Showing posts with label Eugenics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eugenics. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Corporate Buyout of America’s Public Schools

"What are we teaching our youth about democracy?"
by PETER RUGH


Boos and hisses fill the auditorium of Brooklyn Technical High as the governing board for New York City’s public schools, the Panel on Education Policy, takes the stage. It’s March 11 and the PEP is meeting to consider a proposal from Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott to close nearly two dozen schools.

Parent after parent, teacher after teacher, student after student takes the microphone and pleads for their school to remain open.

Similar scenarios are consistently playing out in many parts of the country. Officials in Chicago last week announced plans to eliminate fifty-four schools next year in one swoop. The city’s mayor, former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was on vacation at the time of the announcement and could not be reached for comment.

Earlier this month twenty-three schools got the axe in Philadelphia, about ten percent of the city’s total. Nineteen protestors, including American Federation of Teachers head Randi Weingarten, were arrested for attempting to block the entrance to the building where Philly’s education reform committee dished out the guillotine treatment.

In New York, these PEP meetings have become a tired ritual. Everybody knows what to expect, and this evening’s turnout is not what it has been in the past. Last year, a group calling itself Occupy the DOE – Department of Education – held an alternative, and louder, meeting while the panel was in session; the voices of parents, students and educators frequently drowned out those who sat on stage with microphones at their lips.

Tonight, there’s a significant crowd on hand but it falls far short of years before. The United Teachers Federation, which represents educators in New York, hasn’t even bothered to mobilize its members, apparently preferring to bide its time until the mayoral election in November when, presumably, someone more amenable than billionaire Michael Bloomberg will be in office.

Following in the footsteps of many who came before him, Bloomberg systematically underfunded the city’s institutions of learning. Simultaneously, his Department of Ed has ramped up standardized testinga cash cow for giant publishing houses like Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt and Pearson, who design the tests used to measure whether schools are making the grade or whether the DOE will toss them overboard.

“We have a responsibility not to react to emotions,” said School’s Chancellor Dennis Walcott, whose responses to reporters’ questions before the hearing rolled off his tongue with robotic speed and efficiency. “We have a responsibility to act to facts. The facts are that schools are not doing well.”

The mayor, whom Walcott answers to, has the ability to appoint a supermajority of members to the PEP. He’s used his power to bolt-up 140 schools that weren’t “doing well” during his decade-plus reign. In Brooklyn Tech’s auditorium this evening, that number reached 162.

Meanwhile, for approximately every public school the DOE has crossed off its books, a charter school has opened up. Charter’s are frequently non-union. They receive public funding but are privately run, sometimes by for-profit educational management firms.
In New York, hedge funds have lobbed large sums of money into charters and often sit on their boards. “Hedge fund executives,” The New York Times has noted, are developing into a “significant political counterweight” to teachers unions and other advocates of public education.

When it comes to an increased emphasis on testing, charters have a key advantage over traditional public schools: they can cross students off their grading sheets if they’re not meeting their academic standards. Often that means students with learning disabilities get shown the door.

By contrast, public schools have to take everybody. Public school teachers attest that students with learning disabilities, behavioral problems, or who speak English as a second language commonly enter their classrooms well after semesters have started.

The roots of the charter model, which is gradually phasing out and replacing traditional public institutions in New York and nationwide, go back to ideological experiments implemented abroad — specifically, under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet who seized power in Chile in 1971.

“The first iteration of this project to privatize education, to control what people thought was under Pinochet,” says Dr. Lois Weiner who has written extensively on the decline of America’s public education system. The model was crafted by the World Bank, she says, which used Chile as a neoliberal petri dish in the 1970s.

From there the privatization project spread throughout Latin America where a number of dictators backed by the U.S. and international financiers ruled the roost. Out of Latin America, neoliberal education crossed oceans to Asia and Africa, chasing troubled economies like fire through dry brush.

Weiner says the scenario typically went something like this: “’Oh, you want money to build a bridge?’ That means modernizing your education system. And what do they mean by modernize? They mean standardized tests, they mean charter schools, they mean dismantling teachers unions.”

