The Corporatization of Student Affairs Serving Students in Neoliberal Times Daniel K Cairo Full Chapter PDF

The Corporatization of Student Affairs:
Serving Students in Neoliberal Times

Daniel K. Cairo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-corporatization-of-student-affairs-serving-students
-in-neoliberal-times-daniel-k-cairo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Serving Herself. The Life and Times of Althea Gibson

Ashley Brown
https://ebookmass.com/product/serving-herself-the-life-and-times-
of-althea-gibson-ashley-brown/
The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration 4th

Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-handbook-of-student-affairs-
administration-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Serving Herself. The Life and Times of Althea Gibson

1st Edition Ashley Brown
https://ebookmass.com/product/serving-herself-the-life-and-times-
of-althea-gibson-1st-edition-ashley-brown/
The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration 5th

Edition George S. Mcclellan
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-handbook-of-student-affairs-
administration-5th-edition-george-s-mcclellan/
Prosecuting Domestic Abuse in Neoliberal Times:
Amplifying the Survivor's Voice 1st ed. Edition Antonia
Porter
https://ebookmass.com/product/prosecuting-domestic-abuse-in-
neoliberal-times-amplifying-the-survivors-voice-1st-ed-edition-
antonia-porter/
Pilbeam's Mechanical Ventilation 7th Edition J M Cairo

[Cairo
https://ebookmass.com/product/pilbeams-mechanical-
ventilation-7th-edition-j-m-cairo-cairo/
Elementary Geometry for College Students 7th Edition

Daniel C. Alexander
https://ebookmass.com/product/elementary-geometry-for-college-
students-7th-edition-daniel-c-alexander/
The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism Catherine Rottenberg
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-rise-of-neoliberal-feminism-
catherine-rottenberg/
Gray’s Anatomy for Students: With Student Consult

Online Access 3rd Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/grays-anatomy-for-students-with-
student-consult-online-access-3rd-edition/
NEW FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION, CULTURE, AND POLITICS
The Corporatization
of Student Affairs
Daniel K. Cairo · Victoria Cabal
New Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics
Series Editor
Kenneth J. Saltman
Educational Policy Studies
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL, USA
New Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics focuses on both topical
educational issues and highly original works of educational policy and
theory that are critical, publicly engaged, and interdisciplinary, drawing on
contemporary philosophy and social theory. The books in the series aim to
push the bounds of academic and public educational discourse while
remaining largely accessible to an educated reading public. New Frontiers
aims to contribute to thinking beyond the increasingly unified view of
public education for narrow economic ends (economic mobility for the
individual and global economic competition for the society) and in terms
of efficacious delivery of education as akin to a consumable commodity.
Books in the series provide both innovative and original criticism and offer
visions for imagining educational theory, policy, and practice for radically
different, egalitarian, and just social transformation.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14741
Daniel K. Cairo • Victoria Cabal
The Corporatization
of Student Affairs
Daniel K. Cairo Victoria Cabal
Office of the Vice President for Equity David Eccles School of Business
Diversity and Inclusion University of Utah
University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
New Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics

ISBN 978-3-030-88127-6 ISBN 978-3-030-88128-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88128-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: gremlin/getty images
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
We want to thank the people who made this book possible. To friends and
colleagues whose ongoing conversations push us to think and consider the
possibilities and impact of our research, and who continue to teach us that
thinking is a collective process.
To Dr. Amy Bergerson for her countless hours reading and editing our
work and for her wisdom and guidance throughout the research process.
We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Karnell McConnell-Black our
Ed.D. research colleague for his contribution to the original study; and to
our Ed.D. committee members Dr. Laurence Parker and Dr. Kathryn
Coquemont for their thoughtful guidance throughout our research
process.
To our families and friends for giving us the space and time needed to
research and write and for cheering us on along the way.
Dan would like to thank his husband Derrick Maylone for countless
hours of labor, love, and dedication to our home so that Dan could dedi-
cate time to this manuscript; and for his patience every time Dan brought
up how you could apply a neoliberal lens to everything, such as drag
queens. Dan would like to thank both his mother Hilda Cairo and his
adoptive parent Kevin King for the deep lessons of love, solidarity, and
what it means to be in community with people which informed the spirit
of this research and manuscript.
Victoria would like to acknowledge her mother Lucy Cabal for always
teaching her to keep moving adelante and strive to achieve goals she never
knew possible. She would like to thank her partner Matthew Daufenbach
v
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
for all the meals he cooked to allow for late night writing, and the various
pep talks that kept her going. She would like to acknowledge her family
and friends for their encouragement, love, and for constantly listening to
her research topic.
We would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Saltman and Dr. Pauline Lipman
for their advice and guidance on turning our research into a book for pub-
lication. Lastly, we would like to thank our mentors Dr. Pauline Lipman
and Dr. Christelle Estrada who have shaped our understanding of educa-
tional equity and social justice.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
References 9
2 “Are we all neoliberal now?” 13

Neoliberalism 14
Neoliberalism in Student Affairs 15
Classical Liberalism 16
The New in Neoliberalism 18
Neoliberal Common Sense 19
The Neoliberal Ecological System (Neoliberalism, “it’s behind
me isn’t it”) 20
Conclusion 31
References 31
3 Corporatization of Higher Education and Student Affairs 37

The Emergence of Corporatization in Higher Education 38
Neoliberalization of Higher Education 38
Impact of Corporatization on Student Affairs 50
Conclusion 52
References 52
4 Student Success 57
Student Success 58
Conclusion 67
References 67
vii
viii Contents
5 The Impact of Corporate Values on Student Affairs:

The Case Study 71
Methodology 72
Student Affairs Trends Guiding Our Research 80
Conclusion 81
References 83
6 Neoliberalism in Student Affairs: A “Both/And”

Proposition 85
Owning Exceptional Care 85
Conclusion 128
References 129
7 Challenging Corporate Values Through Good Sense

Solutions133
Individual 136
Micro-system 138
Meso-system 140
Exo-system 142
Macro-system 145
Conclusion 147
References 149
8 Post-Script: The Failed Promise of Neoliberalism:

Uncertainty 2020 and Beyond153
The Failed Promises of Neoliberalism 156
The Silver Lining in Neoliberalism’s Failed Promises 163
References 163
Appendix A167
Appendix B169
Appendix C171
Contents ix
Appendix D175
Appendix E177
Appendix F183
Index185
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Neoliberal ecological system diagram. Adapted from

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological Systems Theory. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers 21
Fig. 7.1 Study findings mapped within the neoliberal ecological system
diagram. Adapted from Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological
Systems Theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers 135
xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
If we’re going to be an access based institution and we’re going to do it

at the scale … we’ve got to be able to do this in a way that maintains
some fidelity to care. And we have an opportunity to define the mission.
I don’t think the legislature has any more answers than we have. … I
think that is the challenge that is present in this moment, is can we
define this both and proposition?
—Research site student affairs leader
During the 2019–2020 academic year, as a part of our Ed.D. capstone we

engaged in a case study analysis of the student affairs division at a large
public four-year university in the West. The intent of the study was to
understand how neoliberal ideology has infused itself throughout the
student-centered role of the student affairs professional. As practitioners
in the field, we see the corporatizing of student affairs at the interpersonal,
divisional, and institutional levels (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Besley &
Peters, 2006; Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017; Cannella & Miller,
2008; Giroux, 2002, 2007; Hachem, 2018; Olssen & Peters, 2005;
Saunders, 2010).
To examine this phenomenon, we engaged professionals at the research
site in articulating the call of the university president to lead the institu-
tional mission with three values: exceptional care, exceptional
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
D. K. Cairo, V. Cabal, The Corporatization of Student Affairs, New
Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88128-3_1
2 D. K. CAIRO AND V. CABAL
accountability, and exceptional results. Focusing our study on how these

values, particularly exceptional care, were understood and enacted within
the student affairs division allowed us to understand the organizational
manifestations of neoliberalism via the policies, practices, and values that
inform care toward student success.
As researchers and professionals in higher education, we understand the
importance of standards (Wells & Henry-Darwish, 2019) that guide prac-
tices to support the development and success of our students. We also see
a growing threat in implementing neoliberal practices as the only metric
for defining a successful college student (Habley et al., 2012; Kezar et al.,
2019). The research site we identified offered a unique opportunity for us
as scholar practitioners to investigate how student affairs professionals
make sense of, understand, and define student success within a framework
of neoliberalism as the value of care is balanced with institutional values of
accountability and results.
The research site is a predominantly White, open-access institution that
attracts a large number of students. It is the largest public university in the
area, with nearly 40,000 students, and one of only a few in the nation with
a dual-mission model claiming to combine the rigor of a university with
the open-access and vocational programming of a community college.
Established in the early 1940s as a vocational school, the university is
unique in its history and rapid growth over the last two decades.
Consistently engaging in what can be understood as mission creep (Steck,
2003), the institution has shifted over the years from a vocational school,
to a technical college, to a community college, a college, and finally a full
degree granting university; all while maintaining its previous identities and
academic offerings. The constant mission creep sends a clear market-
focused message of the university’s history and where it is headed
(McClellan & Stringer, 2016).
We believe the university’s constant growth via market demands and
aspirations to be a flagship institution is the epitome of neoliberal restruc-
turing. As researchers, we see the institutional shift in focus from students
to institutional growth as a clear example of the university’s response to
neoliberal pressures from market demands, specifically the university’s
large focus on business and managerial degrees (Anderson & Cohen,
2018; Besley & Peters, 2006; Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017;
Cannella & Miller, 2008; Giroux, 2002, 2007; Hachem, 2018; Olssen &
Peters, 2005; Saunders, 2010). The university’s 72-year history is indica-
tive of an institution engaged in continuous growth and shifting mission
1 INTRODUCTION 3
(Steck, 2003). Thus, the site provided us an opportunity to be critical

observers of the change process of defining exceptional care within the
student affairs division informed by the neoliberal pressures of market
demands (Giroux, 2002, 2007).
Using the university’s student affairs division as a case for analysis, our
study aimed to contribute to the body of literature on student success
while offering practitioners a framework that broadens the definition of
success and thus informs best practices. The exceptional care initiative car-
ried the potential of offering the field a vision and framework for how to
“save the heart of student affairs” given the ongoing shift to institutional
accountability measures.
Through observations at retreats and meetings, words shared in focus
groups and interviews, and documents developed to communicate excep-
tional care to the student affairs division, we found professionals caught in
a both/and proposition between providing care and producing results.
Five overarching themes emerged: personal responsibility, student success,
metrics and results, corporatization of higher education, and labor and care.
Our findings indicate professionals feel pressured to do more with less,
wear multiple hats which can lead to burnout, and struggle to find time to
meet growing expectations. Based on our findings, we believe student
affairs practitioners are in constant negotiation about what it means to
support a holistic student experience while existing in a culture of metrics,
accountability, and results. Our data indicate that understanding and
defining student success in a culture of metrics, accountability, and results
offer ongoing tensions and complexities for current and future student
affairs professionals.
At the conclusion of our case study analysis, and reflecting on our own
experiences, we found ourselves asking … are we all neoliberal? Our
research indicates that yes, as student affairs professionals we are all neo-
liberal. However, our research also indicates that we are more than just
neoliberal. This study illustrates that neoliberal subjectivity is more com-
plicated, dialectical, and nuanced than saying one is neoliberal or not. Our
study offers insight into the delicate daily negotiations of existing in the
both/and proposition of being agents of neoliberalism while actively
resisting neoliberalism. This book offers the student affairs profession a
new lens through which to examine and interrupt neoliberal common
sense (Braedley & Luxton, 2010; Dean, 2010; Harvey, 2005; Hall &
O’Shea, 2013) by acknowledging the both/and proposition and provid-
ing good sense solutions found (Astin, 1999; Chambliss & Takacs, 2014;
Kezar et al., 2019; Kuh et al., 2005, 2006; Strayhorn, 2008, 2019; Tinto,
1993, 2003) for the next generation of the profession.
Chapter 2 offers the historical and ideological context to name and
understand neoliberalism as an ideological project that is changing who
we are as people, arguing that neoliberalism is no longer just a political
and economic ideology (Harvey, 2005; Ong, 2006). This chapter outlines
the ideological underpinnings of classical liberalism and its vigorous proc-
lamation for individuality, free markets, governance, and subjectivity while
outlining the role of the state (Braedley & Luxton, 2010; Dean, 2010).
The chapter will offer a definition of neoliberalism by outlining a historical
timeline that will allow researchers to understand liberalism, Keynesian
economics, and the return to a reimagined (neo) liberalism.
More importantly, this chapter offers a theoretical framework for how
neoliberalism establishes hegemonic power via common sense and offers a
tool to make sense of what often feels like a nebulous ideology: the neo-
liberal ecological model. The neoliberal ecological model highlights how
common sense is used to construct new ways of viewing the world—a
world in which neoliberal values of individualism, competition, account-
ability, and metrics are asserted as pragmatic and logical that has been
vetted by popular thinking, “it works intuitively, without forethought or
reflection … giving the illusion of arising directly from experience … and
answering the needs of common people” (Hall & O’Shea, 2013, p. 9).
Chapter 3 brings the researcher in concert with the literature on the
history of higher education and the student affairs profession. The chapter
explores the emergence of neoliberal ideology in the academe and its
impacts (Giroux, 2002, 2007; Kezar et al., 2019; Schrecker, 2010;
Slaughter et al., 2004). To help the reader conceptualize how neoliberal-
ism became the dominant paradigm in higher education the chapter
explores how higher education has changed since market values became
the common sense answer to higher education woes (Hall & O’Shea,
2013; Harvey, 2005). The chapter provides background on the emer-
gence of corporatization in higher education through the shift of private
organizational values into public spaces such as colleges and universities
(Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Besley & Peters, 2006; Cannella & Koro-
Ljungberg, 2017; Cannella & Miller, 2008; Giroux, 2002, 2007; Hachem,
2018; Olssen & Peters, 2005; Saunders, 2010; Slaughter et al., 2004),
laying out a timeline of institutional shifts.
The chapter then brings the neoliberal analysis down to the granular
level to examine the impact of corporate values to the student affairs
1 INTRODUCTION 5
profession (Hirt, 2007). Student affairs was created as a function of higher

education to focus on the holistic development of students (Nuss, 2003).
However, it has not been safe from neoliberal influence (Giroux, 2002,
2007; Kezar et al., 2019; Zepke, 2015); rather student affairs is being
challenged to recast our work away from developmental models and
toward market-driven models (Hirt, 2007). While a wealth of literature
highlights how corporate values have impacted the academy (Anderson &
Cohen, 2018; Besley & Peters, 2006; Cannella & Miller, 2008), current
literature largely ignores how this shift has changed student affairs from
being student-focus to being data-driven by measures that emphasize a
culture of performativity (Eaton, 2016; Kezar et al., 2019). This culture
also fails to contextualize achievement gaps due to social inequality
(Pritchard & Wilson, 2003; York et al., 2015). The chapter offers an
introduction to the outcomes inherent in higher education due to the
neoliberal influence, outcomes that narrow the student affairs’ under-
standing of student success (Schrecker, 2010).
Chapter 4 dives deeper into the impact neoliberalism is having on the
student affairs profession. The chapter examines how the student affairs
profession is defined by the data-driven yardstick of competition, namely
the competition around grade point average (GPA), retention, and gradu-
ate rates. The student affairs professional has internalized their work to be
so narrowly defined by these metrics of success that many professionals
overwork themselves to try and achieve these goals, even when research
indicates a multitude of outside forces can impact these flaky measures of
GPA as the sole indicator of success (Astin, 1975; Cope & Hannah, 1975;
Kuh et al., 2005; Schrecker, 2010).
Student success has been highly researched and multiple influences are
known to impact student experiences and outcomes (Astin, 1975; Cope &
Hannah, 1975; Kuh et al., 2005). However, Chap. 4 contextualizes a
historical analysis of student success that has been continually pushed
toward focusing solely on metrics over educational experiences (Astin,
1975; Cope & Hannah, 1975; Kuh et al., 2005; Varlotta, 2016; Schrecker,
2010). The literature indicates that student success is being driven by the
neoliberal institution and is narrowly defined along market value measures
such as retention, GPA, and graduation rates (Noble & Sawyer, 2002;
Pritchard & Wilson, 2003; Schrecker, 2010; Stater, 2009). These nar-
rowed metrics result in performativity and competition that is eroding
higher education and hurting students by widening the equity gap
(Capper, 2015). The student affairs profession, originally created to
support the development of the whole student (Nuss, 2003), is now nar-
rowed along these same metrics of success (Hirt, 2007). This narrowed
vision of the profession is resulting in tensions impacting the daily lives of
professionals and students. As student affairs continue to strive to do more
with less and develop efficiency metrics, institutions continue to see stag-
nant results that only drive these narrowed lines further.
As researcher practitioners, we share how the corporatization of the
profession has created pressure to achieve ever-moving targets of “suc-
cess” metrics. This constant pressure for professionals, who entered into
student affairs to engage the holistic development of students, has resulted
in a constant state of exhaustion. Student affairs professionals seek to meet
deadlines, provide “high-quality” services, extend student support beyond
the 40-hour work week, and produce ever-increasing measures of “suc-
cess.” In this culture of winning (Berg et al., 2016), student affairs profes-
sionals find themselves dreaming of task-oriented jobs that allow them to
have an “end” to their day. The corporate organization is asking student
affairs not only to support students, but also to give their lives to the insti-
tution in the name of competing in the rankings game. It is not enough to
show up to work as your best self; instead, student affairs is expected to
show up to perform in order to meet expectations that will only increase
once they have been met. Many believe student affairs is an integral cog in
the system, and yet, those who work in student affairs often fear the sys-
tem, based on neoliberal bureaucracy and short-term profits, will easily
replace or reduce them if “performance” is not met (Anderson & Cohen,
2018; Giroux, 2007; Saunders, 2010; Slaughter et al., 2004), thus feeding
the student success monster. As a result, success is defined according to
this unsustainable yardstick and many student affairs professionals lose
touch with why they entered the profession to begin with.
Chapter 5 introduces our case study site and method of analysis. The
chapter articulates the rationale for selecting a qualitative case study meth-
odology (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) and its connec-
tion to understanding how student affairs professionals experience
neoliberal normalization via corporate values. This chapter provides a
background of the research site as an example of institutional pressures to
perform to neoliberal norms. A history of the rapid institutional growth
experienced at the case study site provides context for the corporate influ-
ences shaping an institution trying to “meet students where they are.” We
examine complexities around institutional commitments for students to
“come as they are,” alongside the pressures of trying to attune to
1 INTRODUCTION 7
individual needs (exceptional care), while achieving exceptional account-

ability and exceptional results. The chapter addresses similar trends
throughout higher education that are leading to a focus on growth and
competition over holistic education (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Carbado,
2013; Geiger, 2019; Hall & O’Shea, 2013; Kezar et al., 2019; Thelin,
2003, 2011).
Focusing on the experience of case study participants, Chap. 6 utilizes
narrative format to share the personal tensions professionals expressed
between holding a value of exceptional care while meeting metrics. The
chapter narrates the findings from observations, focus groups, interviews,
and documents related to how the research site defined corporate values:
defined as exceptional care, accountability, and results. Experiences shared
by participants communicated an understanding of corporate values across
a variation of member roles at the research site. From participant narra-
tives and supporting observations, five overarching themes of the neolib-
eral impact on student affairs were identified: a sense of personal
responsibility, student success, metrics and results, corporatization of
higher education, along with labor and care. These themes bring to light
how student affairs practitioners are in constant negotiation about what it
means to support a holistic student experience while existing in a culture
of metrics, accountability, and results. The five identified themes are con-
textualized through the literature introduced in Chaps. 2, 3, and 4 to
provide a discussion for professional analysis.
Narratives and discussions offer readers the opportunity to explore each
theme as it relates to the neoliberal university (Giroux, 2002, 2007).
Personal responsibility toward the work of student services is understood as
human-centered, dependent on relationships, and focused on education as
a social good. However, a tension exists for professionals in defining their
responsibility in holistic and collective ways in an era of accountability and
results. Student success is seen as going beyond metrics, focusing on basic
needs, developing transformative opportunities, all while recognizing that
metrics cannot be ignored, and that professionals are central to success.
Because metrics cannot be ignored, we explore the influence of metrics
and results in the tensions by sharing findings around the research site’s
leadership mandates, institutional expectations of results, existing in a
data-informed organizational culture, and the push for results around
retention and completion agendas. These tensions between results and
care are understood as the influence of the corporate sector on higher educa-
tion. We explore how business models inherent in higher education today,
models which shape the discourse of constant growth, branding, and see-
ing students as consumers, all add to participants’ sense of professional
tensions. The tensions result in a rhetoric of care with customer service
and education as a product. Lastly, student affairs is not often talked about
as actual labor, but naming it as such makes visible the labor that is valu-
able to the institution given the need for accountability measures.
Findings in this chapter indicate professionals feel pressured to do more
with less, wear multiple hats which can lead to burnout, and struggle to
find time to meet growing expectations. The data indicate that under-
standing and defining student success in a culture of metrics, accountabil-
ity, and results offer ongoing tensions and complexities for current and
future student affairs professionals along the five themes explored. The
data illustrate the tension in which student affairs practitioners engage as a
result of the neoliberal influence in higher education. These tensions sur-
face as important contributions to the student affairs practice and they are
indicative as they challenge neoliberalism as a singularity. We articulate the
tensions not from a singular perspective but rather as complexities across
the corporatization of student affairs, institutional culture, personal
responsibility rather than a collective responsibility, and student success
while exploring the synergy between metrics and corporate values.
Chapter 7 explores how to exist while also resisting the neoliberal influ-
ence in student affairs through good sense solutions. As established in
Chap. 2, neoliberalism consolidates power through common sense.
However, this chapter challenges the student affairs professional to iden-
tify the healthy nucleus of common sense assumptions and offers a frame-
work of good sense to highlight the ruptures in neoliberal rhetoric. Good
sense “is constructed out of critical engagement with issues of the day”
(Harvey, 2005, p. 39). We argue that it is within the limitations and con-
tradictions of common senses that good sense can be used to interrupt the
pervasiveness of neoliberal discourse within student affairs. Relevant
examples are the shift of how the neoliberal university has transformed
students into customers and reduced student development practice to a
transactional model. We offer that critical engagement of good sense anal-
ysis invites practitioners to stop and critically examine if common sense
models truly deliver on what they claim. The literature on student persis-
tence has always centered relationships as the basis for connecting students
to institutions and engaging students in learning (Astin, 1999; Chambliss
& Takacs, 2014; Kezar et al., 2019; Kuh et al., 2005, 2006; Strayhorn,
2008, 2019; Tinto, 1993, 2003). We argue good sense needs to be the
1 INTRODUCTION 9
lens of student affairs practice to ensure we center students in the success

models we seek to achieve, over the use of efficiency models we know are
not meeting the mark.
References
Anderson, G. L., & Cohen, M. I. (2018). The new democratic professional in edu-
cation: Confronting markets, metrics, and managerialism. Teachers
College Press.
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518.
Berg, L. D., Huijbens, E. H., & Larsen, H. G. (2016). Producing anxiety in the
neoliberal university. The Canadian Geographer, 60(2), 3–37.
Besley, A. C., & Peters, M. (2006). Neoliberalism, performance and assessment of
research quality. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(6), 814–832.
Braedley, S., & Luxton, M. (2010). Competing philosophies: Neoliberalism and
challenges of everyday life. In S. Braedley & M. Luxton (Eds.), Neoliberalism
and everyday life (pp. 3–21). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Cannella, G. S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2017). Neoliberalism in higher educa-
tion: Can we understand? Can we resist and survive? Can we become without
neoliberalism? Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 17(3), 155–162.
Cannella, G. S., & Miller, L. L. (2008). Constructing corporatist science:
Reconstituting the soul of American higher education. Cultural Studies,
Critical Methodologies, 8(1), 24–38.
Capper, C. A. (2015). The 20th-year anniversary of critical race theory in educa-
tion: Implications for leading to eliminate racism. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 51(5), 791–833.
Carbado, D. W. (2013). Interracial diversity. UCLA Law Review, 60(5),
1130–1183.
Chambliss, D. F., & Takacs, C. G. (2014). How college works. Harvard
University Press.
Cope, R., & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving college doors: The causes and conse-
quences of dropping out, stopping out, and transferring. Wiley-Interscience.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Sage.
Eaton, P. W. (2016). The competency-based movement in Student Affairs:
Implications for curriculum and professional development. Journal of College
Student Development, 57(5), 573–589.
Geiger, R. L. (2019). American higher education since World War II: A History
(Vol. 116). Princeton University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher
education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational
Review, 72(4), 425–463.
Giroux, H. A. (2007). Beyond neoliberal common sense: Cultural politics and
public pedagogy in dark times. Journal of Advanced Composition,
27(1/2), 11–61.
Habley, W. R., Bloom, J. L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence (1 Aufl.
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Hachem, A. H. (2018). Higher education in the era of illusions: Neoliberal narra-
tives, capitalistic realities, and the need for critical praxis. Journal of Critical
Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 4(1), 2.
Hall, S., & O’Shea, A. (2013). Common-sense neoliberalism. Journal of Politics
and Culture, 55, 8–24.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hirt, J. B. (2007). The student affairs profession in the academic marketplace.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(2), 482–501. https://doi.
org/10.2202/1949-6605.1794
Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. T. (2019). The gig academy: Mapping labor in
the neoliberal university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in col-
lege: Creating conditions that matter. John Wiley & Sons.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). National
Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
McClellan, G., & Stringer, J. (2016). The handbook of student affairs administra-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand.
Noble, J., & Sawyer, R. (2002). Predicting different levels of academic success in
college using high school GPA and ACT composite scores. ACT Research
Report Series, 2–26.
Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of Student Affairs. In S. Komives &
D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 65–88).
John Wiley & Sons.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education, and the
knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of
Educational Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sover-
eignty. Duke University Press.
Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to
predict student success. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 18–28.
1 INTRODUCTION 11
Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the

United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 41–77.
Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education: Corporatization, the assault
on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New Press.
Slaughter, S., Slaughter, S. A., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and
the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stater, M. (2009). The impact of financial aid on college GPA at three flagship
public institutions. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 782–815.
Steck, H. (2003). Corporatization of the university: Seeking conceptual clarity.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
585(1), 66–83.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008). How college students’ engagement affects personal and
social learning outcomes. Journal of College and Character, 10(2), 7. https://
doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1071
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational
success for all students. Taylor and Francis.
Thelin, J. R. (2003). Historical overview of American higher education. In
S. Komives & D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession
(pp. 3–22). John Wiley & Sons.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21.
Tinto, V. (2003). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities
on student success. Higher Education Monograph Series, 1(8), 1–8.
Varlotta, L. (2016). Measuring student success: Models and metrics. In
G. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administra-
tion (4th ed., pp. 175–194). Jossey-Bass.
Wells, J. B., & Henry-Darwish, N. (2019). CAS professional standards for higher
education (10th ed.). Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher
Education.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic
success. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20.
Zepke, N. (2015). What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?
Higher Education, 69(4), 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-014-9797-y
CHAPTER 2
“Are we all neoliberal now?”
“We need to push completion. It’s contingent on funding for us from the
legislature and so it starts to feel um really transactional um that’s
that. … It makes me think, what have we lost at the transaction of yeah
we want to get to 45% completion, but in doing so you still got to make
sure that you know every student matters and we got to take the time to
help them”
—Research site student affairs administrator
“I’ve been told by the [university president] straight up that they are
looking to Student Affairs to be a model for exceptional care, partly
because of two reasons: one, it’s the nature of our discipline. We are the
counselors, social workers, advisors, nurturers, mentors. It’s not like
people opt into student affairs because they don’t want to work with
people, like um, we are a customer service orientated people by
discipline”
—Research site student affairs leader
The two quotes above highlight the tension in which student affairs pro-
fessionals find themselves in the current social-political moment of higher
education: the tension of trying to meet the demands of graduation rates
along with trying to hold on to what we value most as a profession. But
who we are as a profession is drastically changing. After conducting a case
study at a large public four-year institution in the West, we identified that
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

Switzerland AG 2021
D. K. Cairo, V. Cabal, The Corporatization of Student Affairs, New
Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88128-3_2
student affairs professionals find themselves in a both/and proposition:

existing in a tension of being neoliberal agents of metrics while simultane-
ously struggling to uphold the values of a holistic student experience that
supports a person through their moral, ethical, and identity development.
This tension is fueled by the invisible yet very palpable neoliberal ideology
that is corporatizing student affairs and thus what is valued as student suc-
cess. In this chapter, we point to the origins of neoliberalism and argue
that a neoliberal ecological systems framework allows scholars to map the
various social relationships that guide individuals and organizations to
internalize neoliberal values as common sense.
Neoliberalism
If we want to understand the complexity of living in the twenty-first cen-
tury, we have to understand neoliberalism and how it shapes the contem-
porary human experience. Neoliberalism has been around since the 1970s
as an ideological and political project aimed at “unleashing and liberating
the process of capital accumulation” (Braedley & Luxton, 2010, p. 3) and
has rapidly evolved into market fundamentalism (Harvey, 2005). It is mar-
ket fundamentalism because states, governing bodies, higher education,
corporations, and nonprofits apply a market mentality with one inherent
goal: profit. Society focuses on being competitive in a market which, at
times, leads to a complete disregard for people, communities, or countries
(Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Apple, 1996; Besley & Peters, 2006; Brown,
2015; Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017; Cannella & Miller, 2008;
Giroux, 2002, 2007; Harvey, 2005; Kezar, 2011, 2014; Lipman, 2004,
2011; Olssen & Peters, 2005; Ong, 2006; Saltman, 2014; Saunders,
2010). Neoliberalism is also redefining “democracy as choice in the mar-
ket and freedom as personal freedom to consume” (Lipman, 2011, p. 10).
But 50 years of neoliberalism is also changing who we are as people—it is
shaping our beliefs, values, identities, and relationships (Lipman, 2011).
Writing on neoliberalism suggests that this change aims to produce a new
social imaginary (Giroux, 2007; Lipman, 2011) but we argue that the
social imaginary where market mentality is the norm has been achieved.
What is hard to imagine now is a world in which a market mentality, con-
sumption, and metrics are not the norm. Neoliberalism is not textbook
capitalism where capitalism is thought of as a delicate balance of supply
and demand, nor do people have the option to just opt-out of the neolib-
eralization of our communities, schools, and working environment.
2 “ARE WE ALL NEOLIBERAL NOW?” 15
Neoliberalism is a new stage of capitalism, capitalism on steroids, where

every component of human interactions is informed by a new norm of
market mentality that is changing people’s souls (Lipman, 2011). The
data from this research offer evidence of the complicated ways people
wrestle with what it means to exist in a world with shifting values. As stu-
dent affairs professionals we might exist in a world where we are all neo-
liberal now, but we are also so much more. This study highlights how
student affairs professionals struggle “to preserve the soul of student
affairs.”
Neoliberalism in Student Affairs

Neoliberalism is an extensively written about phenomenon impacting
industry, state affairs, public policy, K-12 education, and higher education
(Giroux, 2007; Hall & O’Shea, 2013; Harvey, 2005; Lipman, 2004,
2011; Olssen & Peters, 2005). While there is ample evidence and writings
of neoliberalism in the academic affairs of higher education (Anderson &
Cohen, 2018; Besley & Peters, 2006; Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017;
Cannella & Miller, 2008; Giroux, 2002, 2007; Kezar, 2011, 2014; Olssen
& Peters, 2005; Saunders, 2010), there is very little empirical research to
understand how neoliberalism is driving the corporatization of student
affairs specifically (Beilin, 2016; Berg et al., 2016; Giroux et al., 2018;
Priestley, 2019; Zepke, 2015). Understanding neoliberalism in student
affairs is crucial to student success and the student experience. The corpo-
ratization of student affairs is the result of continued pressure to produce
increasingly narrowed measures of success. Market pressures inform how
student affairs professionals come to understand success by setting the
tone for student benchmarks based on bureaucracy, profit gain, and along
state and federal standards of accountability that reduce the student expe-
rience to numbers (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Besley & Peters, 2006;
Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017; Cannella & Miller, 2008; Giroux,
2002, 2007; Olssen & Peters, 2005; Saltman, 2000; Saunders, 2010). As
a result, professionals working in data-driven and performance-based
organizations have no choice but to comply with market-driven directives
in order to maintain a job, sometimes even resorting to “gaming” the
system in order to survive (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Besley & Peters,
2006; Cannella & Miller, 2008).
As professionals in this field, we see a shift in how student affairs profes-
sionals and higher education organizations understand student success
within continued neoliberal realities. We argue that if the goal of student

affairs is to support the social and cognitive development of students, nar-
rowly defining success under the pressures of market value limits the ways
we support students. But neoliberalism did not spring into student affairs
overnight, as we examine in Chap. 3. Neoliberalism is the evolution of an
ideology carefully constructed by American values of freedom, individual-
ity, and private property (Dean, 2010; Harvey, 2005; Thorsen & Lei,
2006). Neoliberalism is so ubiquitous to American values of freedom,
merit, and individuality that neoliberalism is seen as common sense and
taken as a matter of fact, or the “right” way of viewing the world. Common
sense neoliberalism in student affairs is now so acutely normalized that
many do not know they are peddling neoliberal values of meritocracy,
consumer choice, brand, individuality, good customer service, metrics,
and data-driven decisions. Decisions based on data and standards are now
seen as the gold standard(s), and the only standard, society should follow.
To understand neoliberalism as common sense, we have to see its evolu-
tion as part of the American value system, outlining what is the neo in
liberalism.
Classical Liberalism
Liberalism is a political ideology associated with democracy and individual
freedoms seen as quintessential American values. Liberalism was the gov-
erning political ideology of the seventeenth century until the twentieth
century (Brown, 2015; Dean, 2010; Robertson, 2008; Thorsen & Lei,
2006). There are various forms of liberalism; various rationalities and
knowledge that inform and produce liberal thought (Dean, 2010; Thorsen
& Lei, 2006). The seventeenth century was known as the time of classical
liberalism with two prominent champions, John Locke and Adam Smith
(Brown, 2015; Dean, 2010; Robertson, 2008; Thorsen & Lei, 2006).
Neoliberalism was born from classical liberalism (Brown, 2015; Dean,
2010; Robertson, 2008; Thorsen & Lei, 2006). Under classical liberalism,
freedom, democracy, and property rights set the tone for governing via
laws and institutions but also through the economy—creating distinct lib-
eral economic subjects (Dean, 2010; Robertson, 2008; Thorsen & Lei,
2006). The Wealth of Nations introduced the notion of the “invisible
hand” of capitalism which positioned the state as a passive sovereign in the
economy.
Adam Smith argued that the state did not need to regulate or intervene
in the markets given that peoples’ own self-interest would regulate the
markets. Smith believed that the best outcome for the state would “be
provided by the pursuit of individual self-interest in the exchanges in the
market” (Dean, 2010, p. 135). In classical liberalism, individual freedom
and freedom to freely participate in the market became synonymous, with
the latter taking precedence. Thus, classical liberalism stood in direct
opposition to collectivism such as “individuals have freedom from depen-
dence on others, the individual is the proprietor of his own person and
capacities, and human societies consist of a series of market relations, and
political society is constructed to protect an individual’s property and
goods” (Robertson, 2008, p. 13). Classical liberalism rests on the idea
that individuals guide markets, not the state. But what is often missing
from texts that connect liberalism and neoliberalism is the glaring absence
of colonialism as state intervention to expand and create markets.
Colonialism is the actual hand of capitalism. Colonialism’s state interven-
tion created wealth accumulation by dispossession of lands, resources, and
peoples which contributed to the growth and wealth of individuals, corpo-
rations, and American Imperialism (Young, 2001). Capital accumulation
under classical liberalism produced great wealth for corporations and some
people in the United States but the Great Depression signaled an end to
classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism “failed” the state by its inability to support its citi-
zens during the Great Depression. The World Wars ended the Great
Depression by creating economic growth. Having suffered greatly under
classical liberalism, economist John M. Kayes proposed a new model that
replaced the state role in the economy from laissez-faire to a strong wel-
fare state (Harvey, 2005; Quadagno, 1987; Robertson, 2008). A strong
welfare state gave way to policies such as the New Deal that created social
safety nets like social security and Medicaid and was seen as the golden era
of the welfare state that was seen as a “marriage between economic liberal-
ism and social democracy” (Robertson, 2008, p. 14). Keynesian econo-
mists “hypothesize that social expenditures for social welfare could
stimulate aggregate demand and even out the instability of the business
cycle, confidence in continued expansion shaped the theories of the wel-
fare state” (Quadagno, 1987, p. 110). But the welfare state had ongoing
critics that argued that the excessive government spending “impinged on
the profitability of the capitalist sector by acting as a disincentive both to
work and to invest” (Quadagno, 1987, p. 110). The social unrest of the
1960s saw a worldwide reckoning with liberal democracy and interna-

tional economic order, resulting in the recession of 1973, which ended
three decades of Keynesian policies (Robertson, 2008). The Keynesian
economy lasted from the 1930s to the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The New in Neoliberalism

The social unrest of the 1960s and the recession of the 1970s opened the
door for free-market capitalism to take hold since the recession of the
1970s was seen as a failure of the Keynesian state. While at the Chicago
School of Economics, Milton Freeman argued that a return to free mar-
kets was the model for economic development along with state deregula-
tion of industries, competitiveness, and privatization; not as a return to
classical liberalism, but as a new version of a liberal economy where private
companies and capital invest were free from a heavily regulated market by
the state (Robertson, 2008). Several neoliberal think tanks emerged which
argued that economies functioned best without state intervention and
thus pushed for “policies that promoted corporate growth (corporate tax
cuts and lowered wages). … ‘Freedom,’ ‘choice’ and ‘individual property
right’ are best guaranteed by the markets” (Lipman, 2011, p. 8). However,
the new idea for economic growth was tested elsewhere first. The Chilean
coup of 1973 ended Miguel Allende’s socialist government and it is often
argued as the first casualty leading to neoliberal reform (Harvey, 2005;
Lipman, 2011; Robertson, 2008). The instability in Chile gave ground for
a neoliberal experiment that “put into place: privatization of all publicly
owned resources, liberation of finance and openness to Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI), freer conditions for trade for firms, and state withdraw
from many social policy programs” (Robertson, 2008, p. 14). While the
neoliberal experiment was taking place in Chile, New York City was the
first casualty of neoliberal policies in the United States.
The fiscal crisis in New York City allowed neoliberals to reimagine the
city and economy via “capitalist restructuring [where] industrialization
had for several years been eroding the economic base of the city, and rapid
urbanization had left much of the central city impoverished” (Harvey,
2005, p. 45). Finance capitalist bailed out the city and pushed to govern
via economic policy by promoting neoliberal values of deregulation, priva-
tization, and ongoing quest for revenue and profits; the effect was “to
curb the aspirations of the city’s powerful municipal unions, to implement
wage freezes and cutbacks in public employment and social provisions
(education, public health, transportation services) and impose user fees

(tuition was introduced into the CUNY university system for the first time)
[italics added]” (Harvey, 2005, p. 45). The restructuring of the city
resulted in the rebranding of New York as a cultural center and tourist
destination with public relations tactics such as the famous “I love
New York” campaign (Harvey, 2005). The success story is that New York
City is a world-class city, but what was given up was a government that
invested in its people to invest in private enterprise and corporate welfare
that took public resources to build infrastructure for business
(Harvey, 2005).
Neoliberal Common Sense

Neoliberalism is argued as an ideological battle of the social versus the
private that contributes to the allocation of power to a select few, argued
as neoliberal hegemony (Giroux, 2007; Hall & O’Shea, 2013; Harvey,
2005; Olssen & Peters, 2005). Neoliberal hegemony was accomplished
through political consent gained from civil societies that have internalized
neoliberal common sense as a way to see the world (Giroux, 2007; Hall &
O’Shea, 2013; Harvey, 2005; Ong, 2006). Common sense is “sense held
in common” by civil society, which draws from traditions and cultural
values (Harvey, 2005, p. 40). Because of this, Harvey (2005) indicates
that common sense is “coercive and can produce fatalistic ideas” (p. 40).
The ideas are fatalistic because common sense is susceptible to “powerful
ideological influences circulated through corporations, the media, and the
numerous institutions that constitute civil society—such as universities,
schools, churches, and professional associations” (Harvey, 2005, p. 40).
The construction of consent and the internalization of neoliberal ideas is
the outcome of think tanks, public intellectuals, government, and media
positioning market mentality as common, popular, and matter-of-fact
knowledge (Hall & O’Shea, 2013; Harvey, 2005; Lipman, 2011).
However, common sense does not only gain consent, it constructs it
and shapes it into new forms of thinking (Giroux, 2007; Hall & O’Shea,
2013; Harvey, 2005; Lipman, 2011; Padroni, 2007). Hall and O’Shea
(2013) argue that common sense “is not just invoking popular opinion,
but shaping and influencing it so that [neoliberals] can harness it for their
favor, [by] asserting that popular opinion already agrees” (p. 8). According
to these authors, “common sense is not something rigid and immobile,
but it is continuously transforming itself creating new developments and
solving new problems” (Hall & O’Shea, 2013, p. 9). But because com-
mon sense is constantly evolving, it is also a contested area.
The construction of consent taps into different values held by different
constituents. Neoliberal hegemony coalesces power by an overlap of ideo-
logical interest held together by a common sense thread (Padroni, 2007).
For example, Milwaukee’s school voucher program was successful because
a coalition of groups with varying ideological differences, such as neoliber-
als, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, middle-class professionals
with managerial backgrounds, and African American mothers all rallied
behind the voucher program around a unifying civil and cultural common
sense discourse: parents’ choice. Parental choice over schools turned par-
ents into consumers shopping for better schools for their children
(Saltman, 2000). The coalition in this new conservative movement saw
opportunities for religious freedom, less government intervention, better
choices than public schools that disenfranchised kids, or the opportunity
to shop for schools that were Afro-Centric (Padroni, 2007). Hall and
O’Shea (2013) argue that,
If we can be persuaded to see ourselves simply as consumers, then all other

relationships are reduced to one common denominator: the fact that we are
consuming a product [sic] in a market [sic] which only has value because we
pay for it [sic], everything becomes a commodity, and this aspect of our lives
overrides everything. In this whole new way of seeing society [a new way of
thinking] is developed, it [becomes] the cornerstone for a new kind of neo-
liberal common sense. (p. 11)
Fifty years of neoliberalism means that it is informing all components of

human interaction, and it can still appear nebulous and hard to parse,
therefore, we offer an ecological system diagram to help make sense of the
various ways neoliberalism shapes and is shaped by market mentality as
the norm.
The Neoliberal Ecological System (Neoliberalism,

“it’s behind me isn’t it”)
When we couch neoliberalism as common sense, it highlights how neolib-
eralism is everywhere. The presence of neoliberalism in every part of our
daily existence can, at times, feel like the neoliberal-boogie man is con-
stantly behind us, in front, or within us! Therefore, we offer a framework
to visualize and understand neoliberalism: a neoliberal ecological diagram

(see Fig. 2.1) that depicts how neoliberalism creates common sense by
guiding the norms and attitudes in the ecosystems of human interaction
and development. In return neoliberal common sense creates neoliberal
subjects that believe that “this is just the way things are” or that “there is
no alternative” to neoliberalism.
Fig. 2.1 Neoliberal ecological system diagram. Adapted from Bronfenbrenner,

U. (1992). Ecological Systems Theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers
The Person Inside the Neoliberal Ecosystem

Margaret Thatcher claimed that there is no such thing as a society, but
rather, “there are individual men and women and there are families and no
government can do anything except through people and people look to
themselves first” (McLachlan, 2020, para. 7). Thatcher’s statement speaks
to the idea that neoliberalism should focus on the person, but a person
that is still at the center to social interactions. The ecological systems dia-
gram, first introduced in childhood psychology, is a helpful tool to make
sense of neoliberalism. Bronfenbrenner (1979) synthesized different theo-
ries of developmental psychology with the introduction of the ecological
systems theory arguing that a child (or individual) is shaped by the envi-
ronments they are in direct and indirect contact with. The theory sees
everything as interrelated since “our knowledge of development is bound
by context, culture, and history” (Darling, 2007, p. 204). While the theo-
retical framing is useful, what is more commonly known is the ecological
systems diagram which places the individual at the center of four circles
that represent the micro-systems, meso-systems, exo-systems, and macro-
systems (and sometimes the chrono-system) with arrows moving in and
out of the circle depicting the dialectical relationships between beliefs,
culture, institutions, communities, and the self. The diagram is a visual
tool to make sense of complex systems that influence a person’s develop-
ment given the social, cultural, and political spaces a person moves
through. The ecological systems diagram is often used to make sense of
complex dialectical relationships such as in health care (Wilcox et al.,
2019), public health, interpersonal violence (Brubaker, 2020; Novilla
et al., 2006; Pittenger et al., 2016), youth development (Duerden & Witt,
2010), multicultural learning (Paat, 2013), college student development
(Renn & Arnold, 2003), and now neoliberalism.
The Person Inside the Circle: The Neoliberal Subject

To understand neoliberal common sense as a pervasive impact on the indi-
vidual, we have to understand the person inside of the ecological diagram
as a neoliberal subject. The neoliberal subject is constructed as an indi-
vidual that is a free agent in the market “autonomous, individualized, self-
regulating actor understood as a source of capital; as human capital”
(Türken et al., 2016, p. 34). The neoliberal subject is an individual “who
must seek to maximize [their] own self-value … constantly working on self
through lifelong learning; a continual self-improvement to fit the demand

of the liberal society, often in terms of a flexible and unstable market”
(Türken et al., 2016, p. 34). The subject at the center of the neoliberal
ecological system is informed by social relationships that are continuously
defined by market mentality. The external systems are structured in com-
petition, meritocracy, corporate profits, metrics, brands, efficiency, privati-
zation, and a never-ending quest to gain something—whether a personal
gain or organizational efficiency. In the neoliberal ecosystem, what hap-
pens outside of the self begins to internally define the self by reshaping
personal identities based on something to be gained or sold where peo-
ple’s personalities are explained through new idioms of personal brands
such as, “that’s so on brand for you” (Anderson & Cohen, 2018; Lipman,
2011; Oza, 2012; Türken et al., 2016). But neoliberalism is also reshaping
social identities such as race and gender.
Neoliberalism aims to explain phenomena through market mentalities
and thus narrowly defines the identity of the subject. Race and neoliberal-
ism have been widely written in regards to the income inequalities caused
by neoliberal policies of free trade and education (Apple, 1996; Harvey,
2005; Lipman, 2004, 2011; Padroni, 2007). Gender also shares the acco-
lades of theoretical writings making sense of economic phenomena
(Cravey, 1998; Ewing, 2010; Guevarra, 2009; Lindisfarne & Neale, 2016;
Ong, 2006; Oza, 2012). Both race and gender regimes are used to main-
tain a system of inequalities in a market with a capital M, or markets with
little m’s. These various approaches aim to define and outline what it
means to be a racialized and gendered subject in a neoliberal world.
Interestingly, racial subjects are oftentimes seen as raceless, meaning that
these subjects are seen as othered, not because of their race per se but
because their constructions as cheap labor are the driving value of their
subjectivity (Cravey, 1998; Guevarra, 2009; Ong, 2006). That might be
because of the ways in which race is sensationalized as absolute or mono-
lithic and a labor block, such as exporting labor from other countries and
government-free trade zones. Gender regimes operate in dichotomies that
are exploited by neoliberalism. The neoliberal subject inside the ecological
model would be perceived and thus constructed in various assumptions of
masculinity or femininity. For example, neoliberalism will both celebrate a
woman’s right to modernize by engaging in consumer frivolity (Oza,
2012), or exploit them for their care labor (Guevarra, 2009), nimble fin-
gers (Ong, 2006), or sees them as gendered cheap labor (Cravey, 1998;
Ong, 2006). The neoliberal subject inside the ecological system has their
social identity thus exploited and explained through market possibilities.
Macro-system (Society at Large and Norms the Neoliberal Subject

Exist In)
The macro-system is the larger system surrounding the neoliberal subject.
It is the attitudes, culture, and ideologies that inform the other systems
and guide the development of neoliberal subjectivity (Darling, 2007;
Renn & Arnold, 2003; Watson, 2017). An example of how the norms in
the macro-system shape the development of an individual is when a person
is exposed by the norms that influence behaviors such as religion or cul-
ture. In the neoliberal ecological system, the macro-system shapes the
development of a person through norms of wealth acquisition fueled by
ideologies of capitalism and meritocracy.
Neoliberal policies created a capitalist oligarchy where the accumula-
tion of wealth is concentrated in the top 1% of income earners while the
rest constantly aim to catch up. While many struggle to make ends meet,
the economy maintains a continued widening of the wealth gap through a
redistribution of wealth (Harvey, 2005; Hayes, 2012). The redistribution
of wealth is done through state interventions and direct guidance of the
market such as “shock therapy” where neoliberals introduce a series of
economic interventions aimed at liberating the market (Harvey, 2005;
Lipman, 2011). But what is important to depict here is how neoliberalism,
at the macro-level, exists because it attaches itself to already-existing values
such as meritocracy.
Meritocracy, wealth acquisition, and free enterprise are the governing
attitudes and beliefs surrounding the macro-system of the neoliberal sub-
ject. Meritocracy is the belief system that “individual talent and effort,
rather than ascriptive traits, determine individual’s placements in a social
hierarchy” (Alon & Tienda, 2007, p. 489). Meritocracy speaks to the indi-
vidual through common sense phrases such as “pull yourself up by your
bootstraps.” But meritocracy also speaks to the attitudes of a system where
“wealth, jobs, and power are distributed on the basis of merit” (Son Hing
et al., 2011, p. 433). Meritocracy is considered the ideal system because it
is believed to have equal opportunity and be a bias-free system for social
mobility where it does not matter what you look like as long as you work
hard (Alon & Tienda, 2007; Son Hing et al., 2011; Young, 1958).
However, in practice, meritocracy also serves as the system to maintain the
status quo that favors dominant groups and maintains a hierarchy of power
(Hayes, 2012; Son Hing et al., 2011). Meritocracy maintains the status
quo because, in actuality, the starting line is not equal (Hayes, 2012;
Young, 1958).
For example, higher education argues that those with the best merit—
understood as class rank, test scores, and grade point average—are more
desirable candidates in the recruitment and admission process (Alon &
Tienda, 2007; Habley et al., 2012). However, meritocracy does not equal-
ize biases and give everyone a fair chance; instead, it creates a system of
inequality and inspires deep competition in those that have access to the
best schools and those that can pay for tutors and resources to boost their
ACTs, test scores, or grade point average (Hayes, 2012). Yes, hard work is
important. We are not indicting hard work, but rather we aim to question
how hard work is valued in a system that maintains inequalities by pre-
tending that socioeconomic status, racial, and gender biases do not matter
for social mobility (Hayes, 2012; Son Hing et al., 2011).
Exo-system (Indirect Influence in the Life

of the Neoliberal Subject)
The exo-system is the system that indirectly influences the neoliberal sub-
ject. It depicts a system that informs structures and social spaces (Watson,
2017). While the neoliberal macro-system is understood as market funda-
mentalism via ideology and norms, the exo-system is market fundamental-
ism in practice and governance through social policies as they are
“discourses—values, practices, ways of talking and acting—that shape the
consciousness and produce social identities” (Lipman, 2011, p. 11).
Within neoliberalism, the “economics are the method, but the object is to
change the soul” (p. 11) of the neoliberal subject; how cities are struc-
tured and which school children attend is key to societal
neoliberalization.
To make sense of social policy, we first need to couch the role of public
policy in the neoliberal framework of competition. Neoliberalism’s stake
on the ground ensured that freedom to participate in the markets meant
competition, which positioned neoliberalism in direct opposition to com-
munism and socialism—or anything that seem to be a handout to people
who should have worked hard to get ahead (Connell, 2010; Robertson,
2008). Neoliberal public policy deregulates the market and creates an
environment that is ripe for competition for venture capital and
privatization (Braedley & Luxton, 2010; Brenner & Theodore, 2002;

Connell, 2010). For example, neoliberal urban development creates cities
for entrepreneurial investment with cultural attractions for the rich and a
housing crisis for the poor (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Connell, 2010;
Lipman, 2011). Neoliberal governments restructure cities through policy
resulting in “open for business” competition and development through a
series of neoliberal technologies of governance such as “enterprise and
empowerment zones, local tax abandonments, urban development corpo-
rations, public-private partnerships, new forms of local boosterism to
workforce policies, property re-redevelopment schemes, [and] business
incubator projects” (Brenner & Theodore, 2002, p. 368). Neoliberal
public policy ensures the right to compete “but not the right to start from
the same starting line, with the same equipment, or at the sound of the
same gun” (Braedley & Luxton, 2010, p. 8).
Neoliberal values for competition and private enterprise are so deeply
ingrained as common sense, that democracy free-work-zones are part of
the lexicon of the neoliberal imaginary. These work and commerce zones
are common in neoliberal geographical restructuring where the state
bends at the will of corporations for international free trade (Cravey, 1998;
Harvey, 2005; Ong, 2006). At first, these work zones directly targeted
developing countries in the global south (Cravey, 1998; Ong, 2006) but
they are now part of the American commerce (Brenner & Theodore,
2002). In January 2018 the Salt Lake City Council approved a 28 million
tax commitment to develop an inland port in Salt Lake City which is pri-
marily designated as commercial development coupled with needed hous-
ing units for a growing homeless crisis in the city. While using public funds
to develop private enterprise is not new, what is different about the Salt
Lake City development of the North West Quadrant is how it creates a
democracy-free zone where the private enterprise does not answer to city
or state officials but instead to a board of trustees appointed by the state.
More importantly, neoliberal policies are argued as solutions for a growing
housing crisis in a growing city such as Salt Lake City (García, 2021). The
argument appeals to common sense logic of supply and demand—we have
a housing shortage; therefore, we must build more housing that is “afford-
able” to those in need. What the argument of supply and demand fails to
contextualize is that the market mentality of development as the solution
is creating more housing insecurity. More development as a response to
housing insecurity highlights the problem with these market solutions: we
do not have a housing crisis; we have a crisis of capitalism. Another
neoliberal rationale to use market mentality to solve problems created by

capitalism is education reform.
Public education is closely linked with nation-building by preparing
young people to participate in democracy and the market (Apple, 1996;
Lipman, 2011; Thelin, 2003). Schools are spheres of influence; influenced
by a coalition of neoliberalism conservatives and liberals who coalesce
around concerns of falling educational standards, dropouts, illiteracy, vio-
lence, and the breakdown of the family unit (Apple, 1996). At the same
time, public education maintains a system of inequality through a matrix
of oppression such as classism, racism as white supremacy and anti-
blackness, and sexism (Furgeson, 2001; Lipman, 2004, 2011). The sys-
tem of inequality produced a social structure that privileged white students
and affluent communities. Public schools are funded through city and
state tax codes where more affluent zip codes have more funding for
schools thus creating an uneven public education system where it fails to
meet the needs of Native, Black, or Brown students (Morgan &
Amerikaner, 2019). Furthermore, the rise in charter schools, which are
also private capital enterprises, use public funds that would originally go to
neighborhood schools and contribute to the divestment in schools that
serve Black and Brown communities (Lipman, 2004, 2011; Padroni,
2007). In short, public education was failing Black, Native, and Latinx
communities. Neoliberals capitalized on the concerns over public educa-
tion and reimagined education as the vehicle for “standards, productivity,
marketization, and industry needs” (Apple, 1996, p. 6).
The discourse around federal policies of No Child Left Behind and
Race to the Top relied on the common sense appeal of the neoliberal
rhetoric which fundamentally changed the soul of public education
through a “new moral development” that spoke to a “culture of self-
interest” (Lipman, 2011, p. 11). Under these two policies, teacher
accountability, high stakes testing, parental choice, and defunding of pub-
lic education directly influence the lives of the neoliberal subject (Lipman,
2011; Padroni, 2007; Robertson, 2008). The market relations “produce
a new meaning of being a teacher or student or administrator or a parent
that is grounded in a coercive and market-oriented culture” that guide the
meso- and micro-systems of the neoliberal ecological model (Lipman,
2011, p. 11)
Meso-system (Connects Both the Exo- and the Micro-systems)

The meso-system is the web that facilitates connections via links of influ-
ences between the exo-system and the micro-system and has direct involve-
ment in the development of the neoliberal subject such as school, the
work environment of parents, and media (Duerden & Witt, 2010; Renn
& Arnold, 2003; Watson, 2017). Plenty has been written on how No
Child Left Behind created federal standards for high stakes testing and
accountability measures on teachers (Apple, 2006; Lipman, 2004, 2011;
Padroni, 2007; Robertson, 2008). What is important to note is how the
culture of testing and metrics changed education from learning to job
skills for an economy that is “increasingly conditioned by low wages, capi-
tal flight, and insecurity the [market] discourse connects with experiences
of many working-class and middle-class people” (Apple, 1996, p. 6). The
stakes are high for teachers and students because of the consequences of
failing. For teachers it meant being responsible to produce test scores to
keep the school and students from failing, but test scores do not keep a
school from failing.
Schools are microcosms of a society stratified by race and wealth.
Teachers are held responsible to keep schools afloat when neoliberals con-
tinue to disinvest from schools and from people—specifically Black,
Native, and Brown people—by keeping them from earning a living wage,
and affordable food and housing. Standardized tests are seen as social
control in a society that is racist and classist (Lipman, 2004). Teachers are
responsible for creating social mobility in a time of social and economic
precarity. But neoliberal school policies offer a social reproduction for dif-
ferent people participating in different economies: predominantly white
and affluent schools get art classes, “gifted programs,” and counselors
while Black, Native, and Brown kids in defunded schools get metal detec-
tors, remedial classes, and police officers (Furgeson, 2001; Lipman, 2011).
For students, the consequences of failing are high; it damages their self-
respect and confidence (Lipman, 2004). The students of today live under
constant pressure to succeed in a rigged economy. Twenty years of living
under No Child Left Behind means that success is first and foremost
understood as a high grade point average and test scores which have
changed why we learn. The shift in success is explored in Chap. 4. It is not
surprising that college professors often speak about the intensity in which
students connect their self-worth to grades and achievement, where
students often ask “what is going to be on the test?” We also see neoliberal
values of success communicated through the media.
The media produces and reinforces neoliberal values by broadcasting a
social imaginary of capital gain, economic success, hard work, innovation;
a social imaginary where individuals get ahead given their own talents,
hard work, and grit. Media often tells the story of the underdog where the
subject is resilient and triumphant; but the reality of living in precarious
social, political, and financial insecurity makes triumph the exception, not
the norm. Classic underdog stories are reimagined through a neoliberal
lens. In 1962 Stan Lee first wrote the story of Spider-Man, a high school
teenager who is bitten by a radioactive spider and gained superpower abili-
ties. Spider-Man resonated with young people because, for the first time,
the superhero lived within the angst of what it meant to be a teenager such
as social tensions of being in high school, popularity, awkwardness, grow-
ing up, and changing social relationships (Superheroes, 2013). There is a
significant difference between the first Spider-Man film in 2001 from The
Amazing Spider-Man film of 2012: the high schools and internships. The
high school in 2001 was the stereotypical high school where Parker was
just like every other teenager while the 2012 film introduced what could
be argued as the magnet school given the access to top-of-the-line high
school internships. Peter Parker gets the opportunity to attend a high
school connected (via internship) to a science curriculum and state-of-the-
art facilities to support scientific and technological innovation. Magnet
schools are selective enrollment schools that matriculate students with the
best test scores and grade point averages. Magnet schools are the neolib-
eral invention of school reforms where neighborhood schools are closed
down because they are underperforming with no mention of the perfor-
mance tied to the disinvestment in public education.
In Chicago, 200 public schools were closed from 2002 to 2018 because
of underperformance and under-enrollment (Lutton et al., 2018). The
school closures in Chicago are seen to cause socio-geographic inequalities
in access to education (Lee & Lubienski, 2017). In The Amazing Spider-
Man Black and Brown kids saw state-of-the-art facilities promoting the
promise of market-driven education while living the realities of market-
driven school closures in their neighborhood. The fantasy within Spider-
Man is no longer just about shooting webs and fighting science super
villains, but also the opportunity of attending a school with adequate
facilities and rich science and technology curricula that prepared you to
participate in a changing market; the latter being more lamentable know-

ing that it is a reality only for some in our society.
In 2018 Spider-Man was reimagined as a teenager of color, Miles
Morales; but the reimagination of Spider-Man could not escape the limita-
tions of schools as the site of privilege—Miles attended a private school by
winning a lottery entry that moved him away from his neighborhood
school. Spider-Man is not the only media that normalizes a neoliberal way
of moving throughout the world—or arriving to or leaving the world. The
animated films Soul (2020) and Coco (2017) both address existential
themes that aim to make sense of heaven and life after death respectively.
Bureaucratic processes that manage our work and personal lives are so
pervasive that when animators imagine where souls come from and where
they go after death, it is done so through managerial processes of effi-
ciency and control. Neoliberalism has so deeply seeped into our conscious-
ness that being monitored through market processes is normalized to the
point that not only is this life, but it is also how the pre- and after-life are;
further cementing a market mentality as pervasive and shaping that neo-
liberal subject.
Micro-system (Direct Influence on the Life

