From Disciples to Dissidents: Student Protests and Reform Movements in Meiji-Era Buddhist Universities


 
 
 Jay Dolmage’s (2014) Disability Rhetoric encourages scholars to search beyond normative Aristolean bounds of rhetoric and embrace a critical lens of rhetorical activity as embodied, and disability as an inalienable aspect of said embodiment (p. 289). To that end, this project posits an innovative structure for rhetorically (re)analyzing disability history in higher education through a framework of disability aesthetics. In Academic Ableism, Jay Dolmage (2017) argues that an institution’s aesthetic ideologies and architecture denote a rhetorical agenda of ableism. In Disability Aesthetics, Tobin Siebers (2010) asserts disability is a vital aspect of aesthetic interpretation. Both works determine that disability has always held a crucial, critical role in the production and consumption of aestheticism, as it invites able-bodied individuals to consider the dynamic, nonnormative instantiations of the human body as a social, civic issue (p. 2). Disability, therefore, has the power to reinvigorate the sociorhetorical impact of both aesthetic representation and the human experience writ large. With this framework in mind, this project arranges an archival historiography of disability history in higher education in the late twentieth century at a mid-sized U.S. state institution. During this time, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was finally signed into law, and universities confronted a legal demand to allow all students access. Ultimately, this project seeks to demonstrate how disability scholars and historiographers can widen the view of both disability history and disability rhetoric in higher education through a focus on student aesthetic performance and intervention.
 
 

Reviewed by: For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America by Charles Dorn David B. Levy Charles Dorn. For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press, 2017. 320 pp. Hardback: $35.00 ISBN 9780801452345 In the book, Dorn wants to use the model he sketches in history to shed light on the so-called crisis in Higher Education (HE) today. This method has implications for policy and funding to better understand the nature of HE and its history, which can inform and guide decision making in HE today. A purpose of the book is to examine the stated purposes of HE institutions and to shed more light on HE and its relationship to the common good, whereby the common good includes intellectual thriving. Dorn seeks to go to deeper issues. As much debate in HE today asks superficially whether the purpose of HE is individual job preparation, or occupational training vulgarized in marketing statements such as "learn to earn," or on the opposite spectrum some nobler notion of contributing to the common good and an end beyond the individual private interests that envisions some form of community. Thus, the private economic gain that some view as success and the broader public good are in tension. Does the University have an obligation to promote public welfare, and if so how does one define public welfare? What is its mission historically and how does this guide today's crises in HE? Who defines these goals and purposes of HE, and what is their framework? Are students the dog that wags the tail of HE in the consumer model? What is the role of government in setting standards and curriculum? Dorn notes the book asks key questions such as: Why did colleges and universities extol promoting the public good as a central purpose? How did HE leaders articulate this objective? What forces influenced its adoption? How did policies and curricula evolve to help schools achieve it? How did students respond, if at all, to the assertions that they were obliged to use higher learning for the benefit of the public good? And, perhaps most importantly, what challenges have colleges and universities confronted in maintaining this commitment? (p. 3) The book gives a historical perspective over a span of 200 years of 11 HE institutions and how they manifested a particular ethos as a reflection, not only of their time periods, but as a result of changing economic-social-political developments. The book illustrates the ways in which four socially widespread preferences and attitudes--civic-mindedness, practicality, commercialism, and affluence--proved influential in shaping U.S. colleges and universities between the late eighteenth and early twenty-first centuries, especially their dedication to the common good. Dorn writes, "As each ethos gained predominance at different moments in the nation's history, it reshaped the terms of institutional debates and propelled change in HE more broadly, playing an especially influential role in Colleges and Universities commitment to the common good" (p. 234). Dorn does not offer a doomsday critique of HE, but he wants the reader to recognize that positive gains have led the last century in HE to expand access to include poor and working class students, women, and racial and ethnic minorities, making possible what he calls "democratized" HE that characterizes the modern day (p. 234). Dorn calls on HE institutions to be more inclusive to meet societal needs of the common good in service to society. Dorn admires Stanford President Ray Lyman Wilbur, who, when facing rapid industrialization, corporate greed, immigration, political corruption, labor unrest, and income inequality in 1916 proclaimed, "Knowledge education was necessary for Americans to work together for the common ends and for the common good" (p. 235). However, Dorn is in favor of privileging "ethical engagement," defined as concern and empathy for others, over only academic excellence and intellectual knowledge attainment (p. 235). Dorn argues that during the Early National period in America, the common good was the major ethos of Bowdoin, South Carolina, and Georgetown, to foster "the good order and harmony of the whole community" (p. 67). Dorn writes, "… they would have agreed...

