The new donation policy serves as an illusion of progress, while still maintaining the status quo
This article will focus on the topic of academic freedom at the University of Toronto in relation to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) censure. I do not mean for this article to detract from other important issues surrounding the censure. That being said, with the release of U of T’s revisions to its guidelines on donations and the upcoming CAUT vote to end the censure, I think now is a good time to voice an opinion about U of T’s actions regarding academic freedom generally.
It is no secret that private money forms one of the major pillars of funding for post-secondary education in Canada. Occasionally, this has led to conflicts between the agendas of donors and the ideal of academic freedom.
Some notable examples include the University of Toronto’s abandonment of Dr. Nancy Oliviera in the early 1990s, in response to the legal fallout with Apotex after she expressed concerns over the efficacy of Apotex’s drug during clinical trials. More recently, in 2012, Carleton University was forced, by public outcry, to alter a deal which gave a donor the right to appoint a majority of committee members overseeing the hiring and curriculum of the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program in Political Management. That same year, public outcry moved York University to alter a deal which would have given joint-governance over a new international relations school to the private research center of Rim Co-Founder, Jam Balsillie. The point I want to make by listing a few of these examples is that donor influence over post-secondary education has been an issue for a while, and it is not going away. I believe it is a persistent threat to academic freedom and something we would be wise to keep an eye on.
We appear to now be nearing the end of yet another example of this sort. On September 17, 2021, The CAUT announced it would pause the censure on the University of Toronto after Dr. Azarova was once more offered the position of the Director of the International Human Rights Program. Until the vote to officially end the censure occurs between November 25-26, CAUT asked the University of Toronto to extend academic freedom protections and develop policies to prohibit donor interference in academic affairs.
In relation to this request, on September 8, 2021, the University of Toronto released its revised guidelines on donations. This revision included the new article 7, which reads as follows:
7. The University will not allow any external input, including from donors or alumni, to influence any University hiring decisions, unless this input is part of the established hiring process. Any staff member or representative of the University who receives an inquiry related to any active University hiring process from sources external to the University’s established hiring processes, including alumni, donors and external organizations, will respond that recruiting processes are confidential, and that no information about the search can be shared.
I have two problems with this new rule. First, it isn’t clear what is meant by the phrase “unless this input is part of the established process.” Considering this is the sole criterion for granting an exception to the rule, I find the vague language troubling. Last month, I inquired on behalf of Ultra Vires with the Division of the Vice-President & Provost about the University’s motivation in including this exception, as well as the scenarios that contemplate its application. I have not received an answer and I do not expect to. I am concerned that this exception could be construed to legitimize any donor influence when it is convenient. This would render the new rule useless.
My second problem with this rule is mainly echoing an argument made by Professor Ariel Katz on the subject. Namely, I do not believe that deeming the recruiting process to be confidential solves the problem of donor influence over the process.
I believe that contact between an influential donor and an individual involved in a hiring process may influence the process even where the protection offered by confidentiality has been properly utilized. Imagine two situations: (1) a donor calls an individual on the hiring committee, states the name of an individual they want hired, and ends the conversation; and (2) a donor asks about a particular candidate, fails to obtain any information due to confidentiality, but, just through their inquiry, has already successfully communicated their intentions. I have trouble imagining how a declaration that the process is confidential would help in either of these scenarios. The problem, as I see it, is that a donor’s influence can be realized by unilateral communications which cannot be curtailed by the confidentiality of the hiring process.
Therefore, I am not convinced by the University of Toronto’s attempt to extend academic protections and develop policies to prohibit donor interference in academic affairs. It seems to me that this new policy only serves to provide an illusion of progress while maintaining the status quo.
Ideally, I would like to see the University of Toronto produce policies that increase transparency. Increased access to the relevant information on the University’s relationships with donors, in my opinion, would be a substantial improvement. Look at the York and Carleton examples: in both situations, it was public outcry over the revealed details of the University’s agreements which ultimately led to the demise of those deals. I think the public has proven to be an effective tool to help hold universities accountable to their commitment to academic freedom. I believe policies which increase the availability of information will make the public more effective.
While the CAUT censure is still considered an ongoing event, it provides an opportunity to apply pressure on the University to improve its policies regarding donor relations. I think it would be wise to demand more effective solutions to protect academic freedom at the University of Toronto. I do not want to see this event go down as merely another example of the creeping infringement of donors upon academic freedom in post-secondary institutions. This problem is not going away.
