|
« AAUP Homepage
|
University and Corporate Service Do Not Mix
Kevin Kniffin
To the Editor: The service of university presidents as directors of for-profit corporations is an activity that deserves investigation and scrutiny, as was argued in Goldschmidt and Finkelstein’s article, "Academics on Board," in the September–October 2001 issue of Academe.
The underlying reason that such service warrants scrutiny, and criticism, is that directors of publicly traded, for-profit corporations have legally binding duties of loyalty, care, and obedience to the shareholders of the corporations they serve. These duties stand regardless of the director’s day job and any conflicting responsibilities that might emerge.
Despite these dual allegiances, it is the norm for university presidents to claim that no conflict exists between their university and corporate service. A common refrain is that presidents serve on corporate boards as private citizens. However, when presidents describe their directorship duties in annual reports of their universities as "community service," and when corporate press releases trumpet their directors’ university affiliations, the shallowness of this identity game should be clear.
At the same time that presidential service to corporate boards might be increasing, it is important to recognize the multiple ways that such service is actively curbed. State-administered regulations include New York’s requirement that "outside" employment of state university presidents be approved in advance by the State Ethics Commission whenever the wages in question are greater than $4,000. Nongovernmental organizing campaigns by students, workers, and environmentalists have also successfully exerted pressure on university presidents who moonlight in the board-rooms of companies alleged to be acting illegally or immorally (by collaborating with dictatorial military regimes, for example).
I encourage readers further interested in these topics to review my contribution to the November 1997 issue of the Multinational Monitor, which focuses on university-corporate ties, as well as the recently published volume Campus, Inc.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower.
Readers will see that the methods I employed for my 1997 study are remarkably similar to those employed in Goldschmidt and Finkelstein’s 1998 and 2000 studies; however, I argue that there are many reasons this high-profile corporate "service" warrants more than simple consideration.
Kevin Kniffin
(Ph.D. Candidate, Anthropology)
State University of New York at Binghamton
|