Re: universities and social justice (long)

Hi all,

Jay Brandenberger wrote: 
> Greetings,
> 
> Some may be interested in a current article in Sojourners on the 
> potential for colleges and universities to promote social justice:
> 
> http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0305&ar
> ticle=030520 As many have pointed out, we need to prompt students to
> engage civically and through the political process, raising some
> challenges.

Jay, thank you! This a fascinating article.

I read it. It troubled me. I ended up just now writing about why it 
troubled me, as a way to clarify my own thinking. This emerged a 
pretty long response. 

I am going to paste it in here and send it to the list. I'm not sure 
how much of what I wrote is new, in terms of my emerging and already 
posted commentary and critiques of the SL field. And my tone is much 
less reflective than some of my other posts. But here goes:

--------------------------------------------------
In the opening sentences of "Beyond community service, colleges 
educate for social change," author Melissa Snarr writes:

"To borrow a term from social movement theory, universities can be 
'movement halfway houses' that educate leaders for social justice. 
Higher education institutions have trained and nurtured numerous 
social movements and activists that have changed our world." 

Although Snarr is only borrowing a term, I think it's important to 
look at what this phrase actually means in social movement theory -- 
and what implications this might have for the issues that Snarr 
addresses.

I am familiar with the term "movement halfway houses" from Aldon 
Morris's 1984 study of the Civil Rights Movement. At the beginning of 
his chapter titled "Movement Halfway Houses," Morris offers this 
definition and general commentary:

"A movement halfway house is an established group or organization 
that is only partially integrated into the larger society because its 
participants are actively involved in efforts to bring about a 
desired change in society. The American Friends Service Committee, 
the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the War Resisters League. and the 
Highlander Folk School are examples of modern American movement 
halfway houses. What is distinctive about movement halfway houses is 
their relative isolation from the larger society and the absence of a 
mass base. This generally means that such groups are unable to bring 
about wide-scale change of disseminate their views to large 
audiences. Nevertheless, in their pursuit of change, movement halfway 
houses develop a battery of social change resources such as skilled 
activists, tactical knowledge, media contacts, workshops, knowledge 
of past movements, and a vision of a future society. What they lack 
is broad support and a visible platform.

An emerging mass movement provides an ideal setting for movement 
halfway houses to gain access to large audiences, especially if the 
movement's philosophy and programs are consonant with the goals and 
principles pursued by the halfway house. Indeed, an emerging movement 
can provide new avenues for movement halfway houses to agitate for 
change, expand, and acquire additional influence and resources. By 
the same token, preexisting movement halfway houses are valuable to 
emerging movements because they can provide additional resources 
(training in tactics, skilled activists and the like) to augment 
those of the movement's indigenous base. Such resources assist the 
movement in rapidly developing the internal organization necessary to 
engage in sustained collective action. The optimal conditions exist 
for such mutual sharing when the goals of the movement and the 
halfway houses are similar" (139-140).
-Morris, Aldon. 1984. _The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement_. New 
York, NY: The Free Press.

I am usually not one to quibble about academic definitions. But I 
think that the application of this term to universities represents 
more than a practical expansion of an interesting concept. I think it 
may well represent a sort of delusion that exists among some well-
meaning advocates of service-learning.

There are some very important differences between universities and 
the movement halfway houses described by Morris. In my view, the most 
important difference is that universities are by no stretch of the 
imagination "only partially integrated into the larger society 
because [their] participants are actively involved in efforts to 
bring about a desired change in society." On the contrary, 
universities are fully integrated into larger society. They are the 
gatekeeping institutions to a credentialing process that is deeply 
linked into the current economic system - major institutional players 
in the U.S. "myth of meritocracy" that supports a focus on individual 
solutions rather than collective action for change. 

While some students and some faculty may desire a change in society, 
and some may actively focus efforts in that direction, this is not 
the focus of academic institutions. These institutions are deeply and 
completely embedded within the current system. I think that it may be 
easy to forget what that actually means in terms of their 
relationship to movement toward social justice.

Snarr acknowledges this embeddedness, but argues that it is not the 
only goal of higher education. She writes. "Classically, education 
was meant for the whole person-for 'full human flourishing.'" 

