Socialism is a word that has been frantically thrown around like a little league baseball since Barack Obama became a household name.
But while national media outlets remain fixated on the ugly, fear-inducing battle over socialism armed with its befuddling, conflicting definitions, an intriguing local debate on the merits of collectivism is sitting around waiting to be contended with. And at the core of that debate is our hefty case study of a campus.
Instead, we’ve been distracted by stigma and speculation.
As it sits now, we’re about one tea party away from “Yo mama is a socialist” monopolizing the playground-insult market.
The word has been trumpeted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber as a rallying cry for fearful conservatives. The word has been drenched in the negative connotations of being a foreign, scary concept that could turn Americans up by the ankles and shake the red, white and blue right out of them at any moment.
Frankly, socialism, regardless of the validity of its principles, has been a word abused by idiocy, ignorance and ill will.
As it has become pervasive across the national political scene, socialism has taken its spot as just another accusatory buzzword, losing its clout as a legitimate political ideology in the process — and becoming something it inherently is not: anti-American.
In a New York Times feature, ASU professor Terence Ball said, “Those at rallies protesting health reform now may be surprised to know that ‘socialism’ and ‘socialist’ have a long history in American political thought and that those terms weren’t always terms of censure.”
He referenced noted socialist C. Francis Bellamy, writer of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Pledge itself, today considered immensely “American,” suggesting it was an ode to his aspirations for the nation.
In the same Times feature, Illinois State University professor Andrew Hartman said, “‘Socialism’ [becomes] a stand-in for … modern threats to tradition.” Threats like feminism, civil rights and decolonization, he said.
But even as the definitions and perceptions change to fit the times, the fundamental question always remains the same: What is socialism?
As with any political ideology, socialism is a nuanced concept. But it does maintain some basic tenets, including a focus on centralized ownership over the means of production and centralized control over the distribution of goods.
One of the predominant strains of socialist thought — the Marxist strain — presents a particularly compelling view on distribution. As it applies to a nation of an abundance of goods, such as the U.S., the crux of Karl Marx’s theory is based on the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Whether you ultimately find the notion abhorrent or idyllic is your prerogative. Mine, on the other hand, is to point out that this ideology should sound pretty familiar — mostly because it is making a major difference on this campus.
Since the inception of President Michael Crow’s reign at ASU, a twist on that Marxist principle has been in place, whether it was intentional or not.
When Crow swept into office in July 2002 and began enacting his New American University plan, ASU made a monumental shift from a “low tuition, low financial aid” model to a “moderate tuition, high financial aid” model. As all students know well, tuition went on a sharp upturn, more than tripling over the course of 15 years.
But what most students do not know is that the price increase they saw from the school’s paradigm shift has enabled thousands more students to pursue a degree at ASU.
As counterintuitive as it seems, the higher cost of attendance has made it feasible for more, not fewer, students to get an education.
With more tuition dollars come more financial aid dollars, which the University can make available to those with demonstrated need. Those who can pay, pay (and sometimes are reimbursed on merit scholarship), and for those who cannot pay, help can be found.
Crow’s access-driven model and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” are seemingly cut from the same socialist cloth.
As such, it is prudent to ask two questions relating to the policy: First, is this University model that is being run on a national lightning rod of a principle intrinsically good or bad? And second, is it working?
On the first count, a day spent wrestling with a slab of concrete could be more fulfilling than wrestling with this issue. There are compelling, well-reasoned arguments on both sides — from collectivism of any kind being unjust to those who have worked hard to earn their keep, to collectivism bringing equity and opportunity to all. It has been debated for decades; that won’t and shouldn’t stop at ASU.
An easier task would be determining whether or not the model is working. The answer to that is an equally murky “yes and no.”
During Crow’s tenure, tuition has been raised significantly — up $2,066 between 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 for in-state students, and $5,384 for out-of-state students, for example. Meanwhile, over that period, the average amount of total financial aid received per student did not keep pace, with only a $1,816 increase.
A rise in per-student tuition outgaining the rise in per-student financial aid dollars does not seem to indicate a “moderate tuition, high financial aid” model.
But at the same time, enrollment increased by nearly 9,000. And the dollar amounts of financial aid given to students classified as “in need” went up more than $30 million in a four-year span.
By these numbers, it appears the New American University’s movement toward access has indeed been making strides. It just appears to be moving at a slow and steady place with precise strokes rather than broad ones.
Regardless, its performance neither points to the principles behind it as inherently wholesome or problematic, which is a striking juxtaposition with the confusing one-sided anti-socialism bash heard daily on the airwaves.
We continue to hear socialism is anti-American, though, as Ball pointed out, it isn’t. We continue to hear it as a threat to our traditions, though, as Hartman pointed out, it is often employed to scare. Thus, we don’t hear about it in the way we should anymore: as an ideological pillar of political and social thought.
And we ought to, especially on this campus. After all, every day, for better or worse, tenets of socialism are enabling people to attend ASU.
Should we continue taking from each according to his or her ability and giving to each according to his or her need, or should the New American University change direction?
Either way, we ought to live up to being a university — a communal center of thought — by looking past ignorant, politically charged rhetoric, taking the theories at work to heart and scrutinizing the bearing ASU is on.
Weighty societal debates on ideology are not resolved on a national playing field; they are resolved in an open community setting.
It’s time to reposition the national debate onto ASU’s plate.
Reach Ben at bberkley@asu.edu
