In recent years, we have all watched the increasing commercialization of the campus. The numerous ad vertising posters and the golden arches of fast food outlets may be an affront to our aesthetic sensibilities, but they are, arguably, no worse than ugly. Some of the other new features of commercialized campus life do, however, constitute a serious threat to things we rightly revere. 'Privatization' and the 'business model' are the potential menace. What do these notions mean? To me, they involve an increased dependence on industry and philanthropy for operating tile university an increased amount of our resources being directed to applied or so-called practical subjects, both in teaching and in research a proprietary treatment of research results, with the commercial interest in secrecy overriding the public's interest in free, shared knowledge and an attempt to run the university more like a business that treats industry and students as clients and ourselves as service providers with something to sell. We pay increasing attention to the immediate needs and demands of our' customers 'and, as the old saw goes, 'the customer is always right.' Privatization is particularly frightening from the point of view of public well being. A researcher employed by a university-affiliated hospital in Canada, working under contract with a pharmaceutical company, made public her findings that a particular drug was harmful. This violated the terms of her contract, and so she was fired. Her dismissal caused a scandal, and she was subsequently reinstated. The university and hospital in question are now working out something akin to tenure for hospital-based researchers and guidelines for contracts, so that more public disclosure of privately funded research will become possible. This is a rare victory and a small step in the right direction, but the general trend is the other way. Thanks to profit-driven private funding, researchers are not only forced to keep valuable information secret, they are often contractually obliged to keep discovered dangers to public health under wraps, too. Of course, we must not be too naive about this. Governments can unwisely insist on secrecy, too, as did the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food in the work they funded in connection with the bovine spongiform. encephalopathy epidemic. This prevented others from reviewing the relevant data and pointing out that problems were more serious than government was letting on. A recent study found that more than one-third of recently published articles produced by University of Massachusetts scientists had one or more authors who stood to make money from the results they were reporting. That is, they were patent holders, or had some relationship, for example, as board members, to a company that would exploit the results. The financial interests of these authors were not mentioned in the publications. If patents are needed to protect public knowledge from private claims, then simply have the publicly funded patent holders put their patents in the public domain or charge no fee for use. Even philanthropic groups can sometimes do skew research and teaching. The Templeton Foundation, for example, offers awards to those who offer courses on science and religion. I teach such a course myself and feel the temptation to seek one of their awards. It seems innocent enough after all, I am already teaching the course and they are not telling me what I have to believe. Moreover, they will put $ 5000 in my pocket and give another $ 5000 to my chronically underfunded department. Everybody wins, so why say no.? We can tell from the first paragraph the author's attitude towards commercialization of the campus is one of