By Troy Behrens

INTRODUCTION:  Who Needs Money?

Since the early 1990's, many college-based career centers have faced difficult economic pressures (Stewart, 1993).  Despite a surging economy, an increase in job opportunities for college graduates and a steady increase in college student enrollment rates, college-based career centers experienced a loss of resources through annual budget and staff cuts (NACE, 1998).  Even though their funds are being allocated to other departments within the university, students and employers are visiting career centers in record numbers ( NACE, 1998 ).  One career center director reports, "Our budget has shrunk by 8% in the past two years while demand has increased by more than 120% in some areas of our service.  We are forced to raise money through development initiatives -- this changes our focus and creates situations which challenge our ethics" (Goodman, Rayman & Ferrell, 2000).  Even though career centers are losing resources (Klein & Step, 1992), employers must meet substantial hiring quotas and in some cases they are eager to hire as many as 3,500 students for their company in a single year!  Unfortunately, there is a critical disconnect between the corporation and the university when the career center does not have the resources to meet the hiring needs of the employer.  In some cases, the jobs go away, the students go away, and finally, the career center itself is disbanded due to a "lack of use."

 It is becoming apparent that career centers are relying more upon corporate "partnerships" to run their departments than ever before.  Some question whether it is the corporations who need the career centers or vice versa.  Either way one examines the situation, both sides can be winners if the partnership is handled with ethical care and consideration.  If the relationship isn't handled in an ethical manner, "seminal notions such as self-actualization will be compromised, or abandoned in response to the lure of dollars," (Goodman et. al, 2000).   

THE PROBLEM: The Money is There for the Taking

Regardless of increased demands from both a growing economy and student enrollment, funding from their universities is not consistent.  Career center staff is being forced to run their student affairs offices like self -contained companies in order to save their departments and their jobs.  As a result, it has become common for career centers to raise large percentages of their budgets by charging their customers for their services or by acquiring it from third party providers.   According to Goodman, et. al, (2000), "A growing trend exists among colleges and universities to ask corporations to sponsor buildings, interview rooms and major interior space within university buildings as a way to improve the quality of service that career centers provide.  The major issue that arises from such a relationship is whether it is ethical to provide such corporate sponsors with perks and special privileges that afford an advantage over their competition."  Hence, the focus of this paper. 

The National Association of Colleges and Employers' Principles for Professional Conduct (NACE, 2000) and a growing constituency within the career counseling sector believe accruing monies from a source other than the university itself could facilitate unethical recruitment favors.  For example, the feeling exists that by giving into, embracing, or soliciting financial support of the business community, career centers will lose sight of their primary professional responsibility, namely working on behalf of the needs of their students (Goodman, et. al,  2000).   Herein lies the main argument of this paper.  For many career centers, the argument extends beyond ethics or morality; it is a matter of survival.  Without external funding the students would ultimately suffer.  How ethical it is to deny students of competitive career services they deserve as a paying customer?   For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the most hapless or "poor" career center is not the only type that seeks funding or attempts to generate revenue for survival.  This problem affects most career centers.   Consider the following real case studies (names have been left anonymous to protect the innocent) :

 

Case #1

P.U. has a campus career center that "stinks" according to its students.  The P.U. placement program offers students a job fair only once each year and it hosts 25 employers who represent the military, fast food and retail industries.  The Fortune 500 companies stopped recruiting here 5 years ago.  Around that same time, the P.U. career center was moved from its prime campus location to a small dingy, three-room office in a remote part of campus.  The newly remodeled admissions office took over the once bustling fifteen- room block of offices that used to be home to the career center.  Coincidently, at that time, the staff of the career center was reduced from 15 full time employees to only 3.  Since the career center had fewer employees and a smaller operating space, the P.U. administrators felt that the career center could operate on a smaller budget as well.  So, a plan to cut 6% of the budget for the next 7 years was passed.

 On the bright side, this will save P.U. a lot of money for that new admissions office, which in turn will matriculate more students.  Five years after that plan was implemented, more students have enrolled with P.U. and the career center has an increase in the request of services of 160%.  "Do more with less" is the answer the career center staff gets when they ask for a new computer for the students to use in the career center resource room.  Resource Room is actually a misnomer, because the only resources are 10 job-hunting books that date as far back as 1977 and some flyers a Navy recruiter left from a recent job fair.  With an annual operating budget that averages  .50 cents per matriculated student, there is no way the career center director can afford to provide her students with modern and efficient career development services.  There is no way she can wire her career center with the Internet or provide automated resume referral programs or electronic interview scheduling systems that today's students and employers not only request, but demand.  And if she can't meet the demands of her customers, they will go elsewhere.  That is also coming true.

Recently, he director of the P.U. career center has been asked by university officials to write a report as to why her career center has seen such a drastic decline in corporate involvement.  Why are students complaining about a lack of job opportunities offered by the career center?  In desperation, she develops a plan to solicit the retail and fast food companies to help her bring her career center out of its economic hardships.  She's going to pick up the phone and ask her corporate friends to help by donating whatever they can.  Hopefully, she can save her department and her job

Case #2

Career center  #2 is a high-powered job search resource for nearly all of its 30,000 students.  In addition, thousands of alumni use the career center each year because of its great reputation for providing a strong network of employers from around the globe.  Nearly all of the Fortune Fifty companies recruit from this elite campus.  The career center's staff thinks they are the greatest and they think their university is the greatest and they aren't afraid to make it known.  So this case's university shall be called F.U.  F.U.'s career center is a multi-million-dollar, state- of-the-art facility that was actually donated by a local company.  F.U.'s career center has 32 interviewing rooms for employers and students to meet, a fully operational kitchen and lounge for recruiters and career center staff, a changing room and locker facility for students to change into their interviewing clothes, a computer lab stocked with 35 computer stations, a library with over 3,000 volumes that are updated annually, and a staff of 70 who cater to the every need of the students and employers.

 At first glance, one would think that F.U.'s big-time, high-powered career center wouldn't have financial problems, but they do.  Only half of their annual funds come from F.U., the other half is donated by corporations or comes from fees incurred by students, alumni and employers for basic services.  For example, if an alumnus wishes to meet with a career counselor, he/she will have to pay $20 per session because the career counselors are stretched for time.  In addition, the fees are used for office administration and the upkeep of the enormous computer databases that track the thousands of daily activities.  Students are regularly charged for entering job fairs or other special events that connect them with the high-powered corporations who prefer F.U.'s elite students.

Even the employers are charged for the pleasure of recruiting from F.U.  Companies are charged $100 to reserve a room for interviewing students in the career center.  If the employers want to advertise their interview sessions on campus, they can buy advertising space on the career center web page for as much as $1,000 per week.  If they want to present a company information session for students, the career center charges employer another $100 to reserve a presentation room, $75 for the audiovisual projectors and a nominal administration fee!  The employers gladly pay these fees so they can have the privilege and honor of recruiting F.U.'s students.  In fact, some employers are so desperate to recruit these wonderful students from this fine institution; they are willing to offer the career center director money for "unique" advertising.  For $15,000 some employers sponsor the web site for one year.  For $5,000 some employers "sponsor" an interview room and are allowed to decorate it with their company's logo and promotional items for all future users of the room to enjoy.  The sponsorship list goes on and on.  With this money, F.U.'s career center director can maintain the high standard of excellence that has made his career center a world-class department. 

THE PARTNERSHIP CONNUNDRUM: Does Donating Money or Accepting it Facilitate Unethical Practices?

After reviewing the cases, and after considering the National Association of Colleges and Employers Principles for Professional Conduct (NACE, 2000), the following questions invariably arise:

1.                   Is the corporate "involvement" in these cases borderline unethical?

It is difficult to answer this question without first defining "unethical."  According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, it is unethical for a career center to accept money or gifts in exchange for personal favors or recruiting favors.  Now, think of the director of the career center in Case #1, would she be more cordial to an employer who helped her get her department out of the dregs?  Of course.  Would she work extra hard to please that employer the next time a campus visit is made?  Certainly.  Would she admit she is playing favorites to this employer?  Maybe not.  Would she think she is acting unethically for accepting money or even charging students for certain services?  Certainly not.  Only one who has experienced these financial hardships will understand her position and when it comes to mere survival of the career center, these actions are seen as necessity. 

2.                    Is either case more unethical than the other?

It is likely that most readers will side with the hardships of  P.U. in Case #1 and convince themselves that F.U. in Case #2 is the unethical example.  After all, the folks at F.U. don't really need the money, do they?  The fact is they do.  They need it as much as the career center at P.U.  If  F.U. doesn't get the money they are used to accruing, they may suffer the plight of P.U.  At least that's how they might rationalize it.  The bottom line is this:  the bottom line is everything.  Whether a career center's operational bottom line is one dollar or one million dollars, it needs to generate that revenue to maintain the status quo.  Increase revenue and life is good.  Decrease it and the career center has problems.  If the money is not coming from the logical source (the university), then it has to come from somewhere.  Is it unethical to earn money through strategic partnerships?  If it is, then the entire free world's economy is one big moral dilemma. 

3.                    Has an over-reliance on external sources of funding become the scapegoat for universities not funding a career center as much as they should?

This is a "chicken or the egg" question, but it seems that career centers that can and do maintain some semblance of self-supporting activities are noticed by the university.  In many cases, career center directors who have successfully generated revenue are now contractually bound to generate a certain percentage for their annual budgets.  In some cases, a university will fund 60% of an operating budget and the career center is left to fend for the remainder.  If they don't earn it, they won't have it in their budgets.  Period.   In the case of F.U., those that can raise money will raise money.  In the case of P.U., and career centers like them, they have university administrators who encourage them to follow F.U.'s model.

4.                   If the corporations are not stopped, will career centers and indeed entire college campuses begin to resemble the colorful patchwork of advertisements on a NASCAR racer's jumpsuit?

This is a concern for some - mainly the people who are not included on the corporate giving list.  In their defense, it is becoming a problem.  In the past, a company was the big recruiting power on campus if they were personal friends with the placement director, took him to lunch a few times a week and treated him to golf once each summer.  On occasion, a small check of $1,000 would be quietly donated once each year.  It was all kept very private.  These days, quiet gets the corporations nothing; Corporations want more people to know they donated money or gifts.  In the past, a company would "own" the placement office through their friendships with the placement staff.  Now, they literally own placement offices, thanks to their multi-million dollar contributions for new building construction.  It's becoming more common to visit a career center named XYZ Company's Career Development Center, and to interview in the PDQ Corporation's Meeting Room, as well as to use the Internet in the Smith & Smith, Inc. Career Center Computer Lab.  It's conceivable that the career center of the future could look something like the outfield wall of a minor league baseball stadium!

5.                   Is the entire notion of corporate "partners" for college career centers unethical?

It really depends upon how the relations are established.  As the reader will discover from the results of the following survey, the terms "partnerships" and "ethical" seem to be relative terms.

 

WHAT THE PROFESSIONALS THINK;  Field Survey

A random sample of 600 recruitment and career services professionals were emailed five questions in order to discover their feelings about the corporate/collegiate partnership conundrum.  Survey participants were chosen at random from a National Association of Colleges and Employers membership directory and were asked to participate in the survey as part of course requirements for an Ed.D. Program at UCLA. 

Survey Results

Six hundred registered members of the National Association of Colleges and Employers were randomly asked to participate in a survey which asked them five questions pertaining to ethical implications of donating or accepting money in the name of providing effective recruiting practices.  Two hundred and thirty two NACE members participated  (130 Employers & 102 Career Center Staff) and their responses are summarized as follows:

ISSUE NUMBER ONE: The Ethics Behind Giving and Receiving

The two charts below identify a difference in thinking between employers and career center staff.  A little more than half (54%) of the employers felt that donating money to career centers was either an unethical practice or it leads to unethical practices within recruiting.  Congruently, and more definitively, Chart 2 shows 82% of Career Center Staff believing that accepting money from employers is an ethical practice.

CHART 1

 

CHART 2

According to the employer responses, 46% of them believe that donating money to career centers is unethical.  It sets up expectations on their part because they are looking for a return on their investment.  It sets up an expectation from the university because they will be looking for more money in the future and it is the university's responsibility to fund the career center, not the employers.  Finally, some employers feel that the practice of giving money to career centers is not moral and they refuse to do it, but only 8% of the career center staff felt that accepting such money is unethical.

