A Critical Public Health Analysis of Private Donor Naming in Canadian Public Universities’ Public Health Programs

Background. Under neoliberal capitalism, public health academic programs in Canadian public universities accept private philanthropic funding in exchange for naming rights. Because public health is grounded in equity, social justice and collective well-being, such naming carries important ethical implications for the field, yet this practice remains largely under-studied. Objectives. This study has two objectives: first, to map the frequency and patterns of private donor naming in public health academic programs in Canadian public universities; and second, to critically analyze this phenomenon by examining donors’ sources of wealth and contrasting these findings with the stated values of public health. The study is theoretically grounded in political economy of health and commercial determinants of health frameworks. Methods. I conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. First, I reviewed publicly available materials to identify all Canadian public universities offering public health programs and the subset with programs named after private donors. Second, I conducted an instrumental case study focusing on the social identities of the donors and the sectors through which they accumulated their wealth. Findings. Of 31 Canadian public universities offering public health programs, four (13%) had donor-named programs. These programs were linked to five private donors, all of whom were cisgender, heterosexual white men. The donors’ wealth came from mining, oil and gas, financial services, and real estate sectors – all of which are industries associated with social, environmental, and health harms that disproportionately affect structurally marginalized populations. The political economy of health framework illuminates that neoliberal policies support these industries, concentrating wealth and power among elites while increasing vulnerability for marginalized groups; while the commercial determinants of health framework demonstrates that these sectors’ activities generate preventable health harms. Conclusions. These findings highlight a fundamental tension: associating public health programs with donors whose wealth is rooted in industries that produce health harms contradicts, and thus risks undermining, the field’s core values.