The Panther Prints 6

$15 Million Donation to UofT

Veiled in Secrecy

(CUP) — A $15 million donation to the University of Toronto sets a bad precedent because the donor placed con- ditions on the gift and univer- sity administrators have agreed to keep terms of the deal secret, say student lead- ers and some faculty mem- bers.

The donation from busi- nessman Joseph L. Rotman to the faculty of managemen is being matched by U of T to create a $30 million fund to attract top business professors.

The bulk of the money will be used to establish and endow six new chairs in the faculty, which as yet have no names. These will be based upon recommendations of the Rotman Foundation.

The faculty of manage- ment will also be renamed in honour of Rotman, a member of the university’s governing council, chair and chief ex- ecutive officer of Clairvest merchant banking group, founder and chair of Tarragon Oil and Gas Limited and a director of the Barrick Gold Corporation.

Although the universi- ty’s governing council unani- mously approved the donation agreement at its most recent meeting, members of the uni- versity community have voiced concerns over specific terms of the deal.

Critics say the deal gives the faculty of manage- ment special status within the university protecting it against budgetary cuts by giving it highest priority in allocation of funds, and guarantees new appointments for 14 years The deal also forces faculty search committees to consult with a committee outside of

the university for advice, and requires the university to use Rotman’s choice of a public relations firm for the faculty.

Other sections of the deal are confidential.

Bill Graham, president of the U of T Faculty Associa- tion, says full disclosure is essential when public funds account for half the endow- ment.

“We are in favour of transparency and full disclo- sure, especially since half the money comes from the pub- lic.” he said. “There is a prin- ciple of public accountabil- ity.”

University vice-presi- dent Jon Dellandrea defends the deal saying a full and com- plete review of the agreement by governors is adequate and customary in such cases.

Although Graham says the faculty association’s con- cers about academic freedom with the initial draft of the agreement have been ad- equately addressed in an amended version, he says full public disclosure of the agree- ment would serve as an addi- tional safeguard of academic freedom.

“Academic freedom and transparency go together,” Graham said. “How do you know if academic freedom is protected unless you have pub- lic scrutiny?”

But Hugh Amold, dean of the faculty of management, says the special treatment granted to the faculty in the agreement is necessary to at- tract private donors.

“There is a sense that having a very good and well regarded business school tends to enhance the reputation of the university within the busi-

ness community,” he said.

“The university is try- ing to support business. Busi- ness will then be more likely to donate.”

Amold says the aca- demic integrity of the faculty is not compromised by the creation of an external com- mittee to serve in an advisory capacity at the beginning of an internal search for academic staff.

“We'd never accept a gift that carried stipulations that weren’t governed by uni- versity’s regulations about academic appointments,” he said.

“The agreement makes provision for eminent experts in the business world as a source of advice. At the be- ginning of the search process, the search committee will con- sult that group of distinguished business experts.”

Elan Ohayon, an execu- tive of the Graduate Students’ Union says this emphasis on soliciting the input of busi- ness leaders, as well as nam- ing building and chairs after private donors is a dangerous trend for a public university.

“These moves don’t strengthen the university, but undermine it. The university is suppose to be creating inde- pendent thought. But if you’re going out asking the people you should be evaluating, aca- demic integrity is under- mined,” said Ohayon.

“The public will stop seeing this as its own institu- tion. Someone comes along, lays on the last coat of paint and people forget who built the house. It undermines what the public puts in.”

...Continued from Page 3

tation is by bringing in an ex- ternal chair. As it stands now, the department is clearly miss- managed and unable to man- age itself.”

“Personal Bias”

In yet another contro- versy surrounding UPEI’s Soc/Anth department, Geoffrey Dale* has stated that the actions of Holbrook re- garding the marking of his papers were based on per- sonal bias and not on academic standard. Dale had received a 95% on his first paper of the semester and on the day the second paper was due, Dale asked a question that as Dale put it left Holbrook feeling agitated. He also felt that the response was more of a repri- mand than an answer. Subse- quently Dale received grades of 35% and 65% respectively on the next two papers, which were not returned. Upon re- ceiving his mark of 65% for the semester Dale felt that a clerical error had been made.

After several attempts to contact Holbrook, Dale fi- nally ran into him outside of class in the hallway, Holbrook tried to brush him off stating he hadn’t the time to see Dale and said that he should come back during office hours. Holbrook did not have office hours posted and even the sec- retary for the department did not know when he would be in his office. Out of frustration, Dale approached Dean Campbell who himself con- tacted Holbrook.

January 21, 1997

Digging

When the meeting be- tween Dale and Holbrook fi- nally took place, Dale was not satisfied with his professor’s comments and wrote the Presi- dent of the university to re- quest that his mark for the course be readjusted. Dale was not available for comment on whether or not his grade was ever changed.

One student also men- tioned that while Holbrook was passing out evaluation forms at the end of the semes- ter, the professor mentioned that because of tenure he was in the position to disregard any comments made by stu- dent on the evaluation forms and that to remember when fillmg them out that he would be teaching some of them next semester. Holbrook then, against University rules, col- lected the forms himself.

These indiscretions cause the students of UPEI to wonder what other incidents the Department of Sociology/ Anthropology have been hid- ing. And furthermore, why the administration is ignoring these problems.

John Crossley, VP Aca- demic agreed that “[there is a] history of some difficulty within the department.” Crossley also pointed out that the department is currently un- dergoing another planned in- ternal review. The. external review is scheduled to take place in March or September.

“[The study] looks into more comprehensive things, but student complaints do bub- ble up.”

eee ee

a+ es ee Be