How the University of Calgary's Enbridge relationship became controversial

Well what's wrong with him. This is oil, the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Surely placating those job givers is worth losing a little academic objectivity over - after all the economics department has been shilling for oil for years. This is the kind of science that conservatives can really get behind. Not the pointy headed "objective" stuff, but something that has real world benefits.

"Academic objectivity" no longer exists and it'd be nice if these hypocrites ceased with the pretense that it does. They're not fooling anyone.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Most academics do what we do because we love research and the challenge of finding truth. Academia, like any other profession, has its share of "unprofessionals" but your statement is pure hyperbole. I can't think of another profession that holds itself to a higher standard, self-imposed, than academics.

If that's true then how did Ward Churchill get away with his crap for so bloody long?

Enbridge threw a lot of money around. A couple weeks after our town council voted a unanimous NO to the Enbridge pipeline through our town, there they were in the local rag smiling and taking a cheque from Enbridge for some silly community center.
Now in it's 3rd year feeding winos morning bannock, teaching really old natives how to run obsolete XP computers and how to beat drums and chant...
The first manager at least made them sweep or shovel snow off the sidewalks on that block before they got free lunch.

One, or even several, stories of Group X doing bad doesn't say anything about the thousands and thousands of the same group doing good. You only hear about those doing badly, never about the majority doing good. Are, for example, all hockey coaches diddlers 'cause Graham James is a piece of shit? C'mon. "Academic objectivity no longer exists". That was Bart's claim. And it's a nonsensical claim.

I trust academics as a source of facts but anyone expecting them to be unbiased is a fool. Why should I be upset, for example, about Enbridge sponsoring something and not about academics that are openly proud of being associated with Greenpeace, the Tides Foundation, or some kind of communist group? Why am I being told is one more evil than the other?

AFAIK, Presidents of universities aren't Academics in the strict sense - although most seem to be former Academics.

The President runs the business of the university. An academic is an employee or student who conducts research on behalf of the university. I note that Cannon was an Engineer by trade. Her bio mentions her past research but doesn't specify whether that was in the public or private sector.