Universities in row over donor’s alleged ‘veto’ on hirings, curriculum

Two leading Canadian universities are facing censure by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) over collaboration with theCentre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), a private think-tank established by Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research in Motion Ltd, the creator of the Blackberry.

A third is likely to avoid censure after it pulled out of a deal that emerged from three years of negotiations.

CAUT, which represents 66,000 professors, librarians, researchers and other academic staff, has informed York University, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo in mid-March of its intention to put forward a censure motion at its April general meeting.

But on 2 April, York University's law school voted to opt out of the deal reached last year that would have created a school in international law, leaving the university no choice but to ditch the partnership with CIGI.

“This is a missed opportunity,” York provost Patrick J Monahan told the Toronto Globe and Mail. “This would have been a very significant initiative.”

The union says that the universities signed contracts that gave Balsillie influence over hiring decisions, academic programmes and curriculum, thus compromising academic integrity.
At the centre of the controversy are two donations made by Balsillie’s think-tank, the Waterloo-based Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

In 2007, it gave $C33-million (US$33 million) to Wilfrid Laurier and Waterloo to establish the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Last year, after three years of negotiations, CIGI and York forged a $30 million agreement to establish the school, a figure that has been matched by the Ontario government.

Both new schools put in place committees with representation from the universities and CIGI to make key decisions about hiring, research and budgeting. Decisions require unanimity, which the CAUT argues gave CIGI a power of veto.

“Traditionally, donors have had no role in the governance of a university,” says James Turk, executive director of the CAUT. “Our problem is that these universities have agreed to give a private think-tank a voice and a veto in academic matters.”

According to York, the public attention given its agreement with CIGI is in part based on “incomplete and inaccurate” information.

“The university retains full decision-making authority and autonomy in the development of this initiative,” Monahan explained in an email prior to the 2 April decision. “Although we will consult with CIGI, and work collaboratively with them in promoting and developing the research programme, final decisions regarding such matters as who shall be appointed to the [research] chairs rests with the university.”

CAUT first began investigating CIGI's donations after Ramesh Thakur, a widely known international academic, former UN advisor and vice-rector of United Nations University, abruptly left his position as the inaugural director of the Balsillie School of International Affairs based at Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier. Thakur says that he was fired because he resisted giving CIGI more influence over academic matters.

In an independent review commissioned by CAUT, University of Saskatchewan professor and academic freedom expert Len Findlay argued that Wilfrid Laurier and Waterloo had “a serious lapse of judgment and loss of commitment to institutional autonomy, academic integrity, due process and natural justice” in firing Thakur.

“In sum, this is a story about the downside of autonomy, the dark side of philanthropy, and the fact that no amount of money, whether public or private, can guarantee academic excellence unless academic principles and values are well understood and protected,” Findlay concluded.

Since the report, the universities and CIGI have developed new governance guidelines, but CAUT maintains they give the think-tank too much influence.

York had made changes to its August 2011 agreement with CIGI. According to a 9 March protocol, in the event that CIGI and York disagree about who should be included on a shortlist of candidates for research chairs, the decision will be made by an independent, arms-length committee of scholars.

“This kind of independent peer review is analogous to the external peer review that has been in place for many years with respect to [other research chair programmes],” wrote Monohan. “It will enhance rather than detract from the academic credibility and integrity of the programme.”

This article replaces an earlier version and contains later information