Daniel B. Saunders
P a g e | 54
documented in higher education literature (Alexander, 2001; Astin, 1998; Astin & Oseguera,
2004; Gumport, 1993; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Paulson & St. John, 2002; Tierney, 1998).
As a part of the general reduction in funding social services and what were once considered
public goods, public higher education has seen drastic cuts in state funding (Levin, 2005). The
privatization and commercialization of previously publicly funded institutions extended to higher
education, and as a result, these institutions became increasingly reliant on private funds
(Aronowitz, 2000; Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Hill, 2003; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). A
substantial portion of those funds came from applied research that was financially supported and
subsequently owned by private corporations (Clark, 1998; Slaughter, 1998; Slaughter &
Rhoades, 2004). The role of the faculty and their institutional priorities were altered, with heavy
emphasis placed on generating revenue and a lesser role in institutional decision-making
(Alexander, 2001; Aronowitz, 2000; Levin, 2006). The tenure system, which neoliberals argued
is economically irrational and a “bad investment” (Horowitz, 2004; Tierney, 1998) came under
attack. Economic efficiency became a high priority for colleges and universities, which provided
the rationale to use an unprecedented amount of part-time and adjunct faculty (Aronowitz, 2000;
Bousquet, 2008; Giroux, 2005; McLaren, 2005; Rhoades, 2006) as well as to attack systems of
shared governance (Ayers, 2005; Currie, 1998; Eckel, 2000; Gumport, 1993). A college
education was increasingly seen as a private good to be purchased by a student, who was
redefined as a customer (Chaffee, 1998; Swagler, 1978; Wellen, 2005). Students, as rational
economic actors, changed their goals from what were largely intrinsic, such as developing a
meaningful philosophy of life, to larger extrinsic goals including being very well off financially
(Astin, 1998, Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Saunders, 2007). All of these are direct results of
individuals and institutions using neoliberal policies and an economic rationality to make
educational decisions, including attempts to treat and govern the university just like any
traditional business, its faculty as traditional workers, and its students as customers (Lohmann,
2004; Winston, 1999).
Many of the scholars (i.e. Aronowitz, 2000; Giroux, 2005; Kezar, 2004) who discuss the impact
of neoliberalism on higher education juxtapose the neoliberal university, which focuses on
meeting the needs of the market, technical education and job training, and revenue generation
with a previous university that allegedly focused on civic engagement, democratic education, and