Hijackig Free        Speech 'in te CS
Kathryn Forbes
On March 1, 2002 Judy Chicago returned to California State University,
Fresno to speak about the Femni''st Art Program she had begun there in 1970. In her
lecture and in the weekend symposium that followed, Chicago and a handful of her
former Fresno State students spoke of the transformative effect that the first Feminist
Art Education program in the U.S. had on their lives as female artists and on the
spread of innovative pedagogic strategies to other art institutions. They discussed the
role consciousness-raising sessionsi played in the p'roduction of their art, the value of
building an all female off-campus art studio, and the power that performance art had
on initiating a very public discussion of feminism in Fresno. At the end of the
symposium, those of us who are new to Fresno State were perplexed by the stark
contrast between the campus climate of the early 70s and the current one--one in
which 45,000 Promise Keepers were allowed to meet--in the football stadium at cost
while the use of bras in a public display for Breast Cancer Awareness Month was
prohibited.2 Veteran faculty, too, were left trying to explain just how the autonomous
academic voice that called Chicago to Fresno and inaugurated the first fully-funded
Experimental College in the CSU had been hijacked.
It is important to note that Chicago's presence on campus 30 years ago, while
short lived, was part of a much broader liberal movement at CSUF. As Seib (1979)
describes, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement resonated in the Valley, where anti-
war sentiments and the movement to forward a civil rights agenda through education
exploded in student boycoWs, hunger strikes, rallies, and a major shift away from
Priesno State's normal school beginnings to an academic curriculum. Conservative
adinstrators, faculty members, and students eventually managed to break up
-progressive campus alliances by firing outspoken professors, circumventing faculty
governance, and dividing the most vocal and radical school on campus, the School of
Arts anld Sciences.
To be sure, these changes continue to affect our campus. But such acts do not
explain fully the contemporary, often unwilling, complicity of many faculty members
in the rise of conservatism on our campus or on others. Nor does what has been
ubiquitously labeled as student apathy fully explain why students seem to accept the
m ivasion into educational institutions of a corporate mental'ity, aptly illustrated by one
.of my students who earnestly suggested that if Judy Chicago wants to be effective
then "she should be more congenial and committed to pleasing her audience, like a
Starbuck's employee." To understand these things, we need to examine how resistant
262
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
speech, activism, and challenging pedagogy get continually managed in the university
setting. Here I want to look at one seemingly benign CSU initiative, the promotion of
community service among students, to understand how a "managerial minority"
encourages complicity among faculty members and students, and effectively curtails
free speech and campus activism. Given that the CSU system is one of the largest
university systems in the United States with a fall 1999 enrollment of 359., 947,) this
example is a cautionary tale for those working at other universities. 3
Anthropologists,, especially., might be interested in this example as community
service has emerged as one of the ways in which many universities ostensibly are
promoting cross-cultural awareness and responding to the criticisms forwarded in
discussions of multiculturalism.  Indeed,, anthropologists are particularly well
equipped to criticize the contemporary,, institutional definitions of cross-cultural
experience,, multiculturalisnm, and community that figure heavily in university
curricular revisions and are so important to understanding the reduction in campus
activism. Anthropologists are well suited to undertake an examination of the
workings of the university not only because of our discipline's methods but also
because of the contrary,, often deeply reflective, stance seen in much of our
disciplinary history. As an essential part of this history,, Gerald Beffeman's activist
legacy and commitment to formulating professional ethical standards offers a way of
re-framing our reactions to these changes in higher education.
One of CSUF's stated primary goals is to "increase student involvement and
work toward integrating a significant service-learning component into the educational
experience of each student."' Aided by funding from the Chancellor's office,, our
faculty teach S 1 designated service le....n courses that involve over 2,,500 students,,
and many more courses include community service as part of the course requirements.
And according to our campus president's offilce, Fresno State students contribute over
25,000 hours a year of commitunity service to the "needs of others in our region."' At
first glance, the inclusion of community service in courses seems harmless enough.
The promotional material for service-leang courses states that the addition of a
nminmum of ten hours of volunteer work to regular academic course curriculum
"fosters a sense of social respons'ibility and civic ethic"' among udrauates while
also providing students with "meaningful 'real-world' experience"' and establishing
partnerships between the university and the broader Valley community. Indeed,, there
are service-learning courses that seem to mtak some sense. For instance,, in a service
learning Marketing class., upper division students put their skills at web page and ad
design to good use for local organizations. But this particular mreigcourse,, in
which each student completed at least 30 hours of service,, is not the norm, and it is
questionable how much students learned about community in this class. Too often
service learning poses problems for promoting free speech and activism because of
how it gets used, what it ends up replacing, and how it dovetails with other seenmingly
unrelated campus and CSU trends.
Hacking Free Speech inm the CSU
263
Forbes
Critics of cuffent changes in higher education encourage us to examine the
ever-strengthening relationship between government projects, corporate pursuits, and
university research. Aronowitz (2000), Fairweather (1988), Gumport and Pusser
(1995) Massy (1994), and Slaughter and Leslie (1997) focus on the effects diminished
federal, and state budget allotments for higher educatilon have had on scholarship and
the nature of academic labor.  As they argue, university-industry-government
partnerships have come to drive acadenmic research agendas, especially in
technoscience fields, thereby leading to the devaluation of fields of study outside the
scope of these market interests, and to the redefinitilon of these fields of study in light
of corporate interests. More so than other public statements published by our
university, the 1997 "Vision for the 21"t Century: A Plan for Excellence" (CSUF
1997) makes clear how this national trend is manifested on our campus. Here the
social sciences emerge as valuable because they prepare students to work in industries
that serve diverse populations. Indeed, throughout the document local and global
cultural dilversilty are conflated with econormic diversity. Knowledge of cultural
difference, therefore, is posited as an area of expertise to be marketed rather than used
as a basis of a critique of capital'ist interests. As Giroux (1997) has argued,
educational institutions build on capitalist culture's insistence that forms of difference
be subsumed under a consumer ident'ity, and CSUF is no exception. Students, then,
are first and foremost customers and future employees rather than members of cultural
groups or even pupils. According to this logic, for students to succeed in the regional
employment market, they must be equipped with the "comparative advantage"
knowledge of cultural diversity promises to give. On our campus and on others as
well, community service is one route through which students can obtain this pre-
employment training.
In the Plan for Excellence, community service as a curricular goal appears as
one of many university initiatives desilgned to "bring broad recognition to California
State Univers'ity, Fresno as a unique center of educational excellence." Although the'
term excellence is used ubiquitously in this document, in the speeches and informal
talk of administrators, and in criteria for university sponsored grants, its definition
remains opaque, if not completely without a referent. It rermains unclear how
"(excellence" can describe simultaneously the parameters of good teaching in
Kinesiology and Classics, the condition of buildings and plant operations, and the
educational outcome of forced volunteerism. As Readings (1996:23) describes,
"today, all departments of the University can be urged to strive for excellence, since
the general applicability of the notion 'is in direct relation to its emptiness," While the
term excellence may not be defined, its use in university settings points to the
university's increased responsiveness to industry. That is, the language of excellence
integrates diverse fields of study and activities into a single value system judged by
unfettered university bureaucrats (Readings 1996). As Readings explains, excellence
is an "organizing principle" of the corporate university where "performativity" is
measured through a variety of cost-benefit analyses that link academic performance
and disciplinary knowledge with the wider market. Thus, fields of study that cannot
264
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
be translated into the language of the market are at risk for not measuring up to
standards of excellence, and thus at risk to ever-looming budget cuts. More often than
not, on our campus and on others as well, high demand for courses earns a department
a rating of excellent. As students increasingly see the value of education only in terms
of training for future jobs, departments' search for high enrollments becomes a
competition in customer satisfaction. It is difficult to estimate how the chase for
course enrollments affects the content of particular courses, and, in turn, to what
degree academic freedom is compromised. On our campus, it is fair to say that many
faculty members feel that they are held hostage by the situation. Adding to this sense
of paralysis is that the very existence of the plan represents the loss of faculty power
over the curriculum. As Aronowitz (2000) explains, in restructuring the university to
meet the needs of private and public entities, curriculum planning has been taken out
of the hands of faculty and centralized in the administration.
The movement to service-learning courses forwarded by system-wide
administrators emerged at the same time that the campus was reformulating tthe
general education 4 plan so that it would be similar to that of other California State
University campuses. This process has been and continues to be contentious because
a department's placement in the GE program partially determines its ability to offer
snaller, more specialized courses. As the university turns more to vocational and
technical education in response to the demiands of the job miarket, majors in the
Colleges of Social Sciences are jeopardized, and the College itself threatens to
become a conglomeration of service courses for the professional and technical
schools. And while professional and technical programs increasingly are allowed to
offer GE courses in areas traditionally doniinated by fields of study in the social
sciences, much more is at stake than "turf," as our adnministration following national
trends argues.
As the new GE pla     was being formulated, courses that focused on
multiculturalism and international issues came under fire. For instance, the Liberal
Studies Program, an elementary education mnaj or and the largest major on our campus,
attempted to eliminate the only required course that focused on race, class, and gender
as central topics of inquiry. Part of the Liberal Studies argument was that this
particular course duplicated courses taught in the education department, one of which
was the required tutoring course in which undergraduate students tutor elementary
school students from predominantly Latino or African American schools. The
Women's Studies, Asian American Studies, Eithnic Studies, and Chicano Latin
America Studies Programs were only able to preserve this bread and butter diversity
course by agreeing to teach statistical literacy as a central part of the course
curriculum. The argument presented by the Liberal Studies Program highlights a
pervasive problem in how community service is being used to displace academic
study of difference onto the experiences of individual students. Too often in these
courses attention to diversity as a course topic focuses on shifting the attitudes of
students about cultural difference through developing empathy in face-to-face
Forbes
Hijacking Free Speech in the CSU
265
interaction with those deemed "other." Lost is the study of the history of difference,
structural inequalities, or any true critique of standard curriculum.
Concomitant with this loss is the way that community service obscures
understandings of activism. Not only must community-service courses include
mechanisms for teaching and reinforcing a narrowly defined "service ethic," a
requirement that is reinforced through committee review of syllabi and required
outcomes-assessment techniques, but the acceptable organizations where service
learniing can take place are built on traditional models of volunteerism. The problems
here are predictable: service learning prohibits students from participating in groups
-formed to protest legislation or city and county ordinances; instead students work for
organizations with a long history of community financial and ideological support,
many of which preserve the status quo. The service-learning program especially
encourages students to work for community organizations that have established ties to
,the university. The impetus behind this is part of a broader endeavor to make the
university and the community more connected. One positive manifestation of this
ftrnd is a cooperative project in which students, faculty, and community groups work
to restore the San Joaquin River. The award winning San Joaquin Writing Project
-which trains public school teachers to tackle the pressing problem of illiteracy is also
an exemplary university sponsored program designed to meet the needs of the region.
But a variety of other 'initiatives have also been lumped in with these progressive
programs and labeled as university-community partnerships. These include initiatives
such as: the Savemart sponsorship of a large-scale athletic facility; the move to feed
employees into the growing regional prison industry through the creation of a
conrections-offilcer track in the second largest major on campus, criminology; and the
regular use of the practice football field by a local car dealership to sell used cars
advertised wilth TV spots featuring the football coach. Especially relevant to the topic
of activism is the provision that service learning cannot take place on campus or with
any student organization. Considefiing the way community is being defmed through
university-community collaborations, prohibiting service-learning courses from using
student organizations as a site for applied education cuts off the opportunity for
faculty and students to integrate criticisms of the university into the commuunity
servce curriculum, and impairs students from seeing the campus as a viable place to
build community and promote activism.
The strict management of activist voices on our campus bolsters these
prohibitions. For example, in the recent university sponsored celebrations redefined
the activist legacy of Caesar Chavez in acceptable institutionalized lexicon, calling,
rather uniaiatively, the recent holiday a day of "service and learning." I hasten to
Adthat our campus was a regional disbursement center for legislative funds
designated to promote Chavez Day to young students in which a heavily funded
program was to teach gardening techniques to young children, many of whom are the
children of farm workers. And the campus and city police have directly targeted one
of the most visible campus activist organizations, the Fresno branch of the United
No. 89/90
266
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
Students Against Sweatshops. In collaboration with community members and a
handful of faculty, this organization has led a series of protests against local Gap
stores while also disseminating information about the use of sweatshop labor in
producing clothing bearing the Fresno State logo. Currently, students from this
organization and community members are working to build a lawsuit challenging the
arrest of 19 people at a May 6, 2000 demonstration. P'reparations for this legal action
already has uncovered the fact that the Fresno PD had a campus police officer
infiltrate United Students Against Sweatshops. This officer funneled information
about the May 6th protest, circulated in part on university e-mail, to the Fresno PD, so
that when the demonstrators arrived at the shopping center, 40 to 50 officers were
waiting in riot gear. And the campus police continue to work for the Fresno PD by
monitoring how student groups advertise on-campus upcoming demonstrations. This
past October the campus police mistook students from one of my Women's Studies
classes, who were working on the annual Take Back the Night March, as students
from United Students Against Sweatshops. Within fifteen minutes of beginning to
advertise the event, the police had rounded up all twenty-three students with the aid of
outdoor cameras dispersed throughout campus.
While the university punishes such activism, it presents community service as
providing students with valuable experience that can be parlayed into concrete job
opportunities, a major concern of students from the Central Valley that has a chronic
unemployment rate of 13% and an average per capita income of $13,600. For faculty,
too, participation in the service-learning program promises career rewards. Service-
learning courses reward individual departments through increased student enrollment,
especially if the university realizes its goal of having each student take such a course.
Already smaller departments have been drawn to the community service program as
one strategy among many to help their majors survive, thereby unintentionally
supporting admini'strative system-wide objectives which many faculty evaluate as
threatening academic autonomly and undergraduate education. For instance, the 1997
Cornerstones Report (CSU 1997), the CSU systerm's statement of institutional
pIannig, states that a vital step in "providing educational excellence" is the
"innovative" delivery of education, including the elimination of "unnecessary
obstacles to timely completion of degrees," in part by further developing
"6community/industry partnerships in both program design and teaching," and funding
industry responsive programs through "'el'minaing low enrollment programs.")
Service-learning, therefore, is one strategy used on campuses to enable students to
obtain degree requirements without actually receiving instruction-particularly
important in light of an anticipated balloon in enrollment over the next five years.
On our campus, facultv members who develoiD service-learnin courses can
receive three units of re-assigned time. With a teaching load of four courses a
semester, each normll&4y capped at 40-50 students, and no teaching assistants, just one
course release can add significantly to the amount of time a faculty member has to
devote to other teaching and research endeavors. The promise of a course release is
Forbes
Hijacking Free Speech in the CSU
267
especially alluring to junior faculty struggling to meet the stepped-up tenure
requirements that the university has standardized through a very curious adaptation of
a model of academic development put forth by the Carnegie Foundation and adopted
as part of centralized university planning. Since developing a course rarely takes up
all the time afforded by the award of a course release, faculty can use the time to
pursue other tenure requirements. And by including a service-learning component in
the course curriculum, faculty can lighten the teaching load by replacing graded
assignments with proof that students completed their volunteer hours.
Finally, those faculty who teach service learning courses are financially
rewarded through Faculty Merit Increases-a disputed salary distribution plan in
which faculty members compete for raises. This plan targets service-learning as an
area of pedagogical development deemed meritorious. Although the dollar amount of
merit awards may seem negligible, considered in the context of the hotly-debated
faculty salary schedule in the CSU coupled with the recent 15% increqse in
adnuin'strative salaries and the fear that in the future an even larger percentage of
salary increases will be apportioned to the Faculty Merit system, these awards have
symbolic importance that far outweighs their monetary value.
Our complicity in this individual and departmental rewards system points to
an even larger problem facing the social sciences. Unfortunately, more often than not
many of the undervalued departments and programs in the corporate university have
responded to their displacement with attempts to prove that their respective fields of
study actually do produce something of economic value. As a faculty member in a
Women's Studies program struggling to build its major, I am well aware that this type
of response may not be the chosen path but a strategy foisted upon departments in
fimes of distress. I fear, however, that without a developed and supported counter
logic, many departments and programs will forget that, for example, the translation of
"multicultural awareness" into measurable economic value was originally meant to be
a temporary strategy, not a logic to be normalized. And, if Readings ( 1996) is correct
in his assertion that a key cost-cutting strategy in the corporate university is to
eliminate departments either by promoting interdisciplinary studies or simply adding
.faculty members trained in cultural fields to professional schools, then this strategy
will fail in the long run. If we only legitimize our worth using the logic of the
corporate university, then the social sciences may not be able to hold on to their
claims of expertise as faculty members in the professional schools increasingly are
'strained" to be culturally sensitive.
On our campus, our silence as a faculty body around these issues and our
compliance with the corporate logic of the university in part explains why the student
in one of my courses could only see Judy Chicago as a potential Starbuck's employee.
The question for faculty is how do faculty promote student activism and free speech
through course curriculum when seemingly unrelated campus and CSU iniMtiatives
partially determine the shape and scope of courses?
