Universities are sanctuaries for the free exchange of ideas, open communication and debate, peer review of research and the pursuit of truth.
The extension of knowledge, cultivation of self-understanding and ability to analyze and critique international events are some other notable functions the university performs.
The experience of studying with young people from a diverse range of cultural and religious backgrounds is crucial for the development of a pluralistic society of individuals who respect each other’s differences and resolve conflicts through constructive means.
An education system that encourages students to study a range of subjects, from computer science to law to anthropology, is essential in shaping young personalities and developing compassion and understanding for a multiplicity of issues. In short, universities benefit the society at large through cultivating a consciousness in students beyond their own experience.
In recent years, this virtuous portrait of our education system has come under threat. A decline in government funding has forced universities to look elsewhere for funding, and corporations have stepped in hastily to fill the void.
The values and objectives of the university are being radically altered through the combined efforts of politicians and university administrators acquiescing to the demands of big business. It cannot be stressed enough that the foundational values of higher education contrast sharply with corporate ideals.
For example, academics have traditionally shared knowledge and information freely, while business has coined the term “intellectual property” to keep information away from “competitors.”
An historic event in corporate involvement in education occurred on the Berkeley campus within the College of Natural Resources in 1998. Berkeley signed a deal with Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant and producer of genetically modified crops, for $25 million to fund research in the department of Plant and Microbial Biology.
Under the terms of the agreement, Novartis was granted rights to negotiate licenses of a third of the department’s discoveries, including the results of state-funded research.
As well, the company was granted representation on two of five seats on the department’s research committee, which determines how the department’s money is spent.
The deal sparked uproar on the Berkeley campus. A private corporation was contributing one third of the research budget of an entire department at a public university. Students were wondering how the deal would impact academic freedom. Would the partnership make it harder for academics to raise questions about the safety of genetically modified crops?
One of the stipulations of the Novartis deal allows the company to postpone publication of research for up to four months, although traditionally delays are no more than one month. The culture of science, far from being secretive, has historically shared intellectual property and discoveries for the public good.
Similar partnerships with big business have been occurring on university campuses across Ontario. In 1998, Bell Emergis committed $22.5 million to work with the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo on expanding exploratory information technology research.
The deal requires the university faculty and students to work at Bell Emergis, in exchange for Bell employees to work at the universities. The most controversial aspect of the deal is the fact that intellectual property, instead of being owned exclusively by the university, as has been the case in the past, will be co-owned and co-developed.
Increasing financial dependence on corporate donations to fund research and equip facilities will continue to constrain the actions of academics whose research may have negative implications for their corporate benefactors. Such a scenario will continue to pit administrators against faculty members who ask difficult questions that challenge the status quo.
The renegotiation of corporate involvement in universities is necessary. This is a multi-faceted demand that will require a revolution in the way we think of education today. The corporate mindset has existed on university campuses since their inception, and conservatism on campus is about as old as Hart House itself.
The Corporate-Higher Education Forum commissioned a report in 1984 by two private sector economists, Judith Maxwell and Stephanie Curie, entitled Partnership for Growth. The report sought to detail the scope of corporate-university collaboration in Canada and make recommendations for continued collaboration.
The document makes four essential points: access to cutting-edge knowledge, products and processes is essential for corporations to continue to compete in the world economy; corporations need high-quality graduates as employees and access to higher education to upgrade the skills of existing employees; universities also need to continue to communicate with big business to maintain awareness of the market trends so as to guide research and education; finally, universities need money for new facilities and equipment.
University administrators should proceed with caution when opening up the doors of academia to the global market. Rather, we should invest in what Dr. Howard Zinn calls the “free marketplace of thought and culture,” where universities present students with a broad range of ideas and viewpoints.
Students should be encouraged to exercise their powers of critical thinking, and encouraged to make up their own minds as to what constitutes fact or fiction. A just and democratic society will potentially find its roots in the classrooms of our universities.
Corporate involvement in education threatens democracy at its core. If humanity is going to survive, and if individuals are to ever reach their true potential, universities must declare independence from corporate rule and open their doors to the plurality of views and ideas that form the backbone of our society.
