UA-Nike deal is part of larger trend

The student dissent concerning the University of Arizona's alliance with the Nike Corporation has succeeded in sparking a larger and more important debate over the university's partnerships with private corporations in general. The corporate march into public and private universities alike threatens the very ideal upon which a humanistic education was founded: An informed and engaged faculty and student body that freely participates in the creation and implementation of its own course of instruction.

Yet despite his commitment to "re-evaluating" the university's relationships with the corporate sector, UA President Likins acts as if this debate never existed. His enthusiasm over signing the Nike contract, as reported in June 17th's Arizona Summer Wildcat should not be surprising, especially given his past record in academia.

A cursory look at President Likins' biography shows that he is no stranger to big business. Likins sits on the boards of COMSAT Corp., Consolidated Edison, Dynacs Engineering Co., Parker-Hannifin, Inc., and Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. While president at Lehigh University, Likins presided over the formation of the "Iacocca Institute for Economic Competitiveness" and the questionable fundraising practices that made it possible. As Lawrence Soley illustrates in his book Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia, Lehigh alumnus Lee Iacocca "pledged $1 million of his own money and another $1.5 million from Chrysler to help Lehigh purchase a mountain top research park to serve as the institute's home. To help raise the $40 million needed to purchase the research park, Chrysler put the squeeze on its 5,000 dealers, asking each to donate $1,000 to Lehigh. Fund-raising techniques of this sort were successful, and Lehigh University raised enough money to purchase the research park ... The Institute's advisory board was made up almost completely of corporate executives, with the exception of Likins and one other member. This board subsequently decided "that the 'Institute, rather than being just a think-tank, would act as a catalyst to begin action-oriented programs to strengthen U.S. manufacturing'" (1995 pp. 96-97). In light of this, it is small wonder what Peter Likins has in mind for the University of Arizona when he says that the university needs to re-evaluate its ties with the corporate sphere.

These are just a few examples of how universitys' growing dependence on corporate funding stifles a free flow of information and ideas that is the most crucial part of higher education. Furthermore, this illustrates how our school's leadership will continue to sell the UA's soul to PepsiCo, Nike and a host of other for-profit entities at the expense of our own freedom of thought, expression, and association.

James F. Tracy

Media Arts Graduate Student