Document Sample
waterloo Powered By Docstoc
					Beware of donors bearing gifts?:
Gift acceptance policy & academic

        Gary Rhoades, Professor and Director
       Center for the Study of Higher Education
                 University of Arizona
           Three vantage points

 Professor of Higher Education: research on
  restructuring of ac insts & profs, ac science &
  technology policy, comparative higher education.
 Former General Secretary of AAUP (analogue to
  your CAUT). In that capacity, worked with ACE,
  analogue to your AUCC), sat on its board.
 From the U.S. My general stance is to AVOID all
  too common hubris & ignorance of “be like U.S.”
  Generally avoid featuring U.S. pros not cons. In this
  case, b/c of your history & proximity, I’ll suggest
  that some experiences of UK & US can be instructive
 International context…the UK

 CASE Europe: Ethical Principles Behind the
              Acceptance of Gifts
Guidelines for UK Higher Education Institutions
      CASE Europe: Principle #9

 “Individual institutions typically choose, without
  undermining this core principle, to offer donors
  opportunities for continuing engagement with the
  activities that they have funded.”
 “Universities should employ their standard
  procedures relating to recruitment, admissions, hiring,
  promotion, procurement, management and
  governance for all research, teaching, outreach,
  capital development, or student scholarship
  programmes funded by gifts.”
 Many UK universities refer to these CASE Europe
  principles in their policies.
  …international context…the U.S.

 Gift acceptance policies for individual univs;
  sometimes included in that is Donor Bill of Rights.
 - To be informed of the org's mission, of the way the
  org intends to use donated resources, and of its
  capacity to use donations effectively for their
  intended purposes.
 - To be informed of the identity of those serving on
  the org's governing board, and to expect the board to
  exercise prudent judgment in its stewardship…
 - To have access to the organization's most recent
  financial statements.
 - To be assured their gifts will be used for the
  purposes for which they were given.
           The U.S. continued…

 Gift acceptance policy of Boston U: “Gifts whose
  administration and use are to be directed by donors or
  other third parties will not be accepted. All gifts
  solicited in the name of, and treated as a gift to, the
  University will be received and expended by the
  University through regular channels;”
 Endowed chair policy language UC Berkeley:
  “Appointment of faculty as chair holders will follow
  University and academic personnel policies and
  Academic Senate procedures for faculty
      AAUP Principles & Practices
to Guide Academic-Industry Relationships

         56 principles…
  Governance in strategic corporate
 “At a minimum, universities should retain majority
  academic control and voting power over internal
  governing bodies charged with directing or
  administering SCAs in collaboration with outside
  corporate sponsors.”
 “The SCA’s main governing body should also
  include members who are not direct stakeholders of
  the SCA and are based in ac disciplines … that do
  not stand to benefit from the SCA in any way.”
 “…it should have no role in exclusively academic
  functions, such as faculty hiring, curriculum design,
  course content, and academic personnel evaluation.”

Guiding Principles for Univ Collaborations

              7 principles
      CAUT & academic integrity

 “In no case, should a funder or a private collaborator
  or their representatives have any voice in matters
  related to the academic affairs of the institution or
  academic aspects of the collaboration.”
 “Donor and other collaborative agreements should be
  governed by a committee at least 2/3rds of whom are
  elected academic staff members who do not hold
  administrative positions. The academic staff
  component should include both those who are
  involved in the agreement and those that are not.”
The local situation
 A common “framing” of the issue:
       Conflict of Interest
 “A largely unobjectionable document, the Guiding
  Principles seems primarily and correctly designed to
  prevent scholars from being bought or otherwise
  coerced into serving business interests.”
 “But there is no danger of this in the BSIA case,
  because CIGI has no business interests. Its legal
  mandate is to promote the free and open exploration
  of creative ideas for improving global governance. It
  has no product to sell; it serves no political masters;
  and it has no ideological proclivities.” (Welch, BSIA)
 But more is at play than ac freedom & CoI--
  academic integrity & authority over decision making
  Framing academic governance as
           local control
 “The senates of both universities strongly support the
  governance framework. This is important because a
  university senate is comprised primarily of faculty
  members, those most attuned to potential threats to
  academic freedom and integrity. It is the senate, not
  the Canadian Association of University Teachers, that
  has responsibility and authority over academic matters
  at individual institutions.” (President Blouw)
 The stance of the AAUP, and of CAUT.
 The limits of local faculty involvement in shared
  governance--information, team players, &fear.
 Garcetti
          Defining “partnership”

 “This partnership is fundamentally different than
  many other donor-funded academic initiatives.
  Rather than a passive donor placing funds at the
  university for specific purposes, it involves an active,
  engaged partner in the form of a well-respected
  think-tank that a generous and visionary donor has
  funded.” (President Blouw)
 “Because Balsillie school is not a traditional, single-
  institution school, a board of directors was needed to
  ensure the values and priorities of all three partners
  were fairly represented.” (President Hamdullahpur)
 Incorporation, & a “force multiplier” (David Welch)
             Three suggestions
             beyond the formal
 A regular event such as this, with variation. Not to
  legitimate new structures but to explore & work
  through challenges. More open-ended, problem
  solving approach, than a we’ve got it covered,
  formally, approach.
 Regular review by fac not involved: despite the best
  of policies & intentions, problems can emerge. This
  is what CASE, AAUP, & CAUT call for, with good
  reason. No presumption of problems, but likewise no
  assumption of unproblematic nature of arrangements.
 Alternative mechanisms of “active partnership.”
Thank you…

Shared By: