[Chancellor Shaw's “Theorization” of a Complacent Labor Pool]

In so far as it is a private dialogue between the conservative/liberal class strata of the bourgeois/petty-bourgeois that Chancellor Shaw's (instituted) "policy decisions" reflect, his ("certain") "discourse" functionally serves to reify [even as it reproduces it] as the given, the acceleration of un-equal terms of exchange that the capitalist class increasingly depends upon to (re)produce their profits and as mediated through a complacent labor pool. We note, however, that while Chancellor Shaw's "theorization" emblemizes the estrangement of labor from planned involvement with it's own social product and processes, and that, as this economic "undecidability" now extends to the fresh reserves of exploitable "human-capital" of the university system this does not in the least, even for a moment, become an issue that may problematize the university's accumulation of monetary capital; and this problematic, moreover, which its constant reserve of tenured "radicals" serve to further elide through the naturalized "un-fixing" of the conceptual status of the economic through a valorized "post-class" "multiculturalist" pedagogy. This remains the basis upon which the entrepreneurial elements, the managers of "multiculturalism," imbibe their "share" of surplus-labor (profit) through the instituted commonality of experientially based "post-conceptual" modes of the "pedagogy of support" which articulate the hegemony of anti-theoretical disciplines as an apolitically endless process of "learning how to learn" political "undecidability." (and do we now agree, for e.g., that "that's always been true for higher education"?)

One must note, however, the social differences that distinguish Chancellor Shaw's (old)humanist discourse from its "new" version--the fact that from his position, that of an organizational head and therefore of a more "practically" informed petty-bourgeois class member, one may talk of "vision" and the innovatory possibilities of the "post-labor" technologies of the "Information Revolution" for the edification of its entrepreneurial strata (e.g. "knowing how to learn," italics ours) of the spectrum through concentration on the supposed dialogic possibilities of experiential liberation in the name of marginalized social strata--the better that one may theorize the historical conditions by which they function conjointly to legitimate "multicultural" neo-conservatism.

Those struggling for radical social transformation must further pursue this theoretical interrogation of the academic workplace as it is only through such critique-al interrogation that the social-political relations between owners and workers may be recognized as mediated through the realm of theory, that is, through those segments of the managerial class that work with organizational knowledges (i.e. the conceptual apparatuses of systems management). The subject engaging such interrogation is (re)cognized as a class-conscious agent who must real-ize [sic.] that the present stage of the class struggle is formed primarily on the basis of cross-class theoretical alliances: either for or against the international proletariat which is the structural social agent of transformatory possibility and, therefore, the gauge of any actually existing radical political organization.