For the several years that I have been associated with ajer, one or two letters arrive each year from various commercial enterprises inquiring about advertising a product or service in ajer. Often such inquiries also include a brief summary of how advertising revenue will enable ajer to expand and in turn enable ajer itself to purchase advertisements in other publications. In every instance such inquiries have been declined politely because it is believed that the scholarly and neutral nature of ajer (not to mention how it is perceived by readers) might well be compromised by the inclusion of advertising. To be sure including an advertisement does not mean that the journal endorses the product or service. Is eschewing advertising in an academic journal yet another example of the stereotypical ivory-towered and aloof nature of the academy and its inherent unwillingness to embrace "the new reality"? On the other hand, is it not the case that when one accepts money for advertising one is more often than not also accepting the mercantile golden rule: "Those who have the gold make the rules"? These questions are not simply the stuff of a philosophical exercise or a trivial matter confined to an academic journal. Although there are many instances of educational institutions accepting money for endorsing products or granting the privilege of marketing a particular brand exclusively at that institution, there are also examples from the past concerning the relationship between money and autonomy.
Dunning (1998), writing about the history of radio shows of the
20th century, notes how it was common practice for the sponsor
to alter the script or to suggest how particular actors should
behave so as not to cast their product in a bad light. Failure
to comply often led to the sponsor withdrawing financial support.
Of course, few individuals would contend that ajer or an
academic institution is quite the same as a radio program, whose
sole purpose was to entertain. Nevertheless, a prevalent view
in educational institutions is that they must be more "business
oriented." Included in this view is that such bodies must
generate revenue and/or bring in money. Motivation for adopting
this view comes in part from a reduction in monies provided from
government and also from administrators accepting the mantra that
the so-called "business model" is the metric by which
to model and measure everything else.
A number of years ago a cartoon appeared in the New Yorker
magazine depicting a parent admonishing a child, stating that
"Money is life's report card." At the time the cartoon
was amusing because the parent seemed to be placing an undue emphasis
on money at the expense of knowledge or learning for the sake
of learning. It is foolish, of course, to ignore money and funding,
as journals and institutions cannot exist without them, but is
making money really what we are about? Should the focus of school,
college, and university administrators be on fundraising, or should
it be on more traditional matters such as what is taught, scholarly
research, and the assurance of the highest quality?
I am reminded of the plight of the Penn Central Railroad Company,
the 1968 merger of the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroad
companies. Both companies were large concerns, and each had a
long history as a successful mover of goods and people. At the
time of the merger both companies were making profits. The administrators
of Penn Central, however, seemed to lose sight of what the purpose
of a railroad company is: to run trains of commodities from one
place to another as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Instead,
by shifting their focus from running a railroad to increasing
dividends for the shareholders, Penn Central embarked on all sorts
of additional moneymaking ventures, including land dealing, constructing
and operating shopping malls, and even running car dealerships.
The inordinate attention paid to these ventures led to the mainstay
of the company becoming obsolescent and unable to compete with
other railroads. Penn Central went into bankruptcy in 1970 and
had to be taken over for a time by the United States federal government
(Drury, 1985). By shifting its focus away from what it was supposed
to do, Penn Central led an extremely short and ignominious existence.
This example also serves to illustrate another point: Although
many universities have survived for centuries, few businesses
have. Evidently the traditional practices of universities have
stood the test of time. Is it necessary, therefore, to change
them because of outside pressures? Nevertheless, the business
model is in the ascendancy, so what else can educational journals
and institutions do but accept advertising revenue and anything
else that goes with it? One answer was provided, ironically, by
one of the richest businessmen in North America, John D. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company had made vast profits in the
latter half of the 19th century by means that were viewed variously
as dubious to deliberately rapacious. Although Rockefeller wished
to give much of his wealth away, there was considerable reluctance
in many quarters to accept money directly from Standard Oil and
its successor companies. Many institutions and individuals did
not want to be viewed as creatures of large oil companies. To
facilitate the distribution of his money, and also to provide
a buffer between Standard Oil and those receiving money, Rockefeller
created the Rockefeller Foundation. Thus individuals and organizations
could receive money without having to advertise a particular company
or product. Moreover, recipients were not interfered with by the
company that ultimately provided the money to the foundation.
If it is true that businesses genuinely wish to aid education,
then why are more businesses not creating endowments or foundations
to provide funding to educational journals and institutions at
arm's length? Also, why are administrators of schools, colleges,
and universities not more vociferous in demanding such granting
agencies? It is a question worth considering the next time you
enter a school and cannot purchase your favorite brand of soft
drink because a competitor's brand is sold exclusively. What collateral
lesson are we providing our students, that money really is life's
report card?
References
Drury, G.H. (1985). The historical guide to North American railroads. Milwaukee, WI: Kalmbach Books. Dunning, J. (1998). On the air: The encyclopedia of old-time radio. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George H. Buck
Copyright © AJER, the Faculty of Education, and the University
of Alberta, 2001.
Last revised: May 2, 2001.
Designed by G.H. Buck