{"title":"一场好的危机:紧急情况与美国高等教育的重构,1944-1965","authors":"Ethan W. Ris","doi":"10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purported “Golden Age” of American higher education, typically associated with the two decades following World War II, was marked by increasingly generous federal support of the nation’s postsecondary institutions and their students. Unlike analyses that attribute this largesse to factors like geopolitics (i.e., a response to the Cold War) or demographics (i.e., expansion to accommodate the Baby Boom generation), this article argues that a deliberate strategy rooted in rhetoric enabled “higher education partisans” to successfully push generous higher education policy in Washington, DC. Specifically, the language of crisis and emergency enabled these advocates to frame college-going as a tool that could solve social and economic problems, defend the nation and its values, and chip away at prejudice and inequality. Their success is evident in a “policy cascade” initiated by the 1944 GI Bill and reaching its apex with the 1965 Higher Education Act. This article relies on new archival research and document analysis to examine the trajectories of six key pieces of federal policymaking, which together constituted “a sheep in wolf’s clothing” by couching funding for colleges and universities as a response to urgent, even existential, crises.","PeriodicalId":39777,"journal":{"name":"Peabody Journal of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Good Crisis: Emergencies and the Reframing of American Higher Education, 1944–1965\",\"authors\":\"Ethan W. Ris\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The purported “Golden Age” of American higher education, typically associated with the two decades following World War II, was marked by increasingly generous federal support of the nation’s postsecondary institutions and their students. Unlike analyses that attribute this largesse to factors like geopolitics (i.e., a response to the Cold War) or demographics (i.e., expansion to accommodate the Baby Boom generation), this article argues that a deliberate strategy rooted in rhetoric enabled “higher education partisans” to successfully push generous higher education policy in Washington, DC. Specifically, the language of crisis and emergency enabled these advocates to frame college-going as a tool that could solve social and economic problems, defend the nation and its values, and chip away at prejudice and inequality. Their success is evident in a “policy cascade” initiated by the 1944 GI Bill and reaching its apex with the 1965 Higher Education Act. This article relies on new archival research and document analysis to examine the trajectories of six key pieces of federal policymaking, which together constituted “a sheep in wolf’s clothing” by couching funding for colleges and universities as a response to urgent, even existential, crises.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Peabody Journal of Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Peabody Journal of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216087\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peabody Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Good Crisis: Emergencies and the Reframing of American Higher Education, 1944–1965
ABSTRACT The purported “Golden Age” of American higher education, typically associated with the two decades following World War II, was marked by increasingly generous federal support of the nation’s postsecondary institutions and their students. Unlike analyses that attribute this largesse to factors like geopolitics (i.e., a response to the Cold War) or demographics (i.e., expansion to accommodate the Baby Boom generation), this article argues that a deliberate strategy rooted in rhetoric enabled “higher education partisans” to successfully push generous higher education policy in Washington, DC. Specifically, the language of crisis and emergency enabled these advocates to frame college-going as a tool that could solve social and economic problems, defend the nation and its values, and chip away at prejudice and inequality. Their success is evident in a “policy cascade” initiated by the 1944 GI Bill and reaching its apex with the 1965 Higher Education Act. This article relies on new archival research and document analysis to examine the trajectories of six key pieces of federal policymaking, which together constituted “a sheep in wolf’s clothing” by couching funding for colleges and universities as a response to urgent, even existential, crises.
期刊介绍:
Peabody Journal of Education (PJE) publishes quarterly symposia in the broad area of education, including but not limited to topics related to formal institutions serving students in early childhood, pre-school, primary, elementary, intermediate, secondary, post-secondary, and tertiary education. The scope of the journal includes special kinds of educational institutions, such as those providing vocational training or the schooling for students with disabilities. PJE also welcomes manuscript submissions that concentrate on informal education dynamics, those outside the immediate framework of institutions, and education matters that are important to nations outside the United States.