[Fdu] Statement to York University Senate regarding the Dahdaleh donation

[Cynthia Wright]

Statement to York’s Senate regarding the Dahdaleh donation

Ricardo Grinspun

22 September 2016

Earlier this month I wrote to Senate Executive asking for an item of 
Other Business to discuss the donation from philanthropist Victor 
Dahdaleh. I also put forward a hortatory motion that expressed 
disapproval of the university’s decision to accept a donation from him 
and to give him an honorary doctorate and name an important building and 
a research institute after him. Dahdaleh received an honorary doctor of 
laws degree on June 20. The TEL building has been renamed the Victor 
Phillip Dahdaleh Building in recognition of a $20 million donation, and 
the University has also announced the establishment of The Dahdaleh 
Institute for Global Health.

In the rationale for the motion, I wrote that given York University’s 
formal commitment to academic integrity and service to social justice, 
the University should not be honouring a businessman whose financial 
dealings have made troubling headlines[i] <#_edn1> around the world or 
celebrating him as a representative of the university and as someone our 
graduates should emulate.

According to a news release from the CBC, Victor Dahdaleh has been 
featured in news stories about his “battle with criminal charges and a 
billion-dollar lawsuit on two continents over an international bribery 
scandal — all the while forging close ties with a trio of Canadian 
universities.” [ii] <#_edn2>

Referring to the so-called “Panama Papers,” the CBC adds:

/The huge leak of offshore financial records reveals Dahdaleh, a… metals 
magnate, is indeed, as long suspected, the mysterious middleman known in 
U.S. court documents as "Consultant A" — described as having handed out 
tens of millions of dollars in inducements to officials at a Persian 
Gulf smelting company in exchange for supplier contracts that went to 
one of the world's biggest aluminum conglomerates./

/Dahdaleh denies any wrongdoing and was acquitted in a British criminal 
trial, but his client, a unit of aluminum industry heavyweight Alcoa, 
pleaded guilty to a U.S. bribery charge in 2014 as a result of the 
scandal. With its parent company, it paid one of the biggest-ever 
anti-corruption penalties in American history — $384 million US./

York’s association with Mr. Dahdale has also become news. The Toronto 
Star reports[iii] <#_edn3> that

/The Canadian middleman in a massive international “corruption scheme,” 
in which U.S. officials say he “enriched himself” with $400 million 
(U.S.) in markups and made “at least $110 million in corrupt payments,” 
was celebrated by York University with an honorary degree Monday./

/It’s the second prestigious honour Victor Phillip Dahdaleh has received 
from York recently. Last year, the university minted a new global health 
institute in his name following a $20-million donation Dahdaleh made to 
the university./

According to York’s guidelines on honorary degrees, “At this rite of 
passage [convocation] the University… personalizes its abstract ideals 
through the granting of honorary degrees to people whose achievements 
represent the values the University cherishes, whose benefactions have 
strengthened the community and the institution, and whose public lives 
are deemed worthy of emulation by the graduands.” The pervasive and 
widely documented questions about the ethics of Mr. Dahdale’s business 
affairs and the history of his money surely do not position him well to 
“represent the values the University cherishes” and thus, should have 
prevented him from receiving such an honor.

According to David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian 
Association of University Teachers,

/There was clearly in this particular case some serious questions about 
the ethical behaviour of this individual ... I think all the 
institutions have to practise a bit more due diligence… If there's any 
concerns about violation of ethical standards or any other legal issues, 
donations should be rejected. I think it sullies the name of a 
university or college if it's associated with an unsavoury business or 
character./

As the top body responsible for the University’s academic mission, it is 
incumbent upon Senate to express its view regarding the decisions that 
brought about such a negative impact on the University’s academic 
reputation.

What happened after I submitted the motion was instructive. Senate 
Executive, which in my interpretation behaved like an appendix of the 
President and Board of Governors rather than the executive of a 
deliberative body, chose not to rule the motion in order although they 
had no valid reasons to vote it out of order. Thus they simply excluded 
it from the Agenda package, sacrificing collegial governance and the 
right of Senate to discuss and express its view on a matter that has 
negatively affected York’s academic reputation.

These are usual results when rich men give donations to public 
institutions (on purpose referring to “men,” the source of most of these 
large donations). I asked that the “other business” agenda item be 
titled “Donation from philanthropist Victor Dahdaleh”. Senate Executive 
changed it to “Due Diligence in the Acceptance of Gifts and the 
Recognition of Donors.” This is misleading, as it suggests York lacked 
due diligence in checking Mr. Dahdaleh’s background. Is it credible that 
they knew nothing of these matters? Let’s face it: York went ahead fully 
aware of all the relevant information – it chose money over York’s 
values and reputation.

York is in good company here; Mr. Dahdaleh has been honoured by the 
London School of Economics and McGill University, among others. This 
does not seem to have sheltered Mr. Dahdeleh from critical reporting on 
his business achievements, as his legal battles are still the subject of 
news stories today.

The fact that Executive didn’t want Mr. Dahdaleh’s name in the Agenda 
item is not surprising. Academic freedom and free speech are often 
impacted by such donations, as the overriding motivation is to get the 
money. An implicit or explicit part of the agreements is branding, and 
for the donor, the opportunity to buy respectability, since their main 
line of business may give them power and money but not necessarily 
respectability.

In the secret agreement for Peter Munk’s donation to U-T – later leaked 
out and now available online – the protection of his branding is spelled 
out as a commitment. Secrecy and a perversion of academic planning – 
affected by those confidential agreements – is now inherent to these 
donations. At York, the secret agreement with Seymour Schulich has 
allegedly influenced academic planning for decades, and we don’t know if 
secret agreements with other York benefactors are also secretly 
influencing decisions on, for example, the organization and ranking of 
disciplines, the distribution of full time faculty hiring among 
different faculties, or research priorities.

All this represents an aberration of public policy, part of a gradual 
privatization of university education. As governments curtail funding, 
the pressure to seek private funding increases. Since donations 
represent capital funding, they distort forever the distribution of 
operational funding that must support the university’s intellectual and 
physical infrastructure. As donations represent massive legal tax 
avoidance mechanisms, much of this money comes from you and me, and from 
the students’ parents, not from the donor. Government often steps in to 
match the donor’s money, thus increasing public expenditures for private 
priorities. In the case of the infamous CIGI agreement with York, which 
was rejected by the faculty of the Osgoode Law School for its 
interference with academic freedom, most of the money would come from 
the public, not from Jim Balsillie.

The matters here are consequential. York is currently searching for a 
new president and the terms of reference speak directly to her/his 
ability to bring big money for York’s recently announced major 
fundraising campaign. Upholding York’s values and attracting big 
financial donors often do not go hand in hand. Which will have the upper 
hand?




------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] <#_ednref1> A detailed account of the allegations and the legal 
processes in the U.K. and United States can be found here: 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-14/billionaire-found-in-middle-of-bribery-case-avoids-u-s-probe

The concerns are not recent; see, for example, this 2008 article: 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-mystery-of-victor-dahdaleh/article18447616/

<#_ednref2>

[ii]http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/panama-papers-victor-dahdaleh-alcoa-bribery-case-1.3598527

[iii] 
<#_ednref3>https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/20/panama-papers-businessman-honoured-by-york-university.html. 
See also: 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/panama-papers-victor-dahdaleh-york-university-honorary-degree-1.3644284

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.physics.utoronto.ca/pipermail/fdu/attachments/20160924/4e7f208d/attachment-0001.html