C.U. Avoids Conflicts of Interest With Acceptance of Donations
Email: 
Share: 
While American universities benefit from government endowments, business corporations and alumni contributions, college administrators are cautious not to relinquish some of their autonomy in the name of donations.
Donations that come with strings attached pose a dilemma to Cornell administrators and professors who receive funding from businesses, governments and wealthy individuals.
Through Cornell’s history, the administration has accepted donations with restrictions. For example, Balch Hall, funded by Allen C. Balch who graduated in 1889, and Janet Balch, who studied at Cornell from 1886 to 88, must remain an all-female dormitory. In addition, Willard Straight Hall, constructed in honor of Willard Dickerman Straight, who graduated in 1901, is not allowed to hold any academic classes. None of the wishes of these contributors, however, interfere with the curricula or course materials set by the school administrators.
Among the faculty, such a complex issue spurs a wide range of reactions. Prof. John Siliciano, law, a vice provost, sees the recent transactions between Marshall University and BB&T Coroporation as very problematic and something Cornell would certainly avoid.
On Jan. 24, BB&T Charitable Foundation announced a $1 million contribution to establish The BB&T Center for the Advancement of American Capitalism at the Lewis College of Business at Marshall University. Under the conditions of the agreement, Marshall University must teach Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as part of their curriculum.
When speaking with Bob Denham, senior vice president and director of Corporate and Executive Communications of BB&T Corporation, the motive of this bank’s donation was not to promote pro-capitalist philosophy, but to promote discussion about the complexities of a capitalist society.
“The purpose behind these gifts is to encourage a fundamental discussion of the moral foundation of capitalism, to provide students an opportunity to hear from the great philosophic defenders of capitalism, such as Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, Fredric Hayek and Ayn Rand,” Denham said.
Denham also explained that the question that Marhsall University had to answer was not whether the gift was helping to dictate the school’s curriculum, but whether the school would be interested in teaching this topic regardless of the donation.
“The gifts ultimately support professors who have an interest in Rand and her philosophy regarding the morality of capitalism,” said Denham. “All the professors involved in these programs believe this is an appropriate academic endeavor independent of BB & T’s interest. At the end of the day, it is the university’s decision whether to accept.”
Siliciano stated in an e-mail, “Cornell just cannot accept money with those kinds of strings attached because it directly undermines our own responsibility to determine internally what we teach and how we should be teaching it. The problem isn’t really any different from one in which the government sought to specify what should be taught in universities. The fact that this is a private donor rather than the government really doesn’t change the threat that such conditions pose to the academic freedom that is crucial to the effective functioning of universities. Put simply, we don’t sell our curriculum.”
Not only must school administrators determine which funding to accept, but professors also must grapple with the question of which donations to accept to fund their research. Prof. Jeff Cowie, industrial and labor relations, only accepts funding from learning foundations that do not have specific political agendas. As a labor historian, Cowie chooses not to accept funding from either labor organizations like the AFL or businesses, since he feels that doing so would create conflicts of interest.
Besides private businesses and individuals, another key benefactor to Cornell University is the New York State government. New York State helps endow Cornell’s land-grant schools such as the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the College of Human Ecology, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Veterinary Medicine.
According to Harry Katz, dean of ILR, 15 percent of the school’s funding comes from the state. This endowment from the public sector has some implications in the administration of the schools.
“We aim for at least 60 percent of the students in the statutory college to be from in state. This percentage is not for each college, but all of the land-grant schools in total,” Katz said. “This is not a law, but a verbal agreement.”
To strike a balance between pleasing donors without relinquishing any control of the administration, Katz views the process as a negotiation.
“We try and match the interests of the donor with the interests of the school,” Katz said. “If someone gives us money to study a problem, we make a proposal and then negotiate a plan of action for using this funding. We will accept the funding if the program is one which we are doing or one we would be interested in doing. However, we recently had to deny an offer to study global supply chains because it did not fit the interests of the school. The funding was for the study of the structure of multi-national corporations and business strategies; ILR, however, would be interested in the implications of the supply chains on labor. I redirected them to the business programs like the Johnson School or [Applied Economics and Management].”
Katz said that Cornell University is fortunate that it is not in dire need of money. Since its core activities can survive without donations, Cornell has the luxury of choosing which endowments to accept.
“Cornell has the resources to run its basic operations,” Katz said. “Endowments enable the University to expand what we are already doing. Thus, Cornell is not desperate and can stay true to its principles.”
Liberal Colleges
If the schools cannot self-regulate because they are dominated by politically "liberal" economics professors, why can't the society that is dependent on a good understanding of economics, attempt to broaden the field by supporting professors of varying persuasions? It appears that voters have no control over the use of their tax dollars in the universities since a number of studies have shown an overwhelming "liberal" orientation among professors. The society is forced to accept a dominant liberal elite in the universities and they are given the line that the colleges don't want to give up control of their curricula in the best interest of the students...but why is feeding students a daily diet of leftist economics in their and society's best interest? If the schools were doing a better job of teaching a variety of opinions, why would businesses feel a need to balance the scales more evenly?
Confused Understanding of Academic Freedom
Sadly, Vice-Provost John Siliciano, has it exactly backward on this issue. It's absurd to suggest that the curriculum at Cornell or at Marshall University is up for sale or that academic freedom is being violated by accepting the money. Some faculty and administrators at Marshall asked BB&T for funding to start a program on the moral foundations of capitalism that included reading Atlas Shrugged. The only violation of academic freedom is the attempt by certain faculty and administrators to deny the right of a faculty member to teach a course that includes Atlas Shrugged.
The real (untold) story here is the effort by certain faculty and administrators to serve as thought police and to prevent certain ideas from being presented on America's college campuses.
Conflict of interest?
The real shame here is that there is any controversy at all about teaching pro-capitalist writers, philosophers, and economic thinkers at major universities in the U.S. ( I wish there would have been such a grant at my undergraduate university, to expose me to the writings of Ayn Rand and other pro-capitalists earlier.) Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system based on respect for individual rights.
Professor Siliciano wants to prevent other professors at Cornell from voluntarily accepting grant money to study capitalist thinkers, and he calls that "academic freedom."
Optional course
Siciliano: "... directly undermines our own responsibility to determine internally what we teach and how we should be teaching it."
If the university chooses whether to accept the gift or not, how is it not determining internally what it teaches and how it should be teaching it?
The course itself is optional. Students choose to take it or not. Maybe students determining internally what to be taught concerns Siciliano.
On the subject of conflicts of interest, what does Cornell think about professors assigning their own hundred-dollar textbooks for classes? The professors get some percentage for sales of the book, perhaps they keep it in print and get a subsequent edition, and they have their name printed on the spine. Their copies are free from the publisher too.
Academic Freedom
Prof. John Siliciano, law, a vice provost stated:
"The problem isn’t really any different from one in which the government sought to specify what should be taught in universities. The fact that this is a private donor rather than the government really doesn’t change the threat that such conditions pose to the academic freedom that is crucial to the effective functioning of universities."
How sad that Prof. Siliciano is unable (or unwilling) to see a distinction between curriculum "specified" by the government and a university's voluntary acceptance of a donation.
If a college does not want to accept a donation with "strings attached", they can refuse the offer. When the government dictates what courses will or will not be taught, its an offer the university can't refuse.
Dan C
Academic Freedom
If Cornell doesn't think Atlas Shrugged should be taught, then they should not do so. But there is nothing improper in a private individual or business trying to fund the covering of certain books at a university.
The real question is why isn't Cornell already covering *Atlas Shrugged* on its own, *without special funding*? The book is the most important novel of ideas written in the twentieth century, and it includes, near the end, the hero's long speech to the nation, in which he lays out Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy in clear, carefully defined terms.
I can well understand why an element in the professoriate doesn't want Objectivism presented and discussed in class. Their opposition is not so much to the politics of Objectivism, as others here have suggested. The opposition is primarily to the Objectivist epistemology. Against the subjectivism and skepticism of contemporary disciples of Derrida, Le Man, Stanley Fish, and Co., Objectivism upholds objectivity, rational certainty, and contextual absolutism. Against the "anti-foundationalism" of Sellars, McDowell, Feyerband, etc., Objectivism upholds sensory perception as man's basic cognitive contact with reality. "Reason," Rand writes (in *Atlas Shrugged*, by the way) is "the faculty that . . . identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."
*Atlas Shrugged* is a powerfully presented defense of man's rational mind, and a celebration of its power. It moves on the most fundamental of levels, challenging the dogmas of our time (on both Left and Right). As such, it deserves to be taught and discussed, with or without outside funding.
Is a well known university anti-reason?
It is interesting to me that this issue called Mr. Cross to stand up. The question is: For what is he standing?
Given that Rand is a defender of reason and man's ability to know reality; and, further that she advocates the voluntary and peaceful interactions of men, what is the problem? The offering of a financial gift for a particular purpose which can be refused is not remotely similar to the compulsory nature of a government edict.
This kind of reaction to reason and a free society reminds me of the Catholic Church and, in fact, any religion which is, by definition, dependent on faith, which means, anything except reason. Is this the reputation that Cornell wishes to have?
Academic Freedom = Anti Self-Interest
I'm not convinced that adherence to the principle of "academic freedom" should be a necessary requirement for a high-quality institution of learning.
The fear is that dollars will corrupt the search for knowledge and impede the better judgment of academics as to what constitutes material worth teaching and researching. To me, this seems less like the necessary, timeless protector of knowledge that it claims to be, and more like a Platonic bias against commercialism and self-interest (against donors being able to act in their own interest by getting something they value out of the transaction). Rather than maintaining neutrality, it actually displays an underlying bias against those wanting to promote their own values, which is incredibly ironic considering we are talking about Atlas Shrugged, in which the producers of the world are taught that they should be proud to seek their values.
Could it be that if donors actually stood up for themselves and looked out for their own freedom and interests by requesting course material that is to their real-life benefit, that it might threaten the monastic isolation of those who advocate ideas inimical to such freedom, such as socialists, neo-Kantians and the like? Oh, no!!