A Better Path Forward: How Corporate
Culture Threatens the Quality of Higher
Education and What We Can Do to Resist its
Encroachment on our Campuses
Rudy Fichtenbaum, President
Roadmap



Embracing the Corporate Model
Consequences
How to Fight Back
The Corporate Model
You know you have the corporate
model when:



Administrators & politicians talk about faculty
productivity
Universities & colleges care more about bond
ratings than the quality of education they offer
students
Administrators make unilateral changes in
curriculum and academic policies
You know you have the corporate
model when:




You have “merit” pay
Promotion and pay for faculty depend on student
evaluations
Students are your customers
The market is used to explain why faculty in
some disciplines earn significantly more than
faculty in other disciplines.
You know you have the corporate
model when:




The majority of faculty have no job security, few
benefits, and are largely excluded from the
decision making process on campus
Your administration tries to break your union
Your budget system turns each of your colleges
into profit centers so faculty will be more
entrepreneurial
College presidents and politicians call for the
creation of “enterprise universities” to complete
the privatization of public higher education
You know you have the corporate
model when:


Grades Out, Badges In
“Grades are broken. Students grub for them, pick classes
where good ones come easily, and otherwise hustle to win
the highest scores for the least learning. As a result,
college grades are inflated to the point of
meaninglessness—especially to employers who want to
know which diploma-holder is best qualified for their
jobs.
That's a viewpoint driving experiments in education
badges. Offered mostly by online start-ups, the badges are
modeled on the brightly colored patches on Boy Scout
uniforms but are inspired primarily by video games…”
You know you have the corporate
model when:


“Professors Compete for Bonuses Based on Student
Evaluations”
“Some faculty members at Texas A&M University will each be
$10,000 richer next month, and they will have their students to
thank. The university system is awarding bonuses ranging from
$2,500 to $10,000 to faculty members who received the highest
grades on end-of-semester student evaluations.
Oklahoma awards $5,000 to $10,000 to participating
engineering professors who score in the top 5 percent on their
semester-end student evaluations. Those who score in the next
15 percent receive half those amounts. Similar bonuses are
offered for top-rated business professors.”
The Corporate Model


Recently David Schultz published a noteworthy essay in
Logos entitled “The Rise and Demise of Neo-Liberal
University: The Collapsing Business Plan of American
Higher Education.”
Two models of higher education since the end of WW II:


The Dewey model, in which public institutions were central,
and institutions promoted a Jeffersonian view of higher
education, recognizing an educated citizenry as central to
democracy.
The Corporate University, with top-down authority with
administrators and corporate-led boards displacing traditional
faculty governance. Decision-making focuses on increased
revenue, using certain programs as cash cows, while designing
others to attract private/corporate donations.
The Corporate University

“Nationwide patterns since 1980 show that
the context has transformed through
universities’ increasing use of a corporate
business model that goes well beyond Justice
Brennan’s observation in Yeshiva that
universities have become ‘big business.’ ”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief for the AAUP
The Corporate Model



“Expansion of the administrative hierarchy, which exercises
greater unilateral authority over academic affairs.”
“University administrators increasingly are making decisions
in response to external market concerns, rather than
consulting with, relying on, or following faculty
recommendations.”
“Decision-making is increasingly made unilaterally by highlevel administrators who are driven by external market factors
in setting and implementing policy on such issues as program
development or discontinuance, student admissions, tuition
hikes, and university-industry relationships.”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief for the AAUP
The Corporate Model

“Faculty have experienced a continually
shrinking scope of influence over academic
matters…Faculty loss of influence over
programmatic and other academic matters
reduces faculty influence even in their
individual academic course content and
research.”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief for the AAUP
The Corporate Model

There “are embedded structural changes that favor topdown decision-making authority by university
administrators responding to market concerns, rather
than a collegial process of consultation and consensusbuilding over academic affairs…“One outcome of this
institutional shift is a growing conflict between
university administrations and faculty over unilateral
actions taken by administrators either without
consultation with faculty or overriding faculty
governance bodies’ recommendations.”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief for the AAUP
How Many Administrators Does it
Take to Run this Place?

The Chronicle of Higher Education Lists 289
types of Senior Executives and Chief
Functional Officers
Administratium

“The heaviest element known to science was recently
discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research
university. The element, tentatively named administratium,
has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number
of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant
neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons,
which gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles
are held together by a force that involves the continuous
exchange of meson-like particles called morons. Since it
has no electrons, administratium is inert. However, it can
be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it
comes in contact with.”
Administratium

“According to the discoverers, a minute amount of
administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to
complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a
second. Administratium has a normal half-life of
approximately three years, at which time it does not decay,
but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant
neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange
places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass
actually increases after each reorganization.”
Administratium


“Research at other laboratories indicates that
administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It
tends to concentrate at certain points such as government
agencies, large corporations, and universities. It can
usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best
maintained buildings.”
“Scientists point out that administratium is known to be
toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy
any productive reaction where it is allowed to
accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how
administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible
damage, but results to date are not promising.”
—William DeBuvitz The Physics Teacher January 1989
Kent State University
Division of Business and Finance
Jo Ann
Gustafson
Director
Internal Audit
Gregg S Floyd
Sr. Vice President
for
Finance and
Administration
Shelley
Ingraham
Assistant to the
Vice President
Thomas Euclide
AVP for
Facilities
Planning and
Operations
Michael Bruder
Director
Design and
Construction
Roy Christian
Director
Operations
Vincent Putaturo
Associate Director
Campus Planning
and Regional
Campuses
Melanie
Knowles
Sustainability
Manager
Nicole Corll
Senior Business
Manager
Dennis Baden
Manager
Occupational
Health and
Safety
Denise Zelko
AVP for
University Budget
and
Financial Analysis
Cindy Celaschi
Senior
Budget Analyst
Yi Liu
Budget Analyst
Vacant
Financial
Analyst
Vacant
Financial
Analyst
Stephen Storck
Senior Associate
Vice President
Jeannie Reifsnyder
AVP for
Financial Reporting
and
Cash Management
Colin Miller
Senior Fiscal
Manager
(Athletics)
Paula
DiVencenzo
Tax Manager
Mark
Vlacovsky
Treasury
Services
Manager
Tammy Slusser
Controller
Debra Leonard
Grants
Charles Fabian
Accounts
Receivable
Emily Hermon
Accounts
Payable
John Peach
Director
Public Safety
Dean Tondiglia
Associate
Director
Lawrence
Emling
Manager
Parking Services
Edward Moisio
Fire Safety
Coordinator
Anne Brown
AVP for
Business &
Administration
Services
Les Carter
Bursar
Timothy
Konczal
Director
Procurement
Thomas
Clapper
Risk Mgmt
Real Estate
Lisa Heilman
Manager
Payroll
Melissa Cope
Financial
Accounts
Steven Finley
Manager
Mail Services
8/10/2012
Responding to the Market: What Do
Administrators Get Paid

E. Gordon Gee President, Ohio State University, October
2007–Present




Total Compensation (2011): $1,992,221
“Since returning to Columbus as the university’s president in October
2007, the 68-year-old Gee has pulled in $8.6 million in salary and
compensation, making him the highest paid CEO of a public
university in the country.”
“But his expenses—hidden among hard-to-get records that the
university took nearly a year to release—tally nearly as much: $7.7
million.”
“Those records show Gee stays in luxury hotels, dines at country
clubs and swank restaurants, throws lavish parties, flies on private jets
and hands out thousands of gifts—all at public expense.”
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education & Dayton Daily News
Compensation for Presidents
Name
E. Gordon Gee
Michael D. McKinney
Graham B. Spanier
Lee T. Todd Jr.
Total Compensation
Position
$1,992,221
Ohio State University
$1,966,347
Texas A&M University system
(Partial year)
Pennsylvania State University
$1,068,763
at University Park
$972,106
University of Kentucky
Mary Sue Coleman
$845,105
University of Michigan system
Kent R. Hance
$757,740
Texas Tech University system
Francisco G. Cigarroa
$751,680
Robert H. Bruininks
$747,955
John C. Hitt
$741,500
University of Texas system
University of Minnesota-Twin
Cities
University of Central Florida
Charles W. Steger
$738,603
Virginia Tech
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
Salaries for Administrators
Senior executives and chief functional officers
Chief executive of system/district
Executive assistant/chief of staff for chief
executive of system/district
Chief executive of single institution
Executive assistant to chief executive of single
institution
Executive vice president/vice chancellor
Secretary of institution
Chief academic-affairs officer and provost
Chief research officer
Chief technology-transfer officer
Chief business officer
Chief administration officer
Chief financial officer
Chief investment officer
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
Doctoral
$480,000
$154,800
$392,150
$130,391
$302,500
$168,830
$281,162
$234,600
$165,600
$236,022
$210,810
$210,250
$218,000
More Salaries for Administrators
Senior executives and chief functional officers
Chief planning officer
Chief budget officer
Chief planning and budget officer
Chief legal-affairs officer
Chief human-resources officer
Chief information officer
Doctoral
$154,898
$131,064
$173,102
$198,005
$154,067
$200,000
Chief physical-plant/facilities officer
$155,000
Chief accounting officer/comptroller
$139,966
Chief health-professions officer
$541,419
Chief administrator, hospital/medical center
$566,733
Chief student-affairs/life officer
Chief admissions officer
$194,056
$112,217
Chief enrollment-management officer
$160,750
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
Even More Salaries for Administrators
Senior executives and chief functional
officers
Doctoral
Chief external-affairs officer
$210,000
Chief development officer
$239,120
Chief public-relations officer
$162,400
Chief development and public-relations officer
$239,798
Chief audit officer
$121,056
Chief diversity officer
$149,524
Median Salary
$196,031
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education and author’s calculation
Growing Inequality Between Disciplines
Discipline
Fine arts: visual and performing
Education
Foreign language and literature
Communications
Philosophy
Library science
Mathematics
Psychology
Physical sciences
Social sciences
Health professions and related sciences
Engineering
Computer and information sciences
Economics
1980-81
-8.80%
-4.00%
0.90%
-3.30%
2.30%
-1.50%
7.60%
5.00%
7.70%
4.80%
20.30%
8.10%
13.40%
13.90%
2009-10
-12.40%
-4.30%
-4.10%
-3.20%
2.10%
3.60%
7.20%
8.90%
12.90%
16.80%
18.90%
25.20%
28.40%
41.20%
Business administration and management
11.40%
50.90%
Law and legal studies
33.20%
59.50%
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
The Pay Gap Between Public &
Private Universities
Percentage Gap Public v Private
Independent Doctoral
Pcentage Gap Public v Religiously
Affiliated Doctoral
1986-87
2011-12
1986-87
2011-12
Professor
17%
34%
5%
10%
Associate
9%
23%
5%
9%
Assistant
7%
25%
2%
8%
Instructor
16%
29%
22%
34%
Lecturer
2%
21%
-7%
4%
Source: AAUP Salary Survey
Ratio of the Price Index of Administrative
Salaries to Faculty Salaries
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: The Common Fund & Author’s Calculations
Average Annual Growth of Employees at
Four-Year Public Institutions 1989-2009
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
Executive & Administrative
2.0%
Full-Time Faculty
Part-Time Faculty
1.5%
Graduate Assistants
1.0%
Other Professionals
0.5%
Non-Professional Staff
0.0%
-0.5%
1989-2009
-1.0%
Delta Cost Project, NCES & Author’s Calculations
Percent of Full-Time Faculty at Public Four-Year
Institutions
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
National Report on Administrative Costs in Higher
Education: Goldwater Institute and Administrative Bloat


But unlike almost every other growing industry, higher
education has not become more efficient. Instead, universities
now have more administrative employees and spend more on
administration to educate each student.
In short, universities are suffering from “administrative
bloat,” expanding the resources devoted to administration
significantly faster than spending on instruction, research and
service.”
Source: No. 239 I August 17, 2010: Administrative Bloat at American Universities:
The Real Reason for High Costs in Higher Education.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/
National Report on Administrative Costs in Higher
Education: Delta Cots Project

“The share of spending going to pay for instruction has
consistently declined when revenues decline, relative
to growth in spending in academic and student support
and administration. This erosion persists even when
revenues rebound, meaning that over time there has
been a gradual shift of resources away from instruction
and towards general administrative and academic
infrastructure.”
Source: Trends in College Spending, 1998-2008. Released July 8, 2010.
http://www.deltacostproject.org/
Revenues, Expenses & Change in Net Assets at Public
Four-Year Universities
Year
Change in Net
Total Revenues Total Expenses
Assets
Margin
2002
$278,400,000
$295,500,000
$(17,100,000)
-6.1%
2003
$296,500,000
$295,000,000
$1,500,000
0.5%
2004
$317,600,000
$308,800,000
$8,800,000
2.8%
2005
$333,100,000
$323,100,000
$10,000,000
3.0%
2006
$352,900,000
$341,700,000
$11,200,000
3.2%
2007
$382,900,000
$362,800,000
$20,100,000
5.2%
2008
$394,500,000
$396,400,000
$(1,900,000)
-0.5%
2009
$386,200,000
$412,600,000
$(26,400,000)
-6.8%
2010
$447,100,000
$428,700,000
$18,400,000
4.1%
Delta Cost Data and author’s calculations
What are the Consequences?
How Decision Are Made

“[A] Cornell University faculty senate
committee report in 2007 recounts a series of
administration decisions made without adequate
consultation with the faculty senate, including
the creation of a new faculty of computing and
information science, the reorganization of the
division of biological sciences, and the creation
of a for-profit distance learning corporation.”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief
How Decision Are Made

“At Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in 2006, the
Board of Trustees ordered the Faculty Senate to
revoke its amendment to expand Senate membership
to include clinical faculty. Following the Rensselaer
President’s rejection of the Senate’s request to
convene a joint committee to resolve the issue, the
Provost unilaterally suspended the Faculty Senate for
failing to comply with the Board of Trustees’ order.”
—Point Park University Amicus Brief
Program Discontinuance


State universities in Louisiana will eliminate 109
programs and consolidate 189 others into new
programs or concentrations within existing majors, the
state Board of Regents announced on Wednesday as it
decided the fate of 456 “low-completer” programs it
had flagged for review. The cuts include foreignlanguage majors on a number of campuses
In 2010, Southeastern Louisiana University eliminated
its undergraduate French major, dismissing its three
tenured professors with a year's notice—and then
offering one of them a temporary instructorship.
Program Discontinuance
Auburn U. Trustees Eliminate 6 Programs
 “Auburn University's Board of Trustees voted
this month to cut six degree-granting programs,
including a doctorate in economics that the
university's president and a faculty review
committee wanted to keep…The 7-to-3 vote in
favor of cutting the economics program
infuriated many professors and one trustee, who
argued that the board should have abided by the
president's recommendation.”
Program Discontinuance
More Than 70 U. of Northern Iowa Programs Face
Elimination or Overhaul
 “Among the programs being considered for elimination, all
of which have produced an average of fewer than seven
graduates over the past five years, are several degree
programs in the languages, chemistry, computer science,
and the earth sciences, according to an
administrative document that the newspaper obtained. The
university’s faculty members have been protesting their
lack of involvement in the budget-cutting process and last
week voted no confidence in the institution’s president and
provost.”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Program Discontinuance
A University Plans to Promote Languages by
Killing Its Languages Department
 “Last month, a year and a half after Mr. Maxwell
took over the presidency of the Des Moines
institution, the Board of Trustees voted to get rid
of Drake's foreign-language program and the
eight tenured and tenure-track professors and
seven part-timers who teach in it.”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Searches



“AAUP Criticizes Michigan State U. for Not
Listening to Faculty”
“Student-Affairs Job Goes to Wife of
Bowling Green's President”
“Regents Broaden Presidential Search at
Texas A&M Without Faculty Input, Drawing
Criticism”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Curricular Changes

CUNY’s Pathway to Whatever

“As chair of the University Faculty Senate — a
body chartered by the Trustees — to deal with
cross campus curricula issues, I can state clearly
that the process by which this core was developed
did not reflect any campus or university wide
elections and involvement of faculty with
experience in general education.”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Dumping Faculty Governance

New President and Faculty Tangle at U. of the District
of Columbia



“Just a month after becoming president of the University of the
District of Columbia, Allen L. Sessoms is locked in a battle
with the institution's faculty senate, which he wants to shut
down and replace with a new forum of students and faculty and
staff members.”
After Professors Unionize, Miami-Dade Community
College Abolishes Faculty Senates
Union In, Governance Out

Faculty governance at Akron, some say now, was gutted, and
without a word of debate.”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Dumping Faculty Governance

Tennessee State U. Disregards Faculty Senate's Vote to
Retain Its Leader


“Tennessee State University's administration is disregarding a
Thursday vote by the Faculty Senate to retain its chairwoman,
whom the university's president had previously declared
removed from the job.”
A Professor at Louisiana State Is Flunked Because of
Her Grades

“Kevin R. Carman, dean of science at Louisiana State
University at Baton Rouge, decided to pull a senior professor,
Dominique G. Homberger, from an introductory biology course
this semester because many of her students were failing.”
Chronicle of Higher Education
Dumping Presidents

New Statements on Ouster of Virginia President


“The Council of Chairs and Directors released a letter blasting the
way events have transpired. The letter said that these academic
leaders were "very pleased" with Sullivan's "superb" leadership, and
that they were stunned by her ouster, and frustrated by the lack of
faculty knowledge of the reasons behind the board's action.”
State Higher Ed Board Votes to Dismiss U. of Oregon
President

“Oregon's Board of Higher Education voted unanimously to cut short
the presidency of Richard Lariviere at the University of Oregon,
despite impassioned pleas from faculty and staff members and
students at a highly contentious board meeting Monday.”
Inside Higher Ed
Affordability Gap
1000
900
800
Median Family
Income
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
The College Board & Bureau of Census
Tuition at 4
Year Public
Institutions
Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $)
Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $)
Note: Constant 2011 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment. Educational Appropriations include ARRA funds. (HECA)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
$6,290
$6,532
$7,016
$7,488
$7,364
$7,192
$6,875
$6,911
$7,398
$8,004
$8,316
$8,257
$8,148
$7,953
$7,745
$7,462
$7,374
$7,139
$7,054
$7,292
$7,715
$7,932
$8,003
$8,142
$8,156
$2,730
$2,644
$2,593
$2,549
$2,484
$2,422
$4,774
$4,549
$4,331
$4,245
$4,187
$4,123
$3,874
$3,718
$3,531
$3,459
$3,450
$3,415
$3,509
$3,511
$3,508
$3,457
$3,339
$3,253
$3,146
$2,953
8.0
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
4.0
$8,025
14.0
$14,000
12.0
$12,000
6.0
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
2.0
$2,000
0.0
$0
Public FTE Enrollment
Dollars per FTE
10.0
1987
1986
Public FTE Enrollment
(Millions)
Public FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations and Total Educational Revenue per
FTE,
United States -- Fiscal 1986-2011
$10,000
Crushing Debt for Students
Grants and Loans
Millions $ 2010=100
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
Education Tax Benefits
$100,000
Work-Study
Loans
$80,000
Grants
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
90-91
91-92
92-93
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
$0
The College Board
Average Aid per Full-Time Equivalent Student
constant 2010 $
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
Average
Federal Loans
per FTE
$6,000
$4,000
Average Grant
Aid per FTE
$2,000
1973-74
1975-76
1977-78
1979-80
1981-82
1983-84
1985-86
1987-88
1989-90
1991-92
1993-94
1995-96
1997-98
1999-00
2001-02
2003-04
2005-06
2007-08
2009-10
$0
The College Board
The College Board
09-10
07-08
05-06
03-04
01-02
99-00
97-98
95-96
93-94
91-92
89-90
87-88
85-86
83-84
81-82
79-80
77-78
75-76
73-74
71-72
69-70
Percent of Need Based Aid
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Are We Doomed?



