The Corporatization of the American University

[bobbyw24]

November 21, 2011
38
Commodifying Education
The Corporatization of the American University
by STEVEN HIGGS

Peter Seybold traces the pernicious influence corporatization has had on the American campus back almost a decade before the Reagan Revolution of 1980, to a memo written by Richmond, Va., attorney Lewis F. Powell Jr. to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in late summer 1971.

Powell, who would be nominated for Supreme Court justice by President Richard Nixon just two months later, said American business had to take the offensive to counter the social movements of the 1960s and early ’70s, said Seybold, a sociology professor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). Among the institutions Powell said the business world had to recapture was the American campus.

“Part of this was a cultural and political attack on the university,” Seybold said.

Powell’s clarion call for the eradication of the American Left on campus and throughout society is credited with “inspiring the founding of many conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Manhattan Institute,” according to the PBS website on the Supreme Court that republishes the memo.

Titled “Attack of American Free Enterprise System,” the memo listed the university first on Powell’s list of attack sources. “The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians,” he wrote.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/21/the-corporatization-of-the-american-university/

[Steven Douglas]

Almost a decade before the Reagan Revolution of 1980? How about 1910, and Princeton (Woodrow Wilson former President), Harvard (JP Morgan's), and the University of Chicago ($50 million from Rockefeller), all of which were enlisted from a five million dollar propaganda slush fund contributed to by national banks to persuade the American public that a central bank plan should be enacted into law by Congress. The so-called "National Citizens’ League" which spent the money was made up solely of college professors, including the two Professor O.M. Sprague of Harvard, and J. Laurence Laughlin of the University of Chicago, both tireless champions of the "Aldrich Plan".

Well financed wings to universities entirely devoted to Keynesian Economics (the positivist authorities and chief apologists for central banking) were essential pillars for a strictly debt-based economy financed by a central bank that grew to grotesque numbers since the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Universities have always been commodities, and are expert proxies, witnesses for, and champions of, anyone willing to pay. If you pose a question cleverly enough, and spread enough funding opportunities around devoted to answering the question as asked, you can eventually get a "consensus" that is tantamount to a Papal Bull.

[Kade]

Universities have always been commodities, and are expert proxies, witnesses for, and champions of, anyone willing to pay. If you pose a question cleverly enough, and spread enough funding opportunities around devoted to answering the question as asked, you can eventually get a "consensus" that is tantamount to a Papal Bull.

Can you give me a real world example of this behavior?

[Steven Douglas]

Can you give me a real world example of this behavior?

I thought I did just that, but let me count the ways - like climate change for example? Now there's a mass consensus Papal Bull producing industry if I've ever seen one. If you want funding for climate change (and funding is what all universities are about), it is unavoidable that they WILL weigh the likelihood of continued funding based on their conclusions - given that their long-term survival depends on it. Even if that was not true, and they were as pure as the scientific driven snow as the ultimate arbiters of fact, the reality is that MOST funding goes to universities which produce a positive conclusion, given that rarely is a question put before a university unless the ramifications of possible outcomes have already been weighed. So it's self-checking anyway. In fact, in the very beginning of the "Global Warming", the universities and even the IPCC were giving responses that were NOT favorable to climate change alarmists, which were simultaneously not favorable to "green technologists". That all changed radically over the span of a decade. Some say it was because of "mountains of evidence", with no thought to mountains of funding disincentives, as universities played a game of "warmer-colder" with funding sources. Bark once, you get less treats. Bark twice, you get more treats.

And, by the way, let's clear something up about "corporatizing", as if it's a privatized/corporatizing issue. Just as the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics theory translates to massive university support from the right and the left, public and private, for entirely different reasons (i.e., governments gets to deficit spend while banks get to lend money they don't have, and corporations can privately borrow, risking only fractions of their own capital, as all slop from a common trough), climate change, regardless of anyone's position or conclusions on the matter, offers massive "real world" support to universities, from the left and the right, even to departments and fields that are only tenuously connected to climate, for reasons which have nothing to do with the degree to which anthropogenic greenhouse contributions are affecting the overall climate of the Earth, but all of which rely nonetheless on a positive conclusion.

I was a presenter of a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in 2010 - what was the common buzz? Funding opportunities, the complaint that it was harder for the "hard" Earth Sciences, like geology and geophysics to get "climate change funding". The common inside joke was that to increase your chances of funding, your abstract must end with "...and to study its possible effects on climate change."

For a specific example, all the so-called "green" companies (can anybody say Solyndra?), and their stocks - which are heavily favored and supported by any legislation that relies upon certain conclusions regarding anthropogenic contributions, provides a rationale for real-world financial (survival) incentives. Companies like these lobby Congress, and Congress responds favorably for reasons of its own (expanded powers, more channels for manipulating markets favorable to its own revenues).

