David Levin and Adam Zimbler: Charity with an academic price

A few months ago, the Wharton School announced the creation of the Jay H. Baker Retailing Initiative, funded by a $10 million donation from the alumnus and his wife. The Baker Initiative includes an endowed faculty chair, new courses focusing on retailing and marketing, secondary concentrations in retailing, support for cross-disciplinary research and internships to help undergraduates gain experience in the retail industry. Our purpose in writing is not to question the need for such a retailing initiative, nor to minimize the commendable generosity of the Baker family. However, the establishment of the Baker Initiative calls into question the means by which the educational structure and administrative priorities of Wharton are being determined. Over the past couple of years, a group of students has been working relentlessly to help the institution address the most critical void in its teaching and social fabric: its traditional failure to prioritize issues lying at the intersection of business and societal needs. Our partial solution was to establish the Wharton-based but University-wide Social Impact Management (SIM) Initiative. We first envisioned a structure that would be quite similar to that of the Baker Initiative. Initially, we launched an effort to establish a secondary concentration in corporate citizenship. Despite the support of key members of the faculty and administration, the proposal was rejected on the grounds that it was not a distinct academic discipline, too few applicable classes existed and the necessary administrative resources could not be made available. Notable hurdles, yes, but by no means insurmountable obstacles -- especially in light of the 400-plus Wharton students who signed a petition supporting the concentration in the spring of 2001. Yet, no survey was conducted to measure student interest in a retailing concentration. The same critics that silenced our effort were silent when the proposal came from an alumnus with a checkbook. And their same criticisms, while no less applicable, were suddenly not a concern. When the academic structure of Wharton can be dictated by alumni dollars but not student voice, the values of the institution can justifiably be questioned. Just as Wharton's strength cannot be taken to be independent of its past students and their generosity, its purpose cannot be taken to be anything but the education of its present students. Unfortunately, this top-down, undemocratic approach to assigning academic priorities is not a problem particular to Wharton. It appears to be part of the modus operandi of the University and, one would surmise, is prevalent at most of our peer institutions. Universities everywhere must be more truthful and transparent about such undemocratic policies. If not, some might perceive them as veiling opportunism and venality with a facade of academic integrity. The apotheosis of Adam Smith will, and probably should, continue. Let the invisible hand reign and the endless pursuit of profits pave the way to global prosperity. But even Smith recognized that capitalism would not function efficiently without strong ethical foundations. The ethical cracks now pervading our economic system threaten to undermine its viability. Wharton must confront this crisis, the severe imbalances in the global economic order and the concomitant suffering of billions of the world's poor with a concerted effort that utilizes its vast intellectual resources. Wharton students can hardly make this task any easier. We've done nearly everything we can. The ball now rests in the court of the faculty, the administration and our charitable alumni, who have donated over $412 million dollars to Wharton over the past five years. Fortunately, a donation will probably come, the SIM Initiative will be fully formed and the need for Wharton to contribute to broader societal welfare will seem as self-evident as a heliocentric solar system. Like the ideological 16th-century Catholic Church, the Wharton Way will eventually recognize that the world does not revolve around its gargantuan mega-complex. In the current economic milieu, the decision of whether to train future leaders of retail or future leaders of society should be patently obvious. David Levin is a College and Wharton senior and director of the Social Impact Management Initiative. Adam Zimber is a College and Wharton senior.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.