June 01 2019 For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. By CharlesDorn. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2017. Pp. x, 308. $35.00 cloth.) Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin is associate professor of history at Baylor University. She is the author of A New Moral Vision: Gender, Religion, and the Changing Purposes of American Higher Education, 1837–1917. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Andrea L. Turpin Andrea L. Turpin is associate professor of history at Baylor University. She is the author of A New Moral Vision: Gender, Religion, and the Changing Purposes of American Higher Education, 1837–1917. Online Issn: 1937-2213 Print Issn: 0028-4866 © 2019 by The New England Quarterly2019The New England Quarterly The New England Quarterly (2019) 92 (2): 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00751 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Andrea L. Turpin; For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America. The New England Quarterly 2019; 92 (2): 333–336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00751 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsThe New England Quarterly Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2019 by The New England Quarterly2019The New England Quarterly Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The purpose of the article is to present and analyze a document from the fund of the Central Committee of the LCLYU (in Ukr. – LKSMU) from the CSAPO (in Ukr. – TSDAGO) of Ukraine – a transcript of the meeting of rectors and representatives of Komsomol and party organizations of “high schools” of Dnipropetrovsk on November 21, 1967, which held at the initiative of the Central Committee of the LCLYU. Research methods: historical-chronological, historical-genetic, comparative, descriptive. Main results. The published transcript recorded a conversation with the participation of one of the secretaries of the Central Committee of the LCLYU, dedicated to figuring out the state of “communist education” of the city's students. The meeting with the heads of universities and Komsomol and party activists was held on the eve of the December plenum of the Central Committee of the AULYCL (in Ukr. – VLKSM), which was supposed to consider the work of Komsomol unions with students. The conditions of the meeting, the main participants, who represented all institutes of the city – metallurgical, medical, civil engineering, railway transport engineers, agricultural, mining and state university were characterized. The specifics of the meeting were determined by the jubilee dates that fell on 1967–1968, in particular the 50th anniversary of the AULYCL’s founding, as well as ideological crisis of the “exit” from the “Thaw”: the latter significantly strengthened the position of students in the youth movement, reinforced its public and creative activity. Attempts to find an adequate answer to the challenges of the time and to preserve party-Komsomol control over the student body led to the discussion of key issues: concerning the work of Komsomol organizations of higher education institutions in the “formation of the communist worldview”, the scientific-student society, state of studying social disciplines, issues related to labor, aesthetic, physical education, and organizational activities of the Komsomol in universities. Conclusions. The analyzed document reflects one of the difficult periods in the history of Ukrainian higher education and studentship, an important part of the party and Komsomol leadership’s work, reveals the peculiarities of their communication with the heads of higher education institutions, the latter's vision of the problems of the student community. Practical significance: the results of this research will contribute to the expansion of the research topics of local and urban history, history of higher education in certain regions, studentship as an important social category, its role in the development of Ukrainian/Soviet society. The originality lies in the publication and presentation of an archival source on the history of the leading youth organization of Ukraine during the Soviet era – LCLYU, which reveals the features of working with the heads of higher educational institutions on issues of Komsomol activity and student life. Scientific novelty is determined by the problems of studying the Soviet period in the history of Ukraine at the local level, ambiguity, multiplicity of visions of this time on the part of the management of educational institutions and representatives of party and Komsomol organizations. Type of article: archeographical.

What are the distinctive characteristics of the discipline of history? How do we teach those characteristics effectively, and what benefits do they offer students? How can history instructors engage an increasingly diverse student body? Teaching History in Higher Education offers instructors an innovative and coherent approach to their discipline, addressing the specific advantages that studying history can bring. Edward Ross Dickinson examines the evolution of methods and concepts in the discipline over the past two hundred years, showing how instructors can harness its complexity to aid the intellectual engagement of their students. This book explores the potential of history to teach us how to ask questions in unique and powerful ways, and how to pursue answers that are open and generative. Building on a coherent ethical foundation for the discipline, Teaching History in Higher Education presents a range of concrete techniques for making history instruction fruitful for students and teachers alike.

Historians of higher education need to consider publishing in non-education history journals [NEHJ’s] to place scholarship, especially for visibility for their research, or remain an isolated research specialization. This examination focuses on the landscape of history journals that publish history of education topics, specifically [NEHJ’s], on an international basis. A case study approach yielded data and, discussion revolves on history of higher education publication uses in four representative case studies: colleges and universities, professors, science, and medicine, to illustrate NEHJ’s and their contribution to history of higher education. Publishing considerations of this scholarly landscape, based on data gathered from various databases will provide the baseline for exploratory discussion of disciplinary cultures as they inform or deform history of higher education published within NEHJ literature. Animated by historiographic, subject, and methodological concerns, this discussion meshes histories of higher education vis-a-vis globalization within the publishing landscape and the transnational turn in scholarship. Journals, geographical and linguistic dispersion, articles and book reviews, are examined, revealing a larger publishing topography for NEHJ journals.

The history of higher education in Kenya is defined by a struggle for domination by the various forces that have sought to influence the country’s social, economic, and political trajectory in the colonial and postcolonial periods. During the colonial period, the church had a major interest in education, which they viewed as an important tool in their evangelizing mission. However, the colonial government regarded education as an agency for social control as it attempted to mediate the competing interests of the missionaries, white settlers, and African nationalists. Similarly, the postcolonial governments saw education, especially at the higher level as significant due to its role in forming the elite class and as a mechanism for ideological control. Consequently, Kenya’s higher education landscape has witnessed a striking transformation as it served as an arena for powerful competing interests from the colonial period to the present. The period between the inception of higher education in the late 1940s until the early independence period in the late 1960s was dominated by the colonial inter-territorial policy that severely limited the opportunities to access higher education. While the first postcolonial government of President Kenyatta largely upheld the colonial elitist ideas on higher education, this approach changed when President Moi came into office in 1978. President Moi wanted to leave his mark on education by increasing access to higher education. Many students were thus able to access university education, previously a preserve of the privileged few. University expansion remains an enduring legacy of President Moi’s administration, which the succeeding government of Mwai Kibaki inherited and enhanced.

This is an analytical survey of the history of higher education – primarily but not exclusively in England – as written in the last quarter of the twentieth century. It examines the history of liberal education, of the rewriting of the history of Oxford and Cambridge, and of nineteenth‐ and twentieth‐century institutions. It addresses new methodologies and data, and the search for more comprehensive and less parochial and antiquarian approaches to the history of institutions. It examines how accounts of new sectors of higher education and national agencies relate to social hierarchies and developments. It includes discussion of the contribution of non‐historians to the history of higher education. It concludes that historical writing has firm roots in historians’ contemporary environment. Bibliographical sources are suggested, and the references themselves constitute a bibliography of the historiography of the period.

The history of American higher education, like most story arcs provided in historical texts, has a dominant narrative. This narrative, and the several episodes subsumed under it, is occasionally refined and nuanced as historians tweak various points, but there is remarkable agreement on major turning points and the general trajectory of the story. It will surprise no one that the dominant story in the history of higher education is largely told from a white, male, Protestant, and middle/upper-class point of view.

Educational researchers studying institutions of higher education typically study issues without historical context or concern for small institutions. In 1969, Erich Jantsch published a paper about the disruptive forces affecting higher education and society. He predicted (hoped for) five crucial institutional innovations in order to transform disruptions into ‘cohesive forces’. This article argues that many of these disruptive forces are still present today and therefore, Jantsch's five crucial innovations provide an informative option for studying evolutionary change in small higher education institutions. Drawing examples from the literature on the history of higher education and the work of Erich Jantsch, this article introduces a method for utilizing Jantsch's five crucial innovations for studying to what degree small institutions of higher education are evolving. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reviewed by: Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montreal's Public Memories, 1891-1930 Ronald Rudin Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montreal's Public Memories, 1891-1930. Alan Gordon. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001. Pp. xxxiv, 233 , illus. $49.95 This book constitutes an important addition to the now quite considerable literature dealing with issues of public memory in Quebec. Some [End Page 604] works deal with particular commemorative events from the past (such as H.V. Nelles's The Art of Nation Building) or with particular individuals from Quebec's history (such as Patrice Groulx's Dollard, les amérindiens et nous). However, Alan Gordon makes a unique contribution by addressing the evolution of public memory within a particular locale. His choice of Montreal in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries places his study alongside the many, published on both sides of the Atlantic, that have focused upon this heyday of widespread presentation of the past to the public. As the title suggests, Gordon focuses upon the contested nature of public memory in a city with two strong linguistic communities. In that context, he identifies a group of men, Montreal's 'heritage elites,' that were divided by language when representing the past to the public. He highlights such divisions in the construction in 1922 of a 'Cross of Sacrifice ... on the boundary of the city's Catholic and Protestant cemeteries ... Its shadow, beginning the day in one cemetery and ending it in the other, symbolized Montreal's attempt to bury the ethnic [conscription] crisis of 1917' (92). In the end, however, this effort at reconciliation failed. Gordon draws our attention to inscriptions that told different stories in each language and to different cultural understandings of the cross among English- and French-speaking Quebeckers. Gordon also draws attention to what he sees as a fundamental shift in the public memory of French-speaking Montrealers, a shift best symbolized in the changing public presentation of the Patriotes of 1837-8. While nineteenth-century tributes to the rebels generated little public enthusiasm, Gordon explains how the mammoth St-Jean-Baptiste Day celebration in 1926, constructed around the unveiling of a monument in honour of the Patriotes, was attended by 250,000 people. He argues that this massive turnout reflected a larger transformation of French-Canadian nationalism. In the nineteenth century, the Patriotes were championed in liberal circles, but were unacceptable to conservatives. However, by 1926 the ranks of the liberals had been depleted as 'anticlericalism [became] a marginal position'; at the same time, the more conservative forces, particularly clerical ones, had come to embrace the Patriotes, thanks to the reinterpretation of the events of 1837-8 by Lionel Groulx (158). Gordon identifies some significant shifts in the attitudes of the elite of French Canada towards the past. Nevertheless, he makes two specific claims in this regard that stretch beyond his evidence. First, he finds, on the basis of the 'homogenization of memory' (162) that by the 1920s 'French Canadian nationalism was remarkably unified ... Little remained of the divisive battles that had driven French Canadians against one [End Page 605] another ... in the nineteenth century' (101). In taking such a view, Gordon marginalizes a significant body of literature pointing to the complexity of French-Canadian nationalism in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While he argues that 'liberalism' by the 1920s had been badly injured, if not eliminated, authors such as Yvan Lamonde and Marcel Fournier have written extensively about the ongoing conflict between modern and more traditional views of the nation. Moreover, Gordon goes beyond his evidence in seeing shifts in popular attitudes towards nationalism through the attendance of the masses at commemorative events. Gordon's evidence reflects the views of 'heritage elites,' but tells us little about the perspectives of those who attended events such as the large-scale celebration of the Patriotes in 1926. He claims that 'enthusiastic crowds at monument unveilings ... suggest the depth of popular agreement with some aspects of public memory.' Nevertheless, he admits that 'we can never know exactly what spectators at commemorative spectacles thought or felt, but their presence at least suggests some receptiveness to the messages...