I am not an expert in the history of higher education. But I do 
wonder - who were the people intended to be the beneficiaries of the 
classical education? Who was included at that time in the definition 
of what it means to be or be able to become fully human? And how was 
full humanity defined within these classical institutions?

I don't know, but I could venture a guess. My guess would be that the 
classical model of higher education was built for class-, race-, 
religion- and gender-privileged individuals. My guess would be that 
the actual standards of full humanity located white, wealthy 
Christian men at the center of the definition. My guess would be that 
the focus on "full humanity" did not include a focus on dismantling 
the very systems that privileged those at the center of this form of 
education (if I am wrong, someone please tell me!).

The landscape of higher education has changed, of course. Societal 
changes have brought more people of color, working-class people, 
women and non-Christians into higher education. There are, of course, 
fewer working class people (and fewer people of color) at private 
universities (such as Emory) than at many state universities and 
community colleges. 

This historical and current landscape, along with the deep 
embeddedness of universities into the existing society, deserve 
serious attention. We need to understand this larger reality in order 
to think clearly about if and how universities can be resources for 
movement toward social justice.

Snarr's argument about what students should explore also holds true 
for those who believe that universities are or could be bases for 
education about social change. Snarr writes that a "personal 
development" approach to service-learning misses important issues:

"Absent are historical, economic, and political analyses that help 
students understand how social issues are structured in a specific 
community, in a specific place, at a specific time. Absent are social 
justice lenses that challenge students to understand social 
arrangements and how social change occurs. Absent is an emphasis on 
political engagement as key activity for those who care about people 
and communities."

I agree. I also think that this big-picture focus is necessary not 
just for students, but for advocates of service-learning in higher 
education. Attention to the specific historical, economic and 
political contexts of higher education itself would be useful for 
anyone seeking to use these institutions as a base for change. That 
is, I am thinking that it is not only the students who need to engage 
in critical thinking and analysis. It is also the service-learning 
field itself.

I think that social justice oriented advocates of university-based 
service-learning should challenge themselves and each other to get as 
clear as possible about the institutional contexts in which they seek 
to do this work. 

It can be difficult and painful to actually see and discuss what 
institutions of higher education actually are. It can be difficult to 
critically scrutinize these institutions below the surface level 
critiques calling for mild and non-conflictual reform within them. It 
can be difficult to see past the veil of pretty words about full 
humanity and critical thinking to some of the less pretty realities 
of these institutions. It can be difficult to perceive the actual 
contours of the situation in which these efforts to marry service-
learning and social movements are embedded. 

It can be difficult, but in my view it is absolutely necessary. The 
last thing this field needs, in my opinion, is more blurriness about 
what these institutions are within the larger historical, economic 
and political contexts. The last thing that this field needs, in my 
opinion, is more blurriness about social arrangements and the 
realities of the systems that need to change.

After writing this, I realize that Melissa Snarr's use of the phrase 
"movement halfway houses" troubles me because it makes more blurry an 
already blurry idea about the possible relationship between service-
learning and social justice - a vague idea that there is a similarity 
of overarching goals between movements for social change and higher 
education, and that all we need to do is access that similarity in a 
friendly partnership. 

But in my view, colleges and universities are not and cannot in their 
current configurations be movement halfway houses. They are major 
societal institutions that have a particular set of roles in 
maintaining the status quo. If my view is accurate, then service-
learning advocates with a commitment to social justice will have to 
engage in serious battles that move far beyond the seemingly 
friendliness of service-learning's trendiness in some higher ed 
contexts. From what I know of the field's history, some of the early 
trailblazers knew this. With all of the focus on institutionalization 
and the partial infusion of government and private funding - have we 
forgotten?

--------------------------------------------------------------

PS on a not entirely unrelated topic: I have not forgotten about the 
requests to post the social change/social service recommendations for 
the Community Social Change Class. The class ended last week and I am 
still processing what emerged in it and trying to figure out if I 
want to post any of the details of the intense struggles it emerged 
along with the list of resources.


Best,
Michelle
mbgolden@mindspring.com