Returning to the Schultz article, he concludes
the corporate model has now collapsed
Predicts rather pessimistically that the next
business model will negate “the democratic
function of higher education that existed since
World War II”
De-emphasizing liberal arts in favor of
professional education
Are We Doomed ?

The pessimistic view in the Schultz article
misses the fact that contradictory forces have
always existed in American higher education.


Ruling elite in our society
The working class majority
Contradictory Nature of Higher
Education


Higher education was central in defending
both religious and secular values central to the
preservation of capitalism
Somewhat later, as science and technology
became more important, the idea of higher
education as vehicle for providing “practical
training” also emerged
Education as a Force for the Common
Good

Others (e.g., Thomas Jefferson) have seen
higher education as the great equalizer, a
vehicle for educating citizens and the
“common good.”
The Era of Expanding Access to
Higher Education

During the period leading up to World War II, most scientific
research and the innovation that drove American industrial might
occurred in private research labs



Bell Labs, Dayton Engineering Laboratories Co. (DELCO), Battelle
Memorial Institute).
Only after WWII, with the onset of the Cold War, did universities
became centers for research.
The GI bill first opened college admissions to the unwashed
masses.


The elite universities all opposed the bill; they thought that helping
ordinary people who had been drafted go to college would dilute the
pool of college students with mediocre students.
However, hundreds of thousands of veterans were returning to the US
with little prospect for employment, and left-led unions of the CIO
were pushing a social agenda, so the GI bill was enacted.
Expanding Access & the Dewey
Model

The big expansion of access to college, however, came
in the 1960s




Increased funding for public higher education
Urban universities
Community colleges
Greater access to higher education was a component of
the reform era that began in the 1950s



Civil rights
Women’s rights
Antiwar movements
The Social Upheavals of the 1960s

The social upheavals of this era:





Greater access to college
Medicare and Medicaid
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and the EPA
OSHA
Greater income equality
The “Dewey model” was a facet of the of
mass movements for social justice and equality

The Death of the Reform Era &
Corporatization

The death of the reform era by the late 1970s
and rise of the corporate university


Part-time faculty have replaced tenure line
faculty, undermining both academic freedom and
shared governance
These changes must be seen as part of the broader
neo-liberal attack on organized labor and the
achievements of the 1950s-1970s reform area
Fighting Back


Changes in higher education do not occur in a
vacuum
If there is any hope of reversing the
deleterious effects of corporatization on
higher education, it is in faculty and academic
professionals aligning ourselves with the
labor movement and the broader movement
for social justice
Fighting Back

Strengthen Existing Chapters on Campus



Have a membership drive on campus at least once a
year
Make office visits to get faculty to joint AAUP
Every chapter should have a website and the
national AAUP should provide a template for the
website.


Have a presence on social media i.e., Facebook and
Twitter
Use the website to communicate with faculty with an
online newsletter and links to other AAUP chapters.
Fighting Back

Use the AAUP salary data to create a
comparison with your peer institutions

Put IPEDS data on your site to show how
much your institution is spending on
instruction
Fighting Back





Build alliances on campus with students, parents
and unions on campus
Think about contacting alumni who have a stake
in the institution’s reputation
Build alliances with community organizations
including K-12 teachers
Work to make your state conference more
effective
Build linkages with other higher education
unions by participating in CFHE
Fighting Back

Get involved in politics




See if it makes more sense for your chapter or state
conference to be a 501c(6)
Conduct voter registration drives on campus each
year
Your chapter or conference may want to endorse
candidates, particularly for state offices, based on
where they stand on issues that relate to higher
education
Mobilize members to work on legislative initiatives
Presented at the 2012 Governance
Conference
www.aaup.org
Rudy Fichtenbaum
Department of Economics
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435
Rudy.fichtenbaum@wright.edu
937-775-3085