“New York Values”

Given the recent events of a turn back to a free CUNY (and SUNY) system, it is interesting to look at the downfall of the free university system here in the 1970s. Of course, it was a result of all that occurred in the 1960s. In class, we discussed the correlation between new immigrant groups coming into New York City and the flight of the white middle class from the city, and the lack of financial assistance New York City received from the state and federal governments. What help they did get, came at a price. Free CUNY was not possible in this world where control of the city was taken out of the hands of the residents themselves, and given over to the state government, which did not look kindly upon the city’s fiscally liberal policies.

In his article, Jonathan Mahler looks at Kim Phillip Fein’s book Fear City: new York’s Fiscal Crisis and the Rise of Austerity Politics, which addresses some of these issues. New York City went from a socially liberal place that was able to provide its residents with free programs, public housing, and city jobs, to a fiscally conservative city that left behind its poor. As discussed in class, one has to wonder about the connection between this change, and the increase of new, mostly non-white, immigrants in the city. Foner notes that this new wave of immigrants came with the 1965 Immigration Act, which changed the old system of quotas that had been geared against such immigrants. The face of the city changed with this new wave: the languages spoken, the food eaten, the flags waved, the parades had.

Both articles, and the book, seem to agree that New York City is different from the rest of the country. This often means that the city is viewed with suspicion and dislike. How dare the city demand money, the advisors to Ford might have been thinking, when the country was moving towards smaller government and conservatism, as was mentioned in the article. Perhaps also at play was a desire to disempower and disenfranchise one of the only places in the country with a number of minorities.

Thinking of Ford’s “drop dead” response to the city, the differences this city has always had with the rest of the country, the ongoing divide between urban and rural areas, and the preponderance of immigrants here, I am reminded of other times in history where such things were emphasized. Ford’s words may as well have been said by Ted Cruz, who railed against New York City and its presidential candidates. Of course, that was not the first time New York City was an issue in a presidential election. Al Smith, a former governor of New York and New York City native, ran against Hoover in 1928. It was, many say, his speeches over the radio and his New York City accent that did him in. His identification as Catholic did not help either. But it did not begin there. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s comments about “New York Values,” only echo sentiments that have existed in this country since before it was a country; they paraphrase the words of 17^th century English Puritans in Massachusetts and Connecticut who railed against the debauchery and immorality of Dutch New Amsterdam (http://www.manhattanwalkblog.com/blog/2015/1/26/new-amsterdam). It is nothing new, and New York City has never paid much attention to such criticisms.

America criticizes New York, and yet people keep streaming in. People are returning to New York, driving long time residents out. Free universities are being brought back, restoring a faith in this city that has been gone since the 1960s. At the same time, it seems impossible to live here. It seems that the love/hate relationship between New York City and the rest of the country, that has existed before there was a country, continues.

-Rachel Smalle