268
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
One strategy that certainly would prove useful is to examine more thoroughly
how Fresno State, and other campuses as well, have been dramatically re-organized
since the early 1970s in such 'a way as to increase the control of system-wide
administrative units while dispersing faculty power. Even a cursory glance at our
history reveals that faculty governance has been replaced by what one Fresno State
professor called "rule by task force." Too often curriculum changes and faculty
review are placed in the hands of either the administration or in the hands of faculty
who are in what become or informally are admini'strative positions. For instance, one
of the current task forces, which are headed by faculty members and low level
administrators chosen by the upper administration, has proposed that the often
precarious guidelines for post-tenure review no longer be determined by indilvidual
departments. Instead, this conumittee proposes that the campus office in charge of
fostering faculty development through forwarding dubious CSU mandates such as
outcomes assessment and other accountability measures set post-tenure review
requirements.  This particular example along with the extended example of
community service also illustrates the need for more communication between faculty
committees, a process hindered by work speed up an, among other changes, the
elimination of faculty input into university wide information systems that, in the
recent past, have been places for faculty response but now include only information
put out by the administration. But even when faculty have been consulted, we have
not always been successful at understanding how various proposals work in concert
with other university or system 'initiatives. Knowing this history requires listening to
the voices of long-time academic activists not only because they have witnessed and
fought many of these battles but also because they may be more likely than others to
be suspicious of those changes that seem innocuous but usher in insidious restraint on
the autonomous academic voice and campus activism.
The work and activism of Gerald Berreman is useful to the development of a
narrative that both counters the c,orporate logic at work in the university and resists the
move to collapse the study of human diversity into a single makt-value system.
Some three decades ago, Beffeman raised issues similar to those discussed in more
recent criticism of higher education. In denouncing anthropologists' participation in
counterinsurgency research in Thailand during the Vietnam War and by speaking out
against the academic colonialism at work in U.S. government funding of research in
India, Berreman called attention to the serious problems in unchecked government-
university partnerships. Pointing to Project Camelot as evidence, Beffeman argued
that social scientists needed to regain a sense of social responsibility. He led a charge
within the discipline to dismantl the "sterile professionalism" that plagues "value-
free"" interpretations of the humanistic science of anthropology (Berreman 1968:391-
392). Berreman was narticularlv concerned with the conscouences of anthronologists'
silence around their research and the research of others in public forums:
Our silence permits others in society less reticent, perhaps less
scrupulous, almost certainly less informed, to make their own use of
Forbes
Hijacking Free Speech in the CSU
269
material presented.  It leaves politicians and journalists, to
entrepreneurs, scoundrels, and madmen, as well as to statesmen and
benefactors-but especially powerful-the interpretation and
manipulation of- matters about which they frequently know little, and
nearly always know far less than those who collected the material or
made the analyses. [1968:392]
Beffeman played a key role in breaking the profession's silence around
dubious activities by helping to frame the original Principles of Professional
Responsibility (PPR) for the American Anthropological Association. As hinted at in
theabove statement, the U.S.. political climate and the realities of clandestine military
operations abroad centered the PPR and the discussion of ethics in anthropology
around questions about where anthropologists get their money for research and how
theirfindings are used once their research is complete. Thus, the 1971 version of the
PPRrebuked secret research and placed the protection and welfare of the subjects of
anthropological study above all other concerns.. And the statement of responsibility to
students in the 1971 PPR also is concerned primarily with students" research activities
and the appraisal of their academic performance by mentors., The same sentiments
shape the most recent code of ethics, though as Beffeman (1991) has noted there is a
notable retreat from censuring anthropologists' involvement in secret and clandestine
activities.
T'he recent Chagnon debacle illustrates the need for the profession to continue
to engage with ethical considerations involved in fieldwork., the funding of fieldwork,
and the uses of the analyses of fieldwork.. In Darkness in El Dorado (2000)
investigative journalist Patrick Tierney accuses Chagnon and other anthropologists
who have worked in the Amazon of mismanaging their research and of exploiting
Amazonian people for dubious scientific gains.. While a panel of anthropologists at
the 2001 annual meeting of the A-merican Anthropological Association refuted many
of Tierney's inflanmmatory claims, what became clear in this very public discussion
and in a variety of other public dialogues afterward was the ways in which
anthropology as a discipline had failed to respond to well-known suspicions about the
nature of Chagnon's research. In part, these discussions pointed to the ways that
questions of ethics in anthropological research need to be continually revisited.
But if we are to be engaged responsibly with contemporary world events as
Berreman continues to insist., then we need to expand our discussion of ethics to
include the inscription of corporate values into the university curriculum and into the
organization of academic institutions,. As Berreman describes in a 1991 article about
vroposed revisions to the PPR, the logic of the market threatens to overtake the
"academy so much so that "corporate and national pniorities become anthropologists'
priorities" (1991:64). The "scoundrels and madmen" Berreman referred to in 1968
may no longer be only CIA agents or conservative politicos but university presidents,
provosts, and chancellors.
270
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90
For those of us at non-research oriented universities resistance to these
"madmen" and "corporate priorities" may be less often framed around questions of
research funding and focus, and more frequently around questions of teaching and
faculty power. However, Pusser's (Gumport and Pusser 1995) research on the
substantial growth in expenditures for admini'stration in the University of California
system reveals that even research institutions have witnessed the increased control of
the academic enterprise by administrators who talk about education as "added value."
Nevertheless, individual faculty members at various institutions have been anything
but silent about corporate power in higher education, writing and speaking about a
variety of issues including faculty-union negotiations, the increased reliance on part-
time faculty, and the "outsourcing" of services previously performed by university
employees.  However, these issues have received much less attention from
professional organizations, even those that see themselves as more politically engaged
than typical ones. As the logic of the market increasingly steers the shape and scope
of courses and thereby curtailing academic freedom, anthropologists must be attentive
to the ethics of teaching not just in our interactions with students but in the very
organzation of the university.
While individuals at times do use the lanlguage of ethics and responsibility to
speak out against the corporate take over academic institutions, it would be even more
powerful for anthropology as a profession to counter the capitalist ideology in the
academy with an ethical narrative of social justice. This narrative would respond to
both the cuffent re-organization of knowledge and revaluing of knowledge in the
academy along the mandates of the global marketplace and during the cuffent
takeover of the university by education managers. Our strategies for fighting the
academy's move to maeeducation ever more responsive to the demands of corporate
power may be localized and context specific just as questions of ethics and
responsibility in anthropology have become. But I want to suggest that we need an
overarching language of ethics-,and responsibility for teaching to counter the all
encompassing principles of excellence that engulf universities in capitalist priorities.
Beffeman's fight to develop a code and ongoing conversation about ethics strikes me
as a fruitful source of inspiration and trajectory to follow.
WVorks Cited
Aronowitz, Stanley
2000 Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating
True Higher Learning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Beffeman, Gerald
1991   Ethics versus "Realism" 'in Anthropology. In Ethics and the Profession of
Anthropology. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, ed. Plp. 36-7 1 . Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvaniia Press.
'oes
Hijacking Free Speech in the CSU
271
1968 Is Anthropology Alive? Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology.
Current Anthropology 9(5):391-396.
Califomia State University
1996 Cornerstones Report. Long Beach: California State University.
California State University, Fresno
1997 Vision for the 21 st Century: A Plan for Exc'ellence. Fresno:. California
State University, Fresno.
Fairweather, James
1988 Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association
for the Study of Higher Education.
Giroux, Henry
1997 Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope. Boulder: Westview Press.
Gumport, Patricia and Brian Pusser
1995 A Case of Bureaucratic Accretion: Context and Consequences. Journal of
Higher Education 66(5): 493-520.
Massy, William F.
1994 Resource Allocation Reform in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:
National Association of College and University Business Offices.
Readings, Bill
1996 The University in Ruins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Seib, Kenneth
1979 The Slow Death of Fresno State. Palo Alto: Ramparts Press.
-Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie
1997 Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial
University. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Taylor, John G.
1997 PK Return to Fresno "Promising," Fresno Bee, December 10, Home
Edition.
fTiemney, Patrick
2000 Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists anld Joumalists have Devastated
the Amazon. New York: Norton.
Chicago does not use this term to describe her art practice; however, her students often do use
this tenm to describe their fenuinist art education.
2 Accounts of the attendance at the first Promise Keepers Conference in Fresno in June 1997
vary widely. The estimate of 45,000 is a conservative figure made by Taylor (I19973.
3 For a detailed account of enrollments in the CSU system, see the statistical abstracts
published by thie Office of the Chanlcellor.
4 The general education package consists of courses that are common to almost all students
regardless of their major. In each area of the GE, students have a choice between classes.
272
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers
No. 89/90