USR is the part of CSR. First CSR then can be taken up USR.

Dear Leticia,

you can use "Social Responsibility" only; or your university can apply for PRME (http://www.unprme.org/about-prme/the-six-principles.php) which is Principles for Responsible Management Education, or for UN Global Compact (https://www.unglobalcompact.org), and use these terms as the university is member of these organizations. No need to mention CSR in universities. Regards, Farley 

Hi Leticia,

How bold of you to take on USR; your university must really be tolerant to give you the leeway to go down this road.  Or, perhaps it is just because universities in Europe don't have sports to contend with.  American universities who are steeped in the tradition of sports on campus are constantly faced with ethical dilemmas, mainly because having Division I teams (especially if they are winning) can really bring in alumni contributions.  Thus, money that could be put into libraries, laboratories, classrooms, or paying adjuncts a decent salary is invested in a world-class athletic facility and "winning" coaches (especially football coaches) with compensation packages that compare with those of Wall Street executives, rather than with the wages of the academic talent (teachers) at the university.

Aside from the disparity in how much of the school budget is allocated to the university's sports programs, there is the priority that is given to keeping athletes "eligible to play" even if this means enrolling them in lightweight courses like basket-weaving or pressuring professors in serious courses to excuse frequent absences when the particular sport the student athlete plays is in season (absences for practice and, of course, "away games"). 

An additional problem is allowing injured players (football players, especially) to go back out on the field even when it is likely that the athlete has suffered a concussion.  Indeed, the situation is so bad that this year (for the first time), athletes have gone to court to have themselves declared professionals rather than students so that they can get paid for their services and be insured against injuries (e.g., head injuries) that can cause lifetime damage.  That athletes are more professionals  than students is obvious in California where I am from because there have been cases of athletes graduating from California colleges who were unable to read.

Additionally, universities are tempted to cut their costs for athletic equipment and uniforms by allowing commercial ventures (NIKE, for example) to plaster their names on the players' clothing, equipment, etc. and all over the playing fields and gyms.  (It is the fact that they are such money-makers for the universities that has emboldened athletes to demand payment over and above the scholarships that merely cover their tuition and housing.)  There is also something about the "endorsements" and TV coverage of the games; however, since that is outside of my field of practice, I don't really understand it.

What is in the area of my law practice is the "charitable remainder trusts" (CRTs) that universities solicit from alumni.  Under these gifting arrangements an older person who has retired and needs a certain guaranteed monthly income can contribute a lump sum of money (say, $200,000) to the university and be guaranteed a certain rate of interest income for the rest of her life by the university.  After the donor dies, the university gets to keep what is left of the "gift" (e.g., $200,000 minus all interest payments made to the donor during her life).  The older the donor is, the higher the interest rate since the university is gambling that it won't have to pay it for a long time for someone who is, say, 80 or 90 years old.  I had a 90-year old client who was guaranteed 12% a year for the rest of his life (12% of the $200,000 he "gifted" to the charitable entity, which was not a university in his case).  Of course, these CRTs do not have to be registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission because they are deemed to be gifts rather than investments.  For my mind, universities should feel an obligation to treat these CRTs like securities and give the donors a prospectus outlining the strength of the university's finances so that the hapless older donor is made aware of the risk that the university won't be able to meet its obligation to pay out the interest over an extended period of time.  In fact, the university's financial status might be so shaky that it will go out of existence before the donor dies.  Especially with non-profit entities such as universities and religious organizations, there is such a great deal of trust by would-be donors that they may part with their money without consulting a lawyer about the risks involved in CRTs,

This is admittedly a long answer, Leticia, but I wanted to emphasize the reason USR is an idea whose time has come.  So, I think you should bring it up in each and every class at your university that you can get away with raising ethical dilemmas that "hit close to home".

Gwen

Dear Leticia, I am not sure to have understood you, do you want to teach CSR in MBA or do you want to introduce CSR in the university management structure? The first question has a “yes” as answer, In fact, we have an MBA course and one of the subjects, with the same weight than finance or marketing is CSR. I agree with you that CSR should be taught in all management graduate and undergraduate courses. For the second question Gwen comments are very appropriate, despite the country context, and could help us to think about CSR at Universities, but I am not sure we have to introduce USR in MBA course, unless the MBA were for University administration.

Thanks for your answers. Sorry, It is possible I did not word the question appropiately. The question is if CSR can be taught only in MBA Programs or if It can be taught in a University Setting and not only in the Faculty of Economics but in all the Faculties.

I believe a part of CSR in the University can consist of a Academic Development of the students within CSR. In this case, I am also agree with Gwen but taking into account the context as María Jesús said. 

Hi Leticia,

It is ironic that today The Chronicle of Higher Education has the following article on the epidemic in athletes having "soft majors" in order to stay eligible to play and, despite this, never earning a degree:

Seems it is the burning ethical issue of the day for universities, as it should be.  Many black families are so excited about getting the first member of their family to attend college only to wind up with the child receiving no education at all -- just the sports scholarship to play at the university as long as he is eligible.  This is really a crime since the active years of employment (even for an athlete that "goes Pro") is very short -- just until he hits 40 and less than that if an injury cuts his career short.  After 40, the only promise of a career is becoming a sportscaster or an actor (if the athlete is nice to look at) or, perhaps, return to college and get A REAL EDUCATION.

In short, it is important for parents with athletically gifted children to ride herd over the courses and majors "selected"  by coaches for their children.

Gwen