Hillary Clinton has never hidden
her close relationship with the country’s plutocrats. This relationship has been best encapsulated
by her participation in the speaking industry, something that, together with
her husband’s efforts, has earned the Clintons tens of millions of dollars.
It was while speaking at an
exclusive event to Goldman Sachs employees that Clinton
dismissed Occupy Wall Street and its message about the danger of inequality as
“unproductive and indeed foolish”. Clinton was paid $200,000 to offer her
endorsement of plutocracy, and perhaps it was the fact that she has been
spending so much time in the company of the 1% that caused
her to bemoan her poverty in 2001 during a recent book tour, explaining the
travails of having to pay off the mortgages for several “houses”.
Whatever the cause of her abject
failure to understand what it means to be poor, Hillary Clinton is showing that
she is willing to take money not just from the wealthiest people in the
country, but also from public institutions.
CNN
recently reported that Hillary Clinton was being paid $225,000 to speak at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas in the fall. Students, who will be subjected to a 17%
tuition increase at that public university, were understandably perturbed, and
“are asking the former secretary of state to return the speaking fee”.
UNLV’s response is reminiscent of
that made
by California’s universities to criticisms of outrageous levels of executive
compensation: that the fact that the quarter million dollars has been
sourced from “private donations” makes it all okay.
But for me, that’s not an answer
that satisfies. It becomes a question of
priorities. If the University is capable
of raising large sums of money privately, should that money be spent on paying
already spectacularly wealthy celebrity politicians to come and deliver
homilies, or should it automatically be put towards offsetting the burdens that
the states are putting on students? Should
it be used to raise the University’s profile, and thereby solicit more
donations (which could be interpreted as an admission that the University is
prepared to abandon a public model of funding), or should it be invested in the
people who ought to be the University’s prime constituency: those who study and
work there?
These priorities affect the public
standing of public universities. UNLV
might gain some coverage and attract some donations by playing host to a
leading neoconservative, neoliberal politician who might very well be President
in just over two years’ time. But Nevada
voters are likely to remember the next time they are asked to pay into the
public university system that the priorities of the university’s leadership
does not match the community’s priorities for its students.
The money which UNLV is prepared to
pay Clinton could cover the tuition of about 40 students for the 2014-15
year. That’s nothing to sniff at when
student debt is now the most significant source of debt for the public outside
of mortgages. What does smell distinctly
fishy is the notion that public institutions should be funneling money to
people who are ostensibly public servants for things like speeches.
Clinton is trying to quiet her
critics by pointing out that fact the quarter million dollars will not go
straight to her wallet. Instead, it will
be directed to the Clintons’ self-promoting Foundation which allows them to
hobnob with celebrities and world leader even when they hold no democratic
power
I’m not sure that the defenses
offered by either UNLV or the Clinton camp are reassuring. They do convince me, however, that elites in
our society—whether university administrators or would-be presidential
candidates from the 1%--have yet to comprehend how offensive and damaging their
casual disregard for the welfare of the public is, particularly when the people
offended by their actions are on the margins of our society: indebted students,
the poor or homeless, the sick and uninsured, or those whose rights are in the
balance. They convince me that we need
to demand a different kind of conduct in public, which reflects a different,
more communitarian set of values.