of the Neoliberal Subject)
The micro-system represents the environments with direct influence on
the neoliberal subject such as parents, peers, and social spaces the neolib-
eral subject occupies (Duerden & Witt, 2010; Renn & Arnold, 2003;
Watson, 2017). The micro-system informs “the pattern of activities, roles,
and interpersonal relations experienced by a person in a given face-to-face
setting” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 15). The micro-system constructs the
normative context for development and behavior. For college-age stu-
dents, the micro-system can be the dorms, classes, and extracurricular
activities such as student organizations. The micro-system within the neo-
liberal framework speaks to the internalization of neoliberalism via social
spaces, even the students trying to resist neoliberalism in society.
Dominguez (2009) argues that student activists often negotiate existing
in neoliberalism while also resisting it. College students live through the
ongoing pressures of the neoliberal university: tests, competition, pres-
sures for high achievement, while also organizing for a just society such as
students organizing against sweatshops. What is important within these
internal negotiations is the deep neoliberal socialization within the
micro-system. Even as student activists resist neoliberalism, they still orga-

nize through a discourse of choice and tools of labor efficiency—schedules,
calendar keeping, negotiating time, and priorities where activism is still
seen as an opportunity to “open doors after college” (Dominguez, 2009,
p. 132).
Conclusion
Forty years of living within neoliberal social policies indicate that the mar-
ket mentality of neoliberalism can be identified in all spheres of influence
in the transformation of individual subjectivities, identities, and restruc-
turing of social relationships. As student affairs professionals, we engage in
neoliberal common sense when we speak and structure our practice around
metrics and benchmarks that take the front seat of the student experience.
Even though we continuously talk about the holistic student experience,
the goal is to do everything we can to ensure our students succeed in neo-
liberal culture. As student affairs professionals, we often get pushback
when critiquing neoliberalism, leaving one to wonder “are we all neolib-
eral now”? Our research indicates that yes, as student affairs professionals
we are all neoliberal, but our research also indicates that we are not; we are
more than mere neoliberal subjects. Student affairs practitioners also care
about community and experiences that support the moral and ethical
development of our students. They understand that the metrics of gradu-
ation and retention must be the goalpost but also that the goals should
not dictate the student experience. The foundations of our profession
serve as anchors to a student experience that goes beyond GPA, gradua-
tion, and retention. Our study offers insight into the delicate daily nego-
tiations of existing in a both/and proposition of being agents of
neoliberalism and actively resisting neoliberalism for the sake of students.
References
Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2007). Diversity, opportunity, and the shifting meritoc-
racy in higher education. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 487–511.
Anderson, G. L., & Cohen, M. I. (2018). The new democratic professional in edu-
cation: Confronting markets, metrics, and managerialism. Teachers
College Press.
Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education (Vol. 5). Teachers
College Press.
Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and
inequality. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Beilin, I. (2016). Student success and the neoliberal academic library. Canadian
Journal of Academic Librarianship., 1, 10–23.
Berg, L. D., Huijbens, E. H., & Larsen, H. G. (2016). Producing anxiety in the
neoliberal university. The Canadian Geographer., 60(2), 168–180.
Besley, A. C., & Peters, M. A. (2006). Neoliberalism, performance and assessment
of research quality. South African Journal of Higher Education., 20(6), 814–832.
Braedley, S., & Luxton, M. (2010). Competing philosophies: Neoliberalism and
challenges of everyday life. In S. Braedley & M. Luxton (Eds.), Neoliberalism
and everyday life (pp. 3–21). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and geographies of “actually existing
neoliberalism”. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliberalism:
Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp. 2–32).
Blackwell Publishing.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. The
MIT Press.
Brubaker, S. J. (2020). Identifying influences on interpersonal violence in LGBTQ
relationships through an ecological framework: A synthesis of the literature.
Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community, 53–67.
Cannella, G. S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2017). Neoliberalism in higher educa-
tion: Can we understand? Can we resist and survive? Can we become without
neoliberalism? Cultural Studies. Critical Methodologies, 17(3), 155–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617706117
Cannella, G. S., & Miller, L. L. (2008). Constructing corporatist science:
Reconstituting the soul of American higher education. Cultural Studies,
Critical Methodologies, 8(1), 24–38.
Connell, R. (2010). Understanding neoliberalism. In S. Braedley & M. Luxton
(Eds.), Neoliberalism and everyday life (pp. 22–36). McGill-Queen’s
University Press.
Cravey, A. J. (1998). Women and work in Mexico’s maquiladoras. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Darling, N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the
circles. Research in Human Development., 4(3–4), 203–217.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Sage
Publications.
Dominguez, R. F. (2009). U.S. college student activism during an era of neolib-
eralism: A qualitative study of students against sweatshops. The Australian
Educational Researcher., 36(3), 125–138.
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). An ecological systems theory perspective

on youth programming. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.,
28(2), 108–120.
Ewing, C. (2010). Second-wave neoliberalism: Gender, race, and health sector reform
in Peru. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Furgeson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity.
University Michigan Press.
García, I. (2021). Leadership training as an alternative to neoliberalism: A model
for community development. Community Development, 1–19.
Giroux, H., Giroux, S. S., & King-White, R. (2018). Truth for sale: Penn State,
(Joe) Paterno and (Terry) Pegula. In R. King-White (Ed.), Sport and the neo-
liberal university (pp. 21–34). Rutgers University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher
education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational
Review, 72(4), 425–463.
Giroux, H. A. (2007). Beyond neoliberal common sense: Cultural politics and
public pedagogy in dark times. Journal of Advanced Composition,
27(1/2), 11–61.
Guevarra, A. R. (2009). Marketing dreams, manufacturing heroes: The transna-
tional labor brokering of Filipino workers. Rutgers University Press.
Habley, W. R., Bloom, J. L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence (1 Aufl.
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Hall, S., & O’Shea, A. (2013). Common-sense neoliberalism. Journal of Politics
and Culture, 55, 8–24.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism (1 publ. ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Hayes, C. (2012). Twilight of the elite: America after meritocracy. The Crown
Publishing Group.
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the
21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC higher educa-
tion report, volume 28, number 4 (Vol. 155). John Wiley & Sons.
Kezar, A. (2014). How change works in higher education. Routledge.
Lee, J., & Lubienski, C. (2017). The impact of school closures on equity of access
in Chicago. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 53–80.
Lindisfarne & Neale. (2016). Masculinities and the lived experience of neoliberal-
ism. In F. G. Karioris & N. Lindisfarne (Eds.), Masculinities under neoliberal-
ism (pp. 29–50). Zed Books.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban
school reform. Routledge-Falmer.
Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of public education: Neoliberalism,
race, and the right to the city. Routledge.
Lutton, L., Vevea, B., Karp, S., Cardona-Maguigad, A., & McGee, K. (2018). A
generation of school closings. WBEZ 91.5. Chicago. https://interactive.wbez.
org/generation-school-closings/
McLachlan Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, H. (2020, September 6).
Why ‘there’s no such thing as society’ should not be regarded with moral revul-
sion. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/
why-theres-no-such-thing-as-society-should-not-be-r egarded-with-moral-
revulsion-136008
Morgan, I., & Amerikaner, A. (2019, January 8). Funding gaps 2018: An analysis
of school funding equity across the US and within each state. US Official News.
Novilla, M., Barnes, M., De La Cruz, N., Williams, P., & Rogers, J. (2006). Public
health perspectives on the family: An ecological approach to promoting health
in the family and community. Family & Community Health, 29(1), 28–42.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-200601000-00005
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education, and the
knowledge economy. From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of
Educational Policy., 20(3), 313–345.
Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sover-
eignty. Duke University Press.
Oza, R. (2012). The making of neoliberal India: Nationalism gender, and the para-
doxes of globalization. Routledge.
Paat, Y. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An applica-
tion of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior
in the Social Environment, 23(8), 954–966. https://doi.org/10.108
0/10911359.2013.800007
Padroni, T. C. (2007). Market movements: African American involvement in school
voucher reform. Routledge.
Pittenger, S. L., Huit, T. Z., & Hansen, D. J. (2016). Applying ecological systems
theory to sexual revictimization of youth: A review with implications for
research and practice. In Aggression and violent behavior, 26 (pp. 35–45).
Collateral Damage: Corporatizing Public Schools, a Threat to Democracy.
Priestley, M. (2019). Sick of study: Student mental ‘illness’ and neoliberal higher
education policy. Durham University, School of Education.
Quadagno, J. (1987). Theories of the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology.,
13(1), 109–128.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on college stu-
dent peer culture. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 261–291.
Robertson, L. S. (2008). “Remaking the world”. Neoliberalism and the transfor-
mation of education and teachers’ labor. In M. F. Compton & L. Weiner
(Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions: Stories of resis-
tance (pp. 11–27). Palgrave Macmillan.
Saltman, K. J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools, a threat to

democracy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Saltman, K. J. (2014). Neoliberalism and corporate School reform: “Failure” and
“Creative Destruction”. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies,
36(4), 249–259. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.1080/1071441
3.2014.938564
Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the
United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 41–77.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., &
Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. The Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology., 101(3), 433–450.
Superheroes: A never-ending battle. episode 2, great power, great responsibility.
Kantor, M., & Schreiber, L. (Directors). (2013). [Video/DVD] Arlington,
VA: Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). http://www.aspresolver.com/aspre-
solver.asp?AVN2;2801455
Thelin, J. R. (2003). Historical overview of American higher education. In
S. Komives & D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession
(pp. 3–22). John Wiley & Sons.
Thorsen, D., & A. Lei. 2006. What is neoliberalism? Unpublished manuscript.
Retrieved December 2020, from http://folk.uio.no/daget/What%20is%20
Neo-Liberalism%20FINAL.pdf
Türken, S., Nafstad, H. E., Blakar, R. M., & Roen, K. (2016). Making sense of
neoliberal subjectivity: A discourse analysis of media language on self-
development. Globalizations, 13(1), 32–46.
Watson, M. (2017). Exploring the concept of community in relation to early years
practice. Education in the North., 24(2), 63–71.
Wilcox, B. A., Aguirre, A. A., De Paula, N., Siriaroonrat, B., & Echaubard,
P. (2019). Operationalizing one health employing social-ecological systems
theory: Lessons from the greater Mekong sub-region. Frontiers in Public
Health, 7, 85.
Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Thames and Hudson.
Young, R. (2001). Postcolonialism: An historical introduction. Blackwell Publishers.
Zepke, N. (2015). What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?
Higher Education, 69(4), 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-014-9797-y
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
important affairs arise, to invite the head official to be
present in the Executive Council whose department is more
directly concerned with the subject to be treated of. The said
head official shall then have a vote in the Executive Council,
be equally responsible for the resolution taken, and sign it
along with the others.
ARTICLE 83.
According to the intention of Article 82 the following shall
be considered "Head Officials": The State Attorney, Treasurer,
Auditor, Superintendent of Education, Orphan-Master, Registrar
of Deeds, Surveyor-General, Postmaster-General, Head of the
Mining Department, Chief Director of the Telegraph Service,
and Chief of Public Works.
ARTICLE 84.
The President shall be Chairman of the Executive Council, and
in case of an equal division of votes have a casting vote. For
the ratification of sentences of death, or declarations of
war, the unanimous vote of the Executive Council shall be
requisite for a decision. …
ARTICLE 87.
All resolutions of the Executive Council and official letters
of the President must, besides being signed by him, also be
signed by the Secretary of State. The latter is at the same
time responsible that the contents of the resolution, or the
letter, is not in conflict with the existing laws.
ARTICLE 88.
The two enfranchised burghers or members of the Executive
Council contemplated by Article 82 are chosen by the Volksraad
for the period of three years, the Commandant-General for ten
years; they must be members of a Protestant Church, have had
no sentence in a criminal court to their discredit, and have
reached the age of thirty years.
ARTICLE 89.
The Secretary of State is chosen also by the Volksraad, but is
appointed for the period of four years. On resignation or
expiration of his term he is re-eligible. He must be a member
of a Protestant Church, have had no sentence in a criminal
court to his discredit, possess fixed property in the
Republic, and have reached the age of thirty years. …
ARTICLE 93.
The military force consists of all the men of this Republic
capable of bearing arms, and if necessary of all those of the
natives within its boundaries whose chiefs are subject to it.
ARTICLE 94.
Besides the armed force of burghers to be called up in times
of disturbance or war, there exists a general police and corps
of artillery, for which each year a fixed sum is drawn upon
the estimates.
ARTICLE 95.
The men of the white people capable of bearing arms are all
men between the ages of sixteen and sixty years; and of the
natives, only those which are capable of being made
serviceable in the war.
ARTICLE 96.
For the subdivision of the military force the territory of
this Republic is divided into field-cornetcies and districts.
…
ARTICLE 97.
The men are under the orders of the following officers,
ascending in rank: Assistant Field-Cornets, Field-Cornets,
Commandants, and a Commandant-General.
Selected Official Documents of the South African Republic

and Great Britain (Supplement to the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science,
July, 1900).
--CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN

REPUBLIC.: End--
CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA: The revision of 1895-6.