On the other hand, career center staff believe that if the corporate money benefits ALL students and not just one particular major, then it is okay to accept the money.  In contrast, 99% of the career center folks do not feel right accepting donations that are intended to benefit one specific major or student group, yet this is quite often the scenario that unfolds when an employer does make a donation.  Other comments from career center staff included an uncomfortable sense of feeling obligated to employers who do donate money, yet the majority of respondents believe they have to "take what they can get" because without corporate funding, many placement programs would go by the wayside.

CHART 3

 

ISSUE NUMBER TWO: Are Donations Made To Gain a Recruiting Edge?

CHART 3 outlines an interesting disconnect in the other side of the recruiting table's perception of donating money to a career center.  When asked if employers donate money to career centers to "gain an edge" in the recruiting market, 98 of the 130 employers said NO.  In fact, many of them indicated that they either do not donate at all or if they did donate in the past, it really didn't open any doors for them and was a waste of resources.

On the other side of CHART 3, a nearly complete mirror image conveys the point that career center staff (80 of the 102) believe employers are motivated to donate money in hopes of gaining an edge in student recruitment.   Furthermore, some career center staff commented, "I think corporations want to convince career center staff that they are different than other companies and want to be treated as such."   Another survey respondent reported, "Employers may have been more altruistic in the past, but now expect something in return -- and they usually get it." 

These survey results gives the impression that many career center staff believe companies want something in return for their donations, yet most of the companies surveyed indicate such ideations rarely exist.

ISSUE NUMBER THREE:  Creating an Unfair Recruiting Atmosphere

                Employer survey participants were asked if they felt that companies that donated large amounts of money intimidated them and created an unfair recruiting environment.  

CHART 4

 

Most employers (75%) who participated in this survey felt that it was intimidating to them to witness other corporations donating large amounts of money to a career center.  They also felt that it creates an unfair advantage for the company that donates the funds.  Here are two of their comments:  "Companies that donate a lot of money have a monopoly on career centers across the country." And,  "Some corporations do it to be intimidating to other companies, it's an unfortunate cost of doing business."

On the other hand, the career center staff are divided down the middle.  They aren't coming to a consensus how one company's donation practices affect the other recruiting companies.  However, they have commented on how they have witnessed large benefactors receive the red carpet treatment from a career center and they can understand how this can be intimidating for outsiders to witness.  The career center staff also mentioned that the majority of companies that donate funds to the career center have a larger strategic plan with the university, which might include research grants, executives on loan and financing department chairs.  Thus, creating an intimidating unified inter-departmental collaboration. 

ISSUE NUMBER FOUR:  Is Corporate Money Necessary for the Survival of a Career Center?

Interestingly, the employers were split down the middle with 50% responding YES and 50% responding NO.  One half of the employers felt that career centers soliciting or even accepting money from corporations was unnecessary because the college or university should be funding them.  Yet, the other half of the employers mentioned that a "university's job is to seek money from employers" so we should accept it as the nature of higher education.  More realistically, one employer stated that it is unfortunate that many career centers are depending more upon corporate help to operate their offices.  She said, "It's a shame because they shouldn't have to act like a business, they should act like a department of student services."

Conversely, 70% (72 of 102) career center staff said that the commercialization of the career center and the dependence upon corporate donations is necessary for the survival of their departments.

More specifically, they mentioned that large contributions give them a competitive edge both on campus and with rival campuses.  One survey participant described it this way:  "Since money talks, it helps us gain stature within the university as a revenue center." They also feel that they can use any help they can get, and without corporate help many of their services for students would have to be discontinued.

ISSUE NUMBER FIVE:  Do Corporate Partnerships Come With Perceived Hidden Agendas?

The final issue focuses on a potential disconnect in perceptions and communications between both sides of the corporate/career center partnership.  Employers were asked if they suppose career center staff think employers might have a hidden agenda when they approach them with a partnering opportunity. 

The results are interesting, because 91% of the employers thought that the career center staff felt the employers were entirely generous and philanthropic and straight forward in knowing that the money would not get them "special favors."

On the other hand, 65% of the career center staff felt that employers were really looking for "something else" and there are more than philanthropic reasons for donating money or partnering with career centers.  One survey participant said, "Sometimes they try to buy, coerce, or bribe us to funnel the best students to them."  Moreover, career center staff also mentioned how they stand-up to such solicitations and if the companies ask for special returns on their investments or they make the career center feel obligated, the relationship is quite often discontinued.

DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS

It seems that with some issues presented in this survey, a difference of opinion exists between the two sides of the partnership.  So, for future alliances to consist of open and ethical practices, the survey participants offered many suggestions.

"When can donating money or gifts to a career center be unethical?"

"If money or in kind gifts such as computer equipment, etc. are donated to assist the staff and better serve the students I think it is done for the right reasons and is ethical." 

 

"It depends on how it is done.  As a career center, it would be imperative to have guidelines indicating how the gift would be used and what preferences are given to the organization that donated the gift."

 

"As long as the intent is clear that it is a donation to the operations of the career center for a specific purpose such as the purchase of a piece of equipment or software."

 

"We could not offer the on line resume and referral service without this funding. We allow our donors to attend our career fairs for free and we indicate that they are the "Corporate Sponsors" on all our literature. It does give the company more visibility on campus, which may help them recruit more competitively."

 

"What gets borderline unethical are programs where contributions "buy" you access that you might not get without paying to play.  Like the contributors getting a one or two week scheduling head start on everyone else, which occurs on one campus we deal with."

 

"How should we handle corporate expectations of partnerships?"

"Companies know their limits and what they can expect from schools.  Companies can try to use unethical practices in recruiting students but I have to believe that career center directors would immediately discuss these issues with the company because of the damage it will do for the company's reputation and partnership with the school.  Companies who act unethically will do so whether they are donating

money to the school or not. Setting expectations on both sides is extremely important as well as living by the NACE code of conduct."

 

"It would be unethical if they are given preferential access to students above other organizations.  We do not do that.  Students have equal access to all organizations at the career fairs and at on campus recruiting.  Having written guidelines regarding corporate sponsorships, career fairs attendance and recruiting practices are mandatory to insure that an ethical hiring environment."

“On our campus, employers who donate get red carpet treatment regardless of the size of their gift.  Students might find out that a gift was made, but I do not think students/alumni equate larger gifts with better employment.  The more time students have with employers, the more comfortable they are with them and the appreciation for the "lobbying" effort on the part of the employer is what impresses the students/alumni.  It is hard not to like an employer that puts time into the recruiting process on campus. You tend to like people who show that they like you.  It is a value-added factor for the ego."

 

The findings of this survey indicate a disconnect in perceptions, beliefs and attitudes in the corporate/career center partnership.  In order to understand the miscommunications between the two sides, one should understand a typical corporation's partnership agenda.

 

HOW A PARTNERSHIP MIGHT DEVELOP

 

A corporation's primary interest in a campus career center is typically based upon that company's recruiting needs.  In order to have a successful recruiting campaign on campus, the company must develop a highly visible campus image.  To accomplish this, the corporate reps need to develop name recognition for their company with high profile advertising and face-to-face special events.  Advertising in the school newspaper or covering the campus with corporate posters is the easiest form of name recognition development, not the least expensive, but certainly the easiest.  Unfortunately, hundreds of other companies use this same tactic to recruit the same students.  As a result, creative or "cutting edge" corporations approach their key colleges to discuss alternative forms of on campus advertising.  Often, they approach universities like F.U. to initiate "partnership" discussions so they can gain an edge in the increasingly competitive market for gaining a student's attention.   So, initially, "partnering" is a creative, high-powered form of advertising.  

Once a company has developed name recognition on campus and has made initial gains in the partnership initiative, the second major corporate motive is to grow and develop their own talent.  In other words, an infiltration of the classroom becomes their next goal, because corporations must find their highly qualified students at the source.  Now, partnering with faculty takes on a critical flair, and many corporations accomplish this by funding faculty research projects, by providing state of the art lab equipment or even complete laboratories for their students.  Ultimately, the goal of the faculty partnership is to gain direct access to their students' academic development, which can be done by controlling curriculum development programs within various academic departments.  For example, it is not uncommon for some of today's corporations to influence local colleges and universities to develop classes, majors and even degrees that meet the needs of that corporation's business directive.  In addition, some corporations provide training for the university faculty at a corporate training center or "corporate university" to teach the faculty how to train their students to use that company's equipment.  This is the final and ultimate step in the "partnership" motive:  Molding the university into an exclusive and direct hiring pipeline. Enter a career center that has the students this company needs and needs the money this company has.  Is this opening the door to unethical relations or is it "just business?" Or, is it as Geoffry White (1999) describes it, "….the implications of the vocationalization of higher education [means] our classes will be evaluated for their cash value and potential employers of our students will become our masters."

