I can’t quite figure out why, but University of Toronto Law has returned a nearly half million dollar (US) gift to Amazon.  The Canadian media raised questions about a donation from Amazon because the law school did not disclose the donor’s identity.  This type of thing must happen all the time, donors often make secret gifts for lots of perfectly legitimate reasons. By secret I mean the donor does not want its identity disclosed, not a back-alley passing of envelopes containing untraceable bills.  Media reports point out that Amazon is currently resisting a legislative overhaul of antitrust laws and some of Toronto’s faculty have written op/eds critical of the proposals.  And?  I’m just not getting it.  But here is how the problem is explained:

U of T accepted Amazon’s money as antitrust rules and the growing power of companies like Amazon were becoming live issues among experts, academics and political leaders in Canada. The federal government has pledged to revamp the country’s competition rules to “ensure fair competition in the online marketplace” and otherwise contain Big Tech’s power and reach. Amazon’s specific role in the debate has come under scrutiny since The Logic detailed its behind-the-scenes campaign to shape the conversation by supporting think tanks and commentators critical of antitrust reform.

U of T is not the only university with whom the company discussed such partnerships. As The Logic reported in April, Amazon was in talks last year with the University of Ottawa to create a “Digital Economy Initiative” that would illustrate how competition reform would “risk undermining small business and innovation in Canada.” U of O ultimately passed, citing Amazon’s refusal to meet its standards for academic freedom.

The tech giant’s donation to U of T, which the university alternately refers to as a “gift” and an “investment,” was disclosed to neither the public nor the academics and students who participated in the programs it funded. Amazon created a purchase order for the donation, which it hoped would initiate a long-term relationship with the law faculty that could include sponsored research, according to the documents. The company stipulated there should be no press release or publicity surrounding the donation.

Here is the thought process leading to the gift’s acceptance from the same article:

Seven days after the speech, Jennifer Lancaster, U of T’s assistant dean for advancement, emailed law professors Anthony Niblett and Edward Iacobucci, who is also a former law dean. Among those included in the email was Morrison, the director of the faculty’s legal-technology hub. 

I had a great discussion with Scott Jacobs at Amazon and shared with him that we are not in the position to create a centre. In discussing Amazon’s interest, they are focused on capacity building, thought-leadership and dissemination of our work and are keen to see us approach some of this partnership in collaboration with Rotman,” Lancaster wrote, referring to the Rotman School of Management, the university’s business school. 

Amazon, Lancaster noted, was “focused on being more proactive on thought-leadership, including supporting research on immerging [sic] issues in competition/anti-trust.” She said the company was “comfortable with annual support in mid 6 figures with room to expand as we move forward,” was “looking to start a long-term relationship” and would “address plans for announcing the gift.”

Lancaster outlined recommendations on how the money might be divided, including $250,000 for a visiting scholar; $50,000 for up to three Future of Law Lab summer fellows to work in Amazon’s policy group in Washington, D.C.; and $150,000 for a Future of Law Lab symposium comprised of “international scholars in anti-trust with workshop elements for policy folks, regulators, practicing lawyers and scholars.” In a reply, Morrison said the idea of “Amazon Fellowships … would be incredible!” 

Ok.  So far so good.  But apparently, observers think that charities should accept donations only from disinterested donors.  A group that doesn’t exist in nature because people give to things they care about.  Corporations too.  I am just not hearing the low sinister impending music here.  It would be as if my law school received a donation from a major law firm that practices DEI.  The donor might reasonably expect that the research and scholarship produced thereby is gonna support DEI because that is what we do most of the time. But our faculty would be obliged to go where the research takes us even if it came out against DEI.  What’s the problem?  Donors don’t pull donee names from hats.  They donate to organizations and activities that seem consistent with their beliefs.  It would be our obligation to go wherever the research leads and to insist on the freedom to do so, that’s it.  Oh I suppose letting everybody know whence the donation came is best practice and won’t hurt anything.  But that’s a best practice and gives way, I imagine, hundreds of times a year when donors insist on anonymity. 

Research shows that research funded by big pharma is made available to the public less often, and more of the research favors the sponsor.  But those facts alone cannot justify a rule that charities should decline donations from corporate sponsors with profit interests in the results.  It just means researchers must adhere to standards of academic honesty and integrity.  There is no indication that the Toronto law scholars were prejudiced by the donation or that Amazon was pulling research strings and results like a big pharmaceutical company might.  But the Dean felt the pressure and ultimately returned the gift.  Here is her explanation:

Statement regarding a corporate donation to the Faculty of Law 

Tuesday, August 29, 2023

In December 2021, the Faculty of Law received a donation from Amazon in the amount of US $450,000. The gift supported scholarship and experiential education in law and economics, a field in which we are globally recognized, and which spans diverse scholarly areas including competition law, innovation law, and law and technology. The gift was allocated to approved academic fundraising priorities in accordance with University guidelines. 

In recent days, questions about this matter have arisen. In keeping with our unwavering commitment to transparency, this statement is being shared to address them. All decisions on research and scholarly activities pertaining to the gift were made by academic leads, in alignment with approved academic priorities. There were no restrictions placed by the donor as to how the money could be spent, and expenditures were made at the discretion of the Faculty.  In short, the core principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy were upheld. 

To date, the gift has supported stipends for six student research assistants; venue, travel-related and hospitality expenses for events; and communications costs. It has also supported a staff position to coordinate, among other things, an online speaker series. The gift adhered to the University’s policy on donations and, in keeping with reporting procedures for charitable gifts, was included in quarterly donor reports to the Governing Council through its Academic and Business Boards in March of 2022. Amazon’s name was included in these reports. 

Questions have also arisen as to why the donor’s name was not shared publicly, and why participants in events supported by the Amazon donation were not notified of the source of the funding.  

I have stated publicly, in a previous statement dated August 18, that I decided not to share the source of financial support because my top priority was to foster open discussion and debate that reflects the full range of perspectives in the field. All viewpoints were welcome, and communicating the source of the funding could have created a misperception that some perspectives would be prioritized over others. I recognize that more information may have been preferred to enable some of our participants and invited speakers to fully evaluate their engagement in these activities. 

The Faculty of Law upheld the University’s firm commitment to academic freedom, institutional autonomy and integrity. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the important questions raised about the lack of full transparency pertaining to the gift, and the perception of external influence on our academic activities. 

For that reason, I have decided, together with President Gertler, to return the gift to Amazon.  Furthermore, the University will immediately introduce a new guideline to ensure that in the future, all philanthropic donations from corporations will be publicly disclosed. 

As a learning organization with a deep commitment to continuous improvement and to upholding the highest standards of excellence, the University is also commissioning an independent survey of best practices among post-secondary institutions with respect to recognition and disclosure of corporate giving. We will use the findings to inform future decision-making and potential updates to our Faculty’s gift acceptance policies.

Jutta Brunnée, FRSC  
Dean, University Professor and James Marshall Tory Dean’s Chair

Too bad.

darryll k. jones  

Here is the Dean’s explanation: