News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Sept. 5, 2007
In the cartoons, an astonished character will at times need to grab his eyeballs as they come flying out of his head. Something like that happened to me a few months ago while going through the fall catalog of Columbia University Press. Buried deep in its pages – well behind all the exciting, glamorous titles at the bleeding edge of scholarship – was the listing for Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy by Richard D. Kahlenberg. (It has just appeared in hardback.)
This was a title one might reasonably expect to see issued by a commercial publisher: Shanker, who died in 1997, was for many years the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which he helped build into one of the strongest unions in the AFL-CIO. It now has more than a million members, including about 160,000 who work in higher education; even if only one in a hundred were interested in the union’s history, that is quite a potential audience.
At the same time, it was a surprise to find the book published by a press better known for titles in cultural theory: works embodying a certain abstract radicalism, several miles in stratosphere above the labor movement. And Shanker, besides being a union bureaucrat, was something of a hardboiled ideologue – a fierce Cold Warrior, but no less ardent a Culture Warrior, denouncing both affirmative action and multiculturalism in tones that were, let’s say, emphatic.
Such “tough liberalism,” as his biographer calls it, made the labor leader a punchline in Woody Allen’s post-apocalyptic comedy “Sleeper” (1973). A character explains that no one is quite sure how civilization ended, but historians think it all started when “a man named Albert Shanker got his hands on an atomic bomb.”
A lot has changed since the days when a new movie by Woody Allen was a major event. And in any case, no labor leader has emerged in recent decades with quite the cultural and political profile that Shanker once had. Yet his name still has the power to provoke. There are Shankerites and anti-Shankerites.
Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, DC, admires Shanker and gives him the benefit of the doubt, more often than not. That tendency comes through, I think, in the IHE podcast we recently recorded. But Kahlenberg is not totally uncritical of Shanker. As we talked following the taping, Kahlenberg mentioned the passions stirred up by the leader’s memory.
Some followers remain convinced that “Al” was right about more or less everything — including the Vietnam War, which Shanker supported. Kahlenberg also looked into charges by Shanker’s opponents that he received funds as part of the American intelligence community’s activity within the labor movement.
That accusation is hardly a surprising or implausible. All things considered, it would be surprising if Shanker were not connected with “the AFL-CIA” (as certain networks within the intelligence and labor communities were sometimes called). But Kahlenberg says critics haven’t offered solid evidence to back up the accusation. There is a difference between firm conviction and real proof. This is a matter some historian will eventually need to revisit, nailing things down with serious documentation.
Tough Liberal is not the first book about Shanker. But the previous volume, Dickson A. Mungazi’s Where He Stands: Albert Shanker and the American Federation of Teachers, published by Praeger in 1995, was not really a biography. Nor was it much of a contribution to labor history, given that Mungazi identifies Samuel Gompers (who died in 1924) as the first president of the CIO (established in 1935).
So Kahlenberg has made a real contribution by telling the story of this charismatic and/or megalomaniacal labor leader’s career. I say that as a reader who did not pick up the biography with any admiration for its subject – nor put it down converted to Shanker-style “toughness.” (Actually it made me think maybe Woody Allen was right.) But it’s an engaging book, and essential reading for anyone interested in the history of Cold War liberalism and its complicated legacy.
Further reading (and listening): An excerpt from Tough Liberal is available at Columbia UP’s website. An early review of it appears in the latest issue of Washington Monthly. An extremely favorable treatment of the biography and of Shanker himself has recently appeared in The Wall Street Journal. For something altogether less laudatory, see the essay appearing ten years ago in the socialist journal New Politics. And by all means, lend an ear to the interview with Richard Kahlenberg, available as an IHE podcast.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Well, to suggest that there was a dualistic choice between “union rights along with educational standards” v. “greater privileges for blacks along with lowering educational standards.” is an interesting frame.
Some anti-racist pro-union activists like myself look back at Shanker and see a bad situation made far worse through bombastic egomaniacal authoritarianism coupled with elitist and offensive White privelege. But that’s just my frame of reference.
Chip, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates, at 4:40 pm EDT on September 5, 2007
Chip, would you explain this concept of “frames of reference"? When I read George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant", the idea was central to his argument that Democrats and liberals in general could achieve political success through “reframing” political issues by changing the definitions of words in the public mind. For instance, calling trial lawyers “public protection attorneys” would make them more popular, he said. A tax is more palatable if you call it a “user fee.” (It sounds like doubletalk. Is an income tax a fee you pay to use your own income?)
But, how do you get people to accept your definitions of words, your frame of reference, when they already have their own? The public has a knack for reducing buzzwords and euphemisms to their real meaning. A politician may try to reframe a tax as a “user fee” or “revenue enhancement", but when he does the public always thinks “tax.” When an executive “downsizes” his staff, everyone knows it means firing people.
I ask you this because your comment didn’t say whether my observations about Shanker’s actions were right or wrong, merely that you and I saw them from different “frames.” That reminded me of Lakoff, so I thought I would ask you, a thoroughly liberal commentator to judge by your organization’s website, your opinion of his theory. Or his frame, if that’s what you want to call it.
Jack Olson, at 11:05 am EDT on September 6, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
We are seeking candidates to fill an Assistant Professor position. This individual will have a regional focus on South Asia. see job
Wake Forest University seeks a tenure-track assistant professor of U.S. West for appointment beginning August 2009. Research ... see job
Working Title: Curator
Posting Information: The Mountain Heritage Center of Western Carolina ... see job
The Department of History and Classics at the University of Alberta invites applications for a tenure-track position as an ... see job
The Savannah College of Art and Design is seeking candidates for full-time faculty positions in Asian art history. Qualified ... see job
Russia: The history department of Hofstra University invites applications for a full-time tenure track assistant professor in ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Wake Forest University seeks a tenure-track assistant professor of United States history for appointment beginning August ... see job
The Department of History and Political Science at Utah Valley University (UVU) invites applications for a full-time, ... see job
Slander of Shanker
The liberals of Shanker’s heyday had to choose between sacrificing the hard-won, usually union-won, power and privileges of school teachers in New York to give more of them to blacks even if it meant poorer education, or protecting that power and those privileges even if it meant not sharing them with blacks in pursuit of them. They chose the former and denounced Shanker in no uncertain terms for choosing the latter.
Mostly, they called him a racist. Jimmy Breslin accused Shanker of being “an accent away from George Wallace” and “the worst person I have seen in my time in the City of New York.” I.F. Stone wrote, “The Mason-Dixon line has moved north and the Old Confederacy has expanded to the outer reaches of the Bronx.” Sol Stern wrote in “Ramparts” that because of the school strikes, “white middle class New York teachers may quietly vote for George Wallace.” ("The Ungovernable City", by Vincent Cannato) An accusation of racism is particularly unfair to Shanker, who had marched in Selma with Martin Luther King.
It was to break the entrenched power of the teacher’s union that the Bundy Panel, led and named for McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation, recommended community schools under local rather than central control. They pointed out that one-third of New York City schoolchildren were at least one year behind the national average in reading and math. In 1966, 45% of NY sixth-graders were below state standards compared to 23% statewide.
Unfortunately, the city’s best known experiment in community-based schools, the Ocean Hill-Brownsville district, was obviously an educational failure. By 1971, reading scores in all eight of the district’s schools were lower than they had been before the experiment began in 1968.
Today, most people remember Shanker by Woody Allen’s gibe in the movie “Sleeper.” What they overlook is that Shanker’s choice of union rights along with educational standards was wiser than their choice of greater privileges for blacks along with lowering educational standards. As of 2000, half of New York City schoolchildren are reading below grade level or are illiterate. One-third of their teachers have failed the state certification exam at least three times, which is grounds for dismissal. Yet when the board of education attempted to fire them, racial agitators accuse the board of racism since most of the fired teachers are black or Hispanic. So the board gave in and kept them in their jobs (Insight Magazine, 4/24/2000).
One of the results of this is that while nationally 12% of American families send their children to private school, among New York City school teachers the proportion is 33%. (Fordham Institute, 2004) The same is true or even more so in other cities: Philadelphia, 44%; Chicago, 39%; and nationally, 25%. It would have been interesting to hear Shanker’s opinion of that.
Jack Olson, at 11:20 am EDT on September 5, 2007