by Alan Goodman, Jack Rayman, and Dave Ferrell
Winter 2001, NACE Journal of Career Planning & Employment
In May 2000, the Principles for Professional Conduct Committee of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) reported the findings of its Ethics Concerns Survey. The survey found that NACE members regarded the “commercialization of career centers and its potential for compromising ethical standards" as one of two topics most in need of exploration and discussion. This article is an attempt to provide a framework for NACE members, in both the college and corporate ranks, to address institutional expectations and internal conflict that stem from this dilemma. Included are recommendations for career centers to manage their obligations to various stakeholders, i.e. students, the university, and employers.
The Scenario
At X University (XU), the career services director is summoned to a meeting with the vice-president for student life and the vice-president for institutional advancement. The veeps explain that an alumnus of XU, now the CEO of Interneting.com, a major high-technology company, is interested in establishing a long-term relationship with XU. The relationship will give Interneting.com the inside track into XU’s “best and brightest” computer science and M.I.S. graduates.
Interneting.com proposes to finance a brand new career services center and also provide a sizeable endowment for the center. The company will fund scholarships, paid internships, and faculty research. In exchange, the career center will be renamed the “Interneting.com Career Center.” The career services director also will be expected to feature Interneting.com’s logo on the career center’s publications and web site. Finally, Interneting.com will have first option for on-campus recruiting dates and table location at job fairs.
What should the career services director say, if anything, other than “where do I sign?” He knows what the money will mean to the center and the university. On the other hand, he is aware of the ethical principles as stated and implied by NACE’s ethical guidelines, the Principles for Professional Conduct. In his mind there is a vigorous argument going on. It goes something like this:
Pros: Sign on the dotted line
Cons: Draw an ethical line in the sand
Seem like fiction? Perhaps it was fiction 10 years ago. However, this situation is real, and it represents a burgeoning trend that, in some people’s minds, is threatening the ethical foundation upon which career services operations are based.
Reflect on these examples:
Conflict of interest? Survival behavior? Good business? Greed?
Whatever you want to call it, the commercialization of the college career centers and the career development field presents enormous ethical questions. Driven by complementary forces—a robust job market, especially in the technical arena, and the continuing search by college financial managers to economize on one hand and build endowments on the other—the recruitment of college graduates has provided many college career centers with the opportunity and expectation of bringing in amounts of money that their predecessors a decade ago could never have imagined.
In addition, the explosion of the commercial job-search industry, most notably web-based services, has raised an alarm in the career services community regarding the ethical treatment of students, in particular the use of students' confidential information.
Defining the Issues
As noted above, there are a number of practices that fall under the rubric of commercialization. The following is a list of the most noteworthy and ethically questionable components.
1. Web Sites and Web Access
Direct links from career centers to commercial sites: Many commercial web sites are persistent in their requests for career centers to add a link on their web sites to those of the commercial site. The commercial web sites want access to students for the purposes of e-commerce—the direct sale of goods and services. While these commercial sites may say they are concerned about the students’ career development needs, their interests are actually in gaining access to the students as potential customers.
Display ads on career centers’ web pages in return for cash or favors: Corporations seeking students as employees and corporations seeking to sell products and services to students offer cash and favors in return for permission to put their display ads on career center web sites. Although this exchange appears attractive to career centers that are strapped for resources, it also presents potential conflict-of-interest issues.
Corporate use of university logos and trademarks online: Some corporations request that they be allowed to use university/college logos in conjunction with their corporate logos to create the impression among students that they share a special relationship or partnership with the institution. It is a way to create an impression that the career center recommends them as employers. It “personalizes” corporate web sites for individual campuses, and enhances student motivation to access employers’ web pages. However, it may also create the impression that the career center is endorsing one corporate opportunity over others.
2. Corporate Associate Programs and Associated Expectations
In this type of program, the corporation is asked to pay a cash fee each year to establish a “special relationship” with an office within the college or university. In return the office agrees to provide special services, often including preferred access to the “best and brightest.”
Such relationships exist between corporations and career services offices and between corporations and individual academic departments. This type of relationship generates discretionary funds for the university office involved. It can also create many ethical problems around the issue of “paying for access” for the best candidates.
