Reshaping the Conversation (Part 1)

You often hear complaints about the rising cost of higher education and the crippling debt that is left in its wake. The conversation usually focuses on how this generation of students is paying significantly higher tuition rates than the previous generation. For example, the AASCU’s January 2013 policy brief reported that “since 1987, tuition and fees at public four-year universities have doubled, while state funding for higher education has decreased by one-third.” (3) While this may be shocking for many, it is often shrugged off as someone else’s problem and less important than more immediate threats to the American way of life.

In my reading for this week I encountered an article by Ferguson and Stewart that reframes the issue into one not only about equitable access to education, but a matter of global economic competition. Equality is a topoi that we frequently encounter in democratic rhetoric, but it is easily subjugated for the more immediate concerns of economic stability and national security. By reframing the discussion on student debt, the authors are appealing to a public more concerned about economic competition than they are about equality. This seems to be what Simmons and Grabill are calling for when they discuss the public’s ability to invent and perform as an avenue of participation (433). The public does not have the technical knowledge to overcome all exclusions, but a key weapon in their arsenal is the ability to reframe the conversation and ask “the right questions.” (Simmons and Grabill, 440)

The question asked of the Ferguson/ Stewart audience is not whether everyone should be able to afford education, but whether the nation can afford to deny education to the populace?

"Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013." American Association of State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2013. <http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf>.

Ferguson Jr., Roger W., and Debra W. Stewart. "The student loan debt perfect storm." Politico 28 Jun 2013. <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/the-student-loan-debt-perfect-storm-93517.html>. (Accessed 06/28/2013)

Simmons, W. Michele, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. "Toward a Civic Rhetoric for Technologically and Scientifically Complex Places: Invention, Performance, and Participation." CCC. 58.3 (2007): 419-448. Print.

Cintron... this is my rant.

Cintron really stuck with me this week. His work is very cynical, but I think it reflects the attitudes of the current time. Politics has become increasingly polarized, and so has the break-room conversation. Everyone can be a critic in today's computer-energized society, and with so much knowledge comes very little responsibility. Cintron (and Rai) point out the way in which the very ideals that our society is built upon can be used with twisted and biased intent. Each side refuses to back down insisting that they have the moral high ground based on their own own interpretation of what a just society entails.

In addition, we are coming to the end of our store of natural resources, and as the "necessities" become scarce, we are left asking how long "polite society" can continue. Cintron warns that as our resources deplete, the true nature of democracy will be laid bare. 

Ecuador's Defence of Civil Liberties

While this entry is a departure from my tracing topic, I could not pass up the opportunity to reflect on this week’s reading through this article. Mr. Snowden recently confirmed that he was the source of recent NSA leaks regarding US surveillance of civilian activity. He is “on the run” from US authorities who wish to prosecute Snowden for espionage. In his bid for escape, Snowden, like Julian Assange before him, has contacted the Ecuadoran government for asylum.

What is so interesting about this bid for asylum, is the Ecuadoran response to US criticism. In the linked article below, the foreign minister from Ecuador, Ricardo Patino rationalizes their involvement saying that “Ecuador puts its principles above its economic interests.” According to Ralph Clintron, this is not how democracy functions. Democracy protects pre-existing power structures; using appeals based in democratic topoi that often mask more self-interested pursuits. According to Clintron, democracy is essentially materialistic, and democratic virtues are often sacrificed for the sake of material resources.

In reading this news report, I must ask the question, what does Ecuador have to gain by their involvement in this conflict? Are they really concerned with the common good? Are their motives really spurred by the belief that “What is being done to Mr. Snowden and to Mr. Julian Assange – for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest – is an assault against the people?” It is interesting that on his way to Ecuador, Mr. Snowden has passed through China, Russia and reportedly will pass through Cuba, each of which has refused US requests for extradition, and yet these countries have a long and public history of restrictive state policies.

So, if civil liberty is not their reason for defending Mr. Snowden, one must ask, what power interests does their involvement reflect? As this story unfolds, the relationships between the US and the countries involved are called into question. US officials are the first to cite the affect that this incident will have on future diplomatic ventures. And this is perhaps where the truth lies. These nations may not be concerned with civil liberties, instead, they may be using this incident to react to their relationship with the US in regard to other issues that do not allow for such an abrasive stance. This incident may simply be a side plot where nations who feel restricted by US power react by exercising their power  in the only available avenue.

Lally, K., Faiola A., and  DeYoung, K. "Snowden apparently did not board Havana flight, but may leave Moscow Tuesday." Washington Post 24 June 2013, n. pag. Web. 24 Jun. 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-says-it-has-no-authority-to-expel-snowden/2013/06/24/325281f2-dcaf-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html.

Clintron, R. (2010). Democracy and Its Limitations. In Eds. John Ackerman and David Coogan. The public work of rhetoric: citizen-scholars and civic engagement. U of South Carolina Press. 98-116

Tracing the Issues Facing Institutions of Higher Education in 2013

The article cited below, which I found before completing the week 1 readings, became all the more interesting when framed with the question “what do we mean by public?” This article identifies several publics including legislators, institutional administrators, students and watchdog groups. I find myself asking whether these parties are grouped based on status, such as Habermas’ Bourgeois public, or if they are grouped based on shared ideologies, which seems to be Hauser’s argument. A group based on shared social standing would be largely static, while Hauser’s model would allow more fluidity.

Habermas’ model is easy to criticize for its simplicity on two levels. First, his discussion of the public sphere only mentions one public, the Bourgeois public. This criticism is discussed in more detail by both Hauser and Fraser. The second criticism is that (at least in contemporary society) there are publics who do not have a shared social standing. With computing technology becoming ever more accessible, we can have publics who have never met, or who have little material homogeneity. This would suggest that Hauser’s model is more applicable.

Hauser advocates a view of public that builds upon the work of Habermas, but that deviates by his addition of many fluid publics. This model seems, on the surface, to have it all, but when you try to apply this theory to actual publics, the waters muddy. If Hauser is right, and publics form based on shared values, how does discourse occur within the group? If the definition of a public is like-mindedness, then wouldn’t debate within the public cause members to leave, rather than encourage discourse?

Answering the question “what do we mean by public?” will be instrumental in understanding why these issues are considered the most important for 2013. It will also affect how messages to these groups should be interpreted. 

"Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013." American Association of State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2013. <http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf>.