Indoctrinating, Not Educating, on the Taxpayers’ Dime
“Violence is a tactic, and it’s to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.”
That’s a quote from a video published Monday that captures two University of Missouri–St. Louis professors, identified as Judy Ancel and David Giljam, teaching a publicly funded course about labor negotiations. In the video, both Ancel and Giljam seem to advocate in favor of violence, physical intimidation, and industrial sabotage as tactics to be used during labor negotiations.
It’s a stunning video that I encourage you to watch for yourself. If these tapes accurately reflect what’s being taught in those classes, UMSL and UMKC — the two universities teaching the course — have a lot explaining to do. It appears that, at least as far as UMSL is concerned, they’re taking the matter very seriously.
Obviously, the public should not be funding, or be forced to fund, classes that advocate violent and illegal behavior against its citizens. Such instruction is precisely the opposite of what a publicly financed education is about.
But the episode raises another, arguably more important, concern: Is the University of Missouri system really in control of its labor negotiations program, or are labor unions effectively running the show on the taxpayers’ dime?
It’s an open question that needs to be explored, because if unions are essentially writing and teaching the curriculum for these classes and, not only that, violence is being advocated, it’s an outrageous exploitation of regular Missourians.
Unfortunately, there’s reason to believe that some collaboration is going on between the universities and organized labor. For those unfamiliar with the it, the Labor Tribune is a Saint Louis–based newspaper that markets itself as the “OFFICIAL VOICE OF THE AFL-CIO” in the city.
With 110 subscribing unions, the Labor Tribune is the only AFL-CIO endorsed newspaper in the bi-state metropolitan region.
Key word: “VOICE.”
Long before the videos were released, the Tribune promoted the courses that have now been caught on tape as part of a story about UMSL’s Labor Studies Certificate Program. The Tribune’s piece described the certificate program as follows:
The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy.
With a grounding in history, political science, law and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world.
Completion of the program results in 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.
But was that a news piece, or a press release? The words used in the article are essentially a copy-paste job of the words the university itself uses to describe the program:
The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives, and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy. With a grounding in history, political science, law, and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership, and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world. Completion of the program earns 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.
So the AFL-CIO’s “official” newspaper publishes a press release for a program for union “activists,” neutrally describing a program that actually promotes violence and industrial sabotage against Missourians — during, of all things, a recession. Adding insult to not-so-metaphorical injury, the endeavor is supported by Missouri tax dollars.
That’s a big, big problem.
Taxpayers deserve to be adequately assured that their tax dollars are not only being spent wisely, but that those tax dollars won’t be used by special interests as a cudgel — figuratively and literally — against them. Taxpayer-funded education should not be an arm, or a “VOICE,” of special interests, but a neutral arbiter enriching dialogue, not impoverishing it.
Ancel may want to teach a class on irony, too. Note the headline.
Typical union tactics. “Hey this is a nice place here, it would be a shame if something bad happened to it.” The only way they can get people to agree to their thuggery is through intimidation and fear.
Comment by billc — April 27, 2011 @ 6:33 p.m.
This is such an interesting topic. Thanks for writing about it!
Again and again, government awards dollars to an activity. Then, government uses those dollars as an excuse to direct that activity, or censor it. It’s a terrible cycle.
It’s always important to point out bad ideas, especially those funded with public dollars. But, I wonder, is the solution censorship? More broadly, is censorship warranted if taxpayer dollars are involved? Or, as would seem to be the case with vouchers, once that benefit is awarded, shouldn’t recipients be allowed broad discretion over the use of that benefit?
For example, should food stamp recipients be barred from purchasing soda and potato chips?
Certainly, if one is concerned with the freedom to choose, there are two distinct problems. First: The public funding of any activity. Second: People who use the authority of the state to force other people to undertake or stop a certain activity.
The first problem, in the case of publicly funded education, has already occurred. Is the answer to that to impose the second problem, and attempt to use governmental authority to limit actions of others?
IMHO, the answer to misguided governmental intrusion is not to add more governmental intrusion.
Finally, (and I apologize to those who might bristle at this comparison) what exactly is the difference between education dollars being used to educate students about organized labor tactics and education dollars that can be used at schools that educate students about a particular religion? Is there a distinction other than the personal beliefs and values of the individuals choosing one educational institution over another?
Could government instead enable recipients of public education to choose what education they receive, and trust the marketplace of ideas to weed out particularly bad forms of education?
I am still working to understand solutions to this particular issue. So I pose these questions as genuine questions. I think blog readers could benefit from a substantive dialogue about this topic.
Comment by Audrey Spalding — April 27, 2011 @ 8:41 p.m.
@Audrey, I’m waiting for the charter school that teaches that Israel had no moral or legal right to be founded(a very defensible position, to me), then watch people from most political stripes howl in protest.
Or the ‘teaching the controversy’ about slavery. . .
or teaching that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were a form of terrorism. . .
Comment by Papillon — April 28, 2011 @ 1:59 p.m.
Amended to say–I only picked out charter school because ’standard’ public schools wouldn’t dare stray that far outside of ‘acceptable’ lines of thought. Charters might be more ‘view point’ driven.
Comment by Papillon — April 28, 2011 @ 2:54 p.m.
I am a graduate of the Labor Education Program at the University of Missouri and whole heartedly support its professors and the mission of the program itself. At no time during all of my classes did Judy Ancel, Don Giljum or any other professor advocate using violence to achieve anything. Quite the opposite!!! Our lectures were most definitely based in the philosophy of nonviolent protest as expressed by Ghandi and Dr. King. Violence serves no purpose and only lowers you to the level of your oppressors!!!!
It is obvious that the need for labor education is great. It is a very neglected part of our children’s history and social studies curriculum. Our country professes to be the standard bearer for democracy and human rights, and yet we have historically oppressed our laborers more than any other industrialized nation. Labor has repeatedly had violence thwart upon it as an oppressive tactic used by owners and governments. If you actually study the history, as we did in these classes, you come to realize the most effective tool you have to combat this oppression is to simply withhold your labor. Owners and governments, who don’t actually produce anything other than rules and money, rely upon their human workforce to run the machines and do the work, that allows them to collect their profits and taxes. A certain amount of profit and taxes are essential for an economy (society) to flourish, but what we have experienced repeatedly in the history of this country is usury and just plain greed. We have had plantation owners, steel barons, railroad barons, oil barons and all other sort of monopolistic tyranny, but our history books tend to call that progress. Progress at what cost???
Those are the questions that Judy Ancel, Don Giljum and all the other labor educators in this country are challenging their students to consider. You do not change things with violence!!! You change things by using the power you possess as a collective group with the same goals. Not with violence, but through your vote to change the laws that repress you. You cannot ignore the possibility of violence, because historically owners and governments are not very willing to give up their control peacefully. That’s the real truth, not the propaganda that is produced to distract from and confuse the real issues.
SOLIDARITY FOREVER!!!!
Comment by Solidarity Forever — April 30, 2011 @ 2:21 p.m.
[...] and exciting ways of promoting union membership are springing up all over. In April, I wrote about one university course in Missouri that delved into the finer points of using thug tactics in labor disputes, which is a pretty [...]
Pingback by Pop-Tartocracy « The Greenroom — June 23, 2011 @ 6:43 a.m.