A lecture is no longer synonymous with a room full of students and a wall of text. Something new is happening at our universities.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
As the one-year anniversary of the Los Angeles wildfires passes, rebuilding efforts continue to lag despite assurances to the contrary and many families are still navigating their search for a return to normalcy. For children in particular, the effects of a disaster do not end when the smoke clears or the debris is removed.
As more people’s lives are upended each year due to climate disasters communities — and our political leaders at the local, state and federal levels — must do more to ensure the needs of children and families are met during these emergencies.
During wildfires and other disasters, we continually see the familiar pattern of school closures, child care disruption, families moving into temporary housing and routines essential to children’s sense of safety abruptly severed. Communities and political leaders at every level must confront a hard truth: Our emergency systems were not designed with children in mind.
During wildfires, schools and child care systems are among the first institutions to fail. Children are displaced from classrooms, separated from trusted adults and thrust into shelters or hotel rooms never designed to support their physical, emotional or developmental needs. Studies show that stress brought on by exposure to natural disasters can have an outsized impact on children and lead to lifelong trauma. This trauma can lead to socio-emotional impairments; health-risk behaviors, such as alcohol and drug abuse; and even early death, according to the Adverse Childhood Experiences study published in 2011 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.
This past year has made it clear that local jurisdictions can no longer rely on federal disaster systems to carry the full burden of recovery. As the future of entities such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency becomes more uncertain, states, cities and counties must assume greater responsibility for protecting their most vulnerable citizens.
This starts with treating schools as critical infrastructure. While schools became formally recognized as part of critical infrastructure — specifically within the Education Facilities subsector in 2003 under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7) — they are not allocated commensurate resources and protections for security as other designated critical infrastructure.
The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the central role that schools play in economic stability, as widespread closures rapidly disrupted labor markets and productivity. Treating schools as critical infrastructure would align education with other essential public systems that underpin public health, safety and economic performance; as such, it merits long-term investment.
Second, schools need contingency plans that ensure continuity of in-person education when normal operations are disrupted. After the LA wildfires, many schools scrambled to set up alternate sites or transitioned to online learning. Students are still making up learning losses from the pandemic, and it is unclear whether those losses can be stemmed. Online learning should be used only when all other options have been exhausted, given the devastating impacts on student learning. The planning needs to begin now, not after disaster strikes.
Third, practice is key to success. Emergency plans often fail children not because they are poorly written but because they are never written with children in mind. Children experience disasters differently than adults, and procedures designed without them can inadvertently heighten fear and trauma. Age-appropriate drills, school-based tabletop exercises and responder training in developmentally appropriate communication can dramatically improve outcomes.
Local governments can formally integrate school districts, child care providers and pediatric health systems into emergency planning rather than treating them as afterthoughts once a crisis unfolds. Practicing with children builds familiarity, reduces panic and accelerates recovery — not just for young people, but for entire communities.
Finally, funding structures must reflect the realities families face after disasters. While billions are allocated for fire suppression and mitigation, far fewer resources are earmarked for sustaining schools, child care and pediatric mental health in the months and years that follow. Local and state governments should establish dedicated funding streams for child- and family-centered recovery — supporting school continuity, mental health care and family stabilization — since these investments can reduce long-term social and economic costs.
Implementing a family-centric disaster response model isn’t just a moral imperative. Adverse childhood experiences lead to an economic burden of hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the U.S, much of it absorbed by taxpayers through Medicaid and Medicare spending, special education, disability programs and lost lifetime tax revenue. When disaster responses destabilize children, short-term emergencies are converted into long-term public liabilities, driving government inefficiency and reactive spending. These failures also spill into insurance markets, increasing claims, raising premiums and deepening reliance on federal backstops that distort risk pools and shift costs to the public.
In an era of escalating disasters and constrained budgets, policies that protect family stability during crises are not social add-ons but high-return investments: reducing future taxpayer exposure, stabilizing insurance systems and limiting the need for costly federal intervention after the fact.
The one-year mark of the Los Angeles wildfires should not serve as a memorial to what was lost, but as a reckoning with what must change. Disasters will continue to test our systems, but allowing children to bear the brunt of those failures is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Protecting children during emergencies necessitates radical change. If we fail to act, we are not merely accepting risk: We are knowingly passing preventable harm and long-term costs onto the next generation.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
For years, California schools have pushed to change the way the state pays for K-12 education: by basing funding on enrollment, instead of attendance. That’s the way 45 other states do it, and it would mean an extra $6 billion annually in school coffers.
