To the Editor:
In his letter, "Rejection of funding a threat to prosperity" (May 3, 2012), Gwyn Morgan makes two important mistakes about Canadian universities.
First, Morgan complains that the York University faculty who voted against the proposal to accept a deal with Jim Balsillie's Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) to create a research institute in international law "followed" their "national union," the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).
CAUT is not a "national union,"; in fact it is not a labour union at all. It is an association of faculty associations, some of which are unionized (like York) and some of which are not (like University of Toronto). It does not have the power to direct local faculty associations, never mind tell faculty councils how to vote.
Second, Morgan says that the rejection of the CIGI offer reveals a "disturbing governance dysfunction" at Canadian universities, one in which professors (employees) get to dictate to senior administration (their bosses) which programs will be offered, what research will be done and what courses will be taught.
He then asks: "How can it be that, in the name of 'academic freedom,' those appointed to lead our publicly financed universities are rendered impotent by their own employees?" These comments reflect a basic misunderstanding of what public universities are about.
When acting as a faculty council or senate, professors are "those appointed to lead our publicly financed universities." The charter of Canadian universities, charters created by democratically elected provincial governments, give boards and their administrations power over all financial and operational aspects of the university. They also give power over academic matters to faculty councils or senates, creating a system of checks and balances in which the academic integrity of the institution is set apart (but not totally apart) from those in charge of its finances.
One finds precisely this form of "governance dysfunction" at all of the world's best universities, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, McGill, MIT, and Cambridge, for example. This bicameral form of governance is society's way of ensuring that the research power of universities serve the public good and are not sold to the highest bidder.
And so it was in the name of academic integrity - and not academic freedom - that York professors rightly turned down Mr. Balsillie's generous, but flawed, offer. It was good for business, but bad for the university. None of the world class universities are run like businesses. That is what makes them world class. Professors at York's world class law school made the right decision.
David Seljak, Waterloo, ON.
