Richard Moser: The New Academic Labor System, Corporatization And The Renewal of Academic Citizenship

Richard Moser: The New Academic Labor System, Corporatization And The Renewal of Academic Citizenship
American Association of University Professors, 12/06/01

The exploitation of graduate students and the abuse and overuse of adjunct and non-tenure track faculty is the most prominent characteristic of a new employment strategy sometimes referred to as the two or multi tiered labor system. This new academic labor system has emerged over the past thirty years and is firmly established in higher education. It constitutes a threat to the teaching profession and if left unchecked will undermine the university’s status as an institution of higher learning. These new developments in academic labor are the most troubling expressions of the so-called corporatization of the university.

The only rational and effective response to this system is public education and collective action or what we might call academic citizenship. Academic citizenship exists both as an expression of a traditional ideal and as a possibility that draws on contemporary life.

It is no coincidence that the period 1972-1977 marked the first surge and greatest relative growth in the use of adjunct faculty. [1] We look back at the early 1970s as a time when society’s existing economic assumptions, sometimes called the mid-century social contract, underwent profound revision. [2] In higher education the changing times were, and still are, characterized by disinvestment, the ascendancy of a corporate style of management, and the subsequent shifting of costs and risks to those who teach, research and study. [3] That meant that the faculty would be slowly transformed into part-time employees without due process or economic security and that students would increasingly carry a greater burden of the costs as higher tuition, debt and work. [4]

By the mid-1970s, slower economic growth and heightened competition were evoked to change popular expectations concerning living standards and public expenditures. In a broad historical sense, the accumulated costs of industry and war had become a significant obstacle to maximizing profits and business leaders sought to shift or externalize those costs.

In general the strategy of shifting costs brought an end to a period of rising material wealth for most Americans even as corporate profits grew. As a result, calls for smaller government and lower taxes began to resonate with many and cuts in funding for higher education began. As a consequence of these cutbacks, compensation stalled the full time academic job market contracted and the use of contingent faculty rose sharply.

Most important for the topic at hand, the two or multi tiered workforce became one of the most effective strategies for realizing corporate and administrative goals. The government bailout of Chrysler in the late 1970s not only led to a wave of concessions but also gave official imprimatur to two tiered arrangements.

In the typical two tiered system new or younger employees are not offered the same level of compensation and job security as existing staff. In the academy, this approach reached it fullest expression. We can begin to imagine what lies ahead by looking at what now exists. According to a report on faculty appointments by the AAUP’s Ernst Benjamin,

The change since 1975 is striking. Part-time faculty have grown four-times (103%) more than full-time (27%). The number of non-tenure-track faculty has increased by 92% while the number of probationary (tenure-track) faculty has actually declined by 12%. Consequently, where there were 50% more probationary than non-tenure- track faculty in 1975, by 1993 non-tenure-track appointments exceeded probationary by 33%.

Adjunct appointments went from 22% in 1970 to 32 percent in 1982, to 42% in 1993, to a current level of about 46 percent of all faculty. [5] The change in the proportion changed at about one percent a year. The most recent findings show that this trend continues unabated. [6] The issue of contingent work has finally gained so much attention because the numbers of contingent faculty are approaching a majority, a situation already existing in the community colleges where almost one half of all students are now enrolled in higher education. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that these trends will stop without policy intervention and our activism.

This multi tiered approach succeeded because it blunted opposition by promising not to affect existing constituencies. Yes, the evil genius of the multi-tier system is that it enticed tenured faculty with short-term benefits. We cooperated in our own demise. The good news about our complicity in this new system is that it depends on our complicity to continue. When we decide that having cheap labor on hand to teach our introductory courses or to provide inexpensive replacements for us while we conduct research is not worth risking the destruction of the university and our profession along with it, then the system will be reformed.

The next context useful in understanding the overuse of contingent faculty is corporatization. Corporatization is the reorganization of our great national resources including higher education and the use of their capacities to maximize profits. Two and a half decades of decline or stagnation in public funding for higher education opened the door for increasing corporate influence and since then the work of the university has been gradually redirected to suit the corporate vision. The most striking symptoms of corporatization are: the concentration of university resources on areas where wealth is created, the marginalization of the liberal arts and all areas of research not conducive to the creation of wealth, increasing corporate funding and control over academic research, new ideas and technologies developed at public cost become the entitlement of the corporate sector, the privatization and outsourcing of university functions and jobs from food service to bookstores to instruction, more authoritarian governance practices, rising tuition and debt loads for students, stagnant wages for faculty and poverty wages with low or no benefits for university workers.

It seems that for many universities the internal budget remains in perpetual crisis as it simultaneously takes on a new role as product incubator, real estate mogul and extravagant consumer of everything including expensive and still unproved distance education technologies.

Perhaps most important is the issue of values. In the pursuit of maximum profits, the search for the truth, intellectual creativity, academic standards, scientific invention, the ideals of citizenship, and the practice of community has been discounted in favor of vocational training, material success, applied research and bottom line considerations. [7]

The linchpin of this process of corporatization is the overuse and abuse of adjunct faculty because it weakens the group within the university that has the most power to act as a counterweight to corporate values and as a leader in creating a new vision of the university.

Let us explore for a moment how is this shift to the new academic labor system and corporate values is impacting the quality of education.

Graduate students and part-time faculty have many real and serious grievances. There is simply no disputing the general trend that a significant and growing proportion of people working and teaching in higher education today hold low income jobs without benefits, security, respect or the resources they need to do the job well. Only where collective bargaining exists do conditions for contingent faculty approach the professional level. Instead of reviewing the details regarding the exploitation of contingent teachers I will address the general trends that have implications for the future of the profession and the future of the university.

The overuse and abuse of contingent faculty is an instructional issue. Adjuncts and graduate students do often deliver excellent instruction, but I must emphasis this is in spite of the institutions rather than because of them. Most adjuncts are so poorly paid that there are powerful disincentives to quality instruction. 30% of liberal arts part time faculty report no scheduled office hours and despite a remarkable percentage (41.6) who do, liberal arts adjuncts are 50% less likely to require essay exams than full time faculty.

For adjuncts and graduate students to be professionally evaluated and mentored it would take an enormous commitment of resources from the full time staff. Instead they are only evaluated by students. It is reasonable to expect that such a system of evaluation would make adjuncts vulnerable to student pressure for better grades or reluctant to teach controversial subjects or engage in stressful disputes over plagiarism. [8] So the erosion of tenure is one of the underlying causes of grade inflation.

The overuse and abuse of adjuncts is a curricular issue. When the job of teaching is separated from the job of establishing curriculum and developing programs than we become mere delivery systems of standardized content. People hired for the short term have no incentive to understand the long-term educational goals of the college. Similar disincentives exist for part time faculty to develop long term relationships with students. As a result fewer faculty members will know students well and advising will suffer. As a multidisciplinary conference on part time work concluded "...the terms and conditions of these appointments, in many cases, weakens our capacity to provide essential educational experiences and resources." and "are inadequate to support responsible teaching or, by extension a career."[ ] 9 I must add that the many disengagements forced upon one tier of the faculty are visited upon the other tier as an addition to their already overcrowded work schedule. [10] Fewer full time faculty shoulder the entire burden of the advising, committee, research and governance work. American professors already work an average of 55 hours a week.

The multi tier personnel system is a professional issue. It has produced classic "divide and conquer" effects. The increasing exploitation of adjuncts has occurred over the same decades that salaries for full time faculty have stagnated or declined and tenure as an institution has weakened. [11]

It is not just coincidence that post tenure review and stricter tenure requirements have increased as the profession fragmented. While this trend is often driven by administrations we find ourselves complicit with the slow transformation of tenure from a right into a privilege particularly by allowing or even encouraging the escalation of the requirements for tenure. I consider it a kind of academic macho--a self-destructive compensatory behavior. While we lose our traditional prerogatives to have any say in the standing and status of 60 percent of the faculty, we compensate for our lost power by showing how tough we are on the remaining ten percent eligible for tenure.

Can we believe that the attacks on tenure or the increasingly unrealistic requirements for tenure are concerned with quality or accountability when there is almost no concern for the professional evaluation, recognition and support of the 60 percent of the faculty off the tenure track? [12]

The overuse and abuse of contingent faculty is a threat to academic freedom and intellectual innovation. If you have any doubts I suggest you read the December 10, 1999 Chronicle of Higher Education to find out how well freedom is exercised without due process protections. [13]

Most important is the way the coporatization and the academic labor system chills the entire intellectual atmosphere. In a recent address to the American council of Learned Societies, Clifford Geertz, one of our most influential scholars, recounted his own career calling it "A charmed life, in a charmed time. An errant career, mercurial, various, free, …and not all that badly paid." Geertz continues,

"The question is: Is such a life and such a career available now? In the Age of Adjuncts? When graduate students refer to themselves as "the pre-unemployed"? Has the bubble burst?….It is difficult to be certain….But there does seem to be a fair amount of malaise about, a sense that things are tight and growing tighter….and that it is probably not altogether wise just now to take unnecessary chances, strike new directions, or offend the powers. Tenure is harder to get (I understand it takes two books now, and God knows how many letters…), and the process has become so extended as to exhaust the energies and dampen the ambitions of those caught up in it….All I know is that, up until just a few years ago, I used…to tell students and younger colleagues…that they should stay loose, take risks, resist the cleared path, avoid careerism, go their own way, and that if they did so, if they kept at it and remained alert, optimistic, and loyal to the truth, my experience was that they could…have a valuable life, and nonetheless prosper. I don't do that any more." [emphasis added]

The struggle to reform the new academic labor system is a struggle about freedom. It is fundamentally a political issue and it is an invitation to citizenship that none of us can afford to refuse. It is first and foremost an invitation to academic citizenship. As the number of administrators grow and full time faculty decline the balance of power in the university shifts away from educators. We lose the necessary guarantee that dissenting opinion can be exercised without the fear of reprisals. Without the protections of tenure adjuncts are not free--not free to engage in collegial discussion or comment critically on administrative policy.

The fact that our academic institutions are being subsidized by the cheap labor of our adjuncts and graduate students is a matter of both academic and civil citizenship. State governments have refocused their priorities toward funding the dramatic expansion in our penal institution and for the building of roads. If you strip away the nice words and look at state budgets they show that we believe that punishment and public subsidy of the auto and oil industry is more important that education. Our national budget reveals similar priorities.

I am most deeply concerned about the example that the university itself is setting, in regard to intellectual activity, citizenship, and democracy. This is the hidden curriculum, but the true curriculum of the new academic labor system and corporatization. What lessons do you think are being taught to aspiring young academics when they realize that all of their foundational courses, their introduction to higher learning is being given by people who earn what they did at their summer jobs? What values are being learned when those who teach, who esteem the intellect and hold-high the values of citizenship are apparently held in low regard by society and by the university community itself? The lessons are all too clear and instruct us all that teaching and learning, that the pursuit of the truth, are all unworthy activities. That teachers, students and ideas do not count for much. We learn that it is acceptable to exploit someone if you can get away with it. We learn that one should pay lip service to art or science or history or literature but that money is what really matters. We learn that it is all right to discriminate against someone based on the fact that they belong to a certain class of employee because class discrimination is a legal form of discrimination. Exploiting cheap labor to teach is teaching of the worst kind. Is this what we want to teach? Those are the lesson of the university experience today and on ethical grounds they are a gross violation of our professional standards and codes of conduct.

Well, what to do about it? The primary obstacle is, as usual, in our own minds. Too many of us believe that these developments are the inevitable outcome of some juggaunaut, usually the free market. Indeed that how it is presented by its advocates. In this context, I would argue, the free market, is primarily a rationale, a managerial tool, a means to blunt resistance. Rather than open up the discussion as in the notion of a "free market of ideas," market ideology now functions to foreclose other alternatives.

The free and competitive market does not however describe higher education, or our current economic system. No successful CEO of a global corporation could base a business plan upon the so-called "free market" and neither should we. I want to argue that if we take a more careful and historical view of economic activity and corporatization we can ground the possibilities for a renewal of academic citizenship in our current conditions, our activism and in the American tradition of citizenship.

The free market was always about more than the assertion that supply and demand regulated economic activity. People of the 19th century conceived of a free market made possible because it was populated by rational individuals vested with a right to private property. A person’s mastery of material productive property (a farm or shop) was thought to require the kind of autonomy and self- regulation to qualify them for citizenship. Political democracy actually depended on economic democracy in that widely dispersed property holdings were understood as a guardian of political rights because property safeguarded independence. Private property was seen as a source of freedom, not tyranny, and was shielded from government by due process protections. The Bill of Rights, therefore, only applies to the public realm as a limit on government not to what was seem then as the private realm of work. The classic model of the citizen included the yeoman farmer and the small proprietor whose intellectual integrity and political independence of mind rested on self-mastery and a sufficient measure of economic security. This is what we should imagine when we hear the "Free Market." And although it has been terribly abused and worked only for a minority of Americans we can still learn much from this ideal of the citizen standing with one foot in economic democracy and one in political democracy.

In the last decades of the 19th century however, business leaders were faced with the challenge of maintaining control over the growing surplus wealth produced by large-scale industrialization. Their strategy was to revolutionize the economy by inventing a new legal and economic form we know as the corporation. The new corporate order centralized property, restricted economic democracy and more or less destroyed the political economy of the American citizen. It also however demanded a new understanding of property. Management laid claim to the knowledge, the intellectual property if you will, of working people who had previously controlled work. The complex tasks of craft and trade were segmented, unbundled, simplified, routinized on the one hand and became the property of stockholders, on the other. This revolution changed property rights from control over things or objects to control over knowledge, over processes, over relationships. Sound familiar?

The problem with ideas and processes and relationships is their contingency, they are highly social and political. The are difficult to control so corporations got into the business of speculation, that is the work of predicting and controlling the future. To do that they needed to establish both routine and systematic relations with government and to begin to exercise the powers of sovereignty previously associated only with government. [14]

And now, over a half a century of vast public subsidies, government bailouts, immense military budgets, low interest loan guarantees, price supports, and billions of dollars in tax abatements handed out by federal, state, and local governments serve almost every major industry. [15] The public bailout of the Savings and Loan industry in the 1980s propped up the entire financial structure of American business and will cost the taxpayer half a trillion dollars. More than ever higher education promotes economic activity. Behold the "Biotech Boom." It is not a coincidence that this industry of the tomorrow springs up next door to the universities of today.

Even leaving aside such profoundly important issues as the corporatization of campaign finance and lobbying and the revolving door of high-ranking officials between government and their business clients, it is no longer possible to separate civil and economic governance. The day-to-day operations of corporations demands the protection and support of public policy.

Although the corporations have asserted their power and claims to national wealth and now the university, they could not articulate the next chapter in the story of the citizen. Only we can do that.

The same historical process of corporatization that first demanded a radical separation of economic and political democracy on one level has now ironically rejoined economics and politics and offers us the prospect that we must have democratic governance in both or we will have in neither.

Recent history does offer us a way to democratize and reclaim the university and reconstruct the citizen and that is our job -- literally our jobs.

Corporate Capitalism left most Americans with no productive property and only their job to earn a living. It is then no surprise that the job itself, its character, quality and regulation became the major focus of workplace conflict in the 20th century. Now that struggle has come to the university as we see good jobs going bad. I suggest to you that we are the custodians of our institutions and that our jobs are a part of our institutions, a form of social property that must be preserved for the public good.

In the academy, our professional standards recognize that democratic promise when jobs are treated as a form of social property. After a long period of training, work, and apprenticeship and an equally lengthy and rigorous probationary period and review a candidate is awarded the right to freely practice their profession protected by the due process rights accorded the owner of property. We, of course, know this job property right as tenure.

The due process protections of tenure then allow a remarkable development to occur. The freedom traditionally exclusive to the public sphere could be practiced in that part of life formally understood as private and outside the Bill of Rights, that is work. When the Bill of Rights lives at work, we call it Academic Freedom.

Academic freedom does more than guarantee that creative inquiry is unfettered by authority or the political passions of the day. Only under the conditions of freedom at work can the independent cast of mind necessary for citizenship develops it full capacity. Only when free to think, speak, and dissent can we have a real voice in the decision making process that guide our enterprise and our country. On campus we claim this prerogative as the right to faculty governance. Off -campus "governance" has gone by the name of workplace democracy.

We must defend our jobs, and work for improved compensation and job security for adjuncts and reverse the conversion of tenured to non-tenured positions, not just because it buts bread on the table or to secure percs, but because it is absolutely essential to the larger political project of democracy.

Job property rights, due process, tenure allows us to recreate the widely dispersed property holdings on which economic democracy may be based and are a living example of how the American political tradition might again become the everyday practice of the American people.

Yes new possibilities for the exercise of citizenship are emerging and we are making this happen. Professional and disciplinary associations have begun to respond. A major conference by eight disciplinary and professional organizations produced a comprehensive statement on the excessive use of part time faculty. Conferences, annual meetings, and professional journals increasingly pay attention to these issues. More recently representatives from 17 disciplinary and professional associations founded the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) to engage accrediting associations and encourage better policies and practices for non-tenure-track faculty.

On dozens of campuses across the country full-time, part-time, contract faculty and graduate assistants are turning to concerted action, union organizing and advocacy campaigns, to draw attention to the issues. Part-time faculty are winning governance rights, improved compensation, and in some cases seniority rights. Many departments are taking action to stop or reverse the growing proportion of non-tenurable positions. Barbara Wolf’s brilliant film "Degrees of Shame" has become a powerful educational and organizing tool

In Chicago, the NEA has turned their victory at Columbia College into a campaign at neighboring Roosevelt College. The AFT has registered similar success in organizing part- time faculty particularly in the New Jersey State system. Part-time faculty have organized the California Part-time Faculty Association to lobby for legislative relief. In Washington State major legal battles are in the works and victories have already been won. North of the border the Canadian Association of University Teachers has also launched a drive to bring "sessional" faculty into the union.

Many state conferences and local chapters of the AAUP have made contingent issues the focus of attention. The AAUP national committee on these issues and members of its national staff are engaged in advocacy and organizing drives across the country.

Perhaps the most promising campaign is in Boston. The recent union victory of part-time faculty at Emerson College was the first faculty election at a private institution in Boston in 20 years and more will follow. The AAUP is working with the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL). COCAL is a national network of faculty activists that founded a local chapter last spring in Boston with the help of the AAUP. As part of the Boston initiative the AAUP is deeply engaged in a public educational campaign and both advocacy and collective bargaining drives.

We are also reaching out to the entire university community. Just this past November, with the crucial assistance of Jobs With Justice and CCW, we helped to found the Greater Boston Area University Organizing Project. The project is a coalition of over 15 unions, student organizations, and faculty associations that will provide mutual support for organizing campaigns involving adjunct faculty members, graduate student employees, clerical workers, food service workers, maintenance and janitorial employees, and technical and professional staff. We have created a Campus Charter to provide an alternative code of conduct and the AAUP Council has endorsed the Fair Labor Standards Code of Conduct that was created by activists with the United University Professions.

The last chapter in this history is Campus Equity Week (CEW). CEW is a week of decentralized but coordinated actions that will raise the issue in policy circles and promote local organizing. This is the first time in history that all the major faculty unions and associations in the U.S. and Canada have banded together to promote activism. The issue of contingent faculty and corporatization has a movement building potential that can help to revive all of academic labor.

In many ways however it has been the graduate students leading the way with an impressive wave of organizing unlike anything since academic unionism began. We must learn from our graduate students. They have grasped the essential lesson for today’s university professor: our future in this profession depends more upon collective action than upon individual merit or individual striving.

Emerging from all of this activism is a glimmer of a new campus community, a transformed version of the classic community of scholars, but this time more inclusive and more democratic.

I look out at the profession today and I do not despair. Everywhere I see a growing consciousness about the new academic labor system and corporatization and an increasing willingness to take action to defend higher education. Academic citizenship is on the rise and the engaged citizen-scholar is emerging as a new model for academic life. There is, after-all, no professional activity more important than the exercise of academic citizenship. Only activism, organizing and effective shared governance can create and advance the conditions on which all of our teaching and research depends. We must all put first things first.

By confronting the overuse and abuse of contingent faculty we will make a real contribution to the national discourse over the quality of higher education and the nature of work and democracy in contemporary America. Those things are the larger meaning of our concern over the new academic labor system and coporatization. This is more than a struggle to protect our interests; this has direct bearing on the public good. That, above all, is what our profession is about, quality education and the public good.

It is a charge we dare not fail to fulfill.


  1. "The Status of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty" AAUP Policy Documents and Reports 1995 p.72 .
  2. For accounts of the mid-century social contract also called the labor/capital accord see David Brody, Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) Chapter 5 and 6. Barry Bluestone and Irving Bluestone, Negotiating the Future: A Labor Perspective on American Business (New York: Basic Books, 1992) Chapter 2. Nelson Lichtenstein and Stephen Meyer, On the Line: Essays in the History of Auto Work, (Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press,1989) pp. 1-16. Thomas A. Kochan, Harry Katz, Robert B. McKersie, The Transformation of American industrial Relations (New York: Basic Books, 1986) Chapter 2. Kevin Boyle, The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism 1945-1968, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995). On the decline of the social contract see Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich And Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (New York: Harper Perennial, 1990) Jeffrey Madrick, The End of Affluence: The Causes and Consequences of America's Economic Dilemma (New York: Random House, 1995) Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, The Deindustrialization of America (New York: Basic Books, 1982)
  3. The following statement offers a similar but less historical view of the growth of adjuncts, "Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of part-time and Adjunct Faculty" Academe January-February 1998, in particular see p.54-56.
  4. Jodi Wilgoren, "More than Ever, First Year Students Feeling Stress of College." NYT 1/24/00, p.18.
  5. All of the data in this paragraph is from Jack H. Schuster, "Reconfiguring the Professoriate : An Overview," Academe Jan-Feb, 1998 p.49.
  6. In the early 1990s faculty appointments still went disproportional to the non-tenure and part time positions. Two government studies done in 1987 and 1992 found that while the number of full time faculty edged up by 2.6 percent during those years the number of part time positions rose by 47.7 percent Courtney Leatherman, "Part timers continue to Replace Full-Timers on Callege Facultyies." Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/28/00, p. A18.
  7. Sheli Slaughter and Larry Leslie, Academic Capitalism, Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997) Gary Rhodes, Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998).
  8. David Foster and Edith Foster, "It's a Buyers Market: "Disposable Professors," Grade Inflation and Other Problems" Academe Jan-Feb 1998 p28-35.
  9. Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty, September 26-28, 1997, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  10. "Statement from the Conference" p.55
  11. Benjamin, "Faculty Appointments" Table 6.
  12. Ernst Benjamin Academe p.26.
  13. Alison Schneider, "To Many Adjunct Professors Academic Freedom is a Myth" The Chronicle Of Higher Education December 10, 1999. P. A18.
  14. This interpretation of corporate capitalism is derived from the work of Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Harcourt, Brace World, 1932); William A. Williams, Contours of American History (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1961); Porter, Job Property Rights; Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York: Basic Books, 1973); Martin Sklar, The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916: The Market, the Law and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) and The United States as a Developing Country: Studies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920's (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992); and James Livingston, Pragmatism, and the Political Economy of Cultural Revoluttion, 1850-1940 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994).
  15. This relationship between government and business is often referred to by critics as Corporate Welfare. That designation implies however that public support of private wealth is an exceptional or abberant aspect of our economy rather than its true basis. For studies on Corporate Welfare see: Cato Institute, Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It (Washington D.C.: Cato Institute, 1996); Robert Sherill, "The Looting Decade, S&Ls, Big Banks and other Triumps of Capitalism" The Nation 11/19/90, pp. 592-93. Stephen Pizzo, Mark Fricker, and Paul Mulo, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991); Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman, Take the Rich Off Welfare (Tucson, AZ.: Odonian Press, 1996).