On February 4, Kevin O’Leary, a businessman and self-described entrepreneur famous for his role as a “dragon” on CBC’s Dragons’ Den spoke at UW, his alma mater, at a talk hosted by the Faculty of Engineering. The talk was filled to capacity within hours of the announcement and had to be moved to a larger venue to meet the demand.
O’Leary is known for his dramatic appearance on Dragon’s Den where he is perceived to provide a “harsh dose of reality” to idealistic entrepreneurs who do not have an understanding of the business world. O’Leary also co-hosts another CBC show, The Lang O’Leary Exchange, a debate on current topics in finance or business. O’Leary is meant to provide the “conservative” viewpoint of someone who is only interested in economic results, unlike his co-host who presents a more “liberal” perspective and bothers to concern herself with “trivialities” such as the impacts of financial decisions on human lives. It was in the same show that he called the fact that at least 3.5 billion people live in poverty worldwide “fantastic” and “celebratory.”
O’Leary’s invitation by the Faculty of Engineering, and the fact that his talk was filled to capacity, represent a troubling perspective on economics, entrepreneurship and financial security. Given UW’s focus on becoming a hub for entrepreneurship and providing opportunities for students to begin startups, it is clear that O’Leary was brought to campus to inspire UW students. But much of his talk focused on providing ideas that are directly in contrast to the true purpose of education and engineering.
O’Leary, who maintains that he is a “hard-core capitalist,” said businesses are not meant to solve society’s problems. Perhaps not. But engineering is. If we are not to solve society’s problems and push to move forward, what exactly are we doing then? Serving society is an inherent part of engineering. It is the meaning behind the ring we covet so much. According to O’Leary, businesses should be exempt from the “business” of solving problems because they are busy doing the important work of making money, and making as much money as possible.
Now, how do you go about making this much money? According to O’Leary, you sacrifice everything else in your life, including family, relationships and personal happiness, in order to gain the “personal freedom” gained by wealth. In summary, to gain personal freedom you must become a slave to the money-making process, closing your eyes to what is going on in your community. And in case all of this is not enough, you must be prepared to “declare war on their competitors… destroy their market share,” and go as far as “firing your own mother,” and you will succeed.
To give an example of the sort of war he advocates, O’Leary talked about Steve Job’s “war on BlackBerry,” which was pretty “successful.” Residents of Kitchener-Waterloo, perhaps with the exception of Kevin O’Leary, have seen and felt better than anyone else in the country the magnificence of this “success” in massive layoffs reaching as high as 40 per cent of RIM’s global workforce, among other things.
O’Leary’s speech is not just problematic because of the focus on financial success over any other factor. It is problematic because it is false. First of all, O’Leary’s own story proves that one does not become rich simply by working hard. O’Leary’s first business success was a start-up in which the major investment was $10,000 from his mother. O’Leary’s success can thus be attributed not to mere hard work and dedication, but to a connection to someone who provided him with $10,000 to pursue his business. Moreover, it only takes a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show how low the chances are of becoming rich through “entrepreneurship competitions” such as those held at the Dragons’ Den or our own Velocity. Finally, and most notably, there are much more “efficient” ways of making money than pursuing a post-secondary degree in engineering! And that we all knew when we picked engineering, or at least came to realize very soon after. So, choosing to become engineers, we were all after something beyond “the important work of making money.” Let us remember that and not lose sight of it.
Whilst we cannot claim to understand the faculty’s motivation in hosting O’Leary as a guest speaker, we can guarantee there are far more appropriate mentors for engineering students. We should demand that our faculty provide us with the opportunity to hear from people who are pushing the envelope and using engineering skills to change society rather than the likes of Kevin O’Leary. Who by the way, spent two hours “negotiating the price of a watch at a Swiss airport” and came to UW to proudly tell students about it? Really? We expect better from our faculty!
Leave a Reply