Or how about health care in general? Let's start with the AMA, a protectionist union which artificially determines the number of doctors that universities turn out each year - which in turn drives up the value of a degree via artificial scarcity, both for the universities and for the doctors who manage to get one of the limited, and artificially expensive, precious berths.

From Wiki alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#Criticisms):


Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. In Free to Choose, Friedman said "the AMA has engaged in extensive litigation charging chiropractors and osteopathic physicians with the unlicensed practice of medicine, in an attempt to restrict them to as narrow an area as possible."
Profession and Monopoly, a book published in 1975, is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. Restrictions against advertising that is not false or deceptive were dropped from the AMA Code of Medical Ethics in 1980 (AMA Ethical Policy E-5.02). The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.
The AMA and other industry groups predicted an over-supply of doctors, and worked to limit the number of new doctors. But recently, the AMA has changed its position, predicting a doctor shortage instead.
It has been argued that the AMA's CPT monopoly has been created by the government and makes the organization subject to government influence; further, the restricted access to CPT codes may not be in the interest of its constituents.

Today's universities could NOT exist as they are now from their ridiculously inflated tuition fees alone. They MUST have outside sources of funding to survive, and there are two sources for that - public and private - which most often have NOTHING to do with philanthropic altruism on the parts of contributors.


CAVEAT: Do not take this on an attack of the very concept of a university, which I wholeheartedly endorse and support. Neither is it meant to imply that ALL funding is nefarious, or that all science is corrupt, or that altruism does not exist, or that universities produce nothing of value, because these would be equally ridiculous notions.

[Kade]

I thought I did just that, but let me count the ways - like climate change for example? Now there's a mass consensus Papal Bull producing industry if I've ever seen one. If you want funding for climate change (and funding is what all universities are about), it is unavoidable that they WILL weigh the likelihood of continued funding based on their conclusions - given that their long-term survival depends on it. Even if that was not true, and they were as pure as the scientific driven snow as the ultimate arbiters of fact, the reality is that MOST funding goes to universities which produce a positive conclusion, given that rarely is a question put before a university unless the ramifications of possible outcomes have already been weighed. So it's self-checking anyway. In fact, in the very beginning of the "Global Warming", the universities and even the IPCC were giving responses that were NOT favorable to climate change alarmists, which were simultaneously not favorable to "green technologists". That all changed radically over the span of a decade. Some say it was because of "mountains of evidence", with no thought to mountains of funding disincentives, as universities played a game of "warmer-colder" with funding sources. Bark once, you get less treats. Bark twice, you get more treats.

And, by the way, let's clear something up about "corporatizing", as if it's a privatized/corporatizing issue. Just as the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics theory translates to massive university support from the right and the left, public and private, for entirely different reasons (i.e., governments gets to deficit spend while banks get to lend money they don't have, and corporations can privately borrow, risking only fractions of their own capital, as all slop from a common trough), climate change, regardless of anyone's position or conclusions on the matter, offers massive "real world" support to universities, from the left and the right, even to departments and fields that are only tenuously connected to climate, for reasons which have nothing to do with the degree to which anthropogenic greenhouse contributions are affecting the overall climate of the Earth, but all of which rely nonetheless on a positive conclusion.

I was a presenter of a paper at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in 2010 - what was the common buzz? Funding opportunities, the complaint that it was harder for the "hard" Earth Sciences, like geology and geophysics to get "climate change funding". The common inside joke was that to increase your chances of funding, your abstract must end with "...and to study its possible effects on climate change."

For a specific example, all the so-called "green" companies (can anybody say Solyndra?), and their stocks - which are heavily favored and supported by any legislation that relies upon certain conclusions regarding anthropogenic contributions, provides a rationale for real-world financial (survival) incentives. Companies like these lobby Congress, and Congress responds favorably for reasons of its own (expanded powers, more channels for manipulating markets favorable to its own revenues).

Or how about health care in general? Let's start with the AMA, a protectionist union which artificially determines the number of doctors that universities turn out each year - which in turn drives up the value of a degree via artificial scarcity, both for the universities and for the doctors who manage to get one of the limited, and artificially expensive, precious berths.

From Wiki alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#Criticisms):



Today's universities could NOT exist as they are now from their ridiculously inflated tuition fees alone. They MUST have outside sources of funding to survive, and there are two sources for that - public and private - which most often have NOTHING to do with philanthropic altruism on the parts of contributors.

I think the example you've chosen is a poor one. Although I can't argue that it appears some Federal Funds have been allocated towards sciences studying climate change, I would argue that the persistence of this sort of funded research is predicated on the increasing pressure from outside sources to discredit the actual science. It is not in the best interest of the energy industry to have the government subsidizing alternative energy sources or relegating industry standards that would cut into the bottom line.

