Nexus: What is the Role of Business in Higher Education?

The relationship between government, business and higher education is one that receives little public scrutiny, yet is vitally important to our economy and to the nature of our society. Our system of higher education both reflects and shapes who we are as a people and as economic and political actors in the world arena. The future of American political and economic leadership is correlated to the future of the American system of higher education.

For this reason, it is important to develop an understanding of the relationship between business and one of the largest responsibilities of government—education. Corporate America is heavily involved in shaping our educational systems, particularly higher education. There are three basic ways in which business does this—influencing the budget, shaping curriculum and funding research.

There is enough of a natural tension that exists between business “interests” and the “public good” responsibilities of government that these interactions can be difficult. There are however, more common interests shared by the two, and cooperation is essential to maintaining healthy local, national and world economies.

For example, business interests were influential in shaping North Dakota’s proposed higher education budget for the next biennium. Don Morton of Microsoft (formerly from NDSU), Dennis Hill (North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives), and Daryl Splichal (MDU Resources Group) advocated in favor of the Board of Higher Education’s request for a budget increase of $63 million.

Their point is that North Dakota institutions of higher education had been promised and deserve more funding because of their leadership in training and retraining North Dakota’s work force. According to Morton, “The university system has…contributed to economic growth within our state, and the percentage of commitment to higher ed has fallen. We just feel very strongly that the state has not lived up to its end of the deal.”

Here the interests of the state and the private sector align—a strong, well-educated workforce and citizenry. However, business has an interest in reducing tax rates in order to increase their bottom lines and constantly lobbies for such reductions. Increased spending on education and tax reduction are not usually consistent goals. This sort of cognizant dissonance creates a conundrum for legislators.

When business helps to shape curriculum there is more consistency to the approach taken by business. Chuck Chadwick, the Foundation Director at Minnesota State Community & Technical College (MSCTC), describes the advisory committee system that they use as vital to equipping their students with “real world, hands-on career training…and qualifications needed by employers.”

MSCTC invites area businesses that commonly hire MSCTC graduates to participate on advisory committees where they go through the curriculum, discuss new techniques and skills and then vote on the curriculum. “This allows us to stay ahead of the curve,” Chadwick states. Participating businesses include RDO, Case and many others.

The funding of research is more nuanced. Companies like Monsanto fund research into genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other types of crop production. Pharmaceutical companies fund research into developing new drug therapies. Other corporations fund research in physics, astronomy or whatever advances their business interests. While these interests may coincide with the public good—cancer research for example—others are more controversial. GMOs are a great example.

While some argue that GMOs represent the public good in that they intend to produce disease and drought resistant crops, others claim that they represent a threat to other crops or are unmarketable because of restrictions by other countries. Here the alignment between the public interest and corporate interest is not so clear.

The same could be said for research into pharmaceuticals. Vaccines address the public good but how about drugs for erectile dysfunction? Is grandpa’s happy weekend a matter of public interest?

Of course, all research has a spillover effect. One piece of knowledge leads to another, and in this respect all corporately funded research can be argued to be in the public good; however this must be weighed against potential public harm (what if the GMO opponents are right?).

This tension between public and corporate interest manifests itself in other ways as well. Traditionally, universities have been considered bastions of impartiality when it comes to scientific research. Their quest was pure—the search for knowledge. Government funding facilitates this image. The concept is that government is not out for profit but for enhancing the public well-being, while business is concerned only with the bottom line. Therefore government-funded research has more credibility than corporate-funded research.

This argument seems too simplistic. Recent complaints by government scientists that political pressure has been used to alter scientific reporting certainly refute the quest for pure knowledge argument. And it ignores the fact that government, in practice, is less responsive than it is in theory, and that business is responsive to the good of its consumers (generally the public) and not just its stockholders. When that interest is ignored there is a high price to pay (remember Vioxx).

The point is that when evaluating research conducted at a university it is important to consider who funded the research, why they funded it and whose interests they are serving. Corporate and government cooperation in the funding of research is essential, but as consumers of that research we must do our due diligence.

Please email thoughts, comments or criticisms to Michael at mmelon15@hotmail.com.