Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T08:28:15.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Liberalism, Finance Hegemony, and Central State Intervention in the Reconstruction of American Higher Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Clyde W. Barrow
Clyde W. Barrow
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The origins of the American university system are generally traced to a reform cycle that began in the late 1890s and culminated in the 1920s when most colleges and universities adopted institutional structures, faculty routines, and financial systems that approximated those of a modern corporation. As contemporary educational historians have rewritten the saga of higher education reform, the institutional changes that swept through colleges during this formative period have come to be viewed as a virtually inevitable functional response to the demands of political and economic modernization. The underlying historiographic theme of modernization theory is that as higher institutions expanded in size, internal diversity, and organizational complexity, university presidents responded with the only feasible administrative alternative that could restore effective control and economic efficiency to educational institutions. Indeed, Laurence Veysey's classic rendition of this scenario concludes that a corporate type of bureaucratic administration became “essential” if higher institutions were to avoid educational confusion and fiscal insolvency, while adjusting to the cultural, economic, and political demands placed on them by industrial society.

Type
Forum: on Education
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Fall 1992 , pp. 420 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The classic analysis is still Veblen, Thorstein, The Higher Learning in America (New York: Sagamore, 1957)Google Scholar.

2. Veysey, Laurence R., The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 315–16Google Scholar; also, Levine, David O., The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915–1940 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Geiger, Roger L., To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; and Bledstein, Burton, The Culture of Professionalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976)Google Scholar. Cf. Hays, Samuel P., The Response to Industrialism, 1885–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957)Google Scholar; and Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967)Google Scholar.

3. On the corporate reconstruction movement, see Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Lustig, R. Jeffrey, Corporate Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Noble, David, America by Design (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977)Google Scholar; Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston: Beacon, 1968)Google Scholar; and Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York: Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar. For a similar analysis of elementary and secondary school reform, see Spring, Joel, Education and the Rise of the Corporate State (Boston: Beacon, 1972)Google Scholar; and Tyack, David, The One Best System (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

4. Block, Fred, Revising State Theory (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), p. 49Google Scholar.

5. Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 27Google Scholar. Cf. Block, Revising State Theory, ch. 3.

6. Skocpol, Theda and Finegold, Kenneth, “State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal,” Political Science Quarterly 97 (1982): 255–78Google Scholar; and Weir, Margaret and Skocpol, Theda, “State Structures and Social Keynesianism: Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden and the United States,” International Journal of Sociology 26 (1983): 4–29Google Scholar.

7. Block, Revising State Theory, ch. 5. Cf. Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

8. Skocpol, Theda, “Political Response to Capitalist Crisis: Neo-Marxist Theories of the State and the Case of the New Deal,” Politics and Society 10 (1980): 155–210Google Scholar. Cf. Offe, Claus, “The Theory of the Capitalist State and the Problem of Policy Formation,” in Stress and Contradiction in Modern Capitalism, ed. Lindberg, Leon (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1975), pp. 125–44Google Scholar.

9. This “finance hegemony perspective” is elucidated by Mintz, Beth, “United States of America,” in The Capitalist Class, ed. Bottomore, Tom and Brym, Robert J. (New York: NYU Press, 1989), p. 216Google Scholar; also see, Mintz, Beth and Schwartz, Michael, The Power Structure of American Business (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

10. Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1967), Chap. 7Google Scholar; For a case study on urban development, see Orren, Karen, Corporate Power and Social Change (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

11. Miliband, Ralph, “State Power and Class Interests,” New Left Review no. 138 (03/04 1983): 37–68Google Scholar.

12. In 1930, 77 percent of four-year higher institutions were private corporations and these institutions accounted for 60 percent of student enrollments (USBE, Biennial Survey of Education 1928–1930 [Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1930], pp. 332Google Scholar, 335).

13. Sears, Jesse B., Philanthropy in American Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1922)Google Scholar.

14. Buttrick, Wallace, “The General Education Board,” School and Society 16 (08 1922): 231–32Google Scholar.

15. CFAT, Annual Report, 1906 (New York, 1906)Google Scholar.

16. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge, p. 46.

17. Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890–1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

18. Domhoff, G. William, Who Really Rules? (Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1978), p. 164Google Scholar; and Domhoff, , The Powers That Be (New York: Vintage, 1978), pp. 61–128Google Scholar.

19. For example, Domhoff, G. William, “Corporate Liberal Theory and the Social Security Act: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge,” Politics and Society 15 (1986/1987): 295–330Google Scholar; and Skocpol, Theda, “A Brief Response [to G. William Domhoff],” Politics and Society 15 (1986–1987): 331–32Google Scholar.

20. The concept of an organic intellectual is derived from Gramsci, Antonio, “The Intellectuals,” in Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed. Hoare, Quintin and Smith, Geoffrey Nowell (New York: International, 1971), p. 3Google Scholar; Domhoff (Powers That Be, p. 13) describes the power elite as the “active, working members of the ruling class and high level employees in institutions controlled by members of the ruling class.”

21. I offer more extensive documentation of this claim in Barrow, Clyde W., Universities and the Capitalist State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 61–64Google Scholar.

22. Domhoff, G. William, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), p. 149Google Scholar.

23. USBE, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1902–1903 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1905), p. 379Google Scholar.

24. Smith, David N., Who Rules the University? (New York: Monthly Review, 1972), p. 98, esp. chs. 3–5Google Scholar.

25. CFAT, Thirtieth Annual Report (New York, 1935), p. 31Google ScholarPubMed.

26. Pritchett, Henry S., “Shall the University Become a Business Corporation?” Atlantic Monthly 96 (09 1905): 289–99Google Scholar; and Pritchett, , “Organization of Higher Education,” Atlantic Monthly 102 (12 1908): 783–89Google Scholar.

27. Trombley, Kenneth E., The Life and Times of a Happy Liberal: A Biography of Morris Llewellyn Cooke (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), pp. 6–11Google Scholar.

28. Pritchett, Henry S., “Introduction” to Cooke, Morris L., Academic and Industrial Efficiency, CFAT Bulletin no. 5 (Boston: Merrymount, 1910), p. iiiGoogle Scholar.

29. Cooke, ibid., p. 3.

30. Ibid., p. 26.

31. A student-hour is “one hour of lectures, of laboratory work, or recitation room work, for a single pupil” (ibid., p. 19). It is now the standard unit of measurement in American colleges and universities.

32. Cooke suggests that “if the same standards of efficiency are to be applied to college teachers as are applied elsewhere, it will mean that when a man has ceased to be efficient he must be retired” (ibid., p. 23).

33. Ibid., p. 59, Table 8.

34. Ibid., p. 103.

35. CFAT, Standard Forms for Financial Reports of Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools, Bulletin no. 3 (New York, 1910), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

36. GEB, Report of the Secretary, 1924–1925 (New York, 1925), p. 12Google Scholar; GEB, Report of the Secretary, 1914–1915 (New York, 1915), pp. 44–45Google Scholar; and GEB, Report of the Secretary, 1923–1924 (New York: 1924), pp., 9–10Google Scholar.

37. CFAT, Annual Report, 1911 (New York, 1911), p. 14Google Scholar.

38. CFAT, Annual Report, 1908, (New York, 1908), p. 152Google ScholarPubMed.

39. Quoted in Fosdick, Raymond B., Adventure in Giving (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 127, 129Google Scholar.

40. GEB, The General Education Board: An Account of its Activities, 1902–1914 (New York, 1915), pp. 105, 109Google Scholar.

41. Flexner, Abraham, I Remember (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940), pp. 210–11, 236Google Scholar.

42. Furst, Clyde, “Endowed Philanthropies and American Education,” School and Society 16 (08 1922): 230Google Scholar.

43. Hollis, Ernest Victor, Philanthropic Foundations and Higher Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938), pp. 274–75Google Scholar.

44. Curti, Merle and Nash, Roderick, Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher Education (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1965), p. 222Google Scholar.

45. Hollis, Philanthropic Foundations, p. 275.

46. Rudolph, Frederick, The American College and University: A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 431Google Scholar.

47. GEB, Annual Report of the General Education Board, 1928–1929 (New York, 1929), p. 7Google Scholar.

48. Barrow, Universities, ch. 6.

49. USBE, National Crisis in Education: An Appeal to the People, Bulletin 1920 no. 29 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1920)Google Scholar.

50. Cattell, James McKeen, ed., Carnegie Pensions (New York: Science, 1919)Google ScholarPubMed.

51. Hollis, Philanthropic Foundations, pp. 53–55.

52. Pritchett, “Shall the University?” p. 292.

53. CFAT, Annual Report, 1909 (New York, 1909), p. 84Google ScholarPubMed.

54. CFAT, Admission of State Institutions to the System of Retiring Allowances of the Carnegie Foundation (New York, 1907), pp. 33–35Google Scholar.

55. Beard, Charles A. and Beard, Mary R., The Rise of American Civilization, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1939)Google Scholar.

56. Gompers, Samuel, “For Higher Universal Education,” American Federationist (11 1922): 843–44Google Scholar; and “Report of the Executive Council, Committee on Education,” in Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at St. Paul, Minnesota, June 10–20, 1918, p. 320.

57. Fehrenbach, T. R., Lone Star (New York: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 634–35Google Scholar; and Manley, Robert N., Centennial History of the University of Nebraska, 2 vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), vol. 1, p. 210Google Scholar.

58. CFAT, Annual Report, 1909 (New York, 1909), p. 83Google ScholarPubMed.

59. Hollis, Philanthropic Foundations, p. 57.

60. Quoted in “The Carnegie Pension,” Journal of Education (April 1910): 459.

61. CFAT, A Study of Education in Vermont, Bulletin no. 7 (Boston: Merrymount, 1914)Google Scholar; and Flexner, Abraham and Bachman, Frank P., Public Education in Maryland (New York: General Education Board, 1915)Google Scholar.

62. Flexner, I Remember, p. 242.

63. Orren, Corporate Power, ch. 7.

64. Smith, Durrell Hevenor, The Bureau of Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1923)Google Scholar.

65. Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a more extensive elaboration of this concept.

66. Ibid., p. 31. Similarly, Nordlinger, Eric, The Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, notes the importance of distinguishing between the state's organizations and state personnel.

67. For the Gallaudet report, see USBE, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1871 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1876)Google Scholar.

68. USBE, “Report prepared by L. A. Kalbach, Acting Commissioner of Education and Submitted to Secretary of Interior Bollinger for use by Senator Bourne, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Public Expenditures,” 08 20, 1909, p. 2Google Scholar, in Historical File 100, Organization of the Office, Record Group 12, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

69. “List of Employees, Bureau of Education, July 1, 1906,” Press copies of letters sent, microfilm roll 70, pp. 71–79, National Archives.

70. Elmer Elsworth Brown, “Memorandum,” pp. 1–2, Historical File 100, box 2, National Archives; and Brown, , Government by Influence and Other Essays (London: Longman, Green, 1909)Google Scholar.

71. E. E. Brown, “Partial Program for the Development of the Bureau of Education in the Near Future,” p. 1, Historical File 100, box 2, National Archives.

72. “Letter from James A. Tawney, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives to Hon. Elmer E. Brown, Commissioner of Education,” June 10, 1908, ibid.

73. The empirical reference for an autonomous state is one in which the leading political elites are career officials recruited from the ranks of nondominant classes, who refrain from close personal or economic ties to the economically dominant class after their elevation to high office, and who develop a sense of ideological purpose or a bureaucratic collective identity that legitimates the desirability of using the state to act against the dominant class. See Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In,” p. 9.

74. Barrow, Universities, pp. 98–110.

75. Domhoff, G. William, The Power Elite and the State (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990), chs. 1–2Google Scholar.

76. CFAT, Annual Report, 1911 (New York, 1911), p. 14Google Scholar.

77. USBE, “Letter from Henry S. Pritchett to Hon. Walter L. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior,” 05 29, 1911, p. 2Google Scholar, Historical File 100, National Archives.

78. GEB, Report of the Secretary, 1914–1915 (New York, 1915), p. 41Google Scholar; and Grantham, Dewey W., Southern Progressivism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983), pp. 246–74Google Scholar.

79. USBE, “Undated Loose Handwritten Note, Signed Kle.B.,” Historical File 106, vol. 8, National Archives.

80. USBE, “Letter from Chief Clerk of the Bureau of Education to Miss Elsa Denison,” 03 2, 1912Google Scholar, ibid. A central clerk perhaps best summarized the overall situation in a 1912 memo to the commissioner of education: “Their [the foundations'] efforts are of great value as supplements to the work of the Bureau. By keeping track of what these agencies are doing we can avoid a duplication of work. They can do much that we cannot undertake for lack of facilities and along certain lines they can make investigations which it would be unwise for a government office to attempt,” (USBE, “Undated Loose Handwritten Note, Signed A.S.,” ibid.).

81. Furst, “Endowed Philanthropies,” p. 231.

82. Barrow, Universities, pp. 107–10.

83. USBE, “Letter from P. P. Claxton to the Secretary of the Interior,” 08 10, 1911, p. 1Google Scholar, Historical File 100, vol. 2, National Archives.