But such a move might cause more harm than good in the long run, because linking funding to enrollment means schools have little incentive to lure students to class every day, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Without that incentive, attendance would drop, and students would suffer.
If the Legislature wants to boost school funding, analysts argued, it should use the existing attendance-based model and funnel more money to schools with high numbers of low-income students, students in foster care and English learners.
When it comes to attendance, money talks, the report noted. For more than a century, California has funded schools based on average daily attendance – how many students show up every day. In the 1980s and ’90s, the state started to look at alternatives. A pilot study from that time period showed that attendance at high schools rose 5.4% and attendance at elementary schools rose 3.1% when those schools had a financial incentive to boost attendance.
This is not the time to ease up on attendance matters, the report said. Although attendance has improved somewhat since campuses closed during the pandemic, it remains well below pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2019, nearly 96% of students showed up to school every day. The number dropped to about 90% during COVID-19, when most schools switched to remote learning, but still remains about 2 percentage points below its previous high.
Attendance is tied to a host of student success measurements. Students with strong attendance tend to have higher test scores, higher levels of reading proficiency and higher graduation rates.
“It’s a thoughtful analysis that weighs the pros and cons,” said Hedy Chang, president of the nonprofit research and advocacy organization Attendance Works. “For some districts there might be benefits to a funding switch, but it also helps when districts have a concrete incentive for encouraging kids to show up.”
Schools have long asked the Legislature to change the funding formula, which they say doesn’t cover the actual costs of educating students, especially those with high needs. The issue came up repeatedly at a recent conference of the California School Boards Association, and there’s been at least one recent bill that addressed the issue.
The bill, by former Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from the La Cañada Flintridge area, initially called for a change to the funding formula, but the final version merely asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office to study the issue. The bill passed in 2024.
A 2022 report by Policy Analysis for California Education also noted the risks of removing schools’ financial incentive to prioritize attendance. But it also said that increasing school funding overall would give districts more stability.
Enrollment is a better funding metric because schools have to plan for the number of students who sign up, not the number who show up, said Troy Flint, spokesman for the California School Boards Association.
He also noted that schools with higher rates of absenteeism also tend to have higher numbers of students who need extra help, such as English learners, migrant students and low-income students. Tying funding to daily attendance — which in some districts is as low as 60% — brings less money to those schools, ultimately hurting the students who need the most assistance, he said.
“It just compounds the problem, creating a vicious cycle,” Flint said.
To really boost attendance, schools need extra funding to serve those students.
Switching to an enrollment-based funding model would increase K-12 funding by more than $6 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Currently, schools receive about $15,000 annually per student through the state’s main funding mechanism, the Local Control Funding Formula, with an additional $7,000 coming from the federal government, block grants, lottery money, special education funds and other sources. Overall, California spent more than $100 billion on schools last year, according to the Legislative Analyst.
Flint’s group also questioned whether schools are solely motivated by money to entice students to class.
“Most people in education desperately want kids in class every day,” Flint said. “These are some of the most dedicated, motivated people I’ve met, and they care greatly about students’ welfare.”
Josh Schultz, superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, agreed. Napa schools that are funded through attendance actually have lower attendance than schools that are considered “basic aid,” and funded through local property taxes. Both types of schools have high numbers of English learners and migrant students.
“I can understand the logic (of the LAO’s assertion) but I don’t know if it bears out in reality, at least here,” Schultz said. “Both kinds of schools see great value in having kids show up to school every day.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
In 2023, David Mitchener, 89, was admitted to a hospital in Surrey, England where he died. His death was attributed, in part, to high levels of Vitamin D, which he had been taking for nine months before his death.
It turns out that using herbal remedies and nutritional supplements could put your health at risk.
In a 2020 study at a Canadian naturopathic clinic, 42% of participants said they did not discuss their use of natural health products, including herbal remedies and vitamins, with their doctor. It turns out there are risks associated with not disclosing that you’re taking herbal remedies and supplements.
Some people are aware of the risks and are careful when using these products, but some people aren’t, said Frances Atcheson, a community pharmacist based in Northern Ireland. “There is a danger with people thinking that they’re always safe to take, just because they’re natural.”
Lezley-Anne Hanna, chair of pharmacy education at Queen’s University Belfast, said that the products could interfere with a patient getting a correct diagnosis. “If you didn’t disclose that you were on an herbal medicine, well, that could actually be causing your symptoms in the first place,” Hanna said.
A major risk, Atcheson said, is that the natural medicines will interact negatively with with conventional medicine. Increased bleeding risk, for example, is associated with using herbal remedies such as ginkgo biloba, cranberry juice and ginger at the same time as blood-thinning medication, such as warfarin and aspirin.
In 2014, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which regulates medicines in the United Kingdom, warned about the interaction between hormonal contraceptives and St. John’s wort, a herbal supplement that is used to alleviate mild depression and anxiety.
Such interaction has been blamed for unplanned pregnancies. St. John’s wort can also cause serotonin syndrome when used with other antidepressants. This can show up as high blood pressure, shivering and mania.
Ayurvedic medicine, which originated in India, uses many herbal remedies. The products can also include metals. However, in December 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about the possibility of heavy metal poisoning, such as lead and mercury, when using Ayurvedic products.
This could lead to infertility, kidney and brain damage and convulsions.Taking herbal remedies and supplements when there aren’t specific symptoms or illnesses has risks too.
While taking Vitamin D supplements is recommended for everyone in the United Kingdom by the Department of Health and Social Care, too much Vitamin D can lead to bone pain, loss of appetite and abdominal pain in otherwise healthy patients.
Liver injury caused by herbal remedies and supplements has been reported in Australia, the United States and Spain, in some cases so serious that it led to the need of a liver transplant.
Seema Haribhai, a 37-year-old woman from North London, became concerned about the potential side effects of conventional medication and turned to herbal remedies to treat psoriatic arthritis — a type of arthritis that causes pain and swelling in joints. A coroner’s report attributed her death to liver failure that might have been aggravated by herbal remedies recommended by an Ayurvedic medicine practitioner. “All medicines can cause harm, even those that are herbal based,” the report said.
Eva Delaney, 24, of Belfast takes the herbal supplement ginkgo biloba to improve brain function and Kalms tablets, which contain the herb valerian root, to reduce stress. She says she found out about the supplements in the pharmacy where she worked and consulted a pharmacist at her work before buying the products. “It probably should be the thing where you should always go to your pharmacist first,” she said.
Hanna said that pharmacists should be able to discuss these products in the context of patient safety. “Pharmacists are the expert in the safe and effective use of medicine,” she said.
What form the herbal remedies and supplements take, Delaney said, play a role in whether people tell a healthcare professional they’re taking them. “I think if it’s a tablet, you’d be more inclined to tell someone, ‘Oh, I’m taking this’,” Delaney said. “But if it was anything else, like a syrup … I think it would be harder to consider that as a medicine.”
In a 2021 study, more than 90% of pregnant women in Ethiopia using herbal remedies throughout their pregnancies did not discuss this with their health-care professionals. The most common reason they gave was that the healthcare professional did not ask.
Atcheson said that she wouldn’t normally ask about herbal remedies specifically. But she will ask patients: “Are you on any other prescribed medication or do you take anything over the counter? And sometimes they will volunteer information if they’re taking herbal remedies or supplements.”
Hanna said that healthcare professionals need to ask specific questions in order to learn about patients’ use of herbal remedies and supplements. “If you want to know if somebody’s on a herbal medicine,” she said, “you need to ask.”
It is also important for healthcare professionals to know their own limitations, and to know how to find the information they lack. “It’s about accepting that you may not know that particular product or you may not know that name,” Hanna said. “But where can you go and find out reliable information? Where could you advise the person to go?”
Atcheson said that she uses the online Cochrane Library as a resource when presented with a patient question she can’t answer. The Cochrane Library provides evidence-based information on herbal remedies and supplements and their effectiveness in different medical conditions. Unfortunately, she said, there aren’t many other readily available resources. “Apart from the Cochrane Library, I’m just going onto Google Scholar looking for reviews,” she said.
Atcheson recalls telling a patient not to take collagen supplements because the patient had chronic kidney disease. “There’s something about collagen where it can actually interfere with the kidneys when you take it orally,” she said.
Many young people find misinformation on the internet, she said. “I’ve heard about people buying supplements and herbal remedies for weight loss,” Atcheson said. “It’s especially risky when you’re buying things on the internet. Then there’s no point of contact at all.”
In the UK, people can look for a Traditional Herbal Registration symbol on product packaging when deciding whether to buy a herbal remedy. This symbol means the product has met the safety and quality standards set by the MHRA.
Hanna said that discussing over-the-counter products with a health-care professional can help patients feel empowered about their own health and provide them with unbiased information.
“It really would be a missed opportunity to not use a healthcare professional,” she said, “and to help you whenever you’re thinking about a herbal medicine.”
1. Why don’t many people discuss herbal medicines with their medical doctors?
2. What are some things you need to consider before taking vitamins or herbal remedies?
3. If you or someone you know takes vitamins, how did you or they decide to do that?
Key points:
Many years ago, around 2010, I attended a professional development program in Houston called Literacy Through Photography, at a time when I was searching for practical ways to strengthen comprehension, discussion, and reading fluency, particularly for students who found traditional print-based tasks challenging. As part of the program, artists visited my classroom and shared their work with students. Much of that work was abstract. There were no obvious answers and no single “correct” interpretation.
Instead, students were invited to look closely, talk together, and explain what they noticed.
What struck me was how quickly students, including those who struggled with traditional reading tasks, began to engage. They learned to slow down, describe what they saw, make inferences, and justify their thinking. They weren’t just looking at images; they were reading them. And in doing so, they were rehearsing many of the same strategies we expect when reading written texts.
At the time, this felt innovative. But it also felt deeply intuitive.
Fast forward to today.
Students are surrounded by images and videos, from photographs and diagrams to memes, screenshots, and, increasingly, AI-generated visuals. These images appear everywhere: in learning materials, on social media, and inside the tools students use daily. Many look polished, realistic, and authoritative.
At the same time, AI has made faking easier than ever.
As educators and school leaders, we now face urgent questions around misinformation, academic integrity, and critical thinking. The issue is no longer just whether students can use AI tools, but whether they can interpret, evaluate, and question what they see.
This is where visual literacy becomes a frontline defence.
Teaching students to read images critically, to see them as constructed texts rather than neutral data, strengthens the same skills we rely on for strong reading comprehension: inference, evidence-based reasoning, and metacognitive awareness.
From photography to AI: A conversation grounded in practice
Recently, I found myself returning to those early classroom experiences through ongoing professional dialogue with a former college lecturer and professional photographer, as we explored what it really means to read images in the age of AI.
A conversation that grew out of practice
Nesreen: When I shared the draft with you, you immediately focused on the language, whether I was treating images as data or as signs. Is this important?
Photographer: Yes, because signs belong to reading. Data is output. Signs are meaning. When we talk about reading media texts, we’re talking about how meaning is constructed, not just what information appears.
Nesreen: That distinction feels crucial right now. Students are surrounded by images and videos, but they’re rarely taught to read them with the same care as written texts.
Photographer: Exactly. Once students understand that photographs and AI images are made up of signs, color, framing, scale, and viewpoint, they stop treating images as neutral or factual.
Nesreen: You also asked whether the lesson would lean more towards evaluative assessment or summarizing. That made me realize the reflection mattered just as much as the image itself.
Photographer: Reflection is key. When students explain why a composition works, or what they would change next time, they’re already engaging in higher-level reading skills.
Nesreen: And whether students are analyzing a photograph, generating an AI image, or reading a paragraph, they’re practicing the same habits: slowing down, noticing, justifying, and revising their thinking.
Photographer: And once they see that connection, reading becomes less about the right answer and more about understanding how meaning is made.
One common misconception is that visual literacy sits outside “real” literacy. In practice, the opposite is true.
When students read images carefully, they:
These are the habits of skilled readers.
For emerging readers, multilingual learners, and students who struggle with print, images lower the barrier to participation, without lowering the cognitive demand. Thinking comes first. Language follows.
From composition to comprehension: Mapping image reading to reading strategies
Photography offers a practical way to name what students are already doing intuitively. When teachers explicitly teach compositional elements, familiar reading strategies become visible and transferable.
| What students notice in an image | What they are doing cognitively | Reading strategy practiced |
| Where the eye goes first | Deciding importance | Identifying main ideas |
| How the eye moves | Tracking structure | Understanding sequence |
| What is included or excluded | Considering intention | Analyzing author’s choices |
| Foreground and background | Sorting information | Main vs supporting details |
| Light and shadow | Interpreting mood | Making inferences |
| Symbols and colour | Reading beyond the literal | Figurative language |
| Scale and angle | Judging power | Perspective and viewpoint |
| Repetition or pattern | Spotting themes | Theme identification |
| Contextual clues | Using surrounding detail | Context clues |
| Ambiguity | Holding multiple meanings | Critical reading |
| Evidence from the image | Justifying interpretation | Evidence-based responses |
Once students recognise these moves, teachers can say explicitly:
“You’re doing the same thing you do when you read a paragraph.”
That moment of transfer is powerful.
Making AI image generation teachable (and safe)
In my classroom work pack, students use Perchance AI to generate images. I chose this tool deliberately: It is accessible, age-appropriate, and allows students to iterate, refining prompts based on compositional choices rather than chasing novelty.
Students don’t just generate an image once. They plan, revise, and evaluate.
This shifts AI use away from shortcut behavior and toward intentional design and reflection, supporting academic integrity rather than undermining it.
The progression of a prompt: From surface to depth (WAGOLL)
One of the most effective elements of the work pack is a WAGOLL (What A Good One Looks Like) progression, which shows students how thinking improves with precision.
Students can see and explain how photographic language turns an image from output into meaningful signs. That explanation is where literacy lives.
When classroom talk begins to change
Over time, classroom conversations shift.
Instead of “I like it” or “It looks real,” students begin to say:
These are reading sentences.
Because images feel accessible, more students participate. The classroom becomes slower, quieter, and more thoughtful–exactly the conditions we want for deep comprehension.
Visual literacy as a bridge, not an add-on
Visual literacy is not an extra subject competing for time. It is a bridge, especially in the age of AI.
By teaching students how to read images, schools strengthen:
Most importantly, students learn that literacy is not about rushing to answers, but about noticing, questioning, and constructing meaning.
In a world saturated with AI-generated images, teaching students how to read visually is no longer optional.
It is literacy.
Author’s note: This article grew out of classroom practice and professional dialogue with a former college lecturer and professional photographer. Their contribution informed the discussion of visual composition, semiotics, and reflective image-reading, without any involvement in publication or authorship.
Senate lawmakers have rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to vastly reduce federal funding for scientific research. Instead the Senate advanced proposals last week that would provide $188.3 billion for scientific research — 21.3% more than the Trump administration proposed.
The Senate passed those bipartisan measures Thursday in a 82-15 vote, sending them to President Donald Trump’s desk. The House passed them in a 397-28 vote earlier in the month.
The decline in graduate international students enrolled in U.S. colleges in fall 2025 compared to the year before, according to final figures from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. However, enrollment ticked up 1% overall, thanks to a 1.2% increase in undergraduate students.
The California College of the Arts, a 120-year-old institution, announced that it will close at the end of the 2026-27 academic year and hand over its campus to Nashville-based Vanderbilt University. Despite a major fundraising push, CCA President David Howse said the arts college’s “tuition-driven business model is not sustainable.”
Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission recently passed a report that in part advises all of Oregon’s public colleges to collaborate and craft plans for “targeted institutional integration.”. Those plans could range from two colleges sharing programs to fully merging, according to the report.
PEN America, a free expression group, found that 21 bills across 15 states were enacted in 2025 that censor higher education. “For higher education in America, 2025 was a year of catastrophe,” researchers wrote in a report summarizing the findings.
The researchers found the laws were a “result of a relentless, years-old campaign to exert ideological control over college and university campuses.” Although the conservative-led push began before President Donald Trump’s second term, researchers noted the campaign was “greatly exacerbated” by his administration.
Now, over 50% of college students are studying in states with at least one law on the books that censors higher education. “This is a staggering figure that should give us all pause,” they wrote.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Ronald Barnett, Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Education, University of London and President Emeritus of the Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society, and Secretary of the Global Forum for Re-Humanizing Education.
The gloves have now to come off. I have been too gentle in my critiques over the past 40 years.
We live in a world marked by egregious power wielded in non-educational ways. The term ‘cognitive capitalism’ – much mooted over the past 20 years – barely does justice to the situation.
This plays out in higher education and universities in very many ways, just two of which are (the perniciousness of) learning outcomes and the discourse of skills. Together these exert an iron grip not only on our understanding of higher education but moreover on its practices and the formation of its students. We are moving to a ‘skillification’ of society.
In the 1930s, Critical Theory – in the shadow of advancing Fascism – inveighed against ‘instrumental reason’. Now the situation is much worse – we have instrumentalism without any reason.
