The Chronicle of Higher Education
From the issue dated September 24, 1999

Keep Internet Advertising Out of the Curriculum
By THOMAS EHRLICH

Welcome to www.commercial.edu. A proliferating number of for-profit companies are offering to provide sophisticated World-Wide Web sites to colleges and universities for little or no money. Those sites not only students to perform many personal and academic activities – such as checking class schedules and assignments, communicating on line with their professors, and obtaining course syllabi -- but they also serve as portals that provide links to other sites on theInternet. One new company, Campus Pipeline -- which is backed by SCT, a major supplier of administrative-computing software to campuses -- boasts that it has business agreements with more than 400 colleges and universities.

Many higher-education institutions, which must invest ever-increasing resources in Web sites, probably view the arrangements with Campus Pipeline and its competitors --Jenzabar.com, Mascot Network, mybytes.com, among others – as great opportunities.
But the compacts that colleges and universities are signing present great dangers, as well.

The promises of free or low-cost Web support that Campus Pipeline and its competitors make are hardly examples of corporate philanthropy. In exchange for its services, each company gains the right to sell commercial advertisements on the institution's Web pages.

In addition, Campus Pipeline and other portal companies ask students who log onto a campus site to fill out an optional form about their interests; if the students do, advertisers will be able to bombard them with e-mail pitches for other products. Further, most of the companies deploy on-line "cookie" software to track users' Web-surfing activities. The companies can give some of that information, in turn, to advertisers, allowing them to direct their messages to students who appear most interested in their products. A company such as Campus Pipeline receives a commission on every student purchase from a Web site to which it provides a link.

It is unclear how many institutions are actually going to use Campus Pipeline or any of the other for-profit services. On one hand, the University of Oregon -- one of a handful of institutions that have tested Campus Pipeline's software package -- plans only a small pilot among several hundred students this fall. On the other, Appalachian State, which also has tested Campus Pipeline's merchandise, intends to install the software for all 12,300 campus users.

Almost certainly, many colleges and universities will contract with companies such as Campus Pipeline -- which plans to bring 100 campuses on line this fall and has the advantage of being designed to work with the SCT student-information systems that many colleges and universities use. Institutions want to reach current and potential students, alumni, faculty members, staff members,and others with attention-grabbing Web pages -- and without the costs of hiring designers and converting materials for their sites.

Commercial advertisements in the classroom are nothing new for elementary and secondary schools. Channel One, a company that supplies schools with television sets and programming supported by paid advertisements, set off a firestorm of protest when it rolled out nationally in 1990; public controversy continues to this day. About 12,000 high schools and middle schools, with 8 million students, view the 12-minute daily program -- and its advertisements. A new company called ZapMe! offers schools free computer equipment, software, and Internet access in exchange for the right to post advertising on the screen that a student sees while using the company's material. In a sense, higher-education institutions are simply going down the same road that many K-12 schools have already traveled.

And what is wrong with that? Is the recent Campus Pipeline phenomenon any different from the creeping commercialism that has been spreading across American higher education for decades? That commercialism started with intercollegiate athletics; today, virtually all Division I sports arenas display some form of advertising. The corporate incursion has since grown to includegranting exclusive campus licenses to soft-drink companies, as well as contracting with commercial companies to manage campus bookstores and cafeterias. Other signs of for-profit businesses appear in almost every corner of many campuses, public as well as private.

But, yes, there is a difference. A big one. Until now, the curriculum has been off limits. The reason should be obvious: Selling a college curriculum to the highest bidder subverts the very purpose of a college education. Placing advertisements on Web pages that contain academic materials needed in a college course compromises those materials. To some students, the materials could become secondary to the information in the advertisements.

I do not minimize the abilities of students to recognize an advertisement when they see one -- they certainly have been subjected to plenty of commercials in their lives. But there are enough tugs and pulls on students without trying to catch theireyes, minds, and wallets when they log on to find out the assignment for the next history class. In the last year, a series of media reports has told of students running up huge debts on credit cards that they had been induced to accept. Those problems indicate how vulnerable students can be to excessive pressure by commercial enterprises.

Even more important, the development of independent, inquiring minds must not be for sale. When courses and curricular materials come to students along with advertisements, the message is clear: You should be studying this material not solely for its own merits, but also because it makes some businesses a profit.

The advertisements also suggest that the college or university endorses the businesses involved. The Campus Pipeline Web page makes no bones about that fact; it uses the phrase "building consumer relations for life" in its pitch.

In short, the use of advertising says to the student that theinstitution can be bought. Even student learning can be bought. If advertising were allowed in a courtroom, it would trigger the same concerns: It would say that justice is for sale. The arguments in favor of allowing advertisements would be the same: Many courthouses need repair. New ones must be built. The costs of maintaining our court system are increasing, and citizens, not happy with the prospect of increased taxes, are unwilling to finance what is necessary. But no one would argue that ads should be allowed in the courtroom. What is the alternative for colleges and universities?

We must view the commercialization of higher education in a larger context. Higher education is a calling, and its mission is to enhance society by teaching, research, and service. Colleges and universities have obligations, as well as opportunities, to strengthen the fabric of our society by stressing essential dimensions of life that are not commercial -- in particular, the moral and civic responsibilities of every student, faculty member, and administrator on campus.
I am concerned that many colleges and universities are abdicating their social responsibilities in favor of promoting narrow careerism and private self-interest. As a result, students and their families increasingly see the role of education solely in terms of getting a job. Finding a job is important, no question about it, but it is not the only reason for attending college.

Study after study has found that people are unhappy in their jobs unless they feel part of a larger effort to improve something more bank accounts. Through higher education, individuals gain the values, knowledge, and skills to be part of that larger effort; higher education helps each person make a life, not just a living. Advertisements that come with academic-course materials insidiously undermine that purpose.

I understand the other side of the commercialization issue all too well. When I was president of Indiana University, we made some exclusive agreements with vendors in non-academic areas. My colleagues and I also struggled frequently with how to finance valuable campus services with our limited resources. For example, in a moment of weakness, I approved a large sign with ads on a road approaching our campus because the sign would provideimportant, continually updated, information about the university. But many faculty members and others howled, and, fortunately, the sign came down.

In that and every other case, the argument was made: "We cannot afford this step to pay for X or Y unless we accept a business sponsor." And: "All other campuses are doing this, and we will fall behind unless we do so as well." But we kept the academic sacred, and not by chance. I hope that the leaders of our higher-education institutions will fight the temptation to resolve financial difficulties with inappropriate commercial incursions into the curriculum, such as those proffered by Campus Pipeline and its fellow portalcompanies. We need to pursue other avenues of opportunity. Anideal option: A consortium of foundations could arrange to offer, at little or no cost, Web services similar to those provided by Campus Pipeline to smaller, less wealthy institutions. In fact, a
coalition of smaller institutions could band together and approach foundations with such a proposal. Creative thinking could yield other options.

Until then, it won't be easy. Well-endowed institutions will develop their own attractive, user-friendly Web sites, putting less-prosperous campuses at an even greater disadvantage. But the cost of succumbing is a real one. And it is not a one-time cost.The students will pay for those institutionally conveyed "educational" messages for the rest of their lives.
Thomas Ehrlich is a senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and a distinguished university scholar at California State University.