The Word on the Street

APA Executive Committee Letter Protesting Middlesex Closure

Dear Members of the Board:

We, the elected members of the American Philosophical Association Executive Committee (Eastern Division), note with grave concern the decision to terminate the philosophy program at Middlesex University. In the 2008 RAE (Research Assessment Exercise), Middlesex was rated first in philosophy among the post-1992 universities in Britain, with 65% of its research activity judged "world-leading" or "internationally excellent." By closing the Philosophy Department with no justification other than a very minor shortfall in revenues generated by this department, the high regard in which your university is held by as a research institution at home and abroad has been seriously compromised.

Submitted with Strong Conviction and in Unanimity,

Edward S. Casey, President, American Philosophical Association Executive Committee (Eastern Division)
Robert Bernasconi, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Philosophy
Richard Bett, John Hopkins University, Department of Philosophy (Secretary-Treasurer, Eastern Division)
Donald Garrett, New York University, Department of Philosophy
Christine Korsgaard, Harvard University, Department of Philosophy
Howard McGary, Rutgers University, Department of Philosophy
Nancy Sherman, Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy
Ted Sider, New York University, Department of Philosophy
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Duke University, Department of Philosophy
Cynthia Willet, Emory University, Department of Philosophy
Susan Wolf, North Carolina University, Department of Philosophy
(President-elect, American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division)

Stuff won't make you happy...or maybe....

The Man running our Universities is President of the Board of Trade

"Not only in Great Britain but everywhere it is a dark age for the Humanities. Does that mean as well for Human Being ? maybe, and for Being at all. Are we able to understand that? Of course Humanities are to be renewed, reinvented: but not by destruction." Jean-Luc Nancy

Apparently I snoozed off...or rather, I was on the otherpondside trying to jump through a series of philosophy hoops without setting myself (or the nipple tassels) on fire.

I knew things were bad...the spreading of quasi-Blitz spirit memorabilia - 'Keep Calm and Carry On' - suggested as much (see Owen Hatherley's excellent piece on 'austerity' nostalgia in Radical Philosophy), but what was yet to become absolutely evident was the extent to which the logic of 'austerity' would be deployed in order to divest universities of the remaining residue of critical 'clutter.' Last June, the part of the Department of Education (what a quaint old-world idea) dealing with universities - which had been flung towards the nether regions of the Department of Trade and Industry in 2007 - was merged with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (another DTI cast off) to create the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. One is tempted to call this Orwellian, except it isn't...in fact, there is nothing concealed by the name of this organization about its objectives or intentions...except perhaps, universities themselves, and the fact that these 'institutes of skills production' were one considered to be in the 'business' of education.

The consequences of this rejigging of government departments is far from academic. It amounts to a de facto determination by the British government that the function of intellectual activity is to provide the fodder for the engine of economic growth...which as we all know, is an unassailable good (and anything which crusty old philosophy types like Aristotle might have to say about the relative merits of external goods as opposed to goods of the body or the soul is, of course, to be increasingly silenced). The immediate consequences of this action are to be seen in the assaults against the teaching of humanities - and particularly philosophy - in a number of British universities, most prominently King's London and the recent wholesale closure of the internationally renowned Philosophy Department at the University of Middlesex (see Nina Power's recent piece in CiF). Such action has been - and will continue to be - justified by the managerialist apparatchiks in terms of the relative 'productivity' of the humanities...the decision to close Middlesex philosophy being due to its lack of 'measurable' contribution to the university, (a nice revelation of the true alliance between the logic of quantification and the logic of accumulation) depite the fact that it is by far the most prestigious department to be found there (and yes, we have the metrics for that).

There are numerous points to be made here, and I will telegraph them, hopefully to be elaborated over the coming weeks:
1. The subordination of education to capital should not be achieved by the Lord Mandelson's rejiggery without a public debate.
2. The gesture of 'consultation' about the future of higher education cannot take place after a prior determination that the function of education is the production of skills for the knowledge economy.
3. The 'austerity' justification for cuts to public service - directed at exactly those constituencies most likely to challenge the neo-liberal logic which led to the crisis which caused the 'austerity' - needs to be revealed as rhetorical sleight of hand. This is not a war. We are not having to 'tighten our belts' because 'Gerry' is coming to steal away our beloved liberty. In fact, this crisis was created by exactly those forces which are now seeking to capitalize on it in order to further totalize their hegemony (and they are still sitting on the cash which they stole from our future).
4. Any attempt to associate 'market forces' with the operation of freedom must be shown to be shambolic. When the imperative of accumulation is used to justify the closing of minds all freedom-swagger becomes parody.
5. The extent to which the government's mission to extend university access was actually intended to polytechnivize all education needs to be interrogated.
6. Some thought must be given to 'retooling' (eurghhh) our notion of the good. There is a problem with a stand-off between neo-liberal quantification and some airy-fairy piffle-paffle about 'instrinsic good' (and I'm a metaphysician by trade (hoho)). The answer to this may be Aristotle (I say that a lot).
7. The difference between growth and accumulation needs to be evident.

So, enough for now.

To all of you in London, in solidarity.