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
Professor of Economics, Wright State University
President, AAUP
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:
◦ When you have “merit” pay
◦ Promotion and pay for faculty depend on
student evaluations
◦ When students are your customers
◦ When the market is used to explain why
faculty 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.
◦ When you administration tries to break your
union.
◦ When your budget system turns each of your
colleges into profit centers so faculty will be
more entrepreneurial.
◦ When 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 startups, 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 toprated 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

◦ 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
high-level 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 top-down decision-making authority by
university administrators responding to market
concerns, rather than a collegial process of
consultation and consensus-building 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 halflife 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
Vincent
Putaturo
Associate Director
Campus Planning
and Regional
Campuses
Nicole Corll
Senior Business
Manager
Roy Christian
Director
Operations
Melanie
Knowles
Sustainability
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
John Peach
Director
Public Safety
Tammy
Slusser
Controller
Debra
Leonard
Grants
Charles Fabian
Accounts
Receivable
Emily Hermon
Accounts
Payable
Melissa Cope
Financial
Accounts
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
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 authors 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
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/
 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.”
•
National Report on Administrative Costs in Higher
Education: Delta Cots Project
Source: Trends in College Spending, 1998-2008.
Released July 8, 2010.
http://www.deltacostproject.org/
 “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.”

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 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 “lowcompleter” programs it had flagged for review.
The cuts include foreign-language 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 foreignlanguage program and the eight tenured and
tenure-track professors and seven parttimers 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
Tuition at 4
Year Public
Institutions
300
200
100
The College Board & Bureau of Census
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
0
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)
Source: SHEEO
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
$6,290
$6,532
6.0
$6,000
Public FTE Enrollment
$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
Dollars per FTE
$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
8.0
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
4.0
$8,025
10.0
1987
1986
Public FTE Enrollment
(Millions)
Public FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations and Total Educational Revenue
per FTE,
United States -- Fiscal 1986-2011
14.0
$14,000
12.0
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$4,000
2.0
$2,000
0.0
$0
Crushing Debt for Students
Grants and Loans
Millions $ 2010=100
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
The College Board
Education Tax Benefits
Work-Study
Loans
Grants
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 U.S. 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 1960’s
◦ 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
◦ the civil rights
◦ the women’s rights
◦ antiwar movements.
The Social Upheavals of the 1960’s

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.