A month ago, Ottawa's Carleton University agreed to accept $15 million from a private citizen for a new graduate program. The money came from the personal fortune of an Albertan philanthropist, Clayton H. Riddell, while the idea originated from one of Canada's elder statesman -- former federal Reform party leader, Preston Manning.
The new school is to be named the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program in Political Management. Its mission is to provide, according to the university, a "practical cross-partisan training for aspiring political staffers." When the donation was announced, it was widely celebrated within the Carleton University community. To date, the offer is the largest one time donation in the school's history.
Carleton's chancellor, Herb Gray, and chair of the Board of Governors, Jacques Shore, both endorsed the idea and became enthusiastic supporters. Both men are prominent Liberals, Herb having served for close to 40 years as a Liberal MP and Deputy Prime Minister while Shore is one of the Liberals' top fundraiser and member of its exclusive Laurier Club. Membership to the selective group is earned by donating and committing to donate at least $1,200 a year to the party. Former NDP national director Robin Sears is also a vocal supporter and adviser to the new school.
The agreement between Carleton and Riddell calls for the Riddell Foundation to appoint three of five people on the school's steering committee. The committee would also have influence over the graduate program's budget, academic hiring, executive director and curriculum.
The committee was to include Manning as chair, his former top aide as well as another well- known conservative activist. Two more appointees were to come from the university.
Late last week, the university released a statement -- one which suddenly rejects the deal. Apparently, the deal "does not reflect the university's academic policies and will be reworked." Carleton plans to "rework the provisions in collaboration with the donor," the statement added.
This is very unfortunate. It reminds me of a little known history within Carleton University. In 1964, then-Ottawa mayor, Charlotte Whitton, refused a $450,000 donation to Ottawa's Civic Hospital from a prominent Jewish businessman, Bertram Loeb. Although Whitton claimed that by accepting the donation would force taxpayers to face liability for it, some suggested the reason had been that she didn't want the name of a Jewish family on an Ottawa hospital building.
Carleton University accepted the money without discrimination and named one of the most prominent buildings in his honor -- the Loeb Building. This decision was both forward and smart then as it is now.
The Said Business School at Oxford University is another example. It also had the same type of controversy in 1996. The then-brand new school had accepted £23 million from a Syrian/Saudi Arabian businessman and had named the school in honor.
Many protested and some faculty members resigned in protest. The administration took a principled stand and never wavered on their original decision.
Today, the school is one of the leading business schools in the world. Said has further established a Strategic Development Fund for the School with £25 million and committed another £15 million to start construction on a new building that will house the Saïd Business School Center for Executive Education.
When the Carleton University detail was made public, James Turk, executive director of the teachers' association, said he fears some cash-strapped Canadian universities have given up their academic independence to the highest bidder. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has called provisions in the deal "unprecedented and unacceptable," while others have expressed fears that the donation may politically compromise the school's curriculum.
The reality is that this unfounded fear is jeopardizing what is a noble idea for many Canadians who want to be educated with the hope of serving Canada. Preston Manning deserves our applause, not our ridicule or disdain, for his initiative. He is a passionate Canadian.
Whether one is a political supporter of his or not.
Follow Samuel Getachew on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GetachewS
Have you not seen what the most ardent CONs feel is their perogative once given some leeway? Unfortunately, until that party cleans its' own house, one cannot in good conscience give any CON member the benefit of the doubt.
They bully and abuse Parliament, Electoral Law, Electoral Financing, been challenged and condemned by the highest courts in the land.
If you read and comprehend these words, tell me how you can give any of them the benefit of the doubt?
or actually with great thought..to block specific and comprehensive landclaims ..as used by the Alberta Gov't against the Lubicon Cree so many yrs. ago..
I have a relative who took over the church and the radio evangelism of Phillip Gaglardi in British Columbia but apart from being a teatotatler agreed with me on a few things including the separation of church and state. I think it's Mannings politics, and the fear of being associated with them; not his faith that's the issue.
Your comparison is disingenuous, to say the least. Putting a name on the outside of a building does not control the type of medicine practiced within its walls. But stacking a department that is offering a graduate program in politics with a chair and his minions who are dyed-in-the-wool members of only one partisan group cannot help but skew the content and political leanings of the program.
Furthermore, the cost for sending graduate students through the program would not be covered entirely by the grant. Taxpayers would be on the hook for a large part of it. And what would the graduates of this program do afterwards? Why go and work for the Conservative Party, of course, which would then gain trained operatives paid for with tax dollars.
If Preston Manning and his allies want to start a Conservative boot camp, let them fund it entirely.
The committee was to include Manning as chair, his former top aide as well as another well- known conservative activist. " as conditions for a new program, then he is either woefully ignorant about the concept of academic independence, part of the ruling party, or both. To have a select set of political ideologues choose the programming for a school is to set up a political education program for its party. I'm proud that my alma mater refused this 'gift'.
If the Right wants to set up an education program, it can start its own university along the lines of Regent or Liberty in the U.S.
I don't think they are unfounded, corporate control of our highly regarded institutions of higher learning is yet another path for ending up like the USA. Overpriced and overdumb.
If you read the following article, you will see that many of the major concerns were around donor control over curriculum and hiring:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/carleton-university-admits-to-issues-with-15-million-donor-deal-for-politics-school/article4413773/
If this isn't a 'catch' that would stop a university from taking money, i don't know what is