Historiography of education is not only a question of construction but also of selection. In 19th century “history of education” was typically a genre of “great educators”, mostly male and only marginally female. This construct is influential up to now, at least in popular contexts of educational reasoning. The article discusses in the introductory section problems of selection of names and meanings within history of education, and then three types of historiographical writing that are not only concerned with “great educators” but have larger Philosophical impact. The first type is Herman Nohl’s history of German progressive education, the second one is Emile Durkheim’s history of Higher Education in France, and the third one is George Herbert Mead’s Movements of Thought in 19th Century. The article compares them and discusses their implications for further development of historical writing in education.

The article deals with the state of research in the contemporary historical scientific literature of the problems of higher Ukrainian education in the 1990s, and clarifies a range of topical and promising issues for the study of the educational field. Various studies on the history of higher education in Ukraine are controversial. After all, the evolution of educational systems is determined by the educational policy, which is a field of interaction, interconnection of different social groups with the involvement of public institutions to realize their interests and needs. The consistency and directionality of the analysis is ensured by the use of the problem-chronological approach and the structural-functional method, which allows to determine the level of knowledge regarding the different stages of development of the educational process in the scientific literature.Therefore, the historiography of the development of higher education in Ukraine in the 1990s has undergone several major stages. The writings of the early 1990s were dominated by negative evaluations of Soviet higher education and over-optimistic expectations about its reform and borrowing from the achievements of the Western Defense Law.
 The purpose of the article is to provide a historiographical overview of the basic scientific approaches of historians to the development of higher education in Ukraine in the 1990s.In modern research, there is a tendency to consider higher education in the 1990s through the prism of certain elements of its system: legislation, structural changes, quantitative indicators, funding and more. There is a lack of research that combines all the components of higher education and, most importantly, with the subjects of the educational process, human potential. The complex causes of the crisis phenomena in higher education, the peculiarities of the formation of the higher education network, the role of public organizations, the protection of the interests of participants in the educational process, the shadow relations, and so on, remain unanswered. To this day, comprehensive coverage by historians of the deep problems of higher education is relevant, which will help to understand the causes of its current crisis and the optimal ways to solve it.

While there is some scholarship on the history of Texas higher education, most of it focuses on large, publicly funded universities, well-known private colleges, and state university systems. However, with over 200 colleges and universities representing various institutional types, Texas’s higher education landscape reflects the state’s diverse demographics, culture, and social issues. Moving away from traditional examinations of prominent institutions like Texas A&M, the University of Texas, or Baylor University, this text focuses on three often-overlooked narratives: Catholic higher education, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). This article highlights the influence of religion, race, organizational competition, and emerging forms of institutional distinction in Texas’s higher education history. Ultimately, this article calls for further research into Texas’s higher education history, aiming to inform scholars and provide a more comprehensive historical foundation to guide them as they inform and lead colleges and universities in the state.

Beyond Colonization — Programs of U.S. Legal Education Abroad by Indigenous Institutions