3. Commercial Web Sites Moving into the Career Services Business
Commercial web sites constantly campaign to gain access to career services web sites as a gateway to student consumers. These efforts are carried out by phone, e-mail, [snail] mail, in-person contact, and in any other way possibly. Commercial web sites may offer cash payments, in-kind payments, or under-the-table activities to gain access to students.
4. Selling Access to University or Career Services E-mail Lists (Data Bases) for Cash or Favors
Most career centers and other university offices maintain student data bases. Corporations would like access to these data bases. It is not uncommon for individuals within the university to sell access for cash, favors, or in-kind support. For example, an employer may want e-mail access to all the electrical engineering seniors, honors students, or members of the marketing club. Depending on how this is done and for what purpose, the practice presents innumerable ethical concerns.
5. Use of Data Mining Techniques to Build Commercially Sold Data Files
Commercially developed web-based information assistance, such as online resume referral services, grade report services, transcript services, and scheduling services, presents the potential for violation of ethical standards. For example, a career center wants to provide employers with web access to student resume-type data, but does not have the means to develop the software necessary to perform this function. A vendor offers to develop the software and implement the service in return for having access to the student data base. In turn, the data base can be used for a variety of commercial purposes, including direct web-based marketing and sales or the data base may be sold to other vendors.
6. Corporate Use of Career Services Provided E-mail Addresses
Most career services routinely ask that their student registrants provide e-mail addresses on their resumes. Employers may legitimately request and receive a large number of resumes from the career center and then use the e-mail addresses for a purpose that is entirely different than the career center intended.
For example, some employers will contact students via their e-mail addresses and make arrangements to meet them off campus to conduct interviews outside the purview of the career center. Others may contact students directly via their e-mail addresses and attempt to sell them consumer products and services. The result is that the career center is cut out of the loop and prevented from exerting control over the ethics of the on-campus recruiting process.
7. Corporate Sponsorship of Buildings, Interview Rooms, and Major Interior Space Within Buildings
There is an growing trend among colleges and universities to ask corporations to sponsor buildings, interview rooms, and major interior space within university buildings as a way to improve the quality of service that career centers provide. The major issue that arises from such a relationship is whether it is ethical to provide such corporate sponsors with perks and special privileges that afford an advantage over their competition.
8. Special On-Campus Access to Hiring Students or Sale of Products, Such as Telephone Service, Soft Drinks, and Booksellers
It has become increasingly common for colleges and universities to establish formal, exclusive contractual relationships with certain large corporations. One element of these exclusive relationships is that the contracting corporations are provided with significant privileges that give them an advantage in the recruitment process in return for enormous cash payments to the college or university. For example, the exclusive right to sell soda on a university campus creates a powerful presence in the minds of students that is likely to enhance the company’s image and provide an advantage in sourcing employees.
The Debate
Comments from the Ethics Concerns Survey communicated a great deal of concern by both college and employer members about the effect of these practices.
For example, one employer remarked: "As a recruiter, I have seen many negative effects of career centers trying to raise money. One negative impact has been that companies that donate heavily tend to receive favorable treatment. Examples range from receiving prime spots in career fairs to putting up company marketing items in interview rooms. Smaller companies, with less money to throw around in recruiting tend to receive the short end of this. My opinion is that one of the goals of a career center should be to provide the students equal access to all companies so that each student can find the company that best matches his/her career goals. A for-profit career center compromises this."
A college member echoed this opinion: "Our budget has shrunk by 8 percent in the last two years while demand has increased by more than 120 percent in some areas of our service. We are forced to raise money through development initiatives, fee-for-service offerings, and employer fees. This changes our focus and creates situations which challenges our ethics."
In general, the feeling exists that by giving into, embracing, or soliciting financial support of the business community, career centers will lose sight of their primary professional responsibility, namely working on behalf of the needs of their students.
Seminal notions such as fairness, equal opportunity, and self-actualization will be compromised, or abandoned, in response to the lure of dollars. And while the career services office might contend that corporate funding ultimately benefits all students, there is the powerful risk that the most highly coveted students will be treated as commercial properties, while “less valuable” students will be little more than afterthoughts in the career services office’s mission.
There is another side to this debate, however, and it was presented quite vigorously by several survey respondents. One employer wrote: “Sometimes I think that the career centers are not commercial enough, and that many of the students do not use them (or their services offered) effectively. Career centers are not marketing themselves or their students effectively.”
Another concurred, stating: “I will bet that commercialization will drastically improve the service by many career centers.” These feelings are not limited to employers.
Consider this from a college member: “Career centers are already commercialized to lesser or greater degrees. Ethical behavior should be of utmost importance no matter what. Making money is not any more inherently unethical than being ‘poor.’ ”
These comments suggest that there is not a de facto moral corruption of the career services operation that engages in commercialized practices. In fact, proponents argue that being financially wise, even opportunistic, enables career centers to better serve all students. Moreover, being commercial does not automatically preclude being ethical. There are many highly successful corporations that place ethical behavior at the core of their operation. Why, one might ask, cannot a career services office do both?
Moral Foundations
Given that the primary objection to commercialization is from an ethical standpoint, it is important to examine the profession's moral compass, the Principles for Professional Conduct. For starters, the profession's three central moral precepts lay the groundwork for exploring the ethical implications of these practices. They read:
- “Maintain an open and free selection of employment opportunities in an atmosphere conducive to objective thought, where job candidates can choose long-term uses of their talents that are consistent with personal objectives and all relevant facts;
- “Maintain a recruitment process that is fair and equitable to candidates and employing organizations;
- “Support informed and responsible decision making by candidates.”
This language conveys the fundamental acknowledgment that career services professionals are expected to serve the best interest of students. Moreover, employers, while charged with “developing effective college relations programs that contribute to effective candidate selections for their organizations,” recognize that their strategies and actions should be undertaken in a manner that respects the rights of students to make informed choices that are in their best interest.
And while there is often a dynamic tension between the goals of employers and career services members, theoretically all parties’ needs can be met while observing these precepts and the ensuing standards contained in the Principles document.
Beyond the three founding precepts, several specific principles in the college and employer sections are directly related to the commercialization-related practices cited above. The two most notable ones are as follows:
Career Services Professionals, Principle 4: “Career services professionals will provide generally comparable services to all employers, regardless of whether the employers contribute services, gifts, or financial support to the educational institution or office and regardless of the level of such support.”
Employment Professionals, Principle 4: “Neither employment professionals nor their organizations will expect, or seek to extract, special favors or treatment which would influence the recruitment process as a result of support, or the level of support, to the educational institution or career services office in the form of contributed services, gifts, or other financial support.”
Other related principles include the following:
Career Services Professionals, Principle 3: “Career services professionals will provide students with information on a range of career opportunities and types of employing organizations” and “Career services professionals will provide students with information on a range of career opportunities and types of employing organizations.”
Principle 9: “If charging of fees for career services becomes necessary, such fees will be appropriate to the budgetary needs of the office and will not hinder student or employer access to services.”
Employment Professionals, Principle 10: “When employment professionals conduct recruitment activities through student associations or academic departments, such activities will be conducted in accordance with the policies of the career services office.”
Considered together, these principles relate to a number of the profession's fundamental moral standards, namely justice (fairness), fidelity, and non-injury. But are career services professionals dishonoring these obligations when, for example, they provide special visibility to moneyed employers?
In this example, one could contend that with Internet availability, students are not prevented from accessing information about or contacting employers who are either less visible at or unable to attend a job fair due to special contributions by more affluent businesses or high registration costs. On the other hand, students interested in the “missing” organizations may be those who are in greater need, i.e., liberal arts students who are targeting positions in smaller, nontechnical companies, and/or nonprofit organizations.
The question of fairness ("generally comparable services" … “reasonable and fair guidelines for access to services by employer” … “fees will not hinder student or employer access”) is a big one.
Does naming a career center after a contributing corporation or charging for preferred recruitment dates violate this standard? Why, in fact, should a career center be fair to recruiting organizations? Those same organizations are competing with each other for students. The playing field is not expected to be level outside of the career center, so why should the rules be different there?
The biggest issue, of course, has to do with the role of the career center. Historically the career center has been the boundary spanner, helping students and employers link with each other in the comfortable confines of the college campus. The career center has also been the student advocate, preparing seniors for the job-search process, marketing the institution to attract as many employers as possible, and helping students experiencing difficulty with the recruitment process.
On the other hand, career center staff have attempted to assist employers in successful recruiting at the college. The motive ostensibly has been a pure one, i.e., helping students be successful and, in turn, retaining satisfied organizations and attracting new ones. The college/employer relationship was primarily collaborative in nature. That does not mean that the employer/career center relationship has been totally spotless, even before the commercialization frenzy began.
Corporations have long contributed in various ways to career centers (e.g., funds and equipment). Expectations were not as obvious, perhaps, but the unstated expectation always was that by contributing money, the corporation would benefit through heightened visibility. What has changed is the blatancy of this relationship, the openness of the expectations, and the outcome at stake.
Money from employers used to be helpful in meeting auxiliary needs: e.g., a new computer or “slush funds.” Now colleges rely on these funds for core operations. Career centers are rebuilt from million-dollar contributions in exchange for naming opportunities. Large contributions to the alumni fund are received in exchange for preferential treatment in on-campus recruiting scheduling or placement in a job fair.
There are many who see this as good business-or at least how business now gets done. For years, college administrators were admonished that they needed to run their institutions, at least certain parts, more in keeping with sound business principles. Admissions offices took heed of this advice to the point where they have created enormously sophisticated public relations and marketing campaigns, including exceptionally user-friendly and technologically sophisticated admissions processes. It is not uncommon, for instance, to find college admissions professionals bargaining with parents in financial aid sessions that bring to mind the spirit, if not the complexity and enormity, of agent and sports franchise negotiations.
Just how far this business mentality has seeped into the academic world was spelled out in a revealing article, “The Kept University,"” in the March 2000 Atlantic Monthly. The authors described a range of activities, particularly sponsored research, that illustrate how eager universities have been to take in corporate dollars.
It is noted that corporate research sponsorship in public higher education has risen dramatically while government support has fallen. The authors write, “universities, once wary beneficiaries of corporate largesse, have become eager co-capitalists, embracing market values as never before.”
The authors contend that in exchange for this support, universities risk relinquishing control of the direction and terms under which research is conducted. As this article points out, and even a cursory look at the modern college campus will corroborate, partnering with the business world has become a lucrative practice. For a long time academic departments have received generous funding from corporations in the form of research grants, scholarships, and equipment. In addition to research sponsorship, most major universities now have created technology licensing offices through which faculty research is turned into fruitful patents.
College athletic departments have demonstrated how profitable corporate partnerships can be: Look at the uniforms of many major college teams and you will see an equipment manufacturer’s logo. New sports facilities are beginning to bear the names of companies in exchange for multimillion dollar payments. Exclusive contracts to sell soft drinks have proliferated on college campuses nationwide. And this may be just the tip of the iceberg.
Why, then, should career centers be exempt from this sort of collaboration? And is there really any choice, anyway?
The Response
Those in charge of career services offices must recognize that how they do business has changed. It is irrevocable? We do not know, but one can speculate that the boundary-spanner role described before is unlikely to persist in its idealized form. This does not mean that career centers must compromise their principles in pursuit of dollars. Promoting the values inherent in the Principles for Professional Conduct remains an important obligation. The challenges inherent in this effort, however, have become greater.
First, career centers must fully appreciate the interplay of their stakeholder obligations. The idealized version of a career services professional is of someone whose sole or at least overriding responsibility is to the client—the student. The professional must safeguard the student's rights, provide for the richest educational experience possible, and, in general, create an environment that is conducive to the student’s growth.
Outside considerations, such as the feelings and prerogatives of wealthy alumni, should never enter into operational decisions or policy interpretation. Placing the needs of a wealthy benefactor over that of the student is an abhorrent conflict of interest. The reality is, however, that career centers have multiple stakeholders with various needs and expectations. Students are the primary stakeholders, but the university is a stakeholder, too.
While placing institutional financial needs above those of an individual student may be wrong, the career center cannot ignore the expectations of its employer, the university. The career center cannot categorically declare that it is above or free from financially driven institutional expectations. There is the bigger picture, and the career center cannot simply decide to remove itself from within that framework. This does not mean, however, that career centers must simply give in to the increasingly voracious financial appetite of the university. Instead, they must attempt, as best they can, to leverage their perceived importance to employers.
Being important means having a voice and having access to decision makers. For example, the director in the opening dilemma has an opportunity, rather than just an ethical problem. His options include the following:
- Educating. In this case there is the opportunity to point out to the vice presidents that there are, indeed, ethical ramifications to this proposal. It is likely that these folks have not considered the conflict of interest faced by the career services director and the institution as a whole. That does not mean that they will change their plans, but that they might be supportive of ensuing strategies to minimize the harm and maximize the benefit of this plan.
- Setting Limits. There is room to negotiate. Interneting.Com is eager for institutional access. The career services director is in a position to help them get the most value out of their new visibility, steering them to marketing practices that do not violate the profession's ethical principles.
- Cooperating. Since the career services operation is seen as valuable to Interneting.com, the director should find ways of involving them in ongoing dialogue regarding these issues. Many career centers have employer advisory boards and these issues can be introduced at such meetings. Members can be asked to help the career services office negotiate through the ethical minefield that is sometimes created by corporate contributions.
- Applying Benefits. Career centers should find ways of using funds raised through commercialization practices to benefit the students who are in greater need because they are not sought by the businesses who contribute the big dollars.
- Remaining Diligent. It is unlikely that the vice president for student life will ask the career services director if there are any ethical concerns about commercialization. In fact, she will probably be in full support of the Interneting.com proposal. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the career services director to keep a steady eye on the moral issues presented by commercialization. With increasing pressures to fund career centers, as well as the lure of outside dollars, it is understandably easy for career centers to overlook or rationalize actions that violate the principles upon which career services work is built.
Finally, there is one practical, long-term aspect of this dilemma that must not be overlooked. In the rush to cash in on a bull recruiting market, college career services offices run the risk of driving their major customers away from them in the long run and potentially causing problems with their customer sets.
A member of one prominent corporation noted that his organization uses many different sources and methods to fill its university hiring requirements. About 25 percent of this company’s students reach them via the career services offices. He said that students can find employers in many ways other than going through the traditional placement office process, and employers are willing to run their own events and go directly to faculty to make connections with students.
“If we were charged $5,000 to attend a campus job fair, we would be forced to rely less on placement directors and more on other means of filling our needs.” In addition, he said, the job market may not be so robust in the future, and colleges that are excessive in leveraging the current market may find little employer loyalty.
In short, he concluded, career centers and employers should have a collaborative relationship and employers should have equal access to career center services. “Access,” he said, “is not something we should buy.”
Also of concern to this employer was the possible perception that preferential access would give not only students and his firm's customers. “We are engaged in marketing and partnership activities with all sizes of customers,” he said. “Most of them are looking to hire key university talent and do not have the resources to be paying for ‘preferred seating.’ Why should they suffer as a result and what would they think if they knew that the big companies were getting to the candidates first just because they had the money to buy the access?
“It’s the wrong message all the way around. This engagement process with students needs to be driven by fair and equitable access where the merits of the organization are the determinants of success.”
Concluding Thoughts
This is a frightening time in academia. As Press and Washburn noted in their Atlantic Monthly article, the basis upon which higher education and scholarship have long existed is endangered. The business bottom-line mentality threatens to narrow the focus of a college education to the point where students learn what business is willing to fund. Business dollars are not inherently evil, but losing focus on the role of education may prove to be very unhealthy for this society.
While career centers are a tiny piece of this picture, career center professionals must recognize what is taking place around them. They have an opportunity, albeit a minor one, to balance institutional needs for business dollars with a principled focus on the needs of students and the ideals upon which academia was founded. This will not be an easy line to walk, but it is certainly a moral imperative.
Copyright Notice: This article originally appeared in the Winter 2001 issue of NACE’s Journal of Career Planning & Employmentl. NACE members have the permission of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, copyright holder, to download and photocopy this article for internal purposes. Photocopies must include this copyright notice. Those who do not hold membership, or who wish to use the article for other purposes, should contact Claudia Allen, callen@naceweb.org, 800/544-5272, ext. 129. Electronic reproduction of this article is prohibited.