Lew Zipin

A diasporic ethical response to Segal’s Plan to combat antisemitism in education

As an anti-Zionist Jew and social-justice educator, I want to address two claims that I find offensive in Jillian Segal’s Plan as Australian Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism.

One claim is that generations younger than 35 years are vulnerable to antisemitic propaganda, as too immature to grasp antisemitic history that justifies Israeli state existence. That Segal avoids saying ‘existence on Palestinian lands’ conflates antisemitism with critique of Israel’s ethnocentric occupation of those lands.

Another claim is that Segal, and those she recruits, are positioned to design curricula that guide young minds, including those Jewish, away from ‘antisemitism’.

Do Jews under 35 lack capacity to draw lessons from family histories of Holocaust cruelties, or from Tsarist pogroms that my grandparents fled as refugees? Are we simply wrong to see parallels with Israeli affliction of ongoing Nakba upon Palestinians, based on a biblical ‘right’ to establish solely-Jewish sovereignty from river to sea?

Is it antisemitic to see compelling reasons for my Jewish identity to make ethically-diasporic ‘exodus from Zionism’ (quoting Jewish scholar-activist Naomi Klein)?

My youthful biographic learning

When I was a 19-year-old undergrad at Cornell University, the Gulf of Tonkin incident incited U.S. government to replace France’s fading imperialism in Vietnam with ‘anti-Communist’ war upon Vietnamese lives and lands. I began learning capitalist-imperial histories behind such warfare at campus teach-ins and soap-box speeches on the Arts Quad. I joined the Students for a Democratic Society anti-war movement, where I learned from (hi)stories shared by professorial allies. For example, Pakistani Professor Eqbal Ahmad, friend of Palestinian social-justice icon Edward Said, told how, as a Muslim boy in a northern region of what would become India, he watched in shock as his father was murdered by Hindus seizing Muslim lands (see Ahmad, and Said’s foreword, in Confronting Empire). This precipitated meaningful educative dialogue about ethnocentric cruelties towards ‘others’.

At age 19, was I too unripe to learn from ethnically diverse scholar-activists? Such learning continues across my life, from Palestinians and other Muslims, ‘Australian’ First Nation peoples, and more. Dialogically, I learn their life (hi)stories in relation to mine. Does such learning ‘misguide’ my Jewish identity exodus from Zionism? Is Segal’s education plan morally superior to those who illustrate and explain, rather than ignore, capitalist-colonial disregard for people exploited and killed in ethno-nationalist pursuit of empire?

Educative urgencies in dark-age times

In darkening times now and ahead, I take educative insight from Antonio Gramsci, a Marxian activist, elected to Italy’s Parliament. Gramsci analysed 1920s/30s fascist rise in Europe, leading to WW2, in his prison notebooks (after arrest by Mussolini’s police). Gramsci wrote: ‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear’.

I argue that a key ‘old’, now dying, is structural capacity, among those in governance power, to sustain decent life standards, and so stem social unrest, in ‘advanced-capitalist’ nations that comprise 20 per cent of global population.

Such had been made possible by colonial-imperial exploitation of labours and resources from the peripheralised 80 per cent. But this reached a limit-point decades ago, as Wallerstein explains. And yet, a horribly morbid symptom is fevered warfare as nations with military might seek regional hegemony. They do so not only to appropriate resources but to forge ethno-nationalist ‘loyalty’ among ‘proper citizens’. Israel is a prime example.

Along with climate catastrophes, desperate refugee masses, cost-of-living hikes and more, a key morbid symptom is a trend towards fascist governance in so-called ‘western democracies’ that remain wedded to capitalism. Unable to redress structurally complex life struggles among rising population numbers, far-right power-forces conjure simplistic populist ‘explanation’ of ‘good citizen’ struggles. They target ‘bad citizens’ (non-whites; women who don’t marry men, etc.) within nations, refugees seeking entry, ‘lunatic left’ judges, politicians, academics and more, as ‘vermin’ who ‘poison the blood of our country’ (Trump’s words, echoing Hitler, as Hallee Conley situates it). In turn, they ‘justify’ harshly punitive military arrests, prison camps, deportations, etc., to ‘make our nation great again’. Capitalist-colonial death throes thus intersect with racialized, sexualized and other structural inequalities at crisis pitch.

In education, far-right nationalising of morals and mentalities – which Segal’s Plan morbidly symptomizes – entails curricular negation, in schools and universities, of ‘Diversity-Equity-Inclusion’ (DEI) attention to ongoing structurally unjust inequalities.

Diasporic ethical fuel for pursuing social-educational justice

Social-justice educators must challenge selective curriculum that negates richly diverse ‘funds of knowledge’ which develop in marginalised lifeworlds. This includes ‘dark funds’ that build as useful knowledges for facing difficult lifeworld struggles. We must counter curricular narrowness, inherent in Segal’s Plan, that promotes ethnocentric assimilation of cultural diversities unequally within moral ‘cohesion-building’.

Curricular activity must instead raise consciousness to how difficult symptoms in young people’s lifeworlds link to structural crises, and in turn develop capacities to rework life contexts towards socially-just futures. This requires educator practice of a diasporic ethics that shares and creates needed knowledges and proactive capacities. It means working together with those whom we teach and from whom we must learn, inclusively building solidarities across ethnic-cultural diversities.

I advocate curricular and pedagogic practice of what Moll calls ‘relational agency’, in which students, community people and educators collectively learn-and-teach together. Doing so, they build capacities to understand and redress what I call lifeworld problems that matter.

To briefly outline this educational approach: In small affinity groups, students spend time outside of school, action-researching mattering problems they identify in their lifeworlds. In classrooms, the groups dialogue around how these varied problems share resonant links to economic, climatic, racialized, gendered and other interwoven structural crises. In both classroom dialogues and lifeworld action-research, educators and community people join students in building proactive capacities to pursue socially-just futures. Over time, visiting (hi)story sharers – such as Palestinian refugees – help to connect locally-lived struggles to globally-wider morbid symptoms of structural crisis.

Such inclusively learning across diversities starkly contrasts with what Freire describes as ‘banking pedagogy’ that deposits ethnocentric norms into students’ brains. That’s the pedagogy featured in Segal’s Plan.

A biographic coda

Against Segal’s plan to assimilate ethnic-cultural diversities into ethno-nationalist norms, I highlight my life of inclusive knowledge-sharing across diversities. My diasporic Jewish identity evolves in rich, if painful, learning from-and-with Palestinians and others who share (hi)stories of forced exodus from lands where they lived. I deeply feel the injustice that, having been born to a Jewish mother, I can choose to ‘settle’ on lands where I have not lived, while Palestinian refugees are denied right of return. 

In ethical counter, I declare myself a Palestinian-Jew. I here take inspiration from the diasporic hybridity voiced by Edward Said in an interview  with Israeli anti-occupation journalist Ari Shavit. Says Said:

[P]art of my critique of Zionism is that it attaches too much importance to home[land] … I want a rich fabric of some sort, which … no one can fully own. I never understood the idea of this is my place, and you are out…. Even if I were a Jew, I’d fight against it.

Responding to Said’s ‘Even if’, Shavit says: ‘You sound very Jewish’. Said replies: ‘Of course…. Let me put it this way: I’m a Jewish-Palestinian’. As an advocate for educative building of life together with diverse others in ethical solidarity, let me repeat aloud: I’m a Palestinian-Jew!!!

Lew Zipin holds adjunct positions at University of South Australia in the Education Futures unit, and at Victoria University in the Moondani Balluk Indigenous unit (as a non-Indigenous ally). His research, including in projects funded by the Australian Research Council, contributes to the Funds of Knowledge curricular approach for meaningful school engagement with rich knowledges that students inherit and develop in diversely marginalised communities. Lew is a member of Educational Researchers for Palestine.

Universities are investing in teaching at the expense of research. Here’s why we should fight it

The will and vital capacity of Australian universities to support academics to combine teaching and research is under grave threat. Intensifying workloads—much of it kept invisible in workload models—short-change time and opportunity for research. And governing forces—within and beyond universities—have been moving to restructure investment in university labours towards teaching at the expense of research.

The Australian Government and university governing bodies are introducing policies to split research from teaching and expand teaching-only academic positions. If this trend persists, it won’t just be careers of younger academics that suffer. Disconnecting research from teaching, we argue, severely challenges how universities can contribute to sustainable social futures for Australian communities and globally.

We see need for collective political response to this crisis. In this post we diagnose what is happening and consider ways to fight back.

What is happening

The role of the current government

Federal Government policy is forcing this cultural change in our universities. Along with freezing funding to universities overall—pressuring university budgets and leading to fewer funded places for students—it has reduced funding for research by moving some of those funds to pay for additional student places in regional universities.

At the same time the Federal Government has introduced measures that rank each university’s scholarly outputs, fostering an environment of hyper-competition, and fateful choices, based on rankings. Universities are induced to strategize options for sustaining their reputations within tight budgets. Decisions are being made on where to direct reduced research funding: whether to employ fewer but ‘higher-producing’ researchers; and whether to cut down on domains of research focus: in effect, shifting some universities towards ‘teaching institution’ status.

Government typically justifies pressures towards teaching focus with simplistic rhetoric that student fees fund the lion’s share of university budgets, and ‘students need training in skills for knowledge economies’. We argue that our universities are, and need to be, much more than training centres for job seekers. Nor should universities be political footballs that governments kick, ideologically, at students facing insecure work futures: a problem that deserves complex and substantive policy and cross-sector efforts.

The role of consultancy firms

External consultancy firms currently play a political role in generating rationales for university Councils and Managements to invest more in teaching and less in research. Thus KPMG’s Reimagining Tertiary Education report, led by Stephen Parker, former University of Canberra Vice Chancellor, argues that, since the late 1980s Dawkins reform that created greater numbers of universities, not all have shown they can shine in both teaching and a range of research, and therefore some should focus more on ‘teaching excellence’. Similarly, a paper from the Nous Group proclaims:

Sooner or later we will need to face the issue of separating the cost of research from the funding of teaching places … [to] reduce the cost of teaching at bachelor level … [while] valuing great teachers within universities … The contemporary challenge is to provide great training, credentialing and educational service at an affordable price to the great middle of the post-school education population. The current system [provides to]… most of its participants based on the needs of the outlying 15 per cent and the experiences of their parents.

Such whistling-up of class distinction between a ‘great middle’ versus an elite ‘15 per cent’ fails to recognise that all university students, across their diversities, need researchful capacities to engage meaningfully with work and life challenges for their, and their communities’, futures in a precariously changing world.

The role of University Councils and Managements

There is no doubt universities feel the budget–pinch imposed by government policies. However, this does not justify how university Councils and Managements redistribute funds, labour and other resources away from the core university work of academic teaching, research and service, and into HR, Marketing, Legal and other offices.

They then try to turn ‘budget necessity’ into ‘pedagogic virtue’, as did the Vice Chancellor of Flinders University, Colin Stirling, in a radio interview by proclaiming:

Teaching specialists are a marvellous new opportunity for the very best educators to be in front of our students in our classrooms ensuring our students get the very best education possible.

Stirling gave no rationale for why teaching-only means ‘very best’ teaching, compared to academics whose teaching is informed by deep research/scholarship in disciplinary areas. Similar flimsy rhetoric has been reported from senior managers at Murdoch, Curtin and Victoria universities where restructures to replace many teaching-and-research academics with teaching-only staff have already taken place.

Why splitting research and teaching is a bad idea

We suggest that all university students need to graduate with researchful capacities to analyse and act in relation to emergent-future challenges that they, with others, face in spaces of work and wider community life. Indeed, many professions now require student research projects in order to accredit relevant university programs. Students thus need teachers who themselves engage in research.

Removal of researchers to isolated havens, away from teaching-only staff, debilitates both the research and teaching cultures of universities. Academics need healthy communities of teaching informed by research/scholarship, in which they partake, in order to model and impart the knowledge capacities and passions that university graduates need for navigating work and social futures.

This is what has, and should, distinguish university culture: a teaching-research nexus, embodied in a goodly number of teaching-and-research academics.

If the portion of university academics who combine teaching with research continues to shrink, this threatens futures of younger-generation academics who want research as part of their careers, which in turn threatens re-generation of the university sector. We already see numbers of promising academics who quit universities due to pressures, in early years, either to produce at ‘alpha’ research rates while handling large teaching workloads, or face relegation to non-research and insecure employment categories.

The combination of research and teaching is a unique way that universities contribute to social advancements. Research is an invaluable connector between academics, students, and local-global communities, which need sustaining so that all can benefit.

The way our universities work matters to all of us

We do not argue for a romanticised ‘collegial university of the past’. We want academics, students and communities, in connection, to imagine and create universities that best serve local and planetary futures. We believe splitting research from teaching does not advance university contributions to social futures, but is a backward step, breaking connections at a time when building them is vital to futures.

Social futures currently face many broad-based crises including un(der)employment, environmental damage, refugees fleeing chronic wars, governments losing purpose and effectiveness, and more. Universities, in mutually informing dialogue with students and communities, can play crucial roles in helping all to understand and pro-act as citizens able to address big-picture crises and associated local-life problems.

To do this, universities need to foster methodological approaches that connect research, teaching and community service, so as to expand the abilities of diverse social groups to work with an informative range of knowledge in defining and pursuing their needs and aspirations. Robust teaching-and-research academic cultures are needed to fit this purpose.

What can we do about it?

This is a critical historical juncture for university futures. We suggest four fronts for academic political action.

First is research-and-teaching practice in which academics collaborate with students and their communities on projects that matter to all involved. In this process, we can consult widely about what kinds of universities diverse Australians need and desire for their futures.

Second, in connection with the first, is to mobilise students and communities to join us in challenging governance constraints on how universities can inform and serve their best interests. We should work with our constituencies to recognise undue political machinations and communicate to wider publics how the quality of both research and teaching in Australian universities is under threat.

We need to encourage informed publics that join us in defining social purposes for Australian universities. These purposes are too important to be steered by politicians for political gain, or university Managements caught up in saving budget or competing for advantage in unfortunate market-competition with other universities.

Third is to pursue an inter-generational politics of academic bodies, with especial care for early-career academics who embody the future of university disciplines, institutions and the sector. Those of us who have had research opportunity need to stretch beyond small-scale things we do for younger colleagues, such as taking a few ‘promising’ early scholars under our wings in research projects. We need to challenge governance across the sector to expand early-career research time and opportunity within fair workloads. Older academics need to learn from younger colleagues about how they experience changing university cultures, so that, from multi-generational standpoints, we can build stronger analyses and answers to shifts in academic work and governance.

Fourth is to spur our research organisations, in this case AARE, to help us take action. Within universities, academics are at significant risk of reprisals if vocally critical of workforce restructures. We need support from organisations of mass membership, such as the AARE, which are not subject to control by university Councils, Managements or party politics.

We are heartened that, at an AGM at the 2017 AARE annual conference, those attending overwhelmingly endorsed a motion for the AARE to become politically active about threats to futures in education research per se, and reaching out to organisations representing other academic research fields. The AARE followed up by supporting a working party that organised a special session at the 2018 AARE conference, where participating members discussed ideas for next steps. The working party will report to AARE members about this session, and a survey stemming from it, in the near future.

We encourage AARE submission to the current Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, led by Peter Coaldrake (former Vice Chancellor at Queensland University of Technology), articulating membership concerns about university research futures. Submissions to the Review are due by 5.00pm on 8 March 2019.

Finally, we encourage greater media savvy, and stronger academic connections with students and wider publics, towards making an effective case for expanding rather than contracting research, and the teaching-research nexus, in Australian universities.

Lew Zipin is Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the School of Education at the University of South Australia, and Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Lew’s research focuses on developing curriculum that ‘does justice’ by engaging the knowledge, intelligence, and future-oriented aspirations of students from power-marginalised communities. He is also a critical analyst of university governance in relation to democratic ethics. Across three Australian universities, Lew has been an activist for academic workload models that measure work honestly, sustain work-life balance and extend research opportunity to more staff.

Marie Brennan is an Honorary Life Member of AARE, Adjunct Professor at the University of South Australia and Extraordinary Professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. She worked as a humanities teacher, curriculum researcher and senior administrator in the Victorian Department of Education in the 1970s and 1980s. After gaining her PhD, she moved to the university sector in 1991, with stints at Deakin, Central Queensland, Canberra, University of South Australia (where she had a five-year term as Dean of Education) and Victoria University, Melbourne. Now ‘retired’, she remains active in research, covering all sectors of education, with particular emphasis on questions of injustice.