This morning on Twitter I engaged in a brief dialogue about the University and the ethics of doing research work outside the University context (i.e. in corporate America). This was prompted by danah boyd’s explanation of why she works for Microsoft. I might have much more to say about this later, but for those who argue that the University is an ethically superior institution I offer the following observation:
Whatever the activities of certain moral individuals, the University system of research and teaching continued to function without significant interruption in Germany under the Third Reich . . . . the capacity of the University structure to adapt itself to Nazism should give us pause. -Bill Readings, University in Ruins
German divisions of Coca-Cola and IBM stayed open in Nazi Germany as well. So “the capacity of corporate structure to adapt itself to Nazism should give us pause.”
@ez: so which one is “ethically superior” then?
Check the post again. Wasn’t the point only that universities are not, by default, ethically superior to corporations? Where was the claim that corporations are morally superior to universities?
Nazis? It would be nice to see a principled discussion on outside research without falling back on extreme examples.
In the technology industry, many university faculty have spun off their research into successful start-up companies. This is a useful way to bring the research to market, and we have all benefited from the results.
@Kahscho/Chris
Perhaps you should click thru and read the full context before leaving a comment. The issue here is not whether or not the University supports extremism, or anything about research. But rather that nothing within the University makes it morally superior to industry. danah boyd an academic, who works within industry is often questioned as to how she could possibly not work within the University. The assumption in that question is that a University is inherently morally superior to industry. What Readings here is arguing is that those people should pause and consider the history of the University, for despite all of our claims to moral superiority, or idealism of the institution, nothing within the institution (nothing about the structure as such) guarantees a pursuit of justice, indeed perhaps the opposite, that as a structure there are certain features which lend it to easily contribute to social injustice (one could also cite here slavery and racism in the US context). But the Nazi example is not one of extreme example, but rather the reverse case, that even when one employs the extreme case, Nazi Germany, the University can function unchanged. And furthermore even when social injustice is increasing as was the case in Nazi Germany the fact that the University could so seamlessly transition should give us pause. And finally as Readings points out, the US system is particularly indebted to the German model, which again despite all US claims to superiority of the institution, remains often nationalistic in focus.
No one is suggesting that university faculty have or have not produced successful start-ups, and that people have or have not benefited from university research, those are not the questions here. That is not the debate or the issue at all.
Ethically superior is a confidence game. No one, including corporations and universities and government, are actually ethically superior. All of us make decisions which all too often serve to benefit ourselves over others. We argue for being superior in order to convince others to provide us the resources to oppress.
i think the issue is whether or not research in private settings is compromised by the corp’s vested interest in profit. i think of pharma research as an example of what can happen when businesses do research intended to benefit them as products/services.
now, having said that, universities such MIT and Stanford clearly also partly function as outsourced R&D for private companies through funded research.
no one’s hands are clean.
I agree with EZ : “Ethically superior is a confidence game.”