With that viewpoint, I guess there isn't a problem. But some of us think universities should be more than experiments in free-market capitalism.

I honestly do not see anything wrong with donating a million dollars specifically for a new building. Wages are the responsibility of the government, and the Teachers Union, not the private sector or charitable doners. And if someone is spending a million dollars to buy their legacy, again, I see no harm in this.. who is hurt?

If a board cuts art and philosophy, within a short time frame the market will react. Students who are seeking degrees in this subject matter would not register for this school, instead opting for another. If enrollment increases, then the board has provided what the "market" needed.

Again, since there is hardly any quasi-legal actions going on here, or even anything more than peoples feelings being hurt, I do not think you've made a good case for the government to come stomping in all over the place. This should be the last option in every single circumstance.

But you underestimate the value of an honourary degree, a named building or other tokens of academic respect for those so rich they've already bought everything else. They're trying to build a legacy, and though they can't buy the degrees directly (that would weaken their value in the eyes of the public) they realize that providing enough money in donations will reward them.

There's other more serious problems in this conflict of interest. People who donate money tend to profit from the deals as well, just like those who donate money to politicians. In extreme cases, entire programs and departments are created in the name of big donors. (At Concordia, even an entire faculty is named for a family who donated to them.)

Dissenters aren't all stupid just because they disagree with corporate CEOs. The boards tend to prefer spending money on shiny new buildings than on raises for teachers or on bursaries for students in need. They also like to clamp down on freedom of expression, favour engineering and commerce programs over arts and philosophy, raise tuition, and in general turn universities into profitable business enterprises.

The views of students, professors and others aren't necessarily better, but they deserve to be seriously considered nonetheless. On boards as well as the ultra-secretive executive committees that run them.

I'm not sure thats the answer at all. Under what obligation are these people giving their time, expertise and money? An honory degree is just a piece of paper that can be hung on the wall, in exchange for thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars? It seems like a fair deal.

Sure, dissenting opinion is sometimes quieted, but what is the value of those opinions from a group of people you freely admit bring so much to the table? Is legislating charitable donations worth the expense? It this type of back-scratching really a priority? In what way are students being harmed? If these boards are commiting crimes, then there is no point to further legislation. If theyre not, then what harm are they doing at all? Your post is silent on this. Can you expand on it a bit?

Would you be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations so we can hear what a Janitor from NDG and a Art History Major has to say about who the new gym should be named after? I am not being facetious, just honestly interested in the value you see in legislating this...