Beau Buehler

Professor Jennifer Courtney

WRTG 2010-091
20 September 2014
An Inside Examination of Higher Education
The purpose of this paper is to map out the dialogue taking place in a conversation
between scholars about higher education. A new field of study is emerging as indicated by
Jeffrey J. Williams in his article Deconstructing Academe. According to Williams this
emerging field is a response to the draining of social institutions. The name of this emerging
field, as labeled by Williams, is critical university studies.
By taking a look at this name, we can identify what it actually means. Critical, meaning
taking an opposing viewpoint; university, meaning looking at the operations and stances in
higher education; and finally, studies, indicating that research is being pulled from appropriate
references to approach any problems identified academically (Williams). In their article,
Introduction: Out of the Ruins, the University to Come, Bob Hanke and Alison Hearn cite
Williams labeling of the conversation and identify the sheer quantity of publications on the topic
(19). Williams title provides a clear starting point to identify what the conversation is about. In
studying the articles assigned to me in class, I have found points where these articles come
together and where they diverge. Using these points, I have identified four departments of
which I will be using to analyze the conversation. These departments include the dominance of
neoliberalism in higher education; the corporate impact on higher education; problems facing
students, faculty, the university community, and society; as well as problems and changes in the
university curriculum.
Neoliberalism is an important topic covered in the conversation. Adrianna Kezar, defines

Buehler 2
neoliberalism in higher education, in her article Obtaining Integrity? Reviewing and Examining
the Charter between Higher Education and Society, as the privatization, commercialization, and
corporatization of public universities and colleges (437). In their article, Research and the
Bottom Line In Todays University, Sarah Bonewits and Lawrence Soley propose that a cause
of neoliberalism could be due to the present-day cutbacks in government funding. In turn,
universities and colleges have had to look elsewhere for sources of funding, such as economic
ventures and partnering with private businesses (80). Williams recognizes a current movement of
privatization which agrees with Kezers definition of neoliberalism. This movement is identified
as the unmaking of the public university (Williams). We can see the movement setting in as
higher education is foregoing its role as a social institution and is functioning increasingly as an
industry with fluctuating predominantly economic goals and market oriented values (Kezar
430). In this transition to a more commercialized higher education platform, we start to see
universities and colleges becoming a branded experience (Hanke & Hearn 18). This branding
can be seen in university athletics today, as they are being exploited for profit (Kezar 443).
Williams argues that the academic community needs to oppose changes that go against the
public interest and propose policies that might strengthen higher education.
Before looking into the new policies to strengthen higher education (Williams), the
conversation needs to define the impact that becoming more corporate dominated has on higher
education as a whole. Is the new dominating corporate model negative, positive or is it a
combination of both? Bonewits and Soley identify that private interest is likely to shape the
research conducted on campus, the content of the academic curriculum, the universities staffing
patterns, and the way it makes decisions (82). There is strong evidence that students educations
are being put on the back-burner behind research and corporate ties. The research is being done
for the direct financial benefit of the backer (Bonewits & Soley 82). This evidence can be seen in

Buehler 3
Hanke and Hearns article when they look into the University of Michigan, where higher
education has become secondary to facilitating flows of over-accumulated capitol (15). Kezar
recognizes that there are positive aspects to a more corporate structured shift. More resources are
available to benefit the education of students because of an increase in accumulated funds (451).
Bonewits and Soley claim that even though there are some positive aspects, there is cause for
concern that the corporate approach to economically useful information could ultimately
challenge the academic practices of keeping information open, available and subject to
challenge (89). In analyzing the discussion of the corporate impact on higher education, the
weight of the negative impacts seem to be greater that the positives.
The negatives of a corporate structure are directly placed in the hands of students, faculty,
the university community and society as a whole. Kezar recognizes that the collective or public
good, a historically, important component of the charter between higher education and society, is
being compromised (492). In her article, Linking Diversity with the Educational and Civic
Missions of Higher Education, Sylvia Hurtado looks at the absence in cultural diversity that is
being neglected in higher education (186). We can see the impact that corporatization is having
on students through ever increasing tuition rates and reductions in student aid which lead to
increasing student debt and more students having to work while going to school (Hanke, Hern, &
Williams). Not only are tuition rates higher for students, the quality of education is decreasing as
a result of less experienced faculty giving more lectures than experienced faculty (Kezar 442).
The conversation shows the trend of decreasing returns for students, staff and society, while
increasing profits for the University.
As the focus on profitability has increased, the curriculum has followed the trend as well.
There has been a shift funding and support from less profitable fields of study, like arts and
humanities, to more profitable fields of study (Kezar 442). Williams argues that because students

Buehler 4
are the future, classes should be created that teach the university and prepare students for the
conversation to critically examine higher educations practices. This is the where the conversation
starts proposing ideas to take a step forward and figure out what the university should become in
the future.
The conversation of critical university studies (Williams) is an ongoing conversation
that comes from a large variety of people mainly from public universities who want to reform
student debt and policy proposals (Williams). We can see from the conversation that there
are a number of points that scholars agree should be reviewed. There is a call for action to the
economic community to act upon these commonalities in the conversation. Hanke and Hearn
pose a very interesting question regarding this; how is it possible to enact a meaningful critique
of the university system while continuing to function within, and reap the benefits of, that same
system (19)?

Buehler 5
Works Cited
Bonewits, Sarah, and Lawrence Soley. "Research and the Bottom Line in Today's
University."American Academic, n.d. Web. 6 Sept. 2014.
Hanke, Bob, and Alison Hearn. "Introduction: Out of the Ruins, the University to Come." TOPIA
28 (2012): 11-20. Print.
Hurtado, Sylvia. "Linking Diversity with the Educational and Civic Missions of Higher
Education." The Review of Higher Education 30.2 (2007): 185-96. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.
Kezar, Adrianna J. "Obtaining Integrity? Reviewing and Examining the Charter between Higher
Education and Society." The Review of Higher Education. 4th ed. Vol. 27. N.p.: John
Hopkins UP, 2004. 429-59. Print.
Williams, Jeffrey J. "Deconstructing Academe." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2012): n.
pag. 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2014.