Panelists, Karen Tamley, Commissioner, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities; Greg Polman, Senior Vice President, Chicago Lighthouse; Robin Ann Jones, Project Director, Great Lakes ADA Center; and Steve Schlickman, Executive Director, UIC Urban Transportation Center, explain the monumental changes the ADA policies brought about, and have a discussion of some of the short comings that could still be improved.
Neoliberalism and Higher Education
Dear GCI followers,
This past weekend, I had the honor of speaking and participating in a conference at Michigan State University on Neoliberalism and Higher Education.
The Julian Samora Research Institute sponsored the conference that drew scholars from around the country. The keynote speakers were thought provoking and the conversations were rich.
Among those who spoke was Lawrence Busch, University Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Michigan State University The title of his opening keynote was What Good is Higher Education? How Neoliberalism Constrains Teaching, Research, and Outreach. He provided statistics demonstrating that from 1993-2009, administrative employment at Universities has increased by 60%. The growth was ten times faster than the growth of tenured faculty. The closer you come to converting higher education activities into the market, he stated, the bigger the bureaucracy that is created – “to make sure that everyone adheres to the rules.” Rules that are created are frequently market driven but become unfunded mandates and therefore costly operations. Among the many insights that he shared, he pointed out the trend that administrators, rather than protecting faculty and the academic mission, have become regulators of faculty, as they have sought to “run universities by numbers.” “But university quality is hard to quantify…and metrics of human behavior changes behavior.” The shift, he worries, has been from the public to the private good.
Professor Busch extended his analysis to describe how these trends of neoliberalism in the university have negatively affected the quality of education with the growth of standardized testing, a focus on education for the purpose of salary maximization, a dumbing down, and the rise of “institutionalized plagiarism.” Judging the quality of research has also become a numbers game of counting publications and citations, downgrading books and book chapters, the discouragement of innovation, and the devaluing of non-publication activities such as advising students. There is a decline, he suggests in public interest science while the conflicts of interest in funded research has increased.
After pointing to a number of societal issues that demand the attention of researchers and higher education, Professor Busch asks, “What kinds of selves do we want to reproduce? What should universities be? They should certainly be places, he argues, that are not driven by state sponsored market dominance. Rather, if we want freedom and liberty, then this requires our citizenry to be “reflexively aware,” with the “ability to decide” and the “wherewithal to change.” These skills are produced in the context of the university.
Professor Busch concludes his keynote address with an array of suggestions for how to enhance the integrity of higher education in light of these threats. Among this long list were:
- Provide security for those who inhabit universities
- Eliminate standardized testing
- Restrict the use of classroom lectures
- Increase learning communities
- Better integrate research and teaching
- Recognize the importance of slow scholarship
- Reward research based on substance not numbers
- Help produce sustainable societies
- Assess assessments
- Bring arts and humanities back in
- Challenge the prevailing wisdom that higher education is getting a better paying job
Higher education, he concludes should focus on producing educated citizens, top quality research and new knowledge. Lawrence Busch has written and co-edited several books on this subject.
Dr. Sheila Slaughter delivered the luncheon keynote, Private Advantage and New Patterns of Stratification Among Public and Private Research. Professor Slaughter has also written on the subject including her co-edited book, Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Among the research that she presented in her address, she spoke about the “submerged state” and the dynamics of distributing government funding upward.
The day and a half gathering concluded with a closing keynote panel. The main presenter was John V. Lombardi, who has an impressive resume of former positions as President and Chancellors of Universities, including President Emeritus, University of Florida. He titled his remarks, Elitism, Ideology, and Pragmatism: A US Higher Education Perspective. Noting that much of what is happening today in universities is “a function of shifts in funding,” he provided the long view, and addressed the question of “what matters in universities?”
Indeed, what matters in universities today? As different interests vie for the heart of higher education, we at Great Cities Institute continue to believe in Harnessing the Power of Research: Solutions for Today’s Urban Challenges.
Sincerely,
Teresa Córdova
Director
New Mexico Legislators Fail To Fund Capital Projects
KRWG, an NPR station based at New Mexico State University, quotes Michael Pagano, GCI fellow and dean of the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, on New Mexico’s policy of allocating capital funds to individual lawmakers. Pagano said the procedure is not standard and not a good means of capital planning.
Such divvying up of cash by individual lawmakers isn’t standard procedure, said Michael Pagano, dean of the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who has studied state capital spending processes.
“It certainly wouldn’t be in the textbooks about how to do capital improvement planning,” Pagano said. “In fact, it would be the illustration about how not to do capital improvement planning.”
When Gentrification’s Neighborhood Name Game Runs Into True Identity
John Betancur, former GCI faculty scholar and associate professor of urban planning and policy, is quoted in NextCity.org on the practice of real estate developers renaming neighborhoods or sub-neighborhoods, the use of those names as an indication of gentrification, and the blurring of neighborhood boundaries by the real estate industry.