Britain’s Margaret Thatcher brought the privatized model to Europe, where it later spread to countries in the former Eastern Block still dizzy from the fall of the Soviet empire.

Charter-friendly legislation passed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s helped the neoliberal education model grow roots in the U.S. In the following decade, President’s George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill, followed by Obama’s “Race to the Top” program, tied school funding to test results, further facilitating the dismantling of public education.

Arne Duncan, the current Education Secretary, has bragged of his ambition to continue on a federal scale what he accomplished as head of Chicago schools: mass school shutterings and the propagation of charters.

The emphasis on standardized tests to measure student achievement goes back much farther, however, and is laced with racism. Harvard President James Bryant Conant, a firm believer that an intellectual elite must govern the unwashed masses, laid the ground for the modern standardized testing system in the 1930s when he enlisted Princeton psychology professor Carl Brigham to design an aptitude test for students seeking college admission.

Brigham was an ardent member of the eugenics movement, whose adherents claimed physical traits such as skin color could serve as moral and intellectual indicators. Brigham developed what would later serve as a pathfinder example of standardized testing: the SAT, or Scholastic Aptitude Test, which is still widely used as a benchmark for college admissions.

At the PEP hearing in Brooklyn, the racist elitism pioneered by Brigham and Conant was alive and well, with test results serving as a justification to shut the city’s working class, black and brown youth out of their schools. An ongoing lawsuit from the UFT accuses the Department of Ed of violating chapter six of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring discrimination from programs accepting federal dollars, since the majority of those impacted by the closings hail from communities of color.

Yet while the city’s Department of Ed has used test results to qualify the closings, they have likewise resisted testing classrooms for Polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCBs. The once widely used, highly toxic electrical coolant pioneered by Monsanto the devil was banned by Congress in 1979. Advocates with New York Lawyers for Public Interest have identified 1,200 city schools either contaminated or potentially contaminated with PCBs. But the DOE refuses to test the air in classrooms for traces of the toxin, despite warnings from the Environmental Protection Agency. “Our kids are essentially being poisoned,” said Noah Gotbaum, a parent of three children in the school system. “The DOE says, ‘No, don’t worry.’”

Gotbaum was elected to serve on his local Community Education Council in Harlem, a body meant to give parents a voice in the schooling of their children. But he says the “tin-pan dictatorship” of the PEP are the ones pulling the strings, regardless of input from parents.

In one example, last December, Gotbaum says he and other parents learned from a three-line advertisement in Crain’s New York that a triad of public schools in Manhattan were slated for demolition, to be replaced by high-income housing. In testimony before the PEP on Mar 11, Gotbaum complained that “the borough president was not told. Parents were not told. I’ll tell you who was told: the developers. You are rushing to destroy our schools.”

Like the UFT, Gotbaum is hoping New York’s next mayoral administration will place a higher value on democracy than the Bloomberg administration. Other’s think a fresh approach is needed.

The Movement of Rank-and-File Educators, or MORE, is attempting to take over the teachers union in elections slated for April. They want to push the UFT more toward a social justice approach. “What MORE would do differently,” says Julie Cavanagh, a Brooklyn school teacher and MORE candidate for the UFT’s presidency, “is change the philosophy and ideology of how the union functions.” That means building “real organic partnerships with the communities that we serve.”

MORE has modeled itself on the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators, which took over the Chicago teachers union in 2010 and led a strike that fought back attempts to cut teacher pay last June. They attribute their success cooperation from the community. Parents and students joined the Chicago teachers on the picket-line. The strike was seen as being about more than a contract, but about the systemic racism within the city’s underfunded public schools.

Decked in red t-shirts, members of MORE were out in force at the PEP hearing, standing by parents and students where the UFT leadership was absent. Their hope is that those with a mutual stake in preserving public education can band together to beat back the privatization of learning and build a quality school environment for all.

Those wondering what the scenario would look like, should schooling go the opposite way, might examine Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina has provided an impetus for the overhaul the state’s education system. Legislation approved by lawmakers in 2011 gives corporations the ability to govern charter schools and decide who gets in and who doesn’t — provided, of course, that they are the ones subsidizing the school.

