For the past 30 years Canada has adhered to the neoliberal model of capitalism which has entailed a drastic cutback in public spending. Along with health care and many other social programs, spending on post-secondary education has been significantly curtailed. Between 1986 and 2006, government grants as a share of uni­versity operating revenue plummeted from 80% to less than 57%. (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2010). Increasingly, corporate investment has been used to fill this gap. Driven by the imperatives of globalization, government and industry have promoted universities as engines for economic growth and vehicles for creating and disseminating new technology. Critics of this agenda, however, feel that it forces universities into pursuing only the narrow interests of business and intrudes on academic freedom. In essence, they argue, corporatization causes universities to become centers of subsidized research which allow business to "socialize the costs and risks of extraordinarily expensive high-tech research, while privatizing the benefits of innovations" (Cote, Day, & de Peuter, 2007, p. 48).

                Despite this criticism, the corporate university is the dominant institution in Canada. Of course, one hears Margaret Thatcher's often repeated phrase, "there is no alternative”, used as justification for this ideological hegemony; however, this is unsettling. The university's transformation from “public institution” to “corporate-state joint economic institution” (Cote, Day, & de Peuter, 2007, p. 65) occurred because of political decisions, with the understanding that these decisions would benefit some and not others. This paper investigates why these changes occurred, what the characteristics of a corporate university are, why there is criticism, and whether there are alternatives.

Why Changes Occurred

The transformation of Canadian universities was primarily driven by economic imperatives. As neoliberalism began to take hold in the early 80’s, Canada was in the midst of the worst recession in half a century, with unemployment reaching almost 13% in December 1982 (Norcliffe, 2008). Business felt that it did not have the "financial resources or the creative drive to make the investments essential to sustain the recovery beyond 1984” (Maxwell, 1984, p. 8). Lobby groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Business Council on National Issues (now called the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) began to push for more collaboration between universities and industry. In 1984, the Corporate Higher Education Forum, whose membership included mostly presidents of universities and CEO’s of major Canadian corporations, published the document Partnership for Growth. In order to meet economic challenges, the authors stated that "Canada must pursue a more rapid rate of advancement in knowledge; it must mobilize intellectual and financial resources in order to achieve excellence in research and effective technology transfer from all sources. In short, economic forces are drawing the corporate and academic communities closer together” (Maxwell, 1984, p. 1). Methods advanced for facilitating this new university/corporate partnership included university-based interface Institute, joint ventures, contract research, university-based research parks, and university companies. Notably, the document stated that corporate investment in education should be “motivated by self-interest", stressing that "philanthropic concerns" were a remnant of the past (Maxwell, 1984, p. 81) . Maxwell explicitly favored a “top-down approach”, stating that universities should “centralize control over expenditures” in order to facilitate necessary changes (Maxwell, 1984, pp. 80, 83).

Three main goals coalesced out of this document. Firstly, corporations must have greater access to graduate students in engineering and the sciences in order to facilitate recruitment of the brightest talent. Secondly, research must be prioritized towards generating new technology for use in Canadian industry, allowing Canada to remain competitive worldwide. Thirdly, corporate professionals must have access to universities for professional training in order for them to keep in tune with changing times.

In hindsight, Partnership for Growth was a prescient vision of what would actually occur over the next 30 years. In 1980, there were four university research parks in Canada. As of 2010, there are now 26. According to the Association of University Research Parks Canada, the goal of these parks is to “foster innovation, commercialization and economic competitiveness in a global economy through collaboration among universities, industry and government” (AURP Canada, 2009). In 1989, the federal government created the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program. Its mission was to “mobilize Canada's research talent in the academic, private and public sectors, and apply it to the task of developing the economy and improving the quality of life of Canadians” (Networks of Centers of Excellence, 2009). In 2006-07, the NCE program leveraged partnership cash and in-kind investments of $59 million, including $22 million in private-sector contributions. According to its website, during a seven-year cycle the networks train on average more than 16, 100 students in research and innovation, launch 70 spin-off companies, file 320 patents, and negotiate 540 licenses. The NCE exemplifies the corporate approach to universities.

Characteristics of Corporate Universities

Maxwell’s vision has been so hegemonic, that virtually all Canadian universities have been transformed in some way. Three institutions exemplify the values outlined above: the University of Alberta (U of A), the University of Toronto (U of T), and the University of Waterloo (UW). The U of A and the U of T both participate in numerous NCEs (18 and 17 respectively) with only the UBC participating in more (Chan & Fisher, 2008). While UW is not at the top of this list, it has special significance because it was founded by a group of businessmen with the goal of creating a "center of learning in science, mathematics and engineering” (Maxwell, 1984, p. 70). Each institution offers insights into how corporate universities function.

Given that a high priority is placed on technological development, one can expect that funding priorities will reflect these values. Examining the operating expenditures within various faculties at the U of A reveals that funding priorities do indeed surface. In 2007-08, the total operating budget for the Faculty of Engineering was over $35 million, more than seven times the Faculty of Law’s budget of $4.7 million (University of Alberta, 2008). We can also expect universities to accept funding from corporate donors in vast amounts, and this is particularly true in the case of the U of T, Canada's largest university. In 1997, the Joseph Rotman Foundation donated more than $15 million to the Faculty of Management Studies, thereby creating the Rotman School of Management. In the same year, CEO Peter Munk of Barrick Gold and Horsham corporations donated 6.4 million towards the Centre for International Studies (now the Munk Centre) and Nortel invested $8 million in the Nortel Institute for Telecommunications (Turk, 2001). In October of 1999, Bell Emergis, a division of Bell Canada, donated $13.5 million towards the Bell Emergis University Labs (Graham, 2000, p. 29).

Although UW trails behind U of T in endowments, it has made arrangements that “blur the distinction between university and business” (Tudiver, 1999, p. 157). It favors specialized programs that consist of a nucleus of engineering and related subjects. Obviously, UW has taken the prioritization of science and engineering to its logical conclusion. This allows the curriculum to be more adaptable to market competition. It supports entrepreneurship among professors, and actively encourages faculty to set up their own private companies to generate income from products or processes that they develop (Tudiver, 1999, p. 157). Waterloo is home to the world’s largest post-secondary cooperative education program (University of Waterloo, 2009). An observer states that UW is "one of the most successful universities in the country in terms of technological innovation and technology transfer" (Shore, 1984).

Results

Whether or not corporate/university integration has benefited the economy as a whole is an ongoing debate. What is clear, however, is that these institutions are pumping out graduates at ever increasing rates. In 1980, approximately 114,000 students received degrees, diplomas, or certificates from a post-secondary institution (Tudiver, 1999, p. 200). By 2007, this number had increased to over 241,000 (Stats Canada, 2009). In this respect, the adoption of Maxwell’s model has been extremely successful.

Criticism

There has been a serious backlash against the neoliberal agenda outlined by C.H.E.F. by both students and teaching staff. Much of the criticism of these policies has been directed at the fact that important political questions are being masked as bureaucratic decisions and the harsh fiscal environment presented as an inescapable reality (Cote, Day, & de Peuter, 2007, p. 69). In this respect, critics point out that Canadian universities silently acquiesced to cutbacks and faithfully embraced corporate takeover as if it were a natural process. To analyze this, we return to the early 80’s and the economic pressures that dominated at the time

Faced with government funding cutbacks, Canadian universities attempted to become more “efficient”. Critics point out that while “efficiency” looks fine on paper, the human consequences can be disastrous. In order to expedite difficult decisions, universities heeded Maxwell’s call to “centralize control over expenditures”. This resulted in the increased power and size of administrations (Newson & Buchbinder, 1988, p. 16) and the simultaneous disempowerment of democratic structures such as Faculty Senates. Corporate culture slowly crept into universities; Deans became part of “management”, presidents became known as “chief executive officers”, resulting in faculty becoming marginalized. (Newson & Buchbinder, 1988, pp. 16,29).

As administrations took on the role of upper-level management, they increasingly took their cues from corporate practices. One common cost-cutting method was to divide complex jobs into simple tasks that could be done by low-level employees who garner low wages. Thus, it should come as no surprise that universities began to "decrease permanent hiring in favor of reliance on pools of teaching assistants, sessional instructors, and junior faculty" (Cote, Day, & de Peuter, 2007, p. 50). This form of Taylorism led Mysyk to propose that sessional faculty essentially function in the same manner as migrant farm laborers (Chan & Fisher, 2008, p. 116). They form a flexible labor pool with little or no job security that serves to keep wage expenditures at a minimum. An Ontario study showed that during 1989-90, part-timers comprised more than 32% of all faculty in the province, performed 20% of teaching, but received only 7.6% of salaries. (Tudiver, 1999, p. 163). Hierarchical pay scales, also a corporate practice, seeped into Canadian universities. Faculty of Arts salaries began to lag as much as 30 to 40% below amounts paid by business faculties (Tudiver, 1999, p. 189). Although these changes were initially seen as temporary responses to a financial squeeze, they have persisted to the present day and are now regarded as a permanent fixture of our post-secondary system.

Performance Indicators: Thousands of Tiny Ropes

In order to monitor “efficiency” and to make sure that Canadian universities were responsive to industry, the Canadian government created metrics known as performance indicators (PIs) that would measure the “success” of universities in various categories. For instance, PI’s now measure "how many patents a department has registered, how many matching grants it has found, how many employable students it has graduated, whether these students are working in the exact fields for which they were trained, and... how many dollars per student were expended to produce all those results” (Bruneau, 2000, p. 163). Although these may appear harmless on the surface, Newson argues that performance indicators "help to institutionalize a complex system of control” whereby only commercialized research is rewarded. Paradoxically, this implies that the more “useful” a university becomes, the fewer options it has (Newson & Buchbinder, 1988, p. 74).

Academic Freedom in Jeopardy

Critics fear that corporate donations to universities place limits on academic freedom. Neil Tudiver, author of Universities for Sale, contrasts two similar offers of corporate donations and two distinct results:

Not long after I joined the University of Manitoba's School of Social Work in 1977, Seagrams Corporation offered to support research on employee assistance programs. Such research was not only consistent with the school's mandate, it also fit nicely with the company's desire to be seen as doing something about the adverse effects of excess drinking. But the school turned down the offer, arguing that taking research money from a sponsor with an interest in the subject matter might appear to compromise its programs. Two decades later, by contrast, the University of Toronto's Faculty of Social Work came under fire for actively pursuing corporate contributions. Alan Irving, Associate Professor of Social Work, documented some $6 million obtained from four corporations...[who] were well known supporters of neoconservative agendas aimed at destroying social programs and privatizing higher education. (Tudiver, 1999, p. 172)

                As noted previously, the University of Toronto also accepted $15 million from the Rotman Foundation. What critics found disturbing, however, was that the agreement called for the "unqualified support for and commitment to the principles and values underlying the [donors’] vision by members of the faculty of management" (Graham, 2000, p. 23). Similarly, the agreement with Peter Munk promised that his project would "rank with the university’s highest priorities for the allocation of its other funding, including its own internal resources" (Toronto Star, 1997). Both agreements flew in the face of academic freedom. U of T is by no means alone in this respect. For instance, in 1995 Rogers donated $1 million to endow a chair of information studies at the University of Western Ontario. Peter Desbarats, Dean of Journalism, described how “when journalists subsequently asked [him] to comment on the Rogers takeover of Maclean Hunter, all [he] could do was draw their attention to the donation. They understood right away that [he] had been, to express it crudely, bought” (Desbarats, 1998). This is what Tudiver calls the “chilling effect of self-censorship”.

Profits over People

Perhaps the most persuasive argument against corporatization of Canadian universities has to do with negative societal implications that have arisen. As noted by Maxwell, corporate investment in universities is motivated by “self-interest”. Since corporations are legally obligated to pursue a profit, Tudiver concludes that Canadian universities must be a profitable investment. For example, a newsletter for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council advertised how, for a $15,000 before tax donation, a corporate donor could gain access to $225,000 worth of research (Newson J. A., 2000, p. 184). After research is complete, changes in intellectual property laws allow corporate donors to exercise ownership rights over patentable products. This has led critics to conclude that business is essentially socializing its research costs and privatizing the profits. Intellectual property rights also have enormous implications for the free flow of important information. For instance, the University of Manitoba’s Industrial Liaison Office now provides a table of best and worst practices for handling inventions. The traditional sequence, which the table labels “Worst”, is: invent, publish or talk, file invention disclosure, file patent protection. The "Best" sequence is: invent, file invention disclosure, file patent protection, publish or talk (Strang, 1997). Newson concludes that this process leads to knowledge becoming privatized.

Who Benefitted and Who Did Not

Critics argue that the only winner in this situation has been industry. The university system has become geared to serving the special interests of business. The clear losers have been students. Although corporate investment in universities has steadily increased since the early 80’s, it has not kept up with the steady decline in government funding. Instead, the deficit has been met by increasing the tuition burden paid by students. In 1979-80, student fees represented 13% of the total operating funds for Canadian universities; by 1997-98, this figure had risen to 31% (Tudiver, 1999, p. 159). Higher tuition has led to a disproportionately high enrollment of middle/upper class students, while lower class students are consistently underrepresented (Chan & Fisher, 2008, p. 197). Although universities may have become more “efficient” at transferring technology to industry, the economic implications of excluding a sizable portion of the population from higher learning are worrisome.

What Are the Alternatives?

                There are alternatives to “corporate-state joint economic institutions”, but one has to look far from the mainstream. Across Canada, activist groups have organized “alternative” universities that reject the principles of the modern neoliberal university. Three endeavors are worthy of note: Anarchist U in Toronto, Critical U in Vancouver, and the People's Free University of Saskatchewan (PFU). Unlike CHEF’s narrow vision of post-secondary education, these activist institutions insist on serving broader public interests, with the ultimate goal of educating towards positive social change.

                Launched in 1998, Toronto based Anarchist U is a volunteer-run, autonomous collective offering free courses, workshops, and lectures that cover a wide range of topics (Antliff, 2007, p. 255). All administrative decisions are made at General Meetings which are open to anyone, and solutions are arrived at by consensus. There are no “professors” or even “students”; rather, there are facilitators and participants. Facilitators guide learning, and expect that learners will be active participants in the class. The school’s purpose is to “bring together those who want to share their passion and interest in something and those who want to learn about it”. The ultimate goal is to “build free education that works against the traditional power hierarchies of institutions and teacher/student relationships” (Anarchist U, 2009).

                Vancouver based Critical U is similar to Anarchist U in stressing the cooperative nature of learning. Classes are free and no previous post-secondary education is required (Cote, Day, & de Peuter, 2007, p. 342). Unlike mainstream universities, there are no “performance indicators”; in fact, there are no grading schemes at all. Science and engineering are not given priority; instead, most courses engage in critical discussions of society in the tradition of a liberal arts education.

Stressing inclusivity, the motto of the People’s Free University of Saskatchewan is “Everyone Can Learn - Everyone Can Teach” (Collins, 2003). Writing in Saskatchewan Notes, Michael Collins describes how the PFU came about:

[It] emerged from a series of "bag lunch" public meetings organized at the University of Saskatchewan within the Educational Foundations department. The main topic was how the wholesale adoption of the federal government's current innovation policy agenda for universities shapes priority setting and planning for the reallocation of resources on campus. This agenda is advanced by an ideological discourse on "research intensiveness", "integrated planning", and the necessity for a cumbersome, top-down "systematic program review". Marketplace criteria for assessing the value of publicly funded university education are invoked to justify substantial increases in student fees.

The PFU promotes community development and lifelong learning. Over 200 learners, ranging from age 12 to 82 enrolled in the first PFU class. Like the previous two examples, education at PFU is a political act, purposely contradicting the bureaucratic and technical vision promoted by Maxwell. The PFU criticizes commodification of learning as well as the recent emergence of “Coca-Cola pedagogy” (Collins, 2003). Instead, proponents of the PFU imagine an educational system that serves the interests of ordinary men, women, and children rather than corporate interests.

Conclusions

                The corporatization of Canadian universities is best understood as part of the larger process of neoliberal globalization that has occurred over the past 30 years. Almost relentlessly, more and more spheres of human activity have been brought under market ethos; therefore, it is not surprising that a form of academic capitalism has emerged. Neoliberal ideology dictates that all institutions play a part in driving economic growth; the corporate university’s purpose is to become a knowledge factory, driving the “knowledge” economy. These corporate universities are defined by an emphasis on science and engineering with the ultimate goal of creating technology for use in industry. Critics have decried that Canadian universities have become mere pawns of industry. They argue that corporatization places limits on academic freedom, corrupts democratic decision making, and allows business to socialize the cost of expensive research. Alternatives have arisen in the form of “Free” universities, institutions that are grassroots and activist in nature. They focus on teaching values that are antithetical to the existing system. Whether these organizations will ever pose a serious challenge to the corporate university’s hegemony is a question for the future.