John Betancur, an urban planning and policy professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, thought of 11 examples of recently renamed sections in Chicago alone before saying, “You know, it’s all over the place.”
…
While an overall dread for the g-word can be observed in news articles, forums and community meetings, the popularity of new neighborhood names reflects a desire to create distance from old stigmas, and in the process, local character too. The old guard may find this “alienating,” explains Hwang, as legacies and conventions they may cherish appear snubbed. Betancur notes that it might read to some longtime residents as prejudice veiled under a different “code.”
RTA: Fare hikes, service cuts ‘very likely’ if Rauner budget flies
The Chicago Sun-Times quotes Steve Schlickman, executive director of the Urban Transportation Center, on the likelihood of RTA fare increases and service cuts under the Rauner budget. Schlickman says similar actions in the 1990s caused ridership loss that took years to recover.
Steve Schlickman, head of the Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted that it took the CTA and Metra years to recover the riders they lost when they faced a “doomsday” scenario in the early 1990s and enacted steep fare increases and service cuts.
In lieu of some other revenue generator, Schlickman said, “There is no real alternative but to increase fares or cut service or do both.”
Real Estate Developers Look for Transit Input
The Morgan Street station helped boost property values and transform the neighborhood
Globe St., a real estate website, interviewed Steve Schlickman, executive director of the Urban Transportation Center, about a recent UTC study that evaluated value capture as a means to finance transit improvements in several American cities. In value capture arrangements, developers help pay for transit improvements that will benefit their developments. Schlickman said that Chicago has made less use of value capture than it could, in part because of the tradition of aldermanic approval of developments.
But a research team from the University of Illinois at Chicago recently met with a group of private real estate developers in Chicago, and concluded that the city might not be doing all it can to capture the value created by transit projects, and to do so officials and CTA planners should better coordinate their planning efforts with the development community.
“They feel that they don’t get that information early enough and could certainly use it strategically,”Stephen Schlickman with the university’s Urban Transportation Center tells GlobeSt.com. The researchers looked at value capture methods in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC, and compared the results to transit projects in Chicago. Essentially, they found that the three other cities were more proactive in bringing developers into the process early, and in a meaningful way, and as a result had the most success at capturing the value created by improvements and then defraying the costs.
Schlickman cautions that it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the CTA and its counterparts in the other cities. “I don’t think CTA has had the opportunities that the other agencies have had.” The structure of Chicago’s government, for one thing, with its tiny aldermanic fiefdoms that have great influence on any redevelopment effort, can make planning a little more challenging. Still, the other cities’ efforts “are led by managers that have experience and/or training on both sides of the table,” meaning both transit and real estate development.
Equal-Access City? 25 Years of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Karen Tamley, Commissioner, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities
Greg Polman, Senior Vice President, Chicago Lighthouse
Robin Ann Jones, Project Director, Great Lakes ADA Center
Steve Schlickman, Executive Director, UIC Urban Transportation Center
Wednesday
March 18, 2015
Gallery 400 Lecture Room
400 South Peoria Street, Chicago, IL 60607
12 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Lunch provided.
Panelists, Karen Tamley, Commissioner, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities; Greg Polman, Senior Vice President, Chicago Lighthouse; Robin Ann Jones, Project Director, Great Lakes ADA Center; and Steve Schlickman, Executive Director, UIC Urban Transportation Center, will explain the monumental changes the ADA policies brought about, and have a discussion of some of the short comings that could still be improved.
This event will take place in the Gallery 400 Lecture Room, and lunch will be provided.
For disability accommodations, please contact Christiana Kinder, (312) 996-8700, christia@uic.edu
Universal Design: The Next Step in the Equal-Access City?
The mechanics of universal design. Source: fujixerox.com
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990. This act proscribed a number of incremental changes to cities. Because of the act, urban infrastructure has been modified. Public transportation, telecommunications, and the built form have been updated to better accommodate all users. These changes have improved the daily lives of the disabled Americans in our communities as they have increased access to jobs and public life.
But have we done enough? Moving around the city, there are still many obstacles that may not be readily noticeable to the abled body. A crack in the sidewalk can be a tremendous hurdle to a person who requires a wheelchair. Silent electric cars can be hazardous as persons with no visual ability negotiate across streets. A lack of station signage on a busy train can render a city commute all the more difficult for someone with a loss of hearing.
What more can we accomplish? A concept called “universal design” can make our cities not just more accessible for those with limited abilities, but much more livable for all in our communities. Universal design makes infrastructure safer, easier, and more convenient for all abilities. According to UniversalDesign.com, the concept “takes into account the full range of human diversity, including physical, perceptual and cognitive abilities, as well as different body sizes and shapes.” In this way, infrastructure can be designed to be more functional and user-friendly for everybody.
Instead of placing ramps away from the main flows of human movement, sloped access is central in universally designed entrances, thus welcoming all users. Transportation platforms are designed so that everyone can enter directly onto a train or bus, speeding up boarding for all without the need for a slow and/or inconvenient ramp. Street crossings are designed to provide for groups of school children and elderly shoppers to cross at their own pace without danger from the hurried driver.
Due to the increased costs of retrofitting infrastructure, some may argue against universal design. However, improving access for everyone produces economic as well as social benefits. Building beyond the requirements of existing standards helps business avoid costs of reconfiguration; future surpluses can be used to grow business rather than to comply with expanding legal requirements. Furthermore, embracing all customers is good for business’ bottom line.
Universal design should be the next step in the progression of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act should be expanded to require that cities be made accessible universally. One should not have to second-guess how they are going to get to work or school that day because of an obstacle in their travel. One should not be flustered because the restaurant or store their friend recommended to them cannot accommodate their abilities. You should be able to go about your daily life without ever having to experience the duress of not being able to access your own city.
Join us this Wednesday, March 18, at 12 noon in the Gallery 400 Lecture Room at 400 South Peoria, to hear a panel speak on this topic in Great Cities Institute’s event, “Equal-Access City? 25 Years of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, and engage in the conversation on this important topic.
About the Author:
Jackson Morsey, GCI Economic Development Planner: Primarily working within GCI’s Neighborhoods Initiative, Jackson works in collaboration with community-based organizations, university faculty, and staff to provide technical assistance and services for community and economic development projects.
Chicago on the Rise, Universities in the Wings
Dear GCI followers,
We are at a historical moment in the City of Chicago. For the first time in its electoral history, the City will have a runoff election for the office of Mayor. Incumbent mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, faces challenger County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in the April 7 election. This is a time when Chicagoans can debate their vision for the city and who is most likely to help them attain that vision.
At Great Cities Institute, we have been concerned about many issues facing residents of the city and the region, including,
- Moving from poverty to prosperity,
- Creating jobs and insisting upon responsible economic development
- Rebuilding neighborhoods for neighbors
- Enhancing local governance and community participation
In November, we hosted an event entitled, City on the Make: Race and Inequality in Chicago. At that event, which featured Andrew Diamond from the University of Sorbonne, Jesus Garcia was among the panelists who presented their thoughts on addressing issues of inequality in Chicago. The video of this provocative panel, filmed by CANTV, is available here.
Other events in our Poverty to Prosperity Series are also available through our website. In spring, 2014, a luminary panel followed the presentation by Bob Herbert, former New York Times columnist.
Pedro Noguera, Professor at New York University spoke on Great Cities, Great Schools.
Clearly, a comprehensive approach is necessary to replace poverty with prosperity. Among the strategies that can make a difference, providing jobs is central. Economic Development should be about jobs. Tax incentives should be tied to job creation. In addition, we know from some of our work, that Worker Cooperatives, Small Business Incubators, and Youth Entrepreneurship Programs can be effective vehicles in tackling economic development at the neighborhood level.
Besides adding jobs, rebuilding neighborhoods also means ensuring the viability of its anchor institutions, such as schools, and in addition, providing commercial revitalization. At Great Cities Institute, we support community efforts to revitalization their commercial strips. Recently, we featured the work of the Little Village Chamber of Commerce and the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce.
At the heart of a strong community, is the participation of its residents. Among the GCI community participation work, we have been a key actor in promoting participatory budgeting in Chicago. This is a process whereby Aldermen work with residents in a ward to determine how to spend capital improvement allocations for their district. GCI’s work on PB is highlighted in a recent report on PB. We also believe that democracy can and should be engaging, as demonstrated in Josh Lerner’s book discussion, Making Democracy Fun: How Game Can Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics.
As Chicagoans debate their future, we at Great Cities Institute continue to bring the resources of a public university to Harness the Power of Research and provide Solutions for Today’s Urban Challenges. Using this as our tag line, the Great Cities Institute, has four major research clusters:
- Employment and Economic Development
- Local and Regional Governance
- Dynamics of Global Mobility
- Energy and the Environment
Urban universities have the responsibility to be engaged in addressing the issues of the day. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, we are proud to be an engaged university, with a Great Cities Commitment. It is with these values in mind, that we applaud the Pritzker Foundation for the $10 million grant to the University of Chicago to add to their crime and education labs an additional three labs: health, poverty, and energy and the environment.
There is plenty to do and many challenges to address. As we move forward in the city of Chicago, our mutual commitments and collaborations may lead to a more prosperous city that extends from the downtown to the reaches of its neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Teresa Córdova
Director
An argument for inflating Illinois’ flat income tax
Kiichiro Sato, AP
In a column advocating a higher state income tax, Chicago Tribune columnist Melissa Harris cites a study by CUPPA’s Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement that included a “gentrification index” showing that more Chicago neighborhoods are declining than are gentrifying.
A recent analysis by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Nathalie P. Voorhees Center found the worst parts of Chicago are getting bigger. Chicago neighborhoods of low and very low socioeconomic status have grown from 29 in 1970 to 45 in 2010 while just nine neighborhoods have gentrified or are gentrifying, the study found.
Full Story from Chicago Tribune »