Fortunately, no amount of persistent ignorance is going to undo the massive amount of sound conclusions in the field of Climate Science. The entire world has has put forth international assessments for the purpose of undoing the damage done by misleading industrial "studies". You will not be able to convince me that there are more powerful entities that have more moneyed vested in accepting the fate of climate science than those who would be against it.

The body of work is IMMENSE. I could spend all day linking article after article after article, but I have a feeling that your response is going to be a link to several organizations, (probably tied to big oil or big banking) who will agree that humans have no part in measurable change of Earth's climate.

So to cut this off, here is a list of Scientific bodies across the world who have put their brightest and smartest together to come to the central conclusion of anthropegenic climate change:

Over 30 National Science Academies, including America's
InterAcademy Council of Science and Engineering
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Society of New Zealand
American Geophysical Union
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
Australian Institute of Physics
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Meteorological Society

Even the much aligned American Association of Petroleum Geologist eventually revised their statement to read:
"no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"


There is no doubt in my mind that big banks will find ways to profit from anything and everything, (ie carbon credits, etc) but do not confuse the monetizing of bad situations with the perversion of science.

[LibForestPaul]

I think the example you've chosen is a poor one. Although I can't argue that it appears some Federal Funds have been allocated towards sciences studying climate change, I would argue that the persistence of this sort of funded research is predicated on the increasing pressure from outside sources to discredit the actual science. It is not in the best interest of the energy industry to have the government subsidizing alternative energy sources or relegating industry standards that would cut into the bottom line.

Fortunately, no amount of persistent ignorance is going to undo the massive amount of sound conclusions in the field of Climate Science. The entire world has has put forth international assessments for the purpose of undoing the damage done by misleading industrial "studies". You will not be able to convince me that there are more powerful entities that have more moneyed vested in accepting the fate of climate science than those who would be against it.

The body of work is IMMENSE. I could spend all day linking article after article after article, but I have a feeling that your response is going to be a link to several organizations, (probably tied to big oil or big banking) who will agree that humans have no part in measurable change of Earth's climate.

So to cut this off, here is a list of Scientific bodies across the world who have put their brightest and smartest together to come to the central conclusion of anthropegenic climate change:

Over 30 National Science Academies, including America's
InterAcademy Council of Science and Engineering
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Society of New Zealand
American Geophysical Union
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
Australian Institute of Physics
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Meteorological Society

Even the much aligned American Association of Petroleum Geologist eventually revised their statement to read:
"no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"


There is no doubt in my mind that big banks will find ways to profit from anything and everything, (ie carbon credits, etc) but do not confuse the monetizing of bad situations with the perversion of science.

I am not sure what game you are playing...
How many scientist signed the rebuke of the Royal Societies policies.
What was the fallout over APS blatant case closed statement?

Are you working here?https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml

[Steven Douglas]

You will not be able to convince me that there are more powerful entities that have more moneyed vested in accepting the fate of climate science than those who would be against it.

The body of work is IMMENSE.

Yeah, and in only thirty years or so! Pretty impressive. Not quite as impressive, perhaps, as more than a thousand years worth of Aristotelian, Ptolemaic and Copernican universe models, with all their perfect circles, and amazingly complex epicycles, equants, explanations for retrograde, etc., -

...which of course cannot happen to us, given our obvious level of sophistication and plateaued enlightenment today. Whatever we conclude and reach a consensus on today doesn't even require a test of time. The likelihood of any fundamental overturning or falsification in the future is slim - given all the many impressive Societies having voted (all the "Deniers'" worthless, utterly credulous and laughably dismissible contrary conclusions notwithstanding).

Incidentally, I am not one of those "deniers". I believe that we are having an impact on climate, and that it may be substantial (read=measurable). I just have not concluded anything about so-called tipping points, or that the Earth has an optimum thermostat that needs to be set, let alone can be (any more than I believe that economic meddlers need to step in to try for an "optimal supply of money" to the economy).

One thing I will say I believe to be absolutely and utterly naive - the popular belief that the usual suspects thought to be "against" a given conclusion of climate science - like Big Oil, for example - have not long gotten on the climate change gravy train themselves. Likewise, the idea that entities are automatically going to be opposed having their product made artificially more scarce. There's a yin and a yang to all of it, and that there is never a case where the phrase "follow the money" can be safely discarded.

And one last thing - it's not about the amount one has vested versus another. That is a complete and utter fallacy. A tenured professor's $170K salary and position are EVERY BIT as important (to HIM) as all the profits of Exxon Mobile are to its shareholders.