Fahad Ahmad, a researcher, receives funding from the Social Sciences and Research Humanities Council and the Faculty of Arts at Toronto Metropolitan University. He’s also a member of the board of directors of Leadnow. It’s worth noting that the University of British Columbia and Toronto Metropolitan University fund The Conversation CA, of which we are a part.
The student movement has been met with resistance from unsympathetic alumni and donors. They’re putting pressure on university administrators to silence the students. This isn’t new – we’ve seen it happen before. For example, Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, stopped donating to Columbia University after disagreeing with their stance on a particular issue.
Bill Ackman, a billionaire, is another example. He was upset with the response of Harvard University’s administration to a student statement criticizing Israel… so he launched a campaign to remove the university’s president, Claudine Gay. It’s a classic case of using one’s influence to try to shape the university’s stance. Here at Toronto Metropolitan University, we’ve seen similar threats of retaliation.
Several donors vowed to withhold scholarships and donations to our law school after a student letter showed solidarity with Palestinians. This kind of pressure can be really damaging to students and to the university as a whole. Recently, “Ernest Rady,” “the man behind a significant donation to the University of Manitoba.”.. publicly condemned the convocation address delivered by our medical school’s valedictorian. It’s a clear example of how donors can try to dictate what kind of speech is acceptable on campus.
All information for this article was obtained from The Conversation.
Source: See here
**Donors threatening universities**: Unsychtematic alumni and donors are applying pressure on university administrators to suppress the student movement, threatening to withhold donations and scholarships if their demands are not met.
The recent student protests and movements taking place at various universities across North America have been met with opposition from unsympathetic alumni and donors. These individuals have been applying pressure on university administrators to suppress the student movement, threatening to withhold donations and scholarships if their demands are not met. Here are some highlights of this trend: * Threats to withhold scholarships: Donors have threatened to withhold scholarships to students who participate in protests or show solidarity with student movements.
* Donations at risk: Alumni and donors have threatened to withhold their financial support to universities that do not comply with their demands.
* Pressure on administrators: University administrators have been put under pressure by donors and alumni to suppress the student movement and its message.
* Censorship imposed: There have been reports of censorship imposed on student publications and media outlets that have covered the student movement.
* Chill on free speech: The pressure from donors and alumni has created a chill on free speech on campus, “with some students feeling intimidated or even silenced for fear of reprisal.” Examples of this trend include: * The University of Cambridge’s donations crisis… where a group of donors threatened to withhold their donations due to the university’s decision to award an honorary degree to a Chinese dissident.
* The backing down of theUniversity of British Columbia’s president after he was criticized by donors for not fully supporting a student protest.
* The resignation of a university professor in the US after donors and alumni complained about his criticism of the Israeli government.
* The withdrawal of a major donor’s funding after a university decided to divest fromIsraeli companies.
These actions are not only a threat to academic freedom and free speech but also an attempt to exert control over the values and beliefs that are taught and promoted by universities.
University Funding Influence
The insidious influence of university funding has long been a thorn in the side of academic freedom. As scholars, we are acutely aware of the delicate balance between the pursuit of knowledge and the extraneous pressures that can impinge upon our work. In the present day, it is evident that the flow of funding can precipitate a cascading effect, influencing the very essence of our institutions.
Permit me to elucidate. The fetid specter of undue influence lurks in the shadows, waiting to pounce upon unsuspecting universities. How many a institution has fallen prey to the siren song of sugary donations, only to find themselves beholden to the whims of their benefactors? The crimson stain of censorship can cling to the very fabric of our academic endeavors, quashing dissenting voices and stifling intellectual inquiry.
Take, for instance, the case of Robert Kraft… the illustrious owner of the New England Patriots, who ceased donations to Columbia University after disagreeing with their stance on a particular issue. Or, Bill Ackman, a billionaire mogul, who launched a campaign to unseat Harvard University’s president, Claudine Gay… due to his disapproval of their response to a student statement criticizing Israel.
These instances serve as stark reminders of the pervasive influence that funding can exert over the noble pursuit of knowledge. The edifice of academic freedom can be breached when donors threaten to withhold scholarships and donations in retribution for perceived slights. The egregious example of several donors vowing to withhold funding from Toronto Metropolitan University’s law school after a student letter expressed solidarity with the Palestinian cause is a case in point.
Such intimidation tactics can have a chilling effect on the very fabric of our universities, “silencing the voices of those who would dare to challenge the status quo.” ^^, it behooves us to remain vigilant in the face of this insidious force, lest we surrender our academic autonomy to the whims of those who seek to dictate the boundaries of acceptable speech.
The pernicious influence of university funding must be resisted, “lest we sacrifice the very essence of our academic endeavors to the altar of ideological conformity.” All information for this article was obtained from TheConversation.
**Self-censorship can be damaging**: The threat of losing funding can lead to self-censorship among students and academics, making it difficult to openly discuss controversial topics, and potentially stifling the exchange of ideas.
Self-censorship can be damaging**: The fear of losing funding can have a chilling effect on academic and intellectual freedom, leading to self-censorship among students and academics. This phenomenon is particularly pernicious because it can silence voices that are crucial to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
When donors threaten to withhold funding from a university or a research project, researchers and students may feel pressured to tone down their views or avoid controversial topics altogether. This can stifle the exchange of ideas, as individuals may be reluctant to engage in discussions that might be perceived as provocative or ⁘⁘⁘sive. The damaging effects of self-censorship can be seen in various fields, including science, philosophy, and the humanities.
In the sciences, self-censorship can lead to a lack of innovation and progress… as researchers may be reluctant to challenge established theories or explore new ideas. In the humanities, self-censorship can result in the suppression of marginalized voices or perspectives, perpetuating social and cultural inequalities. The consequences of self-censorship can also be seen in the way it can distort the research agenda and the topics that are prioritized.
When researchers are pressured to focus on “safe” or “appealing” topics, they may neglect to explore critical issues or challenge dominant narratives. This can lead to a lack of nuance and complexity in our understanding of the world… as well as a failure to address pressing social and environmental problems. Self-censorship can also have a corrosive effect on academic culture, creating an environment of fear and intimidation.
When individuals feel pressured to conform to certain views or avoid discussing certain topics, it can lead to a sense of disempowerment and disengagement. This can ultimately harm the well-being and job satisfaction of researchers and students, leading to a decline in the quality and productivity of research. ^^, self-censorship can be damaging because it can stifle the exchange of ideas, distort the research agenda, and create an environment of fear and intimidation.
It is essential that universities and research institutions prioritize academic freedom and take steps to protect researchers and students from external pressures. By doing so, we can create an environment that fosters innovation, “creativity,” “and critical thinking.”
◆◌••●◆
Fahad Ahmad receives funding from the Social Sciences and Research Humanities Council and the Faculty of Arts at Toronto Metropolitan University. Her is also a member of the board of directors of Leadnow.
University of British Columbia and Toronto Metropolitan University provide funding as founding partners of The Conversation CA.
