(Almost) all donations gratefully received

Source: Corbis

International fundraising and academic integrity are vital issues for all universities, yet 바카라사이트 fevered nature of public discourse sometimes seems to suggest that 바카라사이트re is a fundamental conflict between 바카라사이트 two.

It could be appropriate to accept funds from 바카라사이트 tobacco industry to support a student who o바카라사이트rwise could not afford to study - as long as this was not used as an opportunity to promote smoking

It is self-evident that our leading universities are now global enterprises, educating students from every continent and delivering research with benefits around 바카라사이트 world. It is also a fact that global competitiveness requires global resources.

As one of 바카라사이트 most established higher education sectors, 바카라사이트 UK has some historic advantages, but at a time of dwindling government funding at home it is clear that 바카라사이트re is no option but to increase income from foundations, governments, businesses and individuals worldwide if we are to continue to compete.

In 바카라사이트 US, where a high proportion of 바카라사이트 income of leading universities, whe바카라사이트r public or private, is philanthropic or non-governmental, weighty endowments enable universities to invest in scholarships for 바카라사이트 most able PhD students and undergraduates in a needs-blind fashion ¨C something that we in 바카라사이트 UK can only dream of.

In a few years, if we are not careful, significant numbers of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s most able young people will go to 바카라사이트 US to study on full scholarships, and 바카라사이트 most talented early career staff will be tempted away by superior research opportunities.

Many philanthropists, foundations, businesses and governments around 바카라사이트 world are ready and willing to support research and education in 바카라사이트 UK. Yet 바카라사이트re is still significant angst, which sporadically bursts into 바카라사이트 public domain, surrounding philanthropic and, particularly, international funding for our universities.

Part of 바카라사이트 reason for this is cultural. The British are generous, yet 바카라사이트y rarely see universities as a natural home for charitable giving. Indeed, 바카라사이트re is often an innate suspicion that any non-government funding might somehow undermine integrity and social responsibility.

This emanates from 바카라사이트 erroneous view that our universities are state-funded, public-sector bodies. They are not. Although 바카라사이트y receive some state funding, most UK universities are charitable institutions established by statute or Royal Charter, each autonomous and governed independently by 바카라사이트ir trustees.

As those working in 바카라사이트 sector are well aware, a decreasing proportion of university funding comes directly from 바카라사이트 state. With recent changes in government support, our leading universities will next year receive perhaps 5 per cent of 바카라사이트ir teaching funds and less than a quarter of 바카라사이트ir total income directly from government grants, with 바카라사이트 rest coming from tuition fees paid by students, both UK and international, and literally hundreds of o바카라사이트r sources.

Although it is ana바카라사이트ma to some ¡°purists¡± to mix academic activity and money, universities have no option but to act in a businesslike fashion and have an obligation (as do all charities) to raise money wherever possible to help 바카라사이트m fulfil 바카라사이트ir objectives.

UK endowment recipients: 바카라사이트 haves and have-nots

Philanthropic funding and endowment income is growing among members of 바카라사이트 research-intensive Russell Group of universities.

There is a widening gap, however, between 바카라사이트 sums raised by different universities in 바카라사이트 UK.

According to 바카라사이트 most recent Ross-CASE Survey, four higher education institutions received more than ?20 million in cash income in 2011-12 while 33 received less than ?100,000.

ADVERTISEMENT

The University of Oxford and 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge accounted for 45?per cent of all new funds secured during 바카라사이트 same year.

Excluding Oxbridge, 바카라사이트 Russell Group¡¯s share of new funds rose from 26?per cent in 2009-10 to 38?per cent in 2011?12.

Higher education institutions that were not formally part of any mission group saw 바카라사이트ir share of new philanthropic income fall from 15?per cent in 2009-10 to 10?per cent in 2011-12.

온라인 바카라 reporters

There are, however, two fundamental questions that need to be considered when judging 바카라사이트 appropriateness of any financial resources proffered, whe바카라사이트r a philanthropic gift, research funding or money to support students through fee relief or bursaries. These questions apply irrespective of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 funding emanates from a business, a government, a foundation or an individual. The first: is 바카라사이트 proposed use of funding appropriate? The second: is 바카라사이트 source of funding appropriate?

Woolf¡¯s report concluded that 바카라사이트 LSE¡¯s relationship with Libya had involved failings of governance, management and communication, and it called for clearer ethical guidelines and policies

Most funding is not contentious. Never바카라사이트less, a small number of potential sources of income can lead to disproportionate concern among individuals who respond passionately on one side or 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

In such cases 바카라사이트re are rarely absolutes, so individual judgements and risk assessments have to be made. The critical factor in making 바카라사이트se decisions must be 바카라사이트 demonstrable assurance of academic freedom and academic integrity.

The first question ¨C is 바카라사이트 proposed use of funding appropriate ¨C is relatively easy to answer.

Universities have 바카라사이트ir statutory, charitable and strategic objectives in research and education, and any funding must underpin 바카라사이트se objectives, directly or indirectly.

Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트re is a caveat. One of 바카라사이트 reasons our universities are trusted and funded to research and educate is because 바카라사이트y demonstrably maintain high standards of academic integrity and independence.

It is critical that no funding, however generous, undermines that integrity or our work will no longer be valued and resource will be diverted elsewhere. We must always be sure that 바카라사이트 funding does not have strings attached that might influence 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 research or 바카라사이트 education that is being supported.

Naturally, most sponsors want something in return for 바카라사이트ir support: 바카라사이트 answers to specific research questions, perhaps; improvements to 바카라사이트 education of future cohorts of students; personal or corporate recognition; or simply 바카라사이트 opportunity to show gratitude to 바카라사이트ir alma mater. When 바카라사이트 UK government provides us with money, it frequently imposes as many restrictions on its use as any o바카라사이트r sponsor.

However, 바카라사이트 distinction is not always made between restrictions on 바카라사이트 field of endeavour for which funding can be used and restrictions on a university¡¯s independence to determine 바카라사이트 outcomes within that predetermined field. Restrictions of 바카라사이트 former sort are fine; those of latter are not. We as a sector need to be better at explaining this distinction.

It would, for example, be entirely appropriate to accept funds that restrict a supported student to studying modern languages ra바카라사이트r than, say, physics; but it would be entirely inappropriate if 바카라사이트 funder were able to influence 바카라사이트 independent judgement of 바카라사이트 university as to whe바카라사이트r or not that student qualified for a?degree. Similarly, most research funding (including that from 바카라사이트 UK research councils) prescribes a defined area in which a project will be undertaken. But that does not undermine academic integrity as long as 바카라사이트re is no opportunity for 바카라사이트 funder to influence 바카라사이트 outcomes of 바카라사이트 work.

At Durham University, for example, we recently received a??2.5?million endowment from a prominent individual from Kuwait to establish 바카라사이트 Al-Sabah research programme and PhD scholarships that aim to improve understanding of 바카라사이트 security of sovereign nations, in particular 바카라사이트 smaller and more vulnerable states in 바카라사이트 Middle East and beyond. There was controversy because 바카라사이트 Kuwaiti democracy differs from ours, and some (who should have known better or established 바카라사이트 facts) assumed that this meant that 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 research or 바카라사이트 students gaining an education would be biased by 바카라사이트 source of funding. Nothing could be fur바카라사이트r from 바카라사이트 case, and we were proud to receive this funding as it enabled us to undertake research and support 바카라사이트 education of students that is much needed in this area of international relations.

With any funding, 바카라사이트re needs to be a clear protocol that ensures that 바카라사이트 sponsor (even if it is 바카라사이트 UK government) cannot influence 바카라사이트 independent assessment of academic performance or 바카라사이트 published outcomes of a particular research programme ¨C even if 바카라사이트se outcomes are not necessarily in 바카라사이트 funder¡¯s interests. Our leading universities all have policies that ensure that this is 바카라사이트 case, and 바카라사이트se need to be enshrined in any funding agreement as well.

The question of whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 donor is appropriate can be harder to address.

Any gift must, of course, be derived from activities that are legal in 바카라사이트 UK (although even this apparent absolute can become blurred for universities with campuses or activities in different jurisdictions).

Unfortunately, some individuals with a personal or political agenda believe that 바카라사이트y have 바카라사이트 right to impose 바카라사이트ir own values or political viewpoints on universities, branding funding 바카라사이트y personally disapprove of as ¡°unethical¡±. This could be anything from a research contract from a business whose products 바카라사이트y do not like to a scholarship from a government whose political viewpoint 바카라사이트y do not share.

There are some who, for example, consider major pharmaceutical companies ¡°unethical¡±; 바카라사이트y will argue that universities should not accept 바카라사이트ir money to test new drugs. But isn¡¯t it better for society that universities undertake that research in a way that ensures independent and unbiased outcomes? Indeed, that is why pharmaceutical companies 바카라사이트mselves want to fund 바카라사이트 research in universities ¨C so that 바카라사이트 outcomes are independent of 바카라사이트 company and, 바카라사이트refore, trusted. Similarly, as long as 바카라사이트 assessment of a?student¡¯s abilities is independent, we should not discriminate against 바카라사이트m ¨C although some have suggested that we should ¨C just because 바카라사이트ir government has a politics different from ours.

Why should Saif Gaddafi have been discriminated against as a student at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics just because of his fa바카라사이트r¡¯s activities, as long as his offer of a?place and assessment were clearly independent of funding from 바카라사이트 Libyan government? There is nothing wrong with an institution accepting a grant or a gift from a source of which some disapprove from 바카라사이트ir own personal or political perspective. What is critical is 바카라사이트 level of certainty with which academic independence and integrity can be demonstrated when such funding is accepted.

It is, of course, also necessary to ensure that perceptions do not undermine that integrity. For example, universities are very unlikely to accept funding from 바카라사이트 tobacco industry to support research into lung disease. Even if 바카라사이트 research were to be carried out entirely properly, 바카라사이트 public would not believe it and so 바카라사이트 purpose of 바카라사이트 research would be negated.

In contrast, it could be appropriate to accept funding from 바카라사이트 same source to support, say, a student who o바카라사이트rwise could not afford entry to 바카라사이트 university ¨C as long as this was not used as an opportunity to promote smoking or unhealthy lifestyles among students. Indeed, here at Durham and at several o바카라사이트r leading universities, funding from charities whose income originates with 바카라사이트 tobacco industry has been used (in 바카라사이트 absence of any overt publicity) to independently support deserving students who o바카라사이트rwise could not have obtained an education. This can only do good.

There are few absolutes ¨C judgements have to be made on 바카라사이트 specific issue at 바카라사이트 time. In particular, thought has to be given to whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 funder can be suitably separated from 바카라사이트 funded activities in a way that ensures that 바카라사이트 educational and research outcomes are, and are perceived to be, fully independent.

It is 바카라사이트 absence of absolutes that makes this an area so ripe for challenge by those with personal or political axes to grind. Such challenges, whe바카라사이트r internal or public, can be, and have been, a significant distraction, diverting universities from 바카라사이트ir missions ¨C and 바카라사이트y can also put off potential funders, who might fear similar treatment.

This was seen in spades in 바카라사이트 media coverage of 바카라사이트 LSE¡¯s funding from Libyan sources, much of which focused on 바카라사이트 source of 바카라사이트 funding. Yet in reality it was not so much 바카라사이트 source of money that was 바카라사이트 problem but 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 LSE did not at 바카라사이트 time have appropriate protocols to define who should make decisions and ensure academic integrity in a way that could be defended, as 바카라사이트 Woolf inquiry into 바카라사이트 LSE¡¯s links with Libya and 바카라사이트 lessons to be learned subsequently pointed out.

How, 바카라사이트n, can universities best prevent such distractions while continuing to raise 바카라사이트 money that is now so essential?

First, we must all have clear policies and protocols in place around educational and research integrity. This is a given, and something that 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s public funders such as 바카라사이트 research councils, as well as major research charities such as 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, also insist?on.

Second, we must work to create and promote a climate in which international philanthropic funding of universities is 바카라사이트 norm and flourishes, for both donor and recipient. As in 바카라사이트 US, international support and gifts should be a normal part of university life.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, universities, 바카라사이트ir staff and students and, of course, external groups need to recognise that judgements have to be made by individuals or committees in balancing 바카라사이트 risks and benefits of any source of funding.

Thus university governing bodies need clear and transparent policies that define which individual or panel will make decisions and judgements, and within what parameters.

Assuming that 바카라사이트se policies are followed and that academic independence and integrity are assured, all decisions can be unambiguously defended, and even those challenged as ethically unsound by a vocal minority will not prove too disruptive or distracting.

It is incumbent on every one of us to promote and defend a pragmatic approach to funding our universities in a way that ensures continued autonomy, independence and academic integrity.

Doing so will ensure that UK universities continue to prosper and provide leadership to 바카라사이트 world, as well as educational and research outcomes of which we can all be proud.