84. USBE, “Letter from Acting Secretary of the Interior to P. P. Claxton,” 08 28, 1911Google Scholar, ibid.; and USBE, “Letter from Assistant Attorney General for the Department of the Interior to the Secretary of the Interior,” 08 20, 1911, pp, 3, 7Google Scholar, ibid.

85. USBE, “Letter from Assistant Attorney General for the Department of the Interior to the Secretary of the Interior,” 11 9, 1911Google Scholar, ibid.

86. USBE, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1915–1916 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1916), pp. 129–30Google Scholar.

87. USBE, “Letter from Henry S. Pritchett to Hon. Walter L. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior,” 29 05, 1911, p. 2Google Scholar, Historical File 100, National Archives.

88. “Letter from Samuel P. Capen to Mrs. Capen,” February 22, 1914, Capen Papers, box 7, SUNY-Buffalo University Archives.

89. “Letter from Samuel P. Capen to Mrs. Capen,” May 1, 1914, Capen Papers, box 8.

90. “Letter from Samuel P. Capen to Mrs. Capen,” March 8, 1914; and February 22, 1914, Capen Papers, box 8.

91. Barrow, Universities, pp. 110–18; and Noble, America by Design, pp. 212–19.

92. Capen, Samuel P., A Report on the Colleges of North Carolina (Raleigh: Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1916)Google Scholar.

93. Quoted in Capen, Samuel P., Report of a Survey of the University of Oregon, University of Oregon Bulletin, n.s., vol. 13, no. 4 (Salem: State Printing Department, 1915), p. 2Google Scholar.

94. USBE, “Letter from Henry S. Pritchett to the Secretary of the Interior,” 05 29, 1911Google Scholar, Historical File 100.

95. Gates, Charles Marvin, The First Century at the University of Washington, 1861–1961 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961), pp. 117–48Google Scholar; and Bryan, Enoch Albert, Historical Sketch of the State College of Washington (Spokane: Inland American Printing, 1928), pp. 381–83Google Scholar.

96. Ross, Earle D., A History of the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts (Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1942), pp. 263, 297Google Scholar.

97. Domhoff, Powers That Be, pp. 87–90.

98. USBE, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1915–1916, p. 125; USBE, State Higher Educational Institutions of Iowa, Bulletin 1916 no. 19 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1916)Google Scholar; and Capen, Samuel P., A Survey of Educational Institutions in the State of Washington, USBE Bulletin 1916 no. 26 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1916)Google Scholar.

99. Capen, Samuel P., “The Status of the Land-Grant College as Outlined in Reports of Surveys Recently Made by the United States Bureau of Education,” 04 7, 1919Google Scholar, Capen Speeches, SUNY-Buffalo University Archives.

100. “Outline of Investigation of Higher Institutions in Connection with Educational Survey of Alabama,” USBE, School Survey Materials, Historical File 501, National Archives.

101. Figure derived from the USBE, “Information About Surveys Compiled for Use by Appropriations Committee,” 01 2, 1922Google Scholar; and “Higher Educational Surveys Since 1921,” January 5, 1926, in School Survey Materials, Historical File 501.

102. USBE, Educational Surveys, Bulletin 1928 no. 11 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1928), pp. 1, 4Google ScholarPubMed.

103. Smith, Bureau of Education, p. 70.

104. Quoted in Bulletin of the AAUP 8 (March 1922), p. 10.

105. Capen, Samuel P., “The Colleges in a Nationalized Educational Scheme,” School and Society 9 (05 1919): 613–18Google Scholar.

106. Zook, George F., “The Bureau of Education and Higher Education,” School Life 9 (05 1924): 200Google Scholar.

107. Tigert, John J., “Activities of the U.S. Bureau of Education,” School and Society 16 (08 1922): 174Google Scholar.

108. Zook, George F., “The Movement Toward the Standardization of Colleges and Universities,” School and Society 16 (12 1922): 711Google Scholar.

109. USBE, Biennial Survey of Education, 1926 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1926), p. 24Google Scholar.

110. USBE, “Results of Educational Surveys Conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Education,” 09, 1928Google Scholar, School Survey Materials, Historical File 501, National Archives.

111. Tigert, John J., “Educational Surveys as a Bureau Function,” School Life (06 1928): 190–91Google Scholar.

112. USBE, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1927–1928 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1928), p. 4Google Scholar.