Asked what would happen should a porno shop, strip club or gambling establishment enter into this quid-pro-quo arrangement, Louisiana State Senator Julie Quinn replied: “I think we would welcome a business, casino or otherwise.”

Up north, bodies young and old shuffled out of Brooklyn Tech late on the evening of the 11th. On the stage behind the panel members appointed by the mayor had executed 22 schools simply by raising their arms when it came time to vote. A number of specialty schools were among those given the boot, including the Law, Government and Community Service High School in Queens.

Watching the proceedings, Noah Gotbaum wondered aloud, “What are we teaching our youth about democracy?”

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Eugenics in America

State Crime and Villainy
by DAVID ROSEN

On December 10, 2011, the New York Times ran a front-page article exposing the painful legacy of one of America’s hidden social crimes, forced sterilization. The article examines how the policy played out in one state, North Carolina, and the on-going effort to address the suffering of the approximately 3,000 still-living victims of the state’s eugenics program.

The program was in effect for over four decades, from 1933 to 1977, and some 7,600 people suffered sterilization at the hands of the state.

In 2002, and after decades of grassroots organizing, NC’s Governor Bev Purdue issued a formal apology to those who had been victims of the program. The Times article focuses on the current campaign to offer compensation (i.e., reparations) to the still-living victims so as to bring this ugly phase of state history to an end.

Today, the notion of race purification is associated with Nazi Germany. However, the theory of race improvement was originally put forth in 1893 by the noted British scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, as the science of “eugenics.”

Galton argued: “Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally.” From the turn-of-the-20th century until the late-70s, eugenics found a welcoming home in the good-old U.S. of A.

Eugenics is an ideology of the Gilded Age and its aftermath. This was a period when the American elite championed a belief in Social Darwinism, a self-serving misreading of Darwin’s biological “survival of the fittest” hypothesis onto social relations, hierarchy. They believed that biology was destiny and that the white race sat atop the thrown of human evolution, civilization.

Not surprisingly, many of the Gilded Age elite also believed that those least “developed” were doomed by heredity to be not merely biological inferior but socially unfit. Eugenics was espoused as the science of breeding (Galton wanted it to be a religion), of race improvement for the betterment of civilization.

An estimated 60,000 people were sterilized as biologically inferior humans in the seven decades that eugenics was in vogue in the U.S. Steven Jay Gould noted: “Sterilization could be imposed upon those judged insane, idiotic, imbecilic, or moronic, and upon convicted rapists or criminals when recommended by a board of experts.” He fails to mention the feeble-minded, the promiscuous woman and the homosexual. Sterilization was most often imposed on youths, the poor, women and African-Americans.

Now, as America succumbs to a second Gilded Age, the call for new forms of eugenics can be heard. Some racist and anti-immigrant groups raise the specter of the end of “white America.”

Other, more serious medical professionals, like Dr. Christopher Hook of the Mayo Clinic, warn, “Eugenics is back in America.” He and other physicians are concerned about the increased use of pre-natal testing and genetic engineering. These tests allow doctors, insurance companies and prospective parents to determine whether the fetus in the womb is likely to born so-called “normal and healthy,” thus which baby is likely to be born with a disability like Down syndrome or Autism Spectrum Disorder. They warn that this is leading to growing incidents of fetal abortions.

* * *

The first legal state-sanctioned sterilization took place in Indiana in 1907. NC began sterilizations in 1933; other states started earlier.

In 1924, Virginia passed its sterilization law and, in 1927, Carrie Buck, a 17 year old, became the state’s first person to be sterilized. She was judged by a state-appointed authority that had the power to determine the feeble-minded, an imbecile or an epileptic.

In 1927, the Supreme Court decided that state-sanctioned sterilization was legal. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled against Carrie Buck, writing most memorably:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The new law of the land led to the increased use of sterilization throughout the country. Obviously, the definitions of imbecile and feeble-minded were essentially arbitrary, thus meaningless.

The increased use of sterilization is illustrated in Utah. It was the 23rd state to legalized state sterilization in 1925. The rate of sterilization between 1930 and 1935 was 6 per year. However, the annual rate grew significantly after the opening of the Utah State Training School in 1935. Between 1935 and the early-‘50s, about 33 persons (more than 2 a month) were sterilized annually. Sterilization ended in Utah in 1960 and a total of 772 people were sterilized, more than half of them (54%) women.

The “science” of eugenics was founded on the shared belief among the socially elite that human evolution culminated in the Anglo-Saxon “race.” All other races lacked the spiritual, mental and physical capabilities of the white man! This belief system and worldview was shared by the “leading” people of the day, whether politician, industrialist, minister, college professor, scientist, journalist or social activist.

An often-stated corollary assumption that was equally shared by these esteemed citizens was that more “primitive” races were inferior mentally, physically and socially. Most remarkable, both church and science concurred. Protestant adherents of the Social Gospel saw the eugenics movement as a scientific method that would help usher in the Kingdom of God on earth.

To appreciate just how deformed was the mindset of those advocating eugenics a century ago, it’s useful to cite one of their leading theorists on race purification. In 1911, Dr. Charles Benedict Davenport authored the then-influential book, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. Shocked by the massive influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans to cities, Davenport warned:
[T]he population of the United States will, on account of the great influx of blood from South-eastern Europe, rapidly become darker in pigmentation, smaller in stature, more mercurial, more attached to music and art, [and] more given to crimes of larceny, kidnapping, assault, murder, rape and sex-immorality.

Most telling, he predicted, “the ratio of insanity in the population will rapidly increase.” His analysis does not include the African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Middle Easterners and Native-Americans who likely only further polluted the race pool.

Eugenics was an ideology backed most enthusiastically by both the local and national gentry. As the Times points out, the NC campaign was led by such notables as James Hanes, the hosiery magnet, and Dr. Charles Gamble, heir to the P&G fortune. It also notes the strong support among notable progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger; Sanger had opened America’s first birth control clinic for Brooklyn immigrants in October 1916. With backing from the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Harriman fortunes, eugenics was legitimized and used to justify the draconian Immigration Restriction Acts of 1921 and 1924. Their efforts culminated in the 1927 Supreme Court decision approving forced sterilization.

* * *

The eugenics movement was as much a symptom of Gilded Age ruling-class arrogance as the real threats they perceived from a nation undergoing profound change.

Between 1890 and 1920, America was transformed. The population nearly doubled, jumping to 106 million from 62 million, reshaping the nation’s demographic character. Some 23 million European immigrants, many of them Catholics and Jews, joined 2 million migrating southern African Americans and whites to recast the cities of the North and West.

Black migration culminated in the legendary Harlem Renaissance. However, migration was driven, in part, by punitive Jim Crow laws, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and a series of lynchings, race riots and other violence that swept the nation in the years preceding and following the Great War. This was also the era of “Scopes monkey trial” immortalized in Stanley Kramer’s classic 1960 movie, “Inherit the Wind,” and the rise of the “new woman” who earned a wage, wore a shorter skirt, put on lipstick and, with the passage of 19th Amendment in 1921, secured the vote.

Today, the U.S. is again in the midst of a great transformation. Globalization is restructuring the national economy; immigration is recasting the nation’s demographic makeup; and the widespread, popular demands for abortion rights, gay marriage and sex education are fueling a new round of culture wars.

As the political climate heats up in anticipation of the 2012 election, Americans need to guard against the emergence of a new eugenics movement. This one may likely seek new justifications for anti-immigrant policies, basing them on an alleged “scientific proof” of the collective inferiority of immigrants.

Similarly, the policing of sex “predators” may involve the discovery of a new predator gene that both expands the category of those classified as predators and increases the number of those suffering indeterminate prison sentences. And who knows, perhaps other, more old-fashioned, Social Darwinian efforts will be proposed by Republican presidential candidates to control sexual excess; why not the forceful sterilization of teen girls who get pregnant? Moral rectitude knows no limit.