For forty years, I have myself pressed these concerns in trying to advance the philosophy and theory of higher education as a field. Some of my early books carried titles such as ‘The Limits of Competence‘, ‘A Will to Learn‘ and ‘Beyond All Reason’.
Now, in a robotic, AI, Trumpian, and ever-controlled, surveilled and measurement-crazy era oriented towards profit and growth, these concerns take on heightened proportions. And the domination of the ‘skills’ agenda is symptomatic. Of the increase of ‘skills’, there shall be no end. It now has a vice-like grip around what is taken for ‘higher education’.
I challenge anyone who is in or around the policy/ managerial/ leadership networks to write even an 800-word article on higher education without using the term ‘skills’. It has become – to use a term of art these days – the dominant ‘imaginary’, a framework, a perspective, an iron cage with totally inflexible bars, that brooks no escape.
Consider the concept of understanding. Fifty years ago, there was talk of higher education being concerned with ‘knowledge and understanding’. It was not enough to know things, for one’s knowing had to be backed up by one’s own appropriations, one’s own insights, one’s own feeling and commitments to that knowing, and so make that knowing authentically one’s own. Then the concept of understanding was dropped, as ‘knowledge and skills’ took over. Then it became ‘skills and knowledge’. And now it is just ‘skills, skills, skills’ and in that order.
For those who continue to believe that these reflections on my part are antique, consider this. When one goes to a piano recital, one wants to be assured that the pianist has many advanced skills, honed over years and even decades. But that is taken for granted. That is not why one goes to hear and to see a particular pianist. One goes to be in the company of a certain kind of humanity, of graciousness, of generosity, of subtlety, of interpretation, of inter-connectiveness with the audience, of a will on their part to communicate. It’s not skills that mark out the great pianists but their human qualities and dispositions; their sheer being as a human being.
And the determination to corral all of this under the rubric of ‘skills’ is testimony to the loss of wisdom, care, concern, and empathy – for others in all their plights and for the whole Earth and all its non-human inhabitants – that is so vital for the whole life of this planet.
Note, too, that those skills on the part of the pianist were honed NOT through skills but through an assemblage of qualities and dispositions. One may have all the skills in the world, but unless they are accompanied by qualities and dispositions – not least the disposition to keep going forward in a difficult world – those skills count for nought. (I have spelt out all this at some length in some of my books.)
It is noticeable that in all the talk of skills, we see nothing of the skills of activism, of demonstration, of counter-insurgency, of contestation, of resistance and so forth – so vividly apparent in many of the student movements across the world. So, for all their apparent breadth in the playing up of skills, it is skills only of a certain kind that are sought; skills that seek to counter the dominant forces of the world are silenced. So there is a major interest structure behind the tilt to skills. It is far from neutral. It acts to serve and to heighten the already dominant interest structures in the world.
This is a desperately serious situation. At just the moment across the world that we need an expansion of human qualities and a recognition of the fundamental dispositions of human and educational life (and ‘qualities’ and ‘dispositions’ differ profoundly – see the arguments in my books – AND both are opposed to skills), we retreat behind technicism, roboticism, and electronic networks (which are totally opaque), which serve the interests of the great powers. (The AI corporations will not reveal the nature of their logarithms, so the whole notion of critical thinking is stymied – one cannot be fully critical of that which lies deliberately hidden.)
By the way, it is wrong to believe that the great powers have no interest in universities and higher education: they are bewitched by universities and higher education and seek to do all they can to corral them in their (the former’s) instrumental interests. This is why we are witnessing the abandonment of ‘critical thinking’ as a trope in higher education ‘debate’. (Just see how little it appears, if at all, in university websites.)
The world is in great difficulties, and higher education and universities are only aiding these movements in the abandonment of a language of qualities, dispositions, care, understanding, criticality, wisdom, carefulness and so on. (Again, ‘higher education’ and ‘university’ are different concepts, although they are treated as synonymous. Both are crucial but in being elided, we neglect the capacity of universities as sites of the formation of criticality in themselves, beyond the students’ study programmes.)
The current movements, if left uncontained, herald a new kind of techno-fascism descending onto higher education. This is a grave moment for the world: some universities are recognising the threat. but the situation is so serious that nothing short of a mass mobilisation of universities across the world – a counter-revolution indeed – is called for. I have been too gentle in my commentaries over the past 40 years – in playing the game, in negotiating, in epistemic ‘diplomacy’, in paying due attention to noises off. Perhaps a new kind of diplomacy, more strident, more assertive, is needed now.
