Kelin Tham-Graul
ASA 2 A03
Week 4
“Why We Should Fear University, Inc.” by Fredrik deBoer illustrates the prevalence of corporatism in universities and calls upon student activists to oppose related problems at their root. DeBoer shows that beyond the surface-level corporatism of advertising, universities themselves resemble corporations controlled by administrators. This article contained many surprising details, including that colleges sometimes “employ more senior administrators than professors” (deBoer, 2015, p. 2), which seemed unnecessary to me. I found it troublesome that corporate sexual harassment training, and by extension other action to protect the people, focuses more on protecting the institution from litigation rather than preventing sexual harassment simply because preventing it is morally right. This reminded me of an incident that I read about during which a company found a problem with a batch of products but decided not to recall because the cost of recalling would have been greater than the cost of dealing with legal repercussions, resulting in the death of at least one consumer. When corporations act ethically—whether by recalling faulty products or preventing sexual harassment—merely for commercial gain rather than for moral reasons, it seems that their ethics can become flexible. If an institution prioritizes protecting itself over protecting individuals, what happens when these objectives contradict each other, and the decision beneficial to one party is harmful to the other? Will the institution follow moral necessity or continue to serve corporate interests? I also found deBoer’s perspective on how students can improve their activism insightful; problems with the university run deep, and therefore we must fight the system rather than simply fighting within it.
ASA 2 A03
Week 4
“Why We Should Fear University, Inc.” by Fredrik deBoer illustrates the prevalence of corporatism in universities and calls upon student activists to oppose related problems at their root. DeBoer shows that beyond the surface-level corporatism of advertising, universities themselves resemble corporations controlled by administrators. This article contained many surprising details, including that colleges sometimes “employ more senior administrators than professors” (deBoer, 2015, p. 2), which seemed unnecessary to me. I found it troublesome that corporate sexual harassment training, and by extension other action to protect the people, focuses more on protecting the institution from litigation rather than preventing sexual harassment simply because preventing it is morally right. This reminded me of an incident that I read about during which a company found a problem with a batch of products but decided not to recall because the cost of recalling would have been greater than the cost of dealing with legal repercussions, resulting in the death of at least one consumer. When corporations act ethically—whether by recalling faulty products or preventing sexual harassment—merely for commercial gain rather than for moral reasons, it seems that their ethics can become flexible. If an institution prioritizes protecting itself over protecting individuals, what happens when these objectives contradict each other, and the decision beneficial to one party is harmful to the other? Will the institution follow moral necessity or continue to serve corporate interests? I also found deBoer’s perspective on how students can improve their activism insightful; problems with the university run deep, and therefore we must fight the system rather than simply fighting within it.
Question: How feasible is it for students to challenge the corporate system, and what can they do to achieve this?
DeBoer, F. (2015, September 09). Why We Should Fear University, Inc. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 15, 2017.
Anderson, M. D. (2015, November 23). The Other Student Activists. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/student-activism-history-injustice/417129/
No comments:
Post a Comment