Russell Group Universities Face Criticism for Continuing to Accept Anonymous Donations
Huge numbers of donations to universities remain completely anonymous with many fearing the ramifications of this lack of transparency.
Occupation of Jessop West in 2023 at the University of Sheffield - photo by the Sheffield Action Group
An investigation by OpenDemocracy shows that several Russell Group Universities have received upwards of £281m in anonymous donations since 2017. Many of these top institutions privately lobbied the UK government to keep the names and information of their donors secret. The University of Oxford accepted more than £106m, coming in to be the highest amount of any Russell Group university. According to OpenDemocracy, when asked what the money was spent on, Oxford mentioned general areas such as “medical science” and “sports.”
Many have questioned the ethics of accepting these donations, with the investigation revealing that many of the anonymous donors have been billionaires, governments of authoritarian regimes, multi-million dollar companies, and even arms suppliers. It has been revealed that top universities have even accepted millions in donations from institutions linked to the Chinese military, as well as £10m from Azerbaijan to Oxford University, a country which has been criticised for its regime and for its human rights record. The true source of the Azerbaijani donation has been a mystery for speculation, while the funds were reported to have been used in order to establish a new research centre specialising in Azerbaijan and Central Asia. Oxford first referred to the donation in 2018 as ‘philanthropic support’ from an organisation (the British Foundation for the Study of Azerbaijan and the Caucasus (BFSAC)), which has since closed down. On the university website there was a picture of the previous vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, at a signing ceremony with Pashayeva, the BFSAC’s chair of trustees.
Since then, the university’s website has been changed. The photo has been replaced with a picture of Oxford’s skyline, and the text mentions “generous philanthropic support received and given in recognition” of BFSAC. The previous “from” has been exchanged with “of”; some may be of the mind that perhaps this grammatical alteration creates the impression of less personal responsibility on the behalf of the BFSAC.
“Without knowing the identity of the donor, it is impossible to know these vested interests and to assess the risk that influence may occur behind closed doors.”
Unavoidable still is the news of UK universities accepting donations from defence companies who are providing arms to Israel during its war on Gaza, made deeply controversial with the allegation of genocide of Palestinians being brought to the International Court of Justice by South Africa. Among these companies are Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, which respectively supply fighter jets to the Israeli Air Force and the components for the F-35 fighter jets that Israel uses. Countless other arms companies, such as Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, General Dynamic, Northrop Grumman and Rolls-Royce, have donated copious amounts into UK universities. Boeing for example donated a £430,000 grant to ‘charitable organisations’, though it is unclear exactly which universities have received this and how much. It has been reported that all of these companies have either sold directly to Israel, or indirectly supplied important parts, in recent years.
Our Analysis: A lack of transparency lets down students
Anonymous donations can be an issue. John Heathershaw, professor of international relations at the University of Exeter, has noted that “[w]ithout knowing the identity of the donor, it is impossible to know these vested interests and to assess the risk that influence may occur behind closed doors.” This is an important warning for universities to heed. Many believe there is an ethical issue regarding not only the anonymity of donors but also the identity of the donors themselves. Through such donations, it is possible for universities become complicit in the way companies exercise their influence and money.
The Aston Webb Buildings at the University of Birmingham - photo by Simon Ham
Meanwhile, groups outside of the Russell Group universities are calling for more transparency regarding their donors. Jinsella is co-founder and executive director of Demilitarise Education, which calls for universities to end partnerships and investments with arms companies. She said, “Universities hold the potential to shape a world of peace and progress, making their alliance with arms companies tragically ironic. Instead of illuminating minds for a brighter future, higher education institutions are fuelling the engines of illegal conflicts, causing irreparable harm to innocent lives worldwide.”
These universities allegedly represent the best interests of students; however, many students do not agree with their university’s actions. One example is the protests of students against the University of Sheffield, who opposed the University’s accepting over £42m from arms companies. Furthermore, keeping donors secret might open a whole new door to money laundering in broad daylight, hidden from the eye of the public. As charitable organisations, it is widely agreed that universities have a moral obligation to philanthropy and social well-being (educational, religious or other activities serving the public interest or common good). To keep these donations secret can arguably hinder their primary objective as a charitable institution.
While not necessarily all donors are fossil fuel giants and arms companies, many cabinet leaders and students call for clarity and openness around the area in order for university alliances to be as ethical as possible. To reveal anonymous identities allows for more transparent donations and is something universities need to strongly consider.