Both sides of the campus recruitment process have needs, and both sides can help each other.  However, ethical practices must prevail overall and, the corporate agenda must be brought to the forefront of the partnership negotiations.  The results of this study have uncovered what seems to be a variation between the two sides in the perception of the corporate/career center partnership agenda.  If certain services are approved as ethical and ultimately held as traditional partnership practices, one might hope for a resolution of this fine line between partnering and pandering. 

GIVING PARTNERSHIPS OF THE FUTURE AN ETHICAL FOUNDATION

Survey participants, Brooks (1996) and the author suggest companies might:

·Give with the sense of giving in mind

·Not be allowed to donate money at all

·Limit the amount of money a career center can accept from each company

·Realize that career centers won't do favors for employers

·Understand that career centers will only accept money that will be used for ALL students

·Not want to focus on a partnership that will benefit only one major

·Establish a Career Services Scholarship Fund for all students to earn from anonymous donors

·Provide Work Study Assignments instead of money

·Volunteer at the Career Center by hosting seminars, etc.

·Chair Advisory Boards for the Career Center

·Develop strict guidelines and document all facets of the partnership, e.g., what they get in return for the money and use it as a proposal/contract for your new alliance.

CONCLUSION

This survey has uncovered a few areas of disconnect or miscommunication between the corporate/career center partnerships that might provide for future research if not heated conversation.  One area of concern relates to career center dependence or need for corporate money.  One survey participant mentioned, "In the current economy, the big companies have all the money and the career centers want/need it.  I see many of them naming rooms after companies that donate a certain amount, etc.  I think those career centers will live to regret that decision.  A few years from now when the economy is not so robust those companies will not be so free with their cash.  Career centers that grow to depend upon it will soon get a wake-up call." 

Another heated issue pertains to employers expecting recruitment "favors" for their donations/investments.  A survey participant who represents a career center offered this feedback: "With the current economy as it is, I've seen more companies resort to offering donations that have strings attached (e.g., I'll give you $10,000 if you'll do……) or that offer research dollars to faculty in exchange for a pipeline of student names, or offer to pay so much per head on referrals/hires that were referred by our staff.  When we begin to sell our students to the highest bidder we begin to lose sight of what we are here for."

Which leads to the next heated topic for discussion: Where do we draw the line?  In the survey, someone mentioned that in the future companies will want to, and will, become more involved with all areas of higher education.  The impact will reach not only placement, but also curriculum, and university budgets.  He wrote that, "It isn't ethical for companies to wield their influence to meet their needs, but it is happening and universities are letting them do it." 

Finally, the survey asked the question: What can be done so corporate/collegiate partnerships can be considered ethical?  Responses ranged from not allowing them to preparing sophisticated documentation that outlines every nuance of the partnership.  One survey participant summed it up best with this comment, "We do have to realize that there is a fine line between contributing and influencing."

END NOTES

 

1. Brooks, J. (1996).  Multifaceted relationships benefit career services and employer recruiters.  The Journal of Career Planning and Employment, Fall 1996, The National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

 

2. Goodman, A.,  Rayman,J. & Ferell, D. (2000).   Commercialization of career centers:  Curse or blessing?  A principles for professional conduct committee position paper, The National Association of

Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

3. Klein, P.B. & Step, M.M. (1992).  How career centers are responding to the budget crunch.  Journal of Career Planning and Employment, Volume 52, The National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

 

4. NACE (National Association of Colleges and Employers), 2000.  Principles of Professional Conduct , htto:www.naceweb.org   The National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

5. NACE (National Association of Colleges and Employers), 1998.  The 1998 NACE Career Services

Benchmark Survey:  A Report From the Field on Facilities, Finances and Staffing.  The National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

6. Stewart, R.A. (1993).  Do more with less.  Journal of Career Planning and Employment, Volume 53,

Number 3.  The National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.

7. White, G.D. (1999).  Campus, Inc.: Corporate power in the ivory tower.  Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.