To what extent should universities accept contributions on which the donor places a stipulation which involves he or she influencing school policy to a greater degree than just the direction of the contribution itself?
Whew. Lemme try again. Three scenarios:
[ol]
[li]A donor wishes to make a $5 million gift to a school, but will do so only if the school agrees not to join any organizations which are critical of that donor’s business practices.[/li][li]A donor wishes to make a $5 million gift to a school’s English department, but will do so only if the department agrees to phase out its Multicultural Studies emphasis and refocus its curriculum on more traditional fare.[/li][li]A donor wishes to make a $5 million gift to a school’s foundation, but will do so only if the foundation agrees to place 10 percent of all future unrestricted donations into its unrestricted endowment fund.[/li][/ol]
In which of these cases, if any, should the school accept the money and the stipulations? What is the point at which a university’s autonomy is unreasonably compromised by fealty to the wishes of its contributors?
I think we have a University of Oregon grad on our hands (if this obscure reference has you confused, read this).
One and two are wrong, clearly. A university should not accept the donations. As a question of academic freedom, it is impossible to reconcile donations such as these with the notion that universities are places to pursue academic questions freely. Restrictions such as these are unacceptable.
I have no idea what number three refers to. Is the donor asking to be given control over future donations?
There are generally two types of donations made through a university’s foundation, restricted and unrestricted.
Restricted donations are those which are explicitly earmarked for a particular fund, like the athletic department or a music scholarship.
Unrestricted donations are cash gifts to the university which aren’t designated to any specific place. Most gifts given to an annual campaign will be unrestricted unless otherwise specified.
If a donation is unrestricted, it normally goes into a specific unrestricted fund. This fund is used as the foundation’s operating budget, and is placed otherwise at the discretion of the foundation board and the university trustees. Clear enough so far?
In the third scenario–which, like the other two, is based on an actual situation–the potential donor is asking that 10 percent of all future undesignated (unrestricted) gifts be placed into an endowment rather than the fund from which the foundation derives its operating budget.
Basically, the donor wants ten percent of all future unrestricted gifts to be set aside and invested, rather than used immediately to fund the foundation. This isn’t intrinsically a bad idea, but shouldn’t necessarily be for that one donor to decide. Does that help?
Oh, and I’m not a Duck. I do live in Oregon, though, and I’m well aware of the WRC/FLA fracas.
I would have to say no to all three cases, unless it’s something the University (or any other charity) really wants to go along with.
As for the Nike/Oregon situation, Knight isn’t making any restricted donations. He doesn’t like the way the U is biting one hand that feeds it, so he is going to take his $ and go home. Good for him. If the U caves in order to please him, shame on them.
[ot] Hook’em Horns!!! Buck the Ducks!!! (I only wish Oregon State would have ended up in the Holiday Bowl- Lick the Beavers!!! :D)[/ot]
Well, he withdrew his pledge to build a new stadium, if I recall. And U of O did back down, rescinding their membership in the WRC. I agree that it’s fully within Knight’s purview to decide where he’ll give his money, but it was a bit more coercive than simply, “Oh well…I’ll just donate somewhere else.”
Let’s all make fun of Oregon and our stupid team nicknames. Seriously, though–Ducks by ten.
Yeah, he did recind a pledge… but in his view, the terms had changed. If I pledged money to a group who turns around and basically says “TXLonghorn makes his money by utterly immoral means,” I would yank that pledge in a New Yawk minute.
If the UofO values its new stadium more than its its political stands, they should have kept their collective mouths shut until the check cleared. If the UofO caved, as you say they did (couldn’t find any confirmation, please provide citation), then IMNSHO they are governed by a bunch of whores, plain and simple.
My bookie has the line at Texas by 7 1/2. I think it will be Texas by 3, but I don’t feel like betting against the Horns this year (it used to be pretty profitable… the last few years Texas rarely covered the spread).
From your explanation, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with number three, but is simply a pragmatic decision for the board to make. In short, they should do it if they think it is worth it.
Is the donor asking to be given control over future donations?
Seriously, though–Ducks by ten.