455 million a year, to
$1.51-billion.” (Globe and Mail October 23, 2002) Governments are choosing
research funding over accessibility. American universities have pumped even
greater sums into research simultaneous to increasing student costs. For
example, while tuition costs are expected to increase by over 12% in 2003 the
Dayton Business Journal reports that “universities and other non-profit
organizations will increase R&D spending by about seven per cent to $18
billion.” (January 3, 2003) So, to sum up, there
are three major components to neo-liberal globalization’s assault on public
post-secondary education: (1) A reduction in government tax bases due to trade
and investment agreements that increase the power of corporations and investors
to demand lower taxes thereby reducing public spending on education; (2)
Neo-liberal ideology’s antagonism towards social entitlements, PSE included,
and its advocacy of capitalist entitlements and marketplace; (3) The
institutionalization of the process of privatization through making
post-secondary education a commodity in WTO or FTAA agreements. When we take to
the streets in support of public post-secondary education on September 13 or in
November while the FTAA ministers meet we should keep this in mind. Yves
Engler is a member of the Concordia Student Union council and is currently
working on a book about student activism at Concordia. This article was adapted
from a chapter in the book. He can be reached at yvesengler@hotmail.com August
10, 2003 Bulatlat.com We want to know what you think of this article.
|