Disfranchisement provision.
See (in this volume)

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1896.
CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Amendment introducing the Initiative and Referendum.

SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1898.
CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND:
Amendments.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1897.
{170}
CONSTITUTION OF UTAH.

UTAH: A. D. 1895-1896.
CONWAY, Sir W. Martin:

Explorations of Spitzbergen.

POLAR EXPLORATION, 1896, 1897.
COOK, or HERVEY ISLANDS:
Annexation to New Zealand.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
COOMASSIE,
KUMASSI:
Occupation by the British.
Siege and relief.

ASHANTI.
COPTIC CHURCH:
Authority of the Pope re-established.

PAPACY: A. D. 1896 (MARCH).
COREA.

KOREA.
CORNWALL AND YORK, The Duke of.

WALES, THE PRINCE OF.
COSTA RICA.

CENTRAL AMERICA.
COTTON-MILL STRIKE, New England.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1898.
COTTON STATES EXPOSITION, The.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1895.
COURT OF ARBITRATION, The Permanent.

PEACE CONFERENCE.
CREEKS, United States agreement with the.

INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.
CRETE:
Recent archæological explorations.
Supposed discovery of the Palace of Minos and
the Cretan Labyrinth.
Fresh light on the origin of the Alphabet.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: CRETE.
CRETE: A. D. 1896.
Conflict between Christians and Mussulmans,
and its preceding causes.

TURKEY: A. D. 1896.
CRETE: A. D. 1897.
Fresh conflicts.
Reports of the British Consul-General and others.
Greek interference and demands for annexation to Greece.
Action of the Great Powers.
Blockade of the island.

TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
CRETE: A. D. 1897.
Withdrawal of Greek troops.
Acceptance of autonomy by the Greek government.

TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CRETE: A. D. 1897-1898.
Prolonged anarchy, and blockade by the Powers.
Final departure of Turkish troops and officials.
Government established under Prince George of Greece.

TURKEY: A. D. 1897-1899.
CRETE: A. D. 1901.
Successful administration of Prince George of Greece.

TURKEY: A. D. 1901.
CRISPI, Signor:
Ministry.

ITALY: A. D. 1895-1896.
CRISPI, Signor:
Parliamentary investigation of charges against.
ITALY: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JUNE).
CROKER, "Boss."

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1894-1895; and 1897.
CROMER, Viscount:
Administration in Egypt.

EGYPT: A. D. 1898.
CROMWELL, Oliver, Proposed statue of.
A proposal in the English House of Commons, in 1895, to vote

£500 for a statue of Cromwell was so violently opposed by the
Irish members that the government was compelled to withdraw
the item from the estimates.
CRONJE, General Piet:

In the South African war.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
and 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
CROZIER, Captain William:

American Commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.

PEACE CONFERENCE.
----------CUBA: Start--------
Map of Cuba and West Indies.
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.
Ten years of insurrection.
The United States and Spain.
The Affair of the Virginius.
End of Slavery.
"The abolition of slavery in the southern states left the

Spanish Antilles in the enjoyment of a monopoly of slave
labor, which, in the production of sugar, especially, gave
them advantages which overcame all competition. This led to
the formation of a strong Spanish party, for whom the cause of
slavery and that of Spanish dominion were identical. These
were known as Peninsulars or Spanish immigrants. They were the
official class, the wealthy planters and slave-owners, and the
real rulers of Cuba. Their central organization was the Casino
Espagñol of Havana, which was copied in all the towns of the
island, and through these clubs they controlled the
volunteers, who at times numbered 60,000 or 70,000. … These
volunteers never took the field, but held possession of all
the cities and towns, and thus were able to defy even the
captain-general. They were obedient to his orders only so long
as he was acting in close accord with the wishes of their
party. On the other hand, there was a party composed of
Creoles, or native Cubans, whose cry was 'Cuba for the
Cubans!' and who hoped to effect the complete separation of
the island from Spain, either through their own efforts or
through the assistance of the United States. …
"The Spanish revolution of September, 1868, was the signal for

an uprising of the native or Creole party in the eastern part
of the island under the leadership of Cespedes. This movement
was not at first ostensibly for independence, but for the
revolution in Spain, the cries being, 'Hurrah for Prim!'
'Hurrah for the Revolution!' Its real character was, however,
apparent from the first, and its supporters continued for a
period of ten years, without regard to the numerous
vicissitudes through which the Spanish Government passed—the
provisional government, the regency, the elective monarchy,
the republic, and the restored Bourbon dynasty—to wage a
dogged, though desultory warfare against the constituted
authorities of the island. This struggle was almost
conterminous with President Grant's Administration of eight
years."
{171}
President Grant made early offers of mediation between Spain
and the insurgents, but no agreement as to terms could be
reached. An increasing sympathy with the Cubans raised demands
in the United States for their recognition as belligerents,
with belligerent rights, and the President is said to have
been ready to yield to the demand, but was deterred by the
influence of his Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, who contended
that the insurgents had established no government that could
claim such rights. The Cuban sympathizers in Congress were
accordingly checked by an opposing message (June 13, 1870),
and no interference occurred.
"In February, 1873, when King Amadeus resigned his crown and a
republic was proclaimed in Spain, the United States made haste to
give the new government recognition and support, which led to
friendly relations between the two countries for a time, and
promised happy results. The Spanish republicans were being
urged to give the Cubans self-government and end slavery in
the whole Spanish domain, and they were lending, at least, a
considerate ear to the advice. But negotiation on that topic
was soon disturbed. On October 31, 1873, the steamer
'Virginius,' sailing under American colors and carrying a
United States registry, was captured on the high seas by the
'Tornado,' a Spanish war vessel, and on the afternoon of the
first of November taken into the port of Santiago de Cuba. The
men and supplies she bore were bound for the insurgents, but
the capture did not occur in Cuban waters. General Burriel,
the commandant of the city, summoned a court-martial, and, in
spite of the protests of the American consul, condemned to
death—at the first sitting—four of the passengers—General W.
A. C. Ryan, an Irish patriot, and three Cubans. They were shot
on the morning of November 4. On the 7th twelve other
passengers were executed, and on the 8th Captain Fry and his
entire crew, numbering 36, making the total number of
executions 53." This barbarous procedure caused hot excitement
in the United States, and demands for reparation were made so
sharply that the two countries came near to war. In the end it
was shown that the "Virginius" was sailing under the American
flag without right, being owned by Cubans and controlled by
them. The vessel was surrendered, however, but foundered off
Cape Fear, while being conveyed to the United States. Her
surviving passengers were released, and an indemnity was paid
for all who were put to death. The brutal officer who took
their lives was never brought to justice, though his
punishment was promised again and again. On the settlement of
the Virginius question, the government of the United States
resumed its efforts to wring concessions to the Cubans from
Spain, and sought to have its efforts supported by Great
Britain and other European powers. Cold replies came from all
the cabinets that were approached. At the same time, the
Spanish government met the demand from America with promises
so lavish (April, 1876), going so far in appearance towards
all that had been asked, that no ground for intervention
seemed left. The act of Secretary Fish, in proposing
intervention to foreign powers, was sharply criticised as a
breach of the Monroe doctrine; but he made no defense.
"The Cuban struggle continued for two years longer. In

October, 1877, several leaders surrendered to the Spanish
authorities and undertook the task of bringing over the few
remaining ones. Some of these paid for their efforts with
their lives, being taken and condemned by court-martial, by
order of the commander of the Cuban forces. Finally, in
February, 1878, the terms of pacification [under an agreement
called the Treaty of El Zanjon] were made known. They embraced
representation in the Spanish Cortes, oblivion of the past as
regarded political offences committed since the year 1868, and
the freedom of slaves in the insurgent ranks. In practice,
however, the Cuban deputies were never truly representative,
but were men of Spanish birth, designated usually by the
captain-general. By gradual emancipation, slavery ceased to
exist in the island in 1885. The powers of the
captain-general, the most objectionable feature of Spanish
rule, continued uncurtailed."
J. H. Latané,
The Diplomatic Relations of the United States
and Spanish America,
chapter 3.
CUBA: A. D. 1895.
Insurrection renewed.
Early in 1895 a new uprising of the oppressed Cubans was
begun, and on the 7th of December, in that year, T. Estrada
Palma, writing as their authorized representative, presented
to the State Department at Washington a statement setting
forth the causes of the revolt and describing its state of
organization at that time. The causes, he wrote, "are
substantially the same as those of the former revolution,
lasting from 1868 to 1878, and terminating only on the
representation of the Spanish Government that Cuba would be
granted such reforms as would remove the grounds of complaint
on the part of the Cuban people. Unfortunately the hopes thus
held out have never been realized. The representation which
was to be given the Cubans has proved to be absolutely without
character; taxes have been levied anew on everything
conceivable; the offices in the island have increased, but the
officers are all Spaniards; the native Cubans have been left
with no public duties whatsoever to perform, except the
payment of taxes to the Government and blackmail to the
officials, without privilege even to move from place to place
in the island except on the permission of the governmental
authority. Spain has framed laws so that the natives have
substantially been deprived of the right of suffrage. The
taxes levied have been almost entirely devoted to support the
army and navy in Cuba, to pay interest on the debt that Spain
has saddled on the island, and to pay the salaries of the vast
number of Spanish officeholders, devoting only $746,000 for
internal improvements out of the $26,000,000 collected by tax.
No public schools are within reach of the masses for their
education. All the principal industries of the island are
hampered by excessive imposts. Her commerce with every country
but Spain has been crippled in every possible manner, as can
readily be seen by the frequent protests of shipowners and
merchants. The Cubans have no security of person or property.
The judiciary are instruments of the military authorities.
Trial by military tribunals can be ordered at any time at the
will of the Captain-General. There is, beside, no freedom of
speech, press, or religion. In point of fact, the causes of
the Revolution of 1775 in this country were not nearly as
grave as those that have driven the Cuban people to the
various insurrections which culminated in the present
revolution. …
{172}
"Years before the outbreak of the present hostilities the

people within and without the island began to organize, with a
view of preparing for the inevitable revolution, being
satisfied, after repeated and patient endeavors, that peaceful
petition was fruitless. In order that the movement should be
strong from the beginning, and organized both as to civil and
military administration, the Cuban Revolutionary party was
founded, with José Marti at its head. The principal objects
were by united efforts to obtain the absolute independence of
Cuba, to promote the sympathy of other countries, to collect
funds with these objects in view, and to invest them in
munitions of war. The military organization of this movement
was completed by the election of Maximo Gomez as commander in
chief. This election was made by the principal officers who
fought in the last revolution. The time for the uprising was
fixed at the solicitation of the people in Cuba, who protested
that there was no hope of autonomy, and that their deposits of
arms and ammunition were in danger of being discovered and
their leaders arrested. A large amount of war material was
then bought by Marti, and vessels chartered to transport it to
Cuba, where arrangements were made for its reception in the
provinces of Santiago, Puerto Principe, and Santa Clara; but
at Fernandina, Florida, it was seized by the United States
authorities. Efforts were successfully made for the
restitution of this material; nevertheless valuable time and
opportunity was thus lost. The people in Cuba clamored for the
revolution to proceed immediately, and in consequence the
uprising was not further postponed. The date fixed for the
uprising was the 24th of February. The people responded in
Santiago, Santa Clara, and Matanzas. The provinces of Puerto
Principe and Pinar del Rio did not respond, owing to lack of
arms. In Puerto Principe rigorous search had previous to the
24th been instituted, and all arms and ammunition confiscated
by the Government. The leaders in the provinces of Matanzas
and Santa Clara were imprisoned, and so the movement there was
checked for the time being. … In the province of Santiago the
revolution rapidly increased in strength under the leadership
of Bartolome Masso; one of the most influential and respected
citizens of Manzanillo; Guillermo Moncada, Jesus Rabi, Pedro
Perez, Jose Miro, and others. It was characterized by the
Spanish Government as a negro and bandit movement, but many of
the most distinguished and wealthy white citizens of the
district flocked to the insurgent camp. …
On the 1st of April, Generals Antonio and José Maceo, Flor

Crombet, and Augustin Cebreco, all veteran leaders in the
former revolt, landed at Duaba, in the province of Santiago,
and thousands rose to join them. Antonio Maceo then took
command of the troops in that province, and on the 11th of
April a detachment received Generals Maximo Gomez, José Marti,
Francisco Borrerro, and Angel Guerra. Captain-General Calleja
was, on the 16th of April, succeeded by General Arsenio
Martinez Campos, the present commander in chief of the Spanish
forces, who has the reputation of being Spain's greatest living
general. … The military organization of the Cubans is ample
and complete. Major General Maximo Gomez is the commander in
chief, as we have said, of all the forces, a veteran of the
last revolution, as indeed are all the generals almost without
exception. Major General Antonio Maceo is second in command of
the army of liberation, and was, until called upon to
cooperate with the commander in chief in the late march to the
western province, in command of Santiago. The army is at
present divided into five corps—two in Santiago, one in Puerto
Principe, and two in Santa Clara and Matanzas. …
"As above indicated, Jose Marti was the head of the

preliminary civil organization, and he, immediately upon
landing with Gomez in Cuba, issued a call for the selection of
representatives of the Cuban people to form a civil
government. His death [in an engagement at Boca de Dos Rios,
May 19] postponed for a time the selection of these men, but
in the beginning of September the call previously issued was
complied with. Representatives from each of the provinces of
Santiago, Puerto Principe, Santa Clara, and the western part
of the island, comprising the provinces of Matanzas and
Havana, making twenty in all, were elected to the constituent
assembly, which was to establish a civil government,
republican in form. … A constitution of the Republic of Cuba
was adopted on the 16th of September. … On the 18th of
September … officers of the Government were elected by the
constituent assembly in accordance with the terms of the
constitution. …
"The Spaniards charge, in order to belittle the insurrection,

that it is a movement of negroes. It should be remembered that
not more than one-third of the entire population are of the
colored race. As a matter of fact, less than one-third of the
army are of the colored race. Take, for instance, the generals
of corps, divisions, and brigades; there are but three of the
colored race, namely, Antonio and José Maceo and Augustin
Cebreco, and these are mulattoes whose deeds and victories
have placed them far above the generals of those who pretend
to despise them. None of the members of the constituent
assembly or of the government are of the colored race. The
Cubans and the colored race are as friendly in this war as
they were in times of peace. …
"The subject … which has caused probably the most discussion

is the order of General Gomez to prevent the grinding of sugar
cane and in case of the disobedience of said order the
destruction of the crop. … The reasons underlying this measure
are the same which caused this country to destroy the cotton
crop and the baled cotton in the South during the war of the
secession. The sugar crop is a source of large income to the
Spanish Government, directly by tax and export duty, as well
as indirectly. The action of the insurgents is perfect]y
justified, because it is simply a blockade, so to speak, on
land—a prevention of the gathering, and hence the export, of
the commodity with, naturally, a punishment for the violation
thereof. …
{173}
"In view of the history of this revolution as herein stated,

in view of the causes which led to it, its rapid growth, its
successes in arms, the establishment, operation, and resources
of the Government of the Cuban Republic, the organization,
number, and discipline of its army, the contrast in the
treatment of prisoners to that of the enemy, the territory in
its control and subject to the carrying out of its decrees, of
the futility of the attempts of the Spanish Government to crush
the revolution, in spite of the immense increase of its army
in Cuba and of its blockade and the many millions spent for
that purpose, the cruelties which on the part of the Spanish
have especially characterized this sanguinary and fiercely
conducted war, and the damage to the interests of the citizens
of this country under the present conditions, I, as the duly
accredited representative, in the name of the Cuban people in
arms who have fought singly and alone against the monarchy of
Spain for nearly a year, in the heart of a continent devoted
to republican institutions, in the name of justice, in the
name of humanity, in the name of liberty, petition you, and
through you the Government of the United States of America, to
accord the rights of belligerency to a people fighting for
their absolute independence."
United States, 54th Congress, 1st Session,

Senate Document Number 166.
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
Captain-General Campos succeeded by General Weyler.
Weyler's Concentration Order and other edicts.
Death of Antonio Maceo.
Weyler succeeded by Blanco.
In January, 1896, Governor and Captain-General Campos, whose

policy had been as humane and conciliatory as his Spanish
surroundings would permit it to be, was recalled, and Don
Valeriano Weyler y Nicolau, Marquis of Teneriffe, and lately
Captain-General of Catalonia, was sent to take his place.
General Weyler arrived at Havana on the 10th of February, and
six days later, before he could possibly have acquired any
personal knowledge of the conditions with which he had to
deal, he issued three military edicts, in which a policy of
merciless ruin to the island was broadly set forth. The first
of these edicts or proclamations commanded as follows:
"Article 1.
All inhabitants of the district of Sancti Spiritus and the
provinces of Puerto Principe and Santiago de Cuba will have to
concentrate in places which are the headquarters of a
division, a brigade, a column, or a troop, and will have to be
provided with documentary proof of identity, within eight days
of the publication of this proclamation in the municipalities.
"Article 2.
To travel in the country in the radius covered by the columns
in operation, it is absolutely indispensable to have a pass
from the mayor, military commandants, or chiefs of
detachments. Anyone lacking this will be detained and sent to
headquarters of divisions or brigades, and thence to Havana,
at my disposition, by the first possible means. Even if a pass
is exhibited, which is suspected to be not authentic or granted
by authority to person with known sympathy toward the
rebellion, or who show favor thereto, rigorous measures will
result to those responsible.
"Article 3.
All owners of commercial establishments in the country
districts will vacate them, and the chiefs of columns will
take such measures as the success of their operations dictates
regarding such places which, while useless for the country's
wealth, serve the enemy as hiding places in the woods and in
the interior.
"Article 4.
All passes hitherto issued hereby become null and void."
The order of "concentration" contained in the first article of

this decree was slowly executed, but ultimately it produced
horrors of suffering and death which words could hardly
describe. The second of Weyler's edicts delegated his own
unlimited "judicial attributes," for the enforcement of the
"military code of justice," to certain subordinate commanders,
and gave sharp directions for their exercise. The third
specified a large number of offenses as being "subject to
military law," including in the category every use of tongue
or pen that could be construed as "favorable to the
rebellion," or as injurious to the "prestige" of the Spanish
army, or "the volunteers, or firemen, or any other force that
co-operates with the army." It is said to have been nearly a
year before the Weyler policy of "concentration" was generally
carried out; but even before that occurred the misery of the
country had become very great. Both parties in the war were
recklessly laying waste the land. The insurgent leaders had
published orders for a total destruction of sugar factories
and plantations, because the product supplied revenues to
Spain; and now the Spanish governor struck all traffic and
industry down in the rural districts, by driving the
inhabitants from their homes and fields, to concentrate and
pen them up in certain prescribed places, with practically no
provision for employment, or shelter or food. At the close of
the year 1896 the state of suffering in the island was not yet
at its worst; but already it was riveting the attention of the
neighboring people of the United States, exciting a hot
feeling against Spain and a growing desire for measures on the
part of the American government to bring it to an end.
Repeated attempts had already been made by frothy politicians
in Congress to force the country into an attitude toward Spain
that would challenge war; but the Executive, supported by a
congressional majority, and by the better opinion of the
American public, adhered with firmness to a policy which aimed
at the exhausting of pacific influences in favor of the Cuban
cause. In his annual message to Congress at the opening of the
session in December, 1896, President Cleveland set forth the
situation in the following words:
"It is difficult to perceive that any progress has thus far

been made towards the pacification of the island. … If Spain
still holds Havana and the seaports and all the considerable
towns, the insurgents still roam at will over at least
two-thirds of the inland country. If the determination of
Spain to put down the insurrection seems but to strengthen
with the lapse of time, and is evinced by her unhesitating
devotion of largely increased military and naval forces to the
task, there is much reason to believe that the insurgents have
gained in point of numbers, and character, and resources, and
are none the less inflexible in their resolve not to succumb,
without practically securing the great objects for which they
took up arms. If Spain has not yet re-established her
authority, neither have the insurgents yet made good their
title to be regarded as an independent state. Indeed, as the
contest has gone on, the pretense that civil government exists
on the island, except so far as Spain is able to maintain it,
has been practically abandoned. Spain does keep on foot such a
government, more or less imperfectly, in the large towns and
their immediate suburbs. But, that exception being made, the
entire country is either given over to anarchy or is subject
to the military occupation of one or the other party. … In
pursuance of general orders, Spanish garrisons are now being
withdrawn from plantations and the rural population required
to concentrate itself in the towns. The sure result would seem

The Corporatization of Student Affairs Serving Students in Neoliberal Times Daniel K Cairo Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Corporatization of Student Affairs Serving Students in Neoliberal Times Daniel K Cairo Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Corporatization of Student Affairs Serving Students in Neoliberal Times Daniel K Cairo Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Corporatization of Student Affairs:

Serving Students in Neoliberal Times

Serving Herself. The Life and Times of Althea Gibson

The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration 4th

Serving Herself. The Life and Times of Althea Gibson

The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration 5th

Pilbeam's Mechanical Ventilation 7th Edition J M Cairo

Elementary Geometry for College Students 7th Edition

The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism Catherine Rottenberg

Gray’s Anatomy for Students: With Student Consult

More information about this series at

New Frontiers in Education, Culture, and Politics

Cover credit: gremlin/getty images

2 “Are we all neoliberal now?” 13

3 Corporatization of Higher Education and Student Affairs 37

5 The Impact of Corporate Values on Student Affairs:

6 Neoliberalism in Student Affairs: A “Both/And”

7 Challenging Corporate Values Through Good Sense

8 Post-Script: The Failed Promise of Neoliberalism:

Fig. 2.1 Neoliberal ecological system diagram. Adapted from

If we’re going to be an access based institution and we’re going to do it

During the 2019–2020 academic year, as a part of our Ed.D. capstone we

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

accountability, and exceptional results. Focusing our study on how these

(Steck, 2003). Thus, the site provided us an opportunity to be critical

profession (Hirt, 2007). Student affairs was created as a function of higher

individual needs (exceptional care), while achieving exceptional account-

lens of student affairs practice to ensure we center students in the success

Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the

“Are we all neoliberal now?”

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

student affairs professionals find themselves in a both/and proposition:

Neoliberalism is a new stage of capitalism, capitalism on steroids, where

Neoliberalism in Student Affairs

within continued neoliberal realities. We argue that if the goal of student

1960s saw a worldwide reckoning with liberal democracy and interna-

The New in Neoliberalism

(education, public health, transportation services) and impose user fees

Neoliberal Common Sense

If we can be persuaded to see ourselves simply as consumers, then all other

Fifty years of neoliberalism means that it is informing all components of

The Neoliberal Ecological System (Neoliberalism,

to visualize and understand neoliberalism: a neoliberal ecological diagram

Fig. 2.1 Neoliberal ecological system diagram. Adapted from Bronfenbrenner,

The Person Inside the Neoliberal Ecosystem

The Person Inside the Circle: The Neoliberal Subject

through lifelong learning; a continual self-improvement to fit the demand

Macro-system (Society at Large and Norms the Neoliberal Subject

Exo-system (Indirect Influence in the Life

privatization (Braedley & Luxton, 2010; Brenner & Theodore, 2002;

neoliberal rationale to use market mentality to solve problems created by

Meso-system (Connects Both the Exo- and the Micro-systems)

participate in a changing market; the latter being more lamentable know-

Micro-system (Direct Influence on the Life

micro-system. Even as student activists resist neoliberalism, they still orga-

Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). An ecological systems theory perspective

Saltman, K. J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools, a threat to

Selected Official Documents of the South African Republic

2 “Are we all neoliberal now?” 13

3 Corporatization of Higher Education and Student Affairs 37

5 The Impact of Corporate Values on Student Affairs:

6 Neoliberalism in Student Affairs: A “Both/And”

7 Challenging Corporate Values Through Good Sense

8 Post-Script: The Failed Promise of Neoliberalism: