Proceeds from business activity to universities are fully acceptable if gained through fair, uncorrupted business practices, this being the fundamental source of wealth and goods. However, revenue generated through any manner of corrupt business practice, whether through the processes of subsidization, franchising or incorporation inevitably involve the application of coercion through recursively worsening corruption of democratic or autocratic delegates or officials, inherently creating an unfair business environment with a high cost of entry and masses of legislation prohibitively limiting competition and business initiation. This inherently creates a moral problem on its own.

The contribution of money, even from a corrupt organization, will have no ethical problems if the contribution carries with it absolutely no degree of influence over the recipient. This is, however, very seldom true, as the simple action of withdrawing a stream of contribution may be used as a punitive measure if the recipient organization - in this case a university - does not cater to the whims of the contributing organization, to the full knowledge of the contributing organization and the recipient organization. Even in the event that the contributions are carried through a proxy organization, such as a charity, influence may still be exerted indirectly through simple collusion of higher level officials in the contributing organization and the proxy organization. Unless the proxy organization is formed expressly to avoid this problem, such that the contributions it distributes are both equitable and have no factor of discretion whatsoever pertaining to the withdrawal of funds or the discontinuation of contribution, then the problem will persist.

In the specific event of a university, the specific problems due to corruption include (but are likely not limited to) the purchasing of contracts specifically favoring a corporation, the manipulation of coursework to provide a bias towards the subject of a university, the termination of faculty critical of the corporation or a type of business practice it supports, the delegation of officials in support of the corporation to ensure its will is executed, the emphasis upon the corporation at university-sponsored 'job fair'-style events, 'public relations' in favor of the corporation, and so on.

Governmental entities are capable of exerting identical influence through the rerouting of funds, with the added factor of coercion that characterizes government. The use of categorical grants, or grants that are distributed either to specific organizations or industries as a whole, are done so solely on the basis that some conditions are satisfied. Other legislation may also exert undesired influence on the educational system as a whole, providing for the implementation of specific laws that are likely harmful to the university, such as the mandatory implementation of punitive measures for certain behaviors exhibited by students or faculty, or providing for subsidization of specific universities in such a manner that monopolies over the educational market are formed.

The alternative is, predictably, a system of free market capitalism, in which the only transactions are in exchange for specific goods or services, and the profit margins of any type of organization, subject to fair competition, are insufficiently elastic to provide for any such type of corruption. Naturally, however, due to the institutional 'bloat' of universities and other centralized forms of education, such a system does not provide for any degree of centralization in education, as the goods and services offered by a university, namely food and housing, would be offered at better quality and lower prices than the university is capable of providing, the university would first be reduced to a solely educational institution, and then be dissolved in favor of students paying specific tutors of their own choice for education. In light of this fact, the only factor that appears to stabilize the modern university system is the emphasis that is placed on university certifications in modern industrial and post-industrial societies. Furthermore, given the state of information in post-industrial societies and the recent advent of "open science," science that is subject to no influences whatsoever and is entirely free of cost and free to reproduce, it appears entirely unlikely that information will carry any charge whatsoever in the near future. Price, as we remember, is the equilibrium of supply and demand, and while the demand is increasing, the supply is now infinite, in the most irrevocable of ways. Hence, any consumer, given the choice between two products of identical quality, where one is free of charge and the other massively expensive, will opt for the former. This does not appear to be the case, however, because the education provided by universities is unquestioningly tainted not only by centralized control of faculty and students through both financial and quasi-legislative means, but even by the reliance on consensus, which, as history has shown countless times, is more often than not a retarding force on technological or informational progress, especially in the presence of a structure of power whose sustenance depends on the proliferation of faulty information.