The @mattyglesias post is good, you should read "Racial Realignment" as it's a great recent New Deal book
but the best criticism of “Vulgar Katznelsonism” is this heated 2008 debate between Katznelson and Suzanne Mettler on GI Bill's higher ed money. /1 jstor.org/stable/20446759
but the best criticism of “Vulgar Katznelsonism” is this heated 2008 debate between Katznelson and Suzanne Mettler on GI Bill's higher ed money. /1 jstor.org/stable/20446759
By relying so much on private markets and states for benefits, parts of the GI Bill reinforce racial discrimination.
But the eligibility for higher education and training dollars are set federally and independent of need, ensuring black veterans get the same money as whites. /2
But the eligibility for higher education and training dollars are set federally and independent of need, ensuring black veterans get the same money as whites. /2
But equal dollars go into a higher ed system that is largely segregated and unequal. This is where they disagree.
Katznelson (left) sees this as amplifying inequality while Mettler (right) sees it as undermining, and notes analytically his approach can't disentangle changes. /3
Katznelson (left) sees this as amplifying inequality while Mettler (right) sees it as undermining, and notes analytically his approach can't disentangle changes. /3
I think Mettler gets the better of it. I can't do justice to the whole debate here. But if you are interested in these arguments I found this debate really clarifying, as it deals with how to understanding one of the more clear universal benefits of the period straight-on. (4/5)
Last, realizing @SuzanneMettler1 is on twitter; she also wrote a great book on how New Deal divided citizens by race and gender. The key of this literature? Federally-controlled programs were best situated to evolve and expand to be fully-inclusive. (5/5) amazon.com/Dividing-Citiz…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
