Corruption Studies, University Sports Division

I can’t decide if the ongoing stories about coaches and administrative salaries (“From the Sideline to the Bottom Line“) are going to have a Lenny Bruce effect– if you repeat something often enough it looses all power to shock– or an “occupy” effect of  driving protest by emphasizing just how profoundly greed shapes what are supposed to be institutions devoted to public service.

It makes me wonder if we ought to be advocating for Corruption Studies as a new form of cultural studies;  here, we would be studying one of its main branches, the University Sports Division. I think that Corruption Studies would begin with a discussion of the history of the ongoing rise of tuition and fees on the one hand, and student debt on the other, over the course of the last three or four decades.

This history would then be contrasted or juxtaposed with the rise of big time university sports programs and, more specifically, the fantastically inflated salaries of coaches.  As the sports programs grow larger– supposedly, at least nominally and at first, as a way to support the universities academic missions– and generate more money, tuition, fees, and debts rise. That’s corruption in a nutshell.

Higher Education at Ben Tre

Another end of the year piece– this time in the Washington Post (“Guest post: Eight thoughts on higher education in 2012,” Daniel de Vise)–decrying the state of Higher Education in the U.S. and calling for reform, if in a very vague fashion. The main point seems to be that “we” (meaning the administrators in control of universities) need to think differently. I don’t know how these guys avoiding saying “outside the box.”

In this piece– written from deep within the reality distortion field–everyone is doing their best, gosh darn, except that there are these “conditions” that seem to be causing so much trouble.  We (those administrators again) can only raise tuition so far, for example, because, well, there’s a “practical ceiling”– e.g. people run out of money, especially when the few is growing so rich at the expense of the many.

In the optimistic view of Masters Clark and Eyring the university is experiencing the “short-term disruptions” of innovation.  All will be well if we (administrators) embrace the “profitable opportunities” of online education. In other words, business focused models have nearly destroyed the traditional university so only business focused models can fix it. You have to burn the village to save it.

Newman’s Cloister

It’s always good to see an end of the year piece in the Chronicle (“The Crisis of the Public University” by Nancy Scheper-Hughes) acknowledging the ongoing realities of higher education as well as its current crises.  Scheper-Hughes offers a succinct outline of  recent history and its impact on the public university system with one glaring and telling exception: she underplays the complacency of tenured and tenure track faculty.

It’s one thing to support the Occupy movement and to decry the invasion of consumerism into the university and the rising costs of education and expanding student debt. That’s the sort of thing you might expect, especially in California.  We can only hope that this sort of resistance spreads elsewhere in the United States. It’s also a very safe place for full time faculty since it doesn’t address their own status.

Full-time faculty are in no way super privileged; most of them are clearly not doing well.  Tenure has been weakened and salaries nearly frozen for much of the last decade. But the entire system, as it has evolved over the last three decades, finances the shrinking numbers of full-time positions though an expansion of part-time positions.  As long as that cloister remains in place, nothing else can change.

The Department of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

It’s always interesting when educators or administrators get up on their high horse and begin complaining that academia needs to “re-tool for the 21st century” (to cite the cliché). It’s interesting because if you succeed at a university and get tenure it is, in some sense, because you help the institution keep up the status quo. It’s an unavoidable contradiction, to use the Marxist term.

That’s on reason that I find most of the criticism about my industry unpersuasive: the system of exploitation created in the public sector of higher education  is far more extensive and long-lived than what the for-profits have created. There’s not a non-profit problem here and a for profit problem there; there’s a labor and an education problem throughout. The non-profits are tossing rocks in glass houses.

There’s a decadence problem rotting away at the ruling caste everywhere, from boot heel to toe. The Reagan era has produced a remarkable shift in resources, as Juan Cole points out effectively, away from public education and towards prisons.  Since the Great Depression, and especially since WWII, the consensus was that education was a palliative that would prevent the sort of unrest that could end capitalism.

It would also support the U.S. nationalist agenda in the Cold War, as well as provide the creative muscle needed to keep the economic machine running smoothly. In the last 30 years, though, this consensus has been replaced by a much nastier vision rooted in what Cole rightfully calls a gulag, The capitalist minority isn’t bound by nation anymore; long live nihilism, human capital is dead.