stop tlierc. Wliy slioukl a college be ablernto “tax” paying students to subsidize nonpayingrnstudents? Like cost-shifting inrnlicaitli care, we need to stop including socialrngoals in the price of our products.rnRemember, this industry is nonprofit.rnIt has never felt the sting of real competitionrnand has grown bloated, inefficient,rnbureaucratic, and oblivious. It is amazinglyrnout of touch with current businessrnpractices and docs not recognize howrnvulnerable it is. Its vision is of the past,rnnot the future. It stubbornly adheres to arntradition and model that is over 1,000rnyears old. It is a high-cost anachronismrnthat is imposing staggering economic demandsrnon middle-income parents.rnThe key concepts in business today arernalmost completely unknown on campus.rnYet the ability to consolidate, merge,rndownsize, and outsource is as great inrnhigher education as it is in other placesrnwhere wc have made large profits, suchrnas banks, radio stations, television sta-rnHons, and health care. Wc earn profits byrnrationalizing an irrational market.rnWe seek to rceonceptualizc higher education.rnIt is our intention to do to higherrneducation what Charles Schwab did tornthe securities industry and Sheraton didrnto hotels. Wc will gain control of somernkey institutions nationwide, fire most ofrnthe employees, and replace them withrnlower paid but equally competent workers.rnWc will then hire some of the bestknownrnacademies and have themrntelecommuting and/or teleconferencingrnto all our subsidiaries at the same hour onrnthe same dav. We feel that the informationrnrevolution has created a massivernoersupply of professors. The Internetrnand telecommuting and/or teleconferencingrncan replace most of the teachingrnfunctions of colleges or universities. Studentsrnin much more comfortable classroomsrnwill watch the world’s best professorsrnon a giant screen. We will sell ads tornbe run before and after the lectures, andrnwe have Seinfeld already under contractrnto promote our common curriculum.rnWc will hire proctors to replace professorsrnand cut out many unnecessary andrnsuperfluous functions. We will stop taxingrnhalf the students via higher tuition tornsupport all or part of the other half of thernstudents. We will rim education like arnbusiness. If government wants to subsidizernpoor students, let it do so directly insteadrnof by cost shifting.rnWe figure that, with the Internet, werncan cut the cost of libraries in half andrnsave bimdles just by discontinuing arnbunch of journals that nobody reads anyway.rnWe will stock the library with onlyrnthe best books on every subject, which wernestimate can cut our library acquisitionrncosts in halfrnWe also have under contract some ofrnthe key entrepreneurs who took over andrnconsolidated the mortuary business,rnbuilder’s supplies, barber shops, etc.rnThey realize the power and efficiency ofrnmass purchasing and common management.rnWe estimate that we can cut therncost of tuition in half and still make gargantuanrnprofits. In many areas we canrnbuy three in.stituHons and merge or closernone (the business plan of ColumbiarnHCA). We can discontinue discoimtsrn(called scholarships) and undercut thernexisting system. We feel that the politicalrnclimate is ripe to privatize those instihitionsrnnow under both private and publicrncontrol.rnWe feel tiiat we can produce as goodrnor better products—called graduates —asrntile current system does for a fraction ofrndie cost. After all, whoever has custodyrnand jurisdiction over young people asrnthey age from 18 to 22 is bound to seernmassive improvement in those customers.rnWe have himian maturity workingrnfor us, for which we can take partial orrneven full credit.rnOur research department hasn’t beenrnthis excited about an industry since computers.rnMarket-driven higher educationrncan yield a good, standard quality productrnfor a fraction of the present price. Forrna prospectus, call . . . .rnRichard D. Lamm is a former governor ofrnColorado.rnPOLITICSrnThe Sin ofrnAdam’s Markrnby Philip ]enkinsrnMost academies belong to at leastrnone of the various professional societiesrnwhich can be of decisive importancernin shaping careers. These societiesrnaward prestigious prizes and grants, andrnsome, like the Modern Languages Associationrnand the American SociologicalrnAssociation, achieve their greatest significancernduring annual conferences thatrnare, in effect, the national conventions ofrnparticular branches of scholarship. Withrnthis in mind, it is easy to understand thernshock scholars felt this past Februaryrnwhen they received an e-mail warningrnthat the Organization of American Flistoriansrn(OAH), one of the two largest associationsrnin the historical field, was threateningrn(on very short notice) to cancel itsrnannual meeting for 2000 and to pay financialrnpenalties which would have destroyedrnthe organization altogether.rnThough the O A H managed to avoidrncommitting total hara-kiri, the whole affairrnoffers striking testimony to the currentrnstate of the academic profession, andrnto its ideological coloring: We find herernyet more proof that a sizable number ofrncollege professors are still mired in arn1960’s dreamworld.rnThe crisis began with a legal disputernconcerning the 21-hotel Adam’s Markrnchain, which allegedly practiced systematicrndiscrimination against black guests.rnReportedly, Adam’s Mark hotels repeatedlyrngave blacks inferior rooms at higherrnrates and even forced black guests to wearrnidentifying armbands to prove their rightrnto be on the premises. These practicesrncame to light during a major event calledrnthe Black College Reunion, held in DaytonarnBeach, Florida. Late last year, in responsernto complaints from the NAACP,rnthe Justice Department began a formalrnlawsuit against Adam’s Mark, which wasrndenounced in harsh public statements byrnJanet Reno and Bill Lann Lee. Now arnmoral leper, Adam’s Mark hotels foundrnthemselves boycotted by various liberalrnorganizations, which suddenly canceledrnplans for meetings or conventions. ThernEpiscopal Church announced one boycott,rnfollowed shortly by a ga’ and lesbianrngroup, the Human Rights CampaignrnFund.rnMeanwhile, the OAH found itself inrncrisis because its annual beanfeast wasrnscheduled to be held in an Adam’s Markrnhotel in St. Louis in April 2000, and therngoverning board was besieged by membersrndemanding either cancellation or arnshift of premises. At this late notice, thernhotel would be entitled to substantialrnpenalties: The OAH woidd have to payrnthe hotel $425,000, while the organizationrnwould forfeit another $200,000 inrnregistiations and exhibitor fees. Basically,rnthe organization would lose about halfrnits animal budget, while Adam’s Markrnwould come out far ahead financially, asrnit would have no problem reselling thernlUNE 2000/43rnrnrn