CHALLENGING THE CORPORATE UNIVERSITY

Have law and policy reaffirmed or reshaped the University’s mission?

by

Brian A. Snow

-1-

“This is a corporation, not a social entity. Coming here is not a rite of passage. We are not

trying to develop their value systems or go for that ‘expand their minds’ bull----.” JOHN

SPERLING, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, APOLLO GROUP PARENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF PHOENIX.

“We’ve got a lot of problems in higher education: exorbitant tuition, tenure, foolish research,

bloated bureaucracies, low admissions and graduation standards, too much remediation, too

many programs, light teaching loads, lack of accountability, narrow-minded faculty unions, and

shared governance that leaves nobody in charge. Change will come as parents, students,

taxpayers and elected officials learn more about what really goes on behind the ivy-covered

walls.” JAMES F. CARLIN, PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF

HIGHER EDUCATION AND FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

MASSACHUSETTS.

“The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State

which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of

administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a

State, which dwarfs its men, in order they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for

beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and

that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it

nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly,

it has preferred to banish.” JOHN STUART MILL.

“None of these rivals is as powerful as we think. Most concentrate on product marketing and

course delivery; curricula and content they see as simply part of a supply chain. They also

concentrate on the narrow range of subjects that can survive this reductionist treatment:

management, IT and such like. None is serious about research or scholarship....Anyone who has

bothered to find out about the University of Phoenix knows that it does not represent a serious

challenge to public higher education systems, still less to traditional universities.” PETER

-2-

SCOTT, VICE-CHANCELLOR, KINGSTON UNIVERSITY, LONDON, THE GUARDIAN.

Traditional universities in higher education face daunting questions in their struggle with

an uncertain economy and continuing charges, particularly from the business community, that

they need to be more efficient and accountable. Trustees, who tend to be drawn from business

and professions such as law and medicine, often struggle with unfamiliar concepts of tenure,

shared governance and the absence of a profit motive.1 Students and their parents fear they will

never be able to meet the meteoric increases in tuition and fees.2 Donors insist that their

contributions be used for purposes that mirror their own interests, which are not always among

the highest priorities of the institution.3

These are not new questions. The issue of change has become a worn refrain in the

rhetoric of university presidents, especially those who are newly appointed. However, changes

have largely been cosmetic. Traditional universities continue to maintain their

classroom/lecture/credit hour/graduation4 format with gargantuan libraries5 stocked with many

obscure and archaic books and journals.6 They view their competitors largely in terms of

institutions that are most like themselves and treat the latest rankings from U.S. News and World

Report as gospel. Most are structured as non-profit, tax-exempt entities, which is antithetical to

development of a profit motive.7

Persons associated with traditional universities often take a patronizing view toward the

entities engaged in technologically centered education. Some follow Mark Twain’s lead about

reports of his death, and cynically observe that comments about the demise of traditional

universities are premature and wildly exaggerated. They contend that their universities have

already incorporated many of the prime characteristics of corporate universities by making

significant investments and arrangements of the use of technology in such areas as admissions,

accounting systems, configured e-mail systems, distance learning, and scientific research.8 In

fact, administrators of traditional universities are beset by critics such as David Noble and Ralph

Nader, who have authored venomous attacks on the traditional universities for subordinating

-3-

their historical mission of providing a liberal education to the pursuit of profits and an allegiance

to technology.9

Others resort to diatribe, belittling corporate universities and viewing them as little more

than trade schools that incorporate the term “university” not to express their nature, but to gain

credibility.10 They also dismiss them as shallow entities with a narrow curriculum that either

seek to provide training to suit their own personnel needs or to prepare individuals for

performing specific skills, primarily related to business, that are needed for obtaining

employment or advancement.11 To those that hold this view, the corporate universities pose no

threats to traditional universities that have missions that revolve around teaching, research and

service and embrace a mission of providing not only knowledge to a student, but a means for

living a principled life.12

However, during the last twenty years, a new paradigm has been evolving that may pose

challenges to maintenance of the traditional manner in which laws and policies are administered

by institutions of higher education. This paradigm is centered on greater and better use of

technology for delivery of instruction, emphasis on learning instead of teaching, lifetime

education, internationalization of admissions and academic programs13 and the introduction of

“academic capitalism.”14

Some business and educational observers assert that the unwillingness of universities to

embrace elements of this paradigm will result in an Armageddon for the traditional universities

and “corporate universities” operated as for-profit enterprises. In an interview published in

Forbes Magazine, Peter Drucker, the eminent futurist and business analyst, suggested that use of

technology foreshadows the death of universities.15 He went on to state that “Thirty years from

now the big university campuses will be relics,” and “It’s as large a change as when we first got

the printed book.”16

A recent report prepared by the Futures Project echoes Drucker’s reasoning, noting that

presidents and other officials of traditional universities are particularly alarmed by the threat of

-4-

heightened competition from traditional and nontraditional competitors. The report noted that

“What really scares many of our respondents is the fear that other competitors will cherry-pick

by offering programs for the most profitable markets. Because they are free of many of the high-

cost functions of traditional universities (e.g., research, financial aid, student services) the new

rivals can compete much more aggressively in these markets. While the new competitors skim

off the profitable programs, the fear is that public institutions will be left only with the least

profitable operations.”17

An article by Betty Leydon, Vice Provost for Information Technology and CIO for Duke

University, suggests that online learning and other types of online products and services could be

viewed as a “disruptive technologies,” a term originated by Harvard Business School Professor

Clayton Christenson.18 She explains that such technologies, which are the “mainstream” of most

corporate educators, could be “devalued by ‘mainstream’ students at residential colleges and by

‘mainstream’ faculty and administrators reared on the commonplaces of face-to-face classroom

learning.”19 She concludes, “if mainstream students don’t ask for online learning, traditional

higher education institutions will be tempted to ignore it as irrelevant. However, if institutions

do ignore it, Christensen would warn, they could soon find themselves out of business as new

differential advantages are created and the heart of the market begins to shift. At some point, he

would argue, the technology that enables online learning will improve to the point that virtual

classrooms will reach the minimally acceptable level of mainstream students. At this point,

students may decide they don’t need the super-high-quality, expensive education at a residential

college; they may begin to make decisions based on convenience and price. Caught napping, the

conservative colleges and universities will be unable to move fast enough to develop new

products or capture new markets made possible by the disruptive technologies.”20

Are these forecasts, criticisms and analyses and criticisms valid? Do corporate

universities really pose a threat to the survival of higher education as we know it? Will they

surprise traditional universities by unsuspected appropriation of their gatekeeper roles while they

doze in denial at the electronic switch? On the other hand, do they possess valuable wisdom that

can be cultivated by institutions that are willing learners? Will one be Jonah and the other the

-5-

whale? Before addressing such questions, the respective characteristics of corporate universities

and traditional institutions should be examined.

Use of the term “corporate university” has been criticized and trivialized by two authors

as being an “oxymoron,”21 suggesting this label is inherently contradictory.22 Actually, a better

term would be “misnomer” because entities that are called corporate universities are not

necessarily formed as corporations, nor do they meet the definition of a university, which refers

to an education of the “highest level” with one of more undergraduate colleges, graduate

programs and the authority to confer various degrees.23 It is unlikely that any entity that is

referred to as a “corporate university” would be so pretentious as to deem itself as providing

education at the “highest level.”

For purposes of this narrative, traditional universities are deemed to be those

conventional post-secondary institutions in the United States, public and private, that maintain

campuses with buildings and other facilities; offer classroom instruction without a majority of its

academic programs being transmitted by electronic means; confer undergraduate and graduate

degrees in several different disciplines; pursue missions involving discovery, integration,

evaluation, and preservation of knowledge in all forms; follow commitments to service and

leadership in society; and often field a football team.

Since the term “corporate university” lacks substance and is devoid of real meaning,

entities that are commonly given this label will in the remainder of this narrative be called

“commercial educators.” Obviously, none of the businesses that identify themselves as

“corporate universities” will employ such a description because “corporate university” has more

value for marketing.

Many of the books about commercial education lack depth and have limited supportive

documentation.24 They are often produced by persons with an interest in commercial education,

which diminishes their objectivity and credibility. Portions of these works even resemble self-

help wealth books with discussions of how a person can start his/her own “corporate university.”

-6-

A reviewer of one of the prominent books in this area identified it as an “infomercial.”25 Yet,

these books do provide an informative summary of the nuts and bolts of commercial education.

Among the key attributes of commercial education are that it is private, relies chiefly on

e-mail and other electronic forms of communication for course delivery, espouses a commitment

to lifetime learning, has part-time faculty largely comprised of active professionals whose work

relates to the courses they teach, and has a high degree of utility in enabling companies to train

their own employees and personnel of other businesses, which often leads to a direct monetary

profit. Commercial education is basically aimed at helping people get better equipped and

credentialed in specific skills to meet needs and demands in the job market.

Although much grandiosity and hyperbole is used in describing the role of commercial

educators, particularly in the discussion of threats they pose to traditional universities, an

examination of their promotional materials reveal that most of them are devoted to providing

information and training to persons who either have limited education, if any, from traditional

universities or find that the education they have received has not adequately prepared them for

the employment they seek. Moreover, even individuals who have strong educational and

employment backgrounds sometimes find it necessary to upgrade their skills because of changes

in job requirements, particularly those relating to technology.

Too often, valid and respectable companies engaged in corporate education, such as those

examined in this narrative, are improperly lumped with borderline and vacuous businesses such

as diploma mills and enterprises that are unable or unwilling to meet extravagant promises they

make in advertising. Last year, usnews.com, an online affiliate of U.S. News & World Report,

published an article captioned “Buyer, be wary”, subtitled, “A good deal on a distance degree

may not be a good value,” which included a cautionary discussion concerning individuals who

had lost substantial sums of money after enrolling in educational ventures that required “real

work,” but lacked necessary academic credentials or legal authority to grant degrees.26

-7-

Prominent and reputable companies that are frequently identified as leaders in

commercial education are Motorola, Anheuser-Busch, McDonald’s, Disney, Dell, and

Mastercard.27 For example, McDonald’s Hamburger University not only instructs new

employees on how to prepare its fast food products but prepares them to take management

positions in its franchised operations.28 Yet, the web sites of these companies disclose that

provision of commercial education is secondary to promotion of their own business interests.

The education offered by Motorola, Anheuser-Busch, and Dell involve employee training.29

Disney University has a close tie-in with conferences held near Disneyland,30 and Mastercard

provides instruction on financial services and personal money management.31

Who then are the commercial education providers that are the subject of so much

publicity about challenges or threats to traditional universities? Only a handful of companies

that have qualified for accreditation and are not affiliated with traditional universities warrant

discussion in this narrative. The University of Phoenix (“Phoenix”) heads the list, which

includes DeVry Institute of Technology (“DeVry”), Jones International University (“Jones”),

and ITT Education Services, Inc. (“ITT”). The academic programs offered by Jones by video

indirectly serve its primary objective of owning and operating cable television systems.32 All

confer bachelor’s degrees and all except ITT confer advanced degrees.33 The curriculum of these

institutions primarily involves various aspects of business and other technical areas although

Phoenix also has a nursing program.34

Almost fifteen million students are enrolled in either two-year or four year programs of

public and private colleges and universities in the United States.35 Greg Capell, a senior research

analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, estimates that commercial education has less than a 3%

share of total spending for higher education, of about $250 to $270 billion, up from about 1%

five years ago.36 He also notes that charges in commercial education are increasing about 5%

each year.37 In addition, he suggests that seasoned entities, which have been owned for five

years or more, are deriving 6% to 8% per year in enrollment growth.38

-8-

The largest and most successful of the providers of commercial education operates

through the “University of Phoenix“ (providing distance education) and the “University of

Phoenix Online” (offering electronic instruction). A student must be at least twenty-three years

of age, have a high school diploma or equivalent and be employed to be admitted by Phoenix.39

If not employed, a student must have access to an organizational environment that allows

application of concepts learned in class.40 About 60% of enrolled students get tuition assistance

from employers.41

An article in Forbes Magazine in 1997 focused on Phoenix’s costs of $237 per credit

hour as compared with $486 an hour incurred by Arizona State.42 Phoenix contended that it was

able to provide its services at a much lower cost than Arizona State because it paid its on-line

faculty only $2000 a course or $46 per credit hour in salary and benefits while Arizona State was

paying its faculty, teaching from a standardized curriculum, an average of $67,000 annually.43

With 133,700 enrolled students in its instructional programs,44 Phoenix has demonstrated

that its role in the higher education marketplace should be given attention. The University of

Phoenix provides distance learning to 84,300 enrolled students and the University of Phoenix

Online provides electronic education to 49,400 enrolled students.45 Distance learning is carried

out through forty campuses and eighty learning centers in more than twenty-five states, most of

which are located in the West, Midwest and Southwest regions of the United States.46

However, even more important and dramatic is the extent to which Phoenix has found a

way to provide higher education to a large number of students and yet generate great profits.

The gold mine of Phoenix appears in its financial statements. In its Annual Report for the Fiscal

Year ended August 31, 2002, Apollo Group, Inc., the parent company of Phoenix, reported

revenues of more than $1 billion, an increase of 31% over its revenues from the prior fiscal year,

and a net income of $161.2 million, a 50% increase in net profits from the last fiscal year.47

Moreover, Apollo’s Education Group realized a net income of $153.2 million and Phoenix

Online earned a net income of $64.4 million.48 From January through the end of November in

-9-

2002, the common stock of University of Phoenix Online soared from $20 per share to $36 per

share, an 18% increase.49

In counterpoint to such impressive earnings, Phoenix occupies a narrow niche in higher

education. Its curriculum is centered on business and its main delivery of courses is provided

electronically. It does not offer courses in areas such as the arts and humanities, engineering,

and the natural and physical sciences, which are the heart of traditional universities.

Additionally, it does not provide meaningful student interaction and social opportunities.

Although it attracts a relatively large number of students for its integrated operation and expects

substantial increases in enrollment, the nature of its student body diverges significantly from that

of traditional universities. Students enrolled by Phoenix are generally older, already employed

in positions that are likely to be linked to a career, and depend heavily on tuition reimbursement

from their employers. The average age of students enrolled by Phoenix is thirty-four, compared

with the average age of traditional college students, which is twenty-five and half.50 Students at

traditional universities don’t usually have outside employment that provides reimbursement for

their educational expenses and most do not plan for their careers to commence until after they

have completed their studies.

Commercial educators share Phoenix’s dominant theme and mission of business and

technology, but some package their offerings in a manner that has a greater resemblance to

traditional universities. For example, DeVry University has a minimum age for admission of

seventeen and emphasizes its hands-on direct delivery of instruction, provided to 55,885 students

on campuses and at centers located throughout the United States and in Canada.51 It features

year-round education, divided into three “terms,” each of which last fifteen weeks.52 It offers

bachelor’s, associate and diploma degrees through its undergraduate programs and a master’s

degree from its Graduate School of Management.

The institution has a strong commitment to diversity, which is reflected in its large

enrollment of minority students, many of whose parents never attended college.53 DeVry

-10-

emphasizes the hardy nature of its curriculum, its efforts to enhance the ability of its students to

apply reasoning in solving problems, and its placement successes.54

However, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, commercial educators

like DeVry have experienced setbacks in enrollment in recent periods due to softening of the job

market for employees who have technological skills.55 DeVry has encountered successive

decreases in its undergraduate enrollment for its last three quarters, even though its has generated

profits in each such period.56

Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that predictions that commercial educators pose

threats to the future survival of traditional universities are nonsensical. The reasoning is akin to

comparing a dessert with a full-course meal. Commercial educators occupy but one small chair

at the huge higher education dinner table. They basically provide technical and management

knowledge along with training in specific skills to meet employment requirements. Advocates

for traditional universities argue that employers are not as interested in whether new employees

have specific skills to meet their job requirements as in whether they write competently, speak

well and have strong skills in interacting with others.57 They also assert that employers would be

better served by employees who have an understanding of character, integrity and morality and

not the attitude that prevailed in the Enron and WorldCom travesties.58 The comprehensive

nature of a traditional university, its reputation, its holistic commitment to students, its depth and

breadth of faculty, its availability to public subsidies and the will of donors to enlarge its

endowment, its alumni connections, and its provision of social opportunities belie any negative

conclusion about survival. However, a second question does not lend itself to such an easy

answer: Do commercial educators pose challenges or offer examples that should be examined

and utilized by traditional universities?

In order to address this question, it is necessary to examine the common objectives and

strengths of most commercial educators that may not be central parts of the missions of most

traditional universities, but that could be utilized more effectively by traditional universities.

These appear to be (1) their sophisticated use of technology for delivery of course work,

-11-

including the ability to provide education at all times and places; (2) their attention to lifelong

learning; (3) their focus on internationalism, including recruitment of students from other

countries and global transmission of educational materials; and (4) their ability to increase

revenues and earn a profit from the provision of learning.

It is important to assess each of these areas briefly and to underscore for lawyers and

administrators some of the laws and policies they may encounter if traditional universities

choose to adapt these cornerstones to their own roles and missions. Such expansion may result,

in part, from the direct and indirect effects of the successes of commercial educators.

The first inquiry will probe the heart of commercial educators, which depend upon

electronic transmission of academic offerings for their energy source. These profit-oriented

automatons thrive on a high level of expertise and exposure, which may put them in the forefront

of this particular form of delivery of education. Moreover, the fact that many students are now

drawn to this format, even though it may be for purposes related to their employment, calls for

careful thinking on the part of traditional universities about a proper balance between online

learning and the common classroom format. Under such circumstances, it will be necessary to

assist faculty, who often disdain technologically based education, to visualize the value of this

mechanism to the continued progress of the institution. Although many traditional universities

have advanced their technological capacity to provide distance and distributed education, a large

number have postponed such effort, based on lack of funding, awaiting the time when such

action becomes imperative. Of course, delay may be self-destructive because the ability to catch

up with seasoned providers of education at an advanced stage may be a Herculean task.

Besides the direct challenge posed by commercial educators, it is also important to

examine embryonic developments that may portend future attention to electronically oriented

education. For example, the U.S. Army instituted its own form of a cyber education last year

through eArmy U, which provides services through eleven military institutions to 31,000

soldiers, representing 5% of the total personnel in this branch of the military.59 The program is

projected to reach 80,000 soldiers by 2005. More than 20,000 courses and ninety degree

-12-

programs are offered through the consortium, which includes twenty traditional colleges and

universities, including Central Texas University, Florida A&M and Tri-State University in

Indiana.60 Participants are given free tuition, books, and a “tech package” that includes a laptop.

The popularity of this program is evidenced by around 18% of the participants who have

extended their enlistments to retain their eligibility for participation.61 Many of the soldiers who

have been exposed to this form of education are likely to seek direct admission to colleges and

universities in the future. This underscores the importance of careful planning as to the viability

of technologically based offerings by traditional universities.

Additionally, about fifty charter schools at the secondary level have instituted

concentrated virtual learning programs.62 This represents an increase of twenty such schools

during the past year, which provides some indication of their popularity.63 Although many of

these providers now serve housebound, home-schooled and rural pupils, if this method of

delivery becomes attractive to a broader range of children in more heavily populated areas,

students may ultimately become conditioned to seek online learning when they enter college.

However, besides assessing futuristic challenges, traditional universities should look now

in their own backyards to identify cyber-based challengers. They are likely to find that

competition posed by technologically based academic programs is not confined to commercial

educators, but lurks in the grasp of their close friends and neighbors--other traditional

universities. A recent article by three specialists in the area of distance and distributed learning

discloses that at least eight universities have created profit based units for such activity, and

more than twelve states have formed virtual universities to provide information gathered from

their state institutions of higher education for single e-learning portals and course catalogs.64

Lawyers and administrators who are required to address legal and policy issues

pertaining to electronic transmission of educational material should be familiar with defamation

and copyright law, including requirements for compliance, infringement and concepts of fair use.

They should also understand application of The Technology, Education and Copyright

Harmonization Act (TEACH), L105-304, signed into law on November 2, 2002,65 which gives

-13-

educational institutions protection for “fair use” in electronic transmission, and The Digital

Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (October 28, 1998),

which limits infringement liability for "service providers" and prohibits circumvention of

technological protection measures.66 Institutional policies should be adopted or updated for all

the areas mentioned above. Further, it is particularly important that institutional policies

delineate the respective ownership and development rights of the institution and its employees in

intellectual property. Some legal scholars question whether omissions in recent amendments to

the copyright laws have impaired the inferred “custom” standard that has historically enabled

faculty members and certain other employees of institutions of higher education to avoid the

“work for hire” doctrine and claim individual ownership of their written works.67 Therefore, it is

critically important to determine the scope of these rights in advance though written policies.

Some excellent web sites providing information and guidance about the laws and

associated policies in the intellectual property arena exist in various places on the Internet.

Perhaps the best one is the site for the University of Texas, General Counsel, Intellectual

Property page located at http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/IntellectualProperty/index.htm.

The next area of examination is the attention given by corporate educators to “lifelong

learning.” This approach to education has practical dimensions for commercial educators by

referring to continuous acquisition of new skills and increased knowledge by employees in

particular businesses, especially large organizations. However, in traditional universities, the

term tends to have a more philosophical meaning, which may be capsulized as a commitment to

scholarship, passion for learning and ability to engage in critical reasoning. Such traits are

usually presented in the context of self-learning following graduation rather than future receipt

of more formal training.

Unfortunately, this may be another area where traditional universities risk “being asleep

at the switch” by not being more aggressive in developing plans for meeting the needs of the

post-college student in the future. One analyst notes that “by the year 2020, more than a third of

all Americans will be 50 or older and by 2050, people over 65 will outnumber children 14 or

-14-

younger.” He emphasizes that “the ‘baby boomer’ generation can expect to remain physically

active well into their seventies and beyond.”68 Moreover, he points out that recent research

conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons discloses that eight in ten baby

boomers plan to work during retirement.69

Some individuals in mid-life, such as divorcees and newly unemployed, may need

additional training to meet demands of the workplace, which are becoming more sophisticated.

Others may require more advanced education to meet credentialing and other requirements for

advancement in their careers. Some may simply want to go back to school after retirement or

following other major life changes. However, traditional universities appear to be too busy, or

perhaps overwhelmed, with their current enrollees to give much attention to course work or on-

line instruction to meet these needs.

An official of an adult learning center stresses that many individuals beyond the normal

age for entry into college also have a great need for remedial training, which is often ignored in

discussions of lifelong learning.70 She observes, “In addition to overhauling the way we

approach the needs of an increasing diversity of students, we are confronted with the reality that

we need to speed up our pace. Research shows that the number of new workers will be

insufficient for our nation’s workforce needs. Sadly, 40 percent of the U.S. adult population

lacks the necessary literacy skills required to perform higher level jobs that demand considerable

reading or writing. It is perhaps our best kept secret that in the United States, the ranks of

illiterate workers are on par with developing third-world nations. Further, 60 percent of our

future jobs will demand computer skills that today only 20 percent of our workers possess.

These figures are crippling considering that each year, U.S. businesses lose an estimated $60

billion in productivity due to employees’ lack of basic skills. With unprepared workers in the

pipeline and a range of demographic forces insisting on institutional changes, how will we step

up to meet the challenge of educating tomorrow’s workforce?”71

Administrators of higher education should give attention to policies and plans providing

lifelong learning, whether involving formal course work at the campus or use of on-line

-15-

technology. Initially, institutional offerings might be limited to alumni, relatives of students, and

other persons with significant connections with the institution. An evaluation should also be

made of on-line services that might be utilized in such training. Lawyers should note the

resources listed above under technology and also be prepared to address various contractual

issues involving arrangements with recipients of this alternative form of education. They should

also be familiar with the application of federal and state laws relating to discrimination,

particularly as to age.

The third area for review is the achievement of an international presence, which

commercial educators often emphasize. Some note that by using on-line resources, they are able

to provide education to students in other countries without burdening them with all the problems

associated with entry into the United States. They also point out that students prefer learning at

their homes in familiar surroundings.

Traditional universities have focused more on physical presence, either involving

attraction of students from other countries to their campuses or carrying out programs in which

students from the United States study abroad. Such an approach has worked well for many

institutions in the past. However, since the attack on the World Trade Center, the United States

has adopted a massive number of laws, including several regulation of non-immigrant visas,

monitoring of the lawfulness of the presence of foreign nationals in the United States through a

complex computer system known as SEVIS,72 and giving law enforcement officials more latitude

in investigation and surveillance of persons from other countries and individuals who may be

suspect of terrorism under the USA Patriot Act.73 These actions by the United States

government have probably diminished the ability of traditional universities to compete with their

online rivals in certain specialized areas in which commercial educations give primary attention.

However, it remains to be seen whether some, such as Phoenix University, will move toward a

broader curriculum and serve as a counterpoint to international efforts by traditional universities.

Lawyers who provide assistance to entities that focus on international objectives should

be award of some legal issues that are not commonly addressed. These include the Arms Export

-16-

Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778 (2002), and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations

(“ITAR”), promulgated by the State Department to implement the Act. These mandates restrict

export of materials and information relating to information and materials relating to weapons and

weapons technology and matters inconsistent with national security.74 In some cases, exports to

a specified country may be prohibited entirely. An interesting facet of ITAR is that

communication of covered information to a student or faculty member that might be carried

through human knowledge by him or her in travel to a covered county is deemed to be an

export.75

Counsel should also be aware that courts in other countries have accepted jurisdiction

over certain claims due to Internet transmissions made by students and other persons associated

with colleges and universities. Since the libel laws of some countries, such as those in the

United Kingdom, are much stricter than those in the United States, an institution can face serious

consequences for claims of defamation made to Internet communication. The cost of retaining

counsel and adjudicating such matters can be enormous. Both Cornell University and Dow

Jones & Co. have been forced to defend libel claims in such jurisdictions, which creates

important concerns for all institutions of higher education that facilitate Internet transmissions

for the 2002-03 academic year.76

Furthermore, international travel by student groups can pose unexpected risks of liability

for sponsoring institutions. A number of disturbing incidents involving harm to students and

their colleagues in overseas locales has made institutions much more diligent in taking proactive

steps to deter actions that may be brought against them. For an excellent review of issues and

applicable laws see, William P. Hoye and Dr. Gary M. Rhodes, An Ounce of Prevention is

Worth...The Life of a Student: Reducing Risk in International Programs, 27 J.C. & U.L. 151

(Summer 2000).

Finally, the realization of profits by corporate educators must be particularly vexing to

traditional universities. For example, the University of Phoenix continues to have heightened

revenues and net earnings each year. Yet, a significant number of colleges and universities,

-17-

particularly in the public area, are facing substantial cuts in their budgets due to significant

weaknesses in the economies of most states. Several institutions, including some that emphasize

education in technology, have encountered horrendous deficits. For example, in early September

2002, Michigan Technological University faced a $76.1 million shortage.77 Even larger and

more prominent institutions and their systems, which normally have large revenue bases, did not

fare much better. The Oklahoma State University System registered an operating loss of $53.7

million and the University of Michigan coped with a staggering deficit of more than one-half

billion dollars, $597.5 million.78 Furthermore, the budget for the University of California System

for the 2002-03 academic year has already been slashed by $248 million.79 Similar results by

more thinly financed higher education entities led Standard & Poors to issue a report in late

November 2002, containing the dire warning that “colleges and universities might ‘consolidate

in large numbers or close as they struggle against stagnant levels of financial resources and

substantially higher levels of debt.’”80

Revenues of public institutions are largely a product of state subsidies, federal grants,

gifts and tuition. As state subsidies continue their downward spiral, institutional endowments,

the mainstay of private traditional universities, also tumbled. The Chronicle of Higher

Education reported on December 17, 2002, that such endowments lost 6% of their market value

in 2001-2.81 Moreover, some pre-paid tuition plans were bombarded. In Colorado, news

accounts disclosed that the state’s investment plan for future tuition faced a crisis and that the

State Deputy Treasurer had stated that if tuition continued to rise and investment returns

remained below long-term expectations, the plan might not be able to honor all of its contracts.82

Most traditional colleges and universities responded to the devastating news discussed

above by raising tuition. Therefore, future students will bear much of the economic woes of

their institution. However, they have few alternatives other than to pay the sticker price and

“buy the car.” They must wonder, however, if their institutions have done their best in operating

efficiently so as to lower costs and if there is not some way that they, like the University of

Phoenix and DeVry, could have earned some extra money from their operation to set aside for

future rainy days and even thunderstorms. Some of these students might be interested in ideas

-18-

set forth in a book called Academic Capitalism,83 suggesting that traditional universities could do

far better in realizing profits by capitalizing upon their human assets and joining ranks with

industry on a global scale.

However, higher education, long a monopolist, has not done well in efforts to earn

money. One need only review the landmark article called, The Kept University, by Eyal Press

and Jennifer Washburn, which was published by the Atlantic Monthly in March 2000. The

article takes the reader through futility and poor direction in profit-making efforts, many of

which were often roundly attacked by students.

Indeed, students are likely to have incredible leverage in determining the success or

failure of both commercial educators and traditional universities in the future. Moreover, some

new competitors for the student dollar are likely to emerge. One of this is being fertilized in

Colorado by members of a Blue-Ribbon Commission of the Governor and the Commission on

Higher Education.84 A proposal is expected to be submitted for approval in the next session of

the Colorado General Assembly calling for adoption of an arrangement that will be the first of its

kind in the United States. The measure will give each student an equal amount of money from

the state for use in enrollment in a state college or university.85 Private institutions will not be

included. Students will be free to vote with their feet as to which public institutions have the

most desirable offerings and feature the most acceptable tuition rates to be charged in addition to

the state subsidy. The arrangement is commonly called a “voucher.” If this proposal is adopted

in Colorado and other states enact similar measures, students who meet admission requirements

will have primary funding for attending the Colorado public college or university of their choice.

Conclusion

The competitive arena for the student dollar may involve new dynamics. Major

commercial educators are now expanding into additional states and other countries and enlarging

and diversifying their curriculum, which is destined to bear a closer resemblance to offerings of

-19-

1. See, James F. Carlin, Restoring Sanity to an Academic World Gone Mad, THECHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Nov. 5, 1999, at A76; Courtney Leatherman,‘Shared Governance’ Under Siege: Is it Time to Revive It or Get Rid of It?, THE CHRONICLEOF HIGHER EDUCATION, Jan. 30, 1998, at A8; Joan Wallach Scott, The Critical State ofShared Governance, <http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/02ja/02jasco.htm>.

mainstream colleges and universities. However, traditional universities are likely to continue to

dwarf such entities so long as they maintain their fiscal strength. Recent reports of budgetary

problems among many traditional universities may simply be a reflection of a troublesome

national economy, although they may portend more difficult financial problems for such

institutions in the future. Their ability to depend upon governmental support and private

donations appear to be flagging. State officials and governing boards appear to be heightening

their demands as to greater internal production of revenues and more effective control of costs.

Donors are increasingly becoming embroiled in conflicts with colleges and universities over the

proper use of their gifts. Traditional universities may seek to enhance their financial well-being

through creative exploration and incorporation of some of the key attributes of commercial

education, including greater use of technology for distance learning, international delivery of

course work and development of programs for lifelong learning. Commercial educators also

have some important methods for limiting costs, including the use of specialized part-time staff

and reduction of classroom time and library investments that can be useful for examination and

potential implementation by traditional universities.

Traditional universities also have new armaments under development that may give them

added ammunition in any competition that may develop for entering students. For example, the

employment of voucher systems may ultimately give both public and private mainstream

institutions the ability to make cash offers to potential students for a large portion of their college

expenses on a “take it or leave it” basis. Commercial educators are unlikely to have a countering

proposition. Thus, the topic for future presentations like the one that produced this narrative are

likely to be reversed. The new topic may be “Threats and Challenges of Traditional Universities

to the Survival of Corporate Universities.”

-20-

2. See, Justine Dickerson, Tuition Increases Hit College Campuses, (Oct. 25, 2002),<http://thehoya.com/news/102502/news5.cfm>; Sean Cavanagh, College Students Strain toCover Rising Tuition at Public Institutions, (May 29, 2002), EDUCATION WEEK ON THEWEB, <http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=38aid.h21>.

3. Donors and universities have wrestled over the use of donated funds during the lastseveral years. See, e.g., Joye Mercer, Yale Returns a $20-Million Gift, THE CHRONICLE OFHIGHER EDUCATION , Mar. 24, 1995 at A36; Richard Morgan, Pet-Cloning Project at TexasA&M Ends as Sponsor Withdraws Support, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION,Nov. 11, 2002 at A25; Give & Take, Phoenix President Provided Funds to Clone Cat, THECHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Apr. 5, 2002 at A21; Vincent Kiernan, Family PaysTexas A&M Team $2.3 Million to Clone Beloved Dog ‘Missy’, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHEREDUCATION, Aug. 28, 1998; Greg Winter, School Learns Cost of a Gift-Giver’s Anger, N.Y.TIMES, Nov. 14, 2002, at 1; and Michael J. Mandel, Commentary: And the Enron Award Goesto...Enron, BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE (May 20, 2002),<http://www.businessweek.com...t/magazine/content/02_20/b3783057.html>; Michael Berbube,A Shakespeare Department and Other Business Ideas for Colleges Everywhere, THECHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Jan. 28, 2000, at A64; SAM M. WALTONCOLLEGE OF BUSINESS, The Walton College: Wired to Lead (2002). However, someinstitutions have guarded against such turmoil by making special efforts to satisfy their donors. For example, the University of California (Irvine) established the Taco Bell Chair in InformationTechnology Management and Washington State University rendered similar appreciation byinstituting the Taco Bell Distinguished Professor. The University of Arkansas responded to amatching donation of $300 million by renaming its College of Business the Walton College andthe holder of the Enron Professor of Economics continues to maintain his title at the Universityof Nebraska.

4. See, MARTIN TROW, From Mass Higher Education to Universal Access The AmericanAdvantage, IN DEFENSE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION 116-117 (2001).

5. See, Scott Smallwood, The Crumbling Intellectual Foundation, THE CHRONICLE OFHIGHER EDUCATION, Sep. 20, 2002, at A10; Michael Margolis, Brave New Universities,(visited Nov. 17, 2002) <httpp://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_5/margolis/>.

6. Id.

7. See, RICHARD S. RUCH, HIGHER EDUCATION, INC. 10-11, 16-18, (2001).

8. See, Georgetown University, University Information Services, Core Business Systemsand Applications (visited Jan. 13, 2003) <http://www.georgetown.edu/uis/services/core>; CarolA. Twigg, Tracking the Competition, Ubiquity - The ACM IT Magazine and Forum (visitedNov. 17, 2002) <http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/c_twigg_2.html>; Katherine S. Mangan,Top Business Schools Try Collaboration Over Competition, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHEREDUCATION, July 6, 2001, at A23; Florence Olsen, MIT’s Open Window, THE CHRONICLEOF HIGHER EDUCATION, Dec. 6, 2002, at A31; JACK M. WILSON, The Technological

-21-

Revolution - Reflections on the Proper Role of Technology in Higher Education, IN DEFENSEOF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION 204-220 (2001); James A. Hyatt, Helen Kelly, andJon Conhaim, Taking it all Online, NACUBO BUSINESS OFFICER 26-33 (Oct. 2002).

9. See, RALPH NADER, Greed in the Groves; Part I, THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATIONJOURNAL 7-8 (Fall 1994); LEONARD MINSKY, Greed in the Groves, Part II, THE NEAHIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 9-14 (Fall 1994); David F. Noble, DIGITAL DIPLOMAMILLS, PART I, The Automation of Higher Education, Oct. 1997,<http://www.communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddml.html>; David F. Noble, DIGITAL DIPLOMAMILLS, PART II, The Coming Battle Over Online Instruction, Mar. 1998,<http://www.communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm2.html>; David F. Noble, DIGITAL DIPLOMAMILLS, PART III, The Bloom is Off the Rose, Nov. 1998,<http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/1998/RRE.Digital.Diploma.Mill.html>; David F. Noble,DIGITAL DIPLOMA MILLS, PART IV, Rehearsal for the Revolution, Nov. 1999,<http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/1999/RRE. Digital.Diploma.Mill.html>.

10. Id., See also, STUART CUNNINGHAM, YONI RYAN, LAWRENCE STEDMAN,SUELLEN TAPSALL, KERRY BAGDON, TERRY FLEW and PETER COALDRAKE,Corporate, for-profit and virtual universities and the emergence of the corporatised universities,THE BUSINESS OF BORDERLESS EDUCATION 9-25 (2000); John Helmer, EPIC GROUPPLC LEADERS IN E-LEARNING (Sep. 2002)<http://www.epic.co.uk/news.features/latest_features/corp_uni_tank.html>.

11. NADER, supra note 9; See also, STANLEY ARONOWITZ, THE KNOWLEDGEFACTORY 162-163 (2000).

12. See, DONALD KENNEDY, ACADEMIC DUTY 5-96, 110, 250, 273-275, 287-288(1998); Nancy S. Nash and Elizabeth M. Hawthorne, ERIC DIGESTS, Corporate Education.ERIC Digest (1988) <http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301142.html>; TomMcCarthy and Ben Johnson, Brand, new and electronic universities (Feb. 5, 1999),<http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=624>; Denise R. Hearn, Education in theWorkplace: An Examination of Corporate University Models (May 10, 2002),<http://www.newfounations.com/OrgTheory/Hearn721.html>; Kristin Jensen, Degrees ofInfluence - The corporatization of higher education, SOJOURNERS, (Jan.-Feb. 1999),<http://www.sojo.net/magazine/index.../issue/Soj9901/article/990141d.html>.

13. See, STAN DAVIS AND JIM BOTKIN, THE MONSTER UNDER THE BED (1994);PETER JARVIS, UNIVERSITIES AND CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES 116-122 (2001);JEANNE C. MEISTER, CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES (1998); MARK ALLEN, PH.D., THECORPORATE UNIVERSITY HANDBOOK (2002); The Future Project: Policy for HigherEducation in a Changing World Position Paper (June 2000)<http://www2.futuresproject.org/publications/position_paper.pdf>.

14. See, SHEILA SLAUGHTER AND LARRY L. LESLIE, ACADEMIC CAPITALISM,11-22 (1999).

-22-

15. See, Seeing things as they really are, FORBES.COM (visited Dec. 24, 2002)<http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0310/5905122a_print.html>.

16. See id.

17. See, John Immerwahr, Meeting the Competition: College and University Presidents,Faculty, and State Legislators View the New Competitive Academic Arena, THE FUTURESPROJECT: POLICY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN A CHANGING WORLD, BROWNUNIVERSITY (Oct. 2002).

18. See, Betty Leydon, The E-Everything Revolution: What’s a University to do?EDUCAUSE Review (Jan.-Feb. 2001).

19. Id.

20. Id.

21. William H. Saunders, Jeanne Meister’s Corporate Universities (1998) (book review)<http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm9857.html>; Helmer, Supra note 10.

22. Id.

23. WEBSTER’S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1207 (1999).

24. JEANNE C. MEISTER, CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES: LESSON IN BUILDING AWORLD-CLASS WORK FORCE (1998); See also, ALLEN, supra note 13.

25. See, Gene E. Fusch, Review of Jeanne C. Meister’s Corporate Universities: Lesson inBuilding a world class work force (1998) (book review) (July 13, 2001)<http://www.ed.asu.edu/edrev/reviews/rev129.htm>.

26. Margaret Mannix, Buyers, be wary, A good deal on a distance degree may not be a goodvalue, USNEWS.COM (Oct. 15, 2001)<http://www.usnews.com/edu/elearning/articles/diploma.htm>.

27. See, <http://www.motorola.com/>; <http://www.anheuser-busch.com/>;<http://www.mcdonalds.com/>; <http://disney.go.com/park/homepage/today/flash/index.html>;<http://www.dell.com/>; <http://www.mastercard.com/>.

28. See, <http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/careers/hambuniv/index.html>.

29. See, <http://mu.motorola.com/>; <http://www.anheuser-busch.com/overview/diversity.html#2>;<http://ausoladbpjap4.us.dell.com/careers/diversity/community.asp>.

30. See, <http://disney.go.com/vacations/websites/disneyinstitute/index.html>.

-23-

31. See, <http://global.mastercard.com/hk/consumer/mcu/>.

32. See, <http://jones.com/>.

33. See, <http://www.jones.com/jiu.html>;<http://www.phoenix.edu/campusprogramlist.asp?orga=7>; <http://www.itt-tech.edu/teach/>.

34. See id.

35. See, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Almanac (visited Nov. 30, 2002)<http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2002/nation/nation.htm>.

36. See, Kenneth N. Gilpin, Turning a Profit with High Education, THE NEW YORKTIMES, Oct. 20, 2002, at 7.

37. Id.

38. Capell’s estimated amount for spending is somewhat below the approximately $200billion for such expenditures reported recently by the Chronicle of Higher Education, but itsinformation reflects data for public institutions for the 95-96 academic year, and for privateinstitutions for the 96-97 academic year.

39. See, <http://www.achieve.phoenix.edu/admission.asp>.

40. Id.

41. See, University of Phoenix Fact Sheet (Aug. 31, 2002) (visited Nov. 29, 2002)<http://phoenix.edu/FactSheet.asp>.

42. Id. See also, Lisa Gubernick and Ashlea Ebeling, I got my degree through E-mail,FORBES MAGAZINE, June 16, 1997, at 84.

43. See, supra note 41; See also, Gubernick and Ebling, supra note 42.

44. Arizona State University–Main Campus (College of Business) E-LEARNING (visitedDec. 24, 2002)<http://www.usnews.com/usnes/edu/elearning/directory/elearn2mba_01007.html>; Elizabeth F.Farrell, U. of Phoenix Sees Surge in Revenues and Enrollments, THE CHRONICLE OFHIGHER EDUCATION, Oct. 25, 2002, at A31.

45. See, Florence Olsen, Phoenix Rises, The university’s online program attracts students,profits, and praise, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Nov. 1, 2002 at A29.

46. See, United States Securities and Exchange Commission - Form 10-K, Annual ReportPursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Fiscal Year Ended Aug.31, 2002, at 1, (visited Dec. 1, 2002)

-24-

<http://hoovers.10kwizard.com/filing.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1930657&eRid=&type=&doc=1&total=60&back=2>.

47. See, Apollo Group Inc. Reports Fiscal 2002 Fourth Quarter and Year End Results, Oct.8, 2002 <http://www.money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/bw/222810117.html>; ApolloGroup earnings climb, Oct. 8, 2002,<http://phoenix.bizjournals...phoenix/stories/2002/10/07/daily15.html>.

48. Id.

49. See, supra note 47, at 3; See also, Yahoo!Finance (Nov. 24, 2002),http://finance.yahoo.com>.

50. See, Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by type and control ofinstitution, and age and attendance status of student: 1997, 3 DIGEST OF EDUCATION 2001.

51. Liz Austin, A different degree, CAPE COD TIMES, Sep. 22, 2002,<http://www.capecodline.com/cctimes/archives/2002/sep22/degree22.html>; DeVry University,Age Requirements (visited Dec. 6, 2002) <http://www.international.devry.edu/enrollment.php>.

52. See, DeVry University, Tuition and Fees, (visited Dec. 6, 2002)<www.devry.edu/finance_tuition.html>.

53. See, Stephen Glass, An Affordable College That Sets the Standard for Career Training,Hire Education (1995) (visited Nov. 21, 2001),<http://www.policyreview.org/spring95/glassth.html>.

54. Id..

55. See also, Jennifer Saranow, Students Are Passing On IT Training Centers, (visited Dec.7, 2002) <http://www.collegejournal.com/forms/pri...ssions/newstrends/20020520-saranow.html>.

56. DeVry Inc. 2002 Annual Report, at 19; See Saranow, supra note 55.

57. See, Job Outlook 2003: Finding a Job Is Your First Job (visited Dec. 26, 2002)<www.sc.edu/career/webresources/NACEoutlook.html>.

58. See, Lynnley Browning, M.B.A. Programs Now Screen for Integrity, Too, THE NEWYORK TIMES, Sep. 15, 2002, at 4; Paul Lauter, From Adelphi to Enron, (visited Dec. 26, 2002)<http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/02nd/02ndlau.html>.

59. Anna Mulrine, Online ed: It’s in the Army now, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Oct.28, 2002, at 58; Jeffrey R. Young, New Book by Critic of Distance Education Describes PrivacyThreats, Jan. 18, 2002 <http://chronicle.com>; Jonathan Margulies, Army Grants $350-MillionContract to U . of Maryland’s University College, Dec. 5, 2002, <http://chronicle.com>.

-25-

60. Murline, supra note 59.

61. Id.

62. Mary Lord, O E-pioneers!, In the latest ed-reform twist, virtual charter schools let kidsstudy where and when they want, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 9, 2002, at 54-56.

63. Id.

64. See, DIANA G. OBLINGER, CAROLE A. BARONE, and BRIAN L. HAWKINS, 1DISTRIBUTED EDUCATION AND ITS CHALLENGES: AN OVERVIEW (AmericanCouncil on Education Center for Policy Analysis and Educause) (2001).

65. See, Georgia Harper, The TEACH Act Finally Becomes Law, Nov. 13, 2002,<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/IntellectualProperty/teachact.htm>

66. See, Georgia Harper, Complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Respondingto Notices of Alleged Infringement, July 27, 2001,<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc//IntellectualProperty/dmcaisp.htm>.

67. See, Michele J. Le Moal-Gray, Distance Education and Intellectual Property: TheRealities of Copyright Law and the Culture of Higher Education, 16 Touro L. Rev. 981 (Spring,2000); Weinstein v. University of Illinois, 811 F.2d 1091 (1987); Georgia Holmes & Daniel A.Levin, Who Owns Course Materiels Prepared by a Teacher or Professor? The Application ofCopyright Law to Teaching Materials in the Internet Age, 2000 BY Educ. & L J. 165 (2000).

68. See, Thomas Knable, Why are “Baby Boomers” in College? Part One: Statistics, (visitedDec. 22, 2002) <http://adulted.about.com/library/weekly/aa021901a.htm>.

69. See, Thomas Knable, Why are “Baby Boomers” in college? Part Two: Employment,(visited Dec. 22, 2002), <http://adulted.about.com/library/weekly/aa021901b.htm>.

70. See, Susan Porter Robinson, Lifelong Learning Trends in the United States: The Risksand Challenges to Higher Education, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION CENTERFOR ADULT LEARNING AND EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS 2 (2002).

71. Id.

72. See, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Final Rule ImplementingSEVIS, (Dec. 11, 2002),<http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/02.12FINALRU_FS.htm>.

73. See, P.L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001); its full title is the “Uniting and StrengtheningAmerica by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USAPATRIOT ACT); Charles Doyle, The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, CRS Report forCongress, Apr. 15, 2002, <http://ww.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf>.

-26-

74. See, Jonathan Donald Westreich, Regulatory Controls on United States Exports ofWeapons and Weapons Technology: The Failure to Enforce the Arms Export Control Act, 7Admin. L.J. Am. U. 463 (Summer, 1993); International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. §120 (2002); James B. Altman and William McGlone, Demystifying U.S. Encryption ExportControls, 46 Am. U.L. Rev. 493 (Dec. 1996).

75. 22 C.F.R.. § 120.17 (2002) for definition of “export;” 67 Fed. Reg. 61 (2002) for a recentexemption to the Regulations for disclosure of certain information obtained through fundamentalresearch that is published and shared broadly within the scientific community.

76. Claudia Ray and Dale M. Cendali, The Internet and Jurisdiction: The InternationalExperience, 14 THE COMPUTER LAW ASSOCIATION BULLETIN NO. 2, 43-53 (1999).

77. Audrey Williams June, Public Colleges See Red but Don’t Panic, THE CHRONICLE OFHIGHER EDUCATION, Sep. 6, 2002, at A39.

78. Id.

79. Id.

80. Martin Van Der Werf, Many Colleges Could Close or Merge Because of FinancialProblems, Standard & Poor’s Warns, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Dec. 13,2002, at A34.

81. John L. Pulley, Endowments’ Investments Lost 6% in 2001-2, THE CHRONICLE OFHIGHER EDUCATION, Jan. 3, 2003, at A34.

82. College tuition fund faces crisis, FORT COLLINS COLORADOAN, Nov. 27, 2002 atB5; Sandra Block, States dropping and changing struggling pre-paid tuition plans, Dec. 25,2002, <http://usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2002-12-25-tuition-trouble_x.htm>.

83. SHEILA SLAUGHTER AND LARRY L. LESLIE, ACADEMIC CAPITALISM (1999).

84. Sara Hebel, Colorado Eyes a Voucher System to Ease Financial Strain, THECHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Nov. 8, 2002, at A25; Rebecca Jones, Higher-edoverhaul, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Nov. 25, 2002<http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_1567507,00.html> Marianne Goodland, Blue-ribbon panel endorses higher ed vouchers, SILVER & GOLDRECORD, Dec. 19, 2002, at 3.

85. Id.