| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| philanthropy strings; (let's see what y'all think here) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 22 2005, 06:05 AM (171 Views) | |
| apple | Jun 22 2005, 06:05 AM Post #1 |
|
one of the angels
|
There is an ongoing discussion in our town over whether or not those who contribute to our university (major foundations and families) should have say over admistrative decisions made. Currently, decisions such as the chancellor's appointment and academic priorities are made by the university president and the Board of Curators, which is appointed by the governor. Local foundations want more of a voice in these matters, if they are expected to help UMKC philanthropically. There are professors and others of course, who believe control by the civic community would lead to a loss of academic independence. The university needs federal and private monies. Should the school sacrifice money for independence which it cannot really do? Should those who contribute be allowed a voice? I know this is not terribly interesting... but what in Kansas is? |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 22 2005, 06:17 AM Post #2 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'm a great believer that philanthropists should be allowed to tie strings to their generosity. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and a gift with strings is still a gift; the university is free to refuse it. But then, I went to a university that once accepted a large donation on the condition that dogs be allowed to roam the campus, leash-free, in perpetuity. Input on hiring decisions pushes the line, though. I'm not sure where I come out on that one, except that, in the end, it's the philanthropist's money, and the university is always free to refuse the gift and allow it to go to another institution. Sometimes, you have to choose between principles. It's nice when you get to keep them all, but if it's a choice between the principle of money and the principle of independence, then choose. And it isn't just the principles, because other potential donors, and potential matriculants, will be watching. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| taiwan_girