nuclear-news

Nuclear Academic Capture in Canadian University

The university administration is complicit, the faculty and staff are largely acquiescent, and the vast majority of students appear to be oblivious to the dangers of encroaching corporate influence. It has been left to a few faculty and students and a minority of university senators to raise the alarm about the murky undercurrents. 

In light of these alarming trends, it is essential that opposition to the university’s role in nuclear development extend to the wider community.

“……….A gentle wooing  The readiness with which the university administration and faculty accepted the establishment of the CCNI comes as no surprise. One might conclude, after reading to this point, that there is an aura of inevitability about it. But in fact, the foundations for university support have been carefully built over several years.

The uranium industry, and particularly Cameco – its chief manifestation here in Saskatchewan – have assiduously wooed the University of Saskatchewan and given millions of dollars in endowments to chairs, scholarships, and infrastructure over the past two decades. Cameco Plaza, next to the Administration Building, and Cameco Skywalk at Royal University Hospital, are among the most visible physical signs of this corporate impact.

Several of the faculty, directors, and department heads who wrote glowing letters of support for the establishment of CCNI have at one time or another seen their programs benefit from Cameco’s largesse. For example, days after the director of the International Centre for Northern Governance and Development at the U of S issued a fervent endorsement of the CCNI, a press release reported a $2 million grant to the centre, jointly funded by Cameco and the provincial government.

Moreover, the personal connections between the U of S and Cameco are well developed. Former university president J.W. George Ivany joined Cameco’s board of directors immediately after his term ended in 1999. Grant Isaac, former dean of the Edwards School of Business at the U of S, joined the Cameco board in 2009 and has been Cameco’s chief financial officer since 2011. Nancy Hopkins, another member of Cameco’s board, has been on the U of S board of governors since 2005 and its chair since 2010.

As further evidence of the cozy relationship between Cameco and the inner circle at the U of S, one might point to university president Peter MacKinnon’s excursion to Cameco’s northern operations and stay at its exclusive lodge on Yalowega Lake in August 2009. Hosted by then CEO Jerry Grandey, MacKinnon was flown in at company expense and treated to the haute cuisine of John Nater, lodge manager and world-class Swiss chef………..

Equally disturbing is the pervasive climate of corporatism that has crept over the University of Saskatchewan in the past two decades. Most academics dare not question or criticize the influence of the nuclear industry on campus. The rigorous discourse normally associated with academia is all but absent in this debate; the pall of corporate influence has nearly extinguished discussion and dissent.

Instead, the administration has mounted an aggressive campaign to discredit those who speak out. As an example, when concerns were raised about Nancy Hopkins’ apparent conflict of interest – serving both as a director of Cameco and the chair of the U of S board of governors – they were indignantly dismissed by both administration and board. Hopkins also chaired the search committee for the new university president, Ilene Busch-Vishniac, who will take office in July 2012. Many fear that it will be business as usual under the new president, given her record at McMaster University where she most recently served as provost.

The university administration is complicit, the faculty and staff are largely acquiescent, and the vast majority of students appear to be oblivious to the dangers of encroaching corporate influence. It has been left to a few faculty and students and a minority of university senators to raise the alarm about the murky undercurrents. The prospect of nuclear development in Saskatchewan obviously has broader social implications, too. With the provincial and federal governments and the university so invested in advancing this agenda, how can the public trust that unbiased environmental impact studies and rigorous monitoring of health and safety standards will be conducted in the interests of the public good?

In light of these alarming trends, it is essential that opposition to the university’s role in nuclear development extend to the wider community. Ordinary citizens have the responsibility to demand that democratic processes be followed and that open academic debate be revitalized and restored in the interests of good governance, public health and safety, university autonomy, and scholarly independence.

September 6, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties