Archive

ethics

When does philanthropy cross the line? That’s the question we are looking at in the newest issue of Academe, now posted online.

Over the next few days, I’ll be highlighting a few of the feature articles, but before I do, I wanted to talk about the issue as a whole, because I think it’s a particularly good one. The theme is “The Price of Philanthropy.” What happens when outside groups donate money to colleges and universities with the expectation of getting something in return? When is such reciprocity generally accepted—say, naming a building after a donor—and when is it not—say, requiring the school to assign certain books or insisting on control of the curriculum?

The background, of course, is that schools around the country are in financial trouble, making large gifts even more appealing. And if those gifts come with strings attached, well, they can be overlooked for the sake of finances. In fact, one administrator quoted in this issue says that it would have been irresponsible not to accept the gift in question. And don’t all gifts come with some kind of expectation? Shouldn’t donors have a say in how their money is used?

You can see that these questions can get very tricky, very fast. The articles in the May-June Academe will help sort through them, and help you watch out for potentially similar situations on your own campus. It’s a fascinating and highly relevant topic—click here to read the issue.

The debate over for-profit colleges could be coming to a theater near you.

Aaron Calafato, an actor who also spent time working for a for-profit college in Ohio, wrote and stars in a new one-man play, For-Profit, about the industry. The play takes a harsh look at the industry, from the perspective of a recruiter talking to prospective students on the phone. Calafato started work on the play when he himself worked as an “admissions officer” at a for-profit in Cleveland, taking notes on his experience and writing them into the show. Read More

Last week, I wrote about a new report out from the General Accountability Office that investigated educational practices at for-profit schools. The report is mixed, with some schools looking good, and others that appear willing to violate academic standards in order to pass and graduate students. The context for this investigation is that about a year ago, the GAO released a similar report which it later had to make small corrections to, giving the for-profit industry a PR victory.

This week I’ll look at how representatives from the for-profit sector are reacting to the new report. No surprise here: they are going on the offensive. And the main weapon they are using is the previous GAO report. It’s a misleading attack, since none of the people who worked on the previous reported worked on this one. Penny Lee is the managing director of the Coalition for Educational Success, one of the larger organizations that promote for-profits. In a press release, she responded to the report using a classic ad hominem attack:

Read More

On November 23, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report titled “Experiences of Undercover Students Enrolled in Online Classes at Selected Colleges.” It’s a behind-the-scenes look at a few for-profit schools, and the lengths to which they will go to keep students enrolled. This week, I’m going to explain the context for the report and its findings; next week, I’ll look at how the for-profit industry is reacting to the report.

First, some background: In August 2010, the GAO released the results of its first investigation into for-profit colleges. The report focused on recruiting practices at fifteen colleges, and found that all of them made “deceptive or otherwise questionable statements” to undercover investigators posing as applicants. The GAO was careful to note that “results of the undercover tests and tuition comparisons cannot be projected to all for-profit colleges,” and none of the schools involved were identified.

Read More

Last week’s state elections attracted attention for a variety of causes and elections, most notably the defeat of Ohio’s tough new collective bargaining law and the defeat of the pro-life “personhood amendment” in Mississippi. But for for-profit colleges, the most important election of the night mostly flew under the radar: Democrat Jack Conway was re-elected as attorney general in Kentucky, defeating Republican Todd P’Pool by ten points.

Read More

George Leef of the Pope Center responds today to my critique here last week of his argument by claiming I’m creating a “straw man” and offering the hypothetical where a rich leftist “will give the school a huge amount of money (say, $100 million) if it creates a new chair in the department for a scholar who will teach the ideas he favors.” Leef wonders, “has academic freedom been diminished?…I say no. All of the existing professors…are still just as free as they’ve ever been to write or say what they want to.”

I say yes. The academic freedom of people to apply for this job has been restricted by an ideological demand for agreement with a particular viewpoint as a condition for employment. Academic integrity is also violated because ideological agreement will trump academic qualifications for this position. And the academic freedom of everyone is endangered when a college is willing to sell out anyone’s liberty for a big pile of money. That’s true whether it’s a left-wing or a right-wing donor. Leef may genuinely believe that it’s good for rich people to purchase faculty positions as playthings for their ideological desires, but it’s not a “straw man” to worry that this stand endangers academic freedom. Read More

A few weeks ago, I looked at some of the methods which for-profit universities use to get “leads” on potential students. Getting contact information on a possible new student is, however, just the first step. The next steps are to get in touch with the potential student and convince them to enroll. In today’s blog post, I’ll look at some of the tactics recruiters use to pressure students into signing up at for-profits. Much like with the lead generating companies, the methods are highly upsetting and unethical, and cast a shadow over the ethics of some of these companies more generally.

Read More

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”–Julius Caesar

The star system is one of the worst afflictions to hit academia, and responsible for many of academia’s current problems. Frank Donogue wrote a recent blog on academic stars that got me thinking about the topic.

Academia has always had stars. There have always been professors with prominent reputations, and distinguished professorships. The difference is that these professors were admired for their academic work, and their star status took the form of academic admiration.

It’s quite amusing that some critics of academics think the “star system” was created by literary theorists. Stanley Fish might be a master of the star system, but he was just following a trend impacting all of academia. In reality, English professors are among the smallest stars in the academic galaxy. They attract attention not because they are stars, but because some people really hate them, and because the humanities still have enough ethical concerns about the star system to raise concerns that are largely ignored in the rest of academia.

In essence, the “star system” is another term for expanding inequality.

Read More

In my last post, I examined “Education Start,” a deceptive site run by a company called Vantage Media. Education Start asks students which colleges they are interested in applying to, and promises it will give them information about applying. In reality, it gives their contact information to for-profit recruiters which are paying for leads. In the post, I explained how the site works from a user’s point of view, and how a student is tricked while using the site.

Recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education posted a fascinating account of what the business is like from the other side, telling the story of a man named James Soloway, who worked at a Vantage Media call center. Soloway recently left that job and has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about the company’s practices (he says he left the job of his own accord and bears no grudge against the company). Soloway’s job was essentially to call up students who had submitted information to Education Start and get them to agree to consider for-profit institutions (which paid Vantage for this service). It was basically an over-the-phone follow-up to the tactics used on the website: assure the student that their information was going to the schools they were interested in, but then suggest, say, wouldn’t you like to apply to these lovely for-profit schools right in your area?

Read More

My essay on due process violations at Northwestern University in the cases of David Protess and Michael Bailey appears at InsideHigherEd today. You can read more about the Protess case at my blog College Freedom. Peter Kirstein wrote about academic freedom and the Bailey case at his blog. While the two cases are very different in many ways, what they share is the administration’s indifference to due process and faculty shared governance in high-profile cases of controversial professors.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers