1. Neoliberalism and the Corporatization of Higher Education: A Feminist Critique
Shauna Tepper
WGSST 4575
12/12/15

2. 2
In Western culture, the perfectly packaged narrative of the American Dream is heavily
dependent on the gilded promises of higher education. Originally, the ideas surrounding public
education embodied learning, democracy, debate, critique, and the preparation of active citizens.
Currently, the narrative is as follows; in order to be successful in a Western society, one must
work hard in school in order to get accepted to a respectable university (possibly with
scholarships), earn a degree, use that degree to get a proper job, earn money, and thus become a
successful member of society. The priority in this narrative is ultimately a profitable economic
out come. This story acts as a roadmap for citizens in the pursuit of achieving success, or more
explicitly, making money. As an incredibly large stepping stone in said narrative of Western
success, higher education is increasingly practicing Neoliberal ideals. Neoliberalism has
completely altered education at all levels and almost entirely perverted the true purpose of higher
education. Spaces of learning have adopted militaristic systems of meritocracy, reflecting
Neoliberal beliefs in autonomy and equality within market exchanges. Neoliberal ways of
thinking have corporatized Universities at the expense of students, faculty, staff, and their
families in order to serve the interests of a small elite sum of economically powerful people.
Due to the decline of the American economy in the 1970’s and 1980’s President Ronald
Reagan began to implement Neoliberal policies, marketed under the popular term Reaganomics.
Reagan’s new economic policies were opposite of the past welfare economy, which included
state intervention into the economy through wartime policies like the New Deal, the New
Frontier, and Great Society programs. (Baltodano 490) Post Civil Rights movement gains in the
form of monetary assistance for marginalized groups were instead replaced with “maximized
competition, free trade, elimination of tariffs, and government protection for business.”
(Baltodano 491) These new policies put an end to the welfare state and began Neoliberalism’s

3. 3
reign as “the dominant hegemony in the United States.” Neoliberal “ideas, practices, policies,
and discursive representations” are “united by three broad beliefs: the benevolence of the free
market, minimal state intervention and regulation of the economy, and the individual as a
rational economic actor.” (Saunders 45) All aspects of life, according to these Neoliberal beliefs,
can be conceptualized through economic ways of thinking. In understanding one’s self and the
world in exclusively economic ways of thinking, Neoliberalism poses a dangerous and currently
unaddressed threat to the realities of issues involving race, gender, sexuality, and ability, because
it erases and ignores injustices stemming from these issues that cannot be understood in
economic terms.
Unfortunately, Neoliberalism remains unaddressed and almost invisible because it
associates Neoliberal thought with common sense. As a result of this assumption, Neoliberal
policies go unquestioned by the public, allowing for the privatization of public spaces and further
advancement of private Neoliberal interests. The term “corporate culture” is used by Henry
Giroux “to refer to an ensemble of ideological and institutional forces that functions politically
and pedagogically both to govern organizational life through senior managerial control and to
fashion compliant workers, depoliticized consumers, and passive citizens.” (Giroux 429)
Corporate culture, in this sense, aids in creating a no-questions-asked atmosphere. This allows
for an intersectional feminist critique of the combination of Neoliberal pressures of privatizing
social issues, limited language within economic discourse, corporate culture, and meritocracy.
This combination results in an erasure of any acknowledgment of discrimination and injustices
based on race, class, gender, sexuality, or identifying concepts outside of the simple Neoliberal
identity as homo oeconomicus, or the economic human. Neoliberalism assumes that all people,
regardless of intersectional aspects to one’s identity, are equal agents within the economy,

4. 4
meaning racial discrimination would ultimately become an obsolete factor in interacting with
other economic humans. Essentially, “since individuals within neoliberalism are rational,
autonomous economic actors (Lemke, 2001), they will not discriminate based on race, ethnicity,
gender, or any other identity. Such discrimination, the ideology continues, makes no economic
sense and violates the economic logic by making decisions and distinctions based on social or
cultural identities and not solely in fiscal terms.” (Saunders 51) Within the bliss of corporate
culture ignorance, in the allowance to absorb “democratic impulses and practices of civil society
within narrow economic relations,” the good life, and essentially the only life, is the corporate,
Neoliberal life. (Giroux 433)
In the UK, the New Labour party policies include the Widening Participation Agenda, the
UK government’s attempt to increase university participation of all 18-30 year old citizens, as
well as include diverse socioeconomic populations. (Archer 636) This creates the perfect
example of how Neoliberalism has managed to remain undetected, as it is disguised with
progressive and positive words like “diversity”, “participation,” and inclusion. In order for
universities to sell themselves to students and investors, the UK’s government has employed
Neoliberal rhetoric of diversity to indicate increased and appealing student diversity in addition
to institutional diversity. Of course, it is common sense to encourage these ideals, as well as
become drawn to universities that support Neoliberal agendas by creating the impression of
diversity. The downfall of the diversity rhetoric lies in the “vertical diversity” of institutions,
critical realities to the ways in which different universities are ranked in accordance to each
other. Essentially, a degree from a “gold” institution like Harvard holds more “value” in the “real
world” than a degree from a “bronze” institution, like The University of Phoenix or any other
online/community college. (Archer 639) Archer describes “gold” institutions as “cutting edge

5. 5
knowledge and research” schools, “silver” as a national modest teaching university, and “Bronze
universities, however, are distinctly immobile and are tied solely to the ‘Learning Society’ policy
agenda--/fostering the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups and re-skilling workers to meet
the changing demands of a modern workplace.” (Archer 640) The stratification of universities is
well hidden by “diversity” rhetoric, while ironically using neoliberalism to sell the concept of
Widening Participation by claiming it “as a means for tapping into under-exploited pools of
talent to increase national and local economic productivity/competitiveness.” (Archer 643) By
offering the illusion of choice within diversity, neoliberal ideals remain unnoticed and
increasingly instrumental to higher education institutions.
As public funding to most universities began to dwindle, an opportunity arose for private
sources of wealth to invest in, and thus privatize higher education. In order to maintain existence,
universities have reinvented themselves in order to fit into the marketplace. (Interestingly, even
if some universities aren’t necessary strapped for money, they still resort for private funding in
order to compete within the global marketplace.) Simultaneously, as universities sell themselves
within the marketplace of private investors interested in intellectual property, licensing
agreements, and university spinoff companies, students sell themselves within the marketplace of
universities. (Giroux 432) These universities are interested in the best and the brightest students
to attract notoriety, funding, and compete within the global marketplace. As a result of the
privatization of higher education, companies have been able to invest in universities that
essentially become farms to churn out employees for the investing company. If they do not
produce employees as a result of their investment, corporations or private investors will
“increasingly dictate the very research they sponsor.” (Giroux 433) This has caused confusion
between education, and job training, also putting into question the reliability or honesty within

6. 6
sponsored research. As privatization becomes more and more prevalent in universities,
undergraduates essentially undergo job training, as education focuses on what needs to be
performed “in the real world.” This empty focus is the result of “the impact of neoliberalism on
higher education juxtapose the neoliberal university, which focuses on meeting the needs of the
market, technical education and job training, and revenue generation with a previous university
that allegedly focused on civic engagement, democratic education, and learning for its own
sake.” (Saunders 54)
In an attempt to support Neoliberal ideals, neoliberals have used female educational
success as an example for an individual citizen’s freedom of mobility and choice within a
neoliberal economy driven corporate culture. Due to women’s historical oppression and limited
access to education, it is seen as a neoliberal feat for girls to surpass boys. In fact,
neoliberalism’s equalizing of the playing field is so successful in this case, girls’ achievements
are perceived to be at the expense of boys. (Ringrose 472) According to neoliberalism, the
unbiased “meritocratic cultural shift” allowing for girls’ educational success signifies the success
of neoliberal ideals in the creation of an equality based, autonomous, and fair educational
system. (Ringrose 472) In sum, “recent media attention has shifted even greater emphasis on to
girls’ educational performance as evidence that individual success is attainable and educational
policies are working at school and later at work, indicating the enormous influence of the
educational discourse of girls’ success in school upon wider popular cultural consciousness.”
(Ringrose 474) This assumption however, is ill-informed and lacks critical thinking because as
Ringrose highlights, it does not take into account any other contributing factors to a student’s
identity; race, class, ethnicity, religion, ability, and more.
As public higher education has gradually become replaced with privatized forms of

7. 7
education, university faculty are increasingly viewed as exploitable and/or disposable in a
neoliberal effort to decrease university spending and increase profit. In an attempt to educate
students, professors are faced with “budget cuts, diminishing quality, the downsizing of faculty,
the militarization of research, and the revamping of the curriculum to fit the needs of the
market,” ultimately undermining intellectuals and treating knowledge produced simply as a
product. (Giroux 185) University’s neoliberal ideologies are only furthered and intensified, as
new university presidents are increasingly former corporate big shots, focused on economics as
opposed to education and democracy.
University presidents are also opting for more online courses without in-person
instructional teaching. This is to the detriment of both faculty and students, because faculty loose
jobs and importance within higher education, and the quality of education students receive is
poor. Online courses have also contributed to the increasing ability for institutions of higher
education across the world to compete in a global marketplace, as outsourcing and efficiency are
harsh neoliberal realities that shape decisions regarding higher education funding. (Amthor and
Metzger 72) The influential powers of North America and Europe, as well as the respectability of
western higher education institutions, have undoubtedly begun a worldwide “creation of the
neoliberal environment and the celebration of its structures and cultural modes through
institutions of higher education.” (Amthor and Metzger 74) Now forced to compete on a global
scale, citizens around the world must invest in (preferably western) higher education in order to
have a chance at succeeding in the neoliberal global marketplace.
Critical discourse analyses, employed by Tatiana Suspitsyna, is a research method that
focuses on how language reproduces dominant social and political ideas. This method aided in
Suspitsyna’s attempt to reveal the four most frequently used themes in speeches about higher

8. 8
education. These themes include, “the economy requires postsecondary credentials, high school
dropout, the American Dream as attainment of higher education, and foreign competition for
American higher education.” (Suspitsyna 56) Suspitsyna highlights parts of a speech “delivered
before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce in
September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” (Suspitsyna 56) This speech, in
discussing high school dropouts, found it necessary to include how much money high school
dropouts cost the United States. Instead of viewing the situation with humanity and critically
questioning why students are dropping out, the main point is to highlight the economic impacts
of high school dropouts on citizens that actively engage and profit from Neoliberal ways of life.
This puts the power in the hands of the economy, as it is expected for a student to stay in school
simply to save the nation money that could be invested somewhere else, somewhere more
efficient. In examining speeches made by persons involved in higher education, the extent to
which neoliberalism has become the priority, second to a good education, is extremely clear.
Economic pressures of neoliberalism force universities to make decisions based on
privatized interests that invest in the university, as opposed to making decisions for the grater
good and morality of higher education and the kinds of democracy it influences. Only certain
professors and programs are known to receive support in the form of funds because they appeal
to outside and independent companies that want to use universities for their own research
benefits. Giroux confirms, “professors who are rewarded for bringing in outside money will be
more heavily represented in fields such as science and engineering, which attract corporate and
government research funding.” (Giroux 445) In addition to companies forming relationships with
faculty, corporations are also replacing what used to be university-handled services. Students
now have to outsource to corporations to purchase in some cases books and food, or are limited

9. 9
to the products they can use because the university signed an exclusive contract with a certain
company. This is currently the case at The Ohio State University, as the university holds a
contract with Coca-Cola. Only Coca-Cola products are sold on campus, and Student
Organizations on campus are forced to buy Coca-Cola products, otherwise the university will not
reimburse them with money allocated to student organizations. Additionally, The Ohio State
University has also decided to outsource parking in order to gain more privatized funds.
The Ohio State University’s most recent president before the current President Drake, E.
Gordon Gee, was known more for his ability to raise funds for the university (as well as his
ability to party), than his role as president of the university. In examining Gordon Gee’s speech,
“A Blueprint for the 21st Century University” similar to Suspitsyna’s critical discourse analysis,
there are many instances where neoliberal ideals are motivating the speech. Gee addresses his
support of online courses, making sure to acknowledge the cost effectiveness of free online
classes. He also clearly acknowledges his unwillingness to be “edged out by the next new thing,”
revealing the stake OSU has in the global market of higher education. Competition is fierce,
which is why Gee believes in the neoliberal concept of autonomy, stating, “We must do it
ourselves.” In competing with the global market, Gee boasts the superiority of OSU, citing the
hiring of “new deans across campus; most recently in nursing, engineering, dentistry, [and]
medicine,” not surprisingly all investments in the sciences, in order to attract “the cream of the
crop,” and their money. These areas of science are cites of potential research investments for
high paying corporations looking for research to aid in the marketing of their product. Gee’s
speech lists scientific achievements in research, implying research and sciences are the most
efficient ways of showing a university’s value in a neoliberal society. Apparently, outsourcing
parking “is just one part of a comprehensive blueprint to strengthen our position and enhance

10. 10
what you do – in the classroom, the operating room, and the laboratory,” not in places that
involve the arts, like the performance hall.
In an examination of The Ohio State University’s Budget Plan Fiscal 2014, the plan
includes neoliberal practices like third party outsourcing, rhetoric of investments, rhetoric of
diversity, research initiatives, and a clear concern with monetary exchanges that explicitly
produce benefits for the University. The University states four goals, three of which are directly
neoliberal in ideology. The first is to contribute to the competitive worldwide research and
innovations, funding through outreach and engagement with partners outside of the university for
the university and partner’s benefit, and to “ become the model for an affordable public
university recognized for financial sustainability, unsurpassed management of human and
physical resources, and operational efficiency and effectiveness.” All of these goals contribute to
the neoliberal ideas permeating higher education in that they focus on outsourcing, efficiency,
and competitive global markets of research and funds for research. As an example of a private
party contributing funding and influencing research at The Ohio State University, Les Wexner,
in donating 100 million dollars to OSU, almost all of it went to the sciences, and only some to
the Arts. Predominantly, however, most of the funds will go to the medical center, now
appropriately named the Wexner Medical Center. It is assumed that having the Wexner Center
for the Arts at OSU named after him as well, just was not enough for Columbus’s best real life
Monopoly player, Les Wexner.
In contrast to Neoliberalism’s desire for citizens and students to remain complacent by
privatizing and controlling all spaces, Universities should “play as a site of critical thinking,
democratic leadership, and public engagement,” and act as a public space for the practice of
democratic citizenship. (Giroux 427) Universities should be “a space for deliberation and

11. 11
discussion a place to test new ideas, criticize governance, and search for better models of
government.” (Suspitsyna 51) As one of the only potentially public sites left for civil discourse
whose original purpose was to question and explore everything, universities pose one of the
strongest threats to Neoliberalism. Ironically, although universities pose the largest threat to
Neoliberalism, they also act as major contributors to the success of the dissemination of
Neoliberal ideals. At this point, universities are talked about in economic terms; a college
education is seen as an investment, shopping for the right college, shopping for the right courses,
and students viewing themselves as consumers. Students as consumers are thus “less focused on
learning, challenging themselves and their beliefs, and exploring different areas of knowledge,
and more interested in obtaining the credential that will enable them to achieve the economic
success they desire.” (Saunders 63)
Neoliberalism has the potential to permanently change institutions of higher education
into research institutions operating on the exploitation of students and faculty, funded by private
corporations that have a stake in the outcomes of said research. Universities need to find a
balance and possibly sacrifice funding in order to stay true to the original purpose of higher
education: to promote engaged citizenship and healthy democracy within communities. It begins
with the illumination of neoliberalism in everyday life, as it is so ironic that it is simultaneously
the most pervasive and dominant hegemony in the United State today, but also the most
unaddressed and invisible topics today. Universities should be frequently and explicitly teaching
students about concepts like Neoliberalism, instead of keeping students in the dark about the
realities of the economic pressures and market forces that influence not only the university
polices, but also everyday language, choices, and thinking.

12. 12
Works Cited
Amthor, Ramona Fruja, and Scott Alan Metzger. "Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the
American Universities in Eastern Europe: Tensions and Possibilities in ‘Exported’ Higher
Education." Globalizations 8.1 (2011): 65-80. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Archer, Louise. "Diversity, Equality and Higher Education: A Critical Reflection on the Ab/uses
of Equity Discourse within Widening Participation." Teaching in Higher Education 12.5
(2007): 635-53. Web.
Baltodano, Marta. "Neoliberalism and the Demise of Public Education: The Corporatization of
Schools of Education." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25.4
(2012): 487-507. Web.
Budget Plan Fiscal 2014. Rep. The Ohio State University, 24 May 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Gee, E. Gordon. "A Blueprint for the 21st-Century University." Wexner Center for the Arts,
Columbus. 12 Dec. 2014. Speech.
Giroux, Henry A. "Bare Pedagogy and the Scourge of Neoliberalism: Rethinking Higher
Education as a Democratic Public Sphere." The Educational Forum 74.3 (2010): 184-96.
Web.
Giroux, Henry A. "1. Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education:
The University as a Democratic Public Sphere." Harvard Educational Review (2009): n.
pag. Harvard Education Publishing Group. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Ringrose, Jessica. "Successful Girls? Complicating Post‐feminist, Neoliberal Discourses of
Educational Achievement and Gender Equality." Gender and Education 19.4 (2007):
471-89. Web.
Saunders, Daniel B. "6. Neoliberal Ideology and Public Higher Education in the United States."
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8.1 (2010): n. pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Suspitsyna, Tatiana. "Higher Education for Economic Advancement and Engaged Citizenship:
An Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education Discourse." The Journal of Higher
Education 83.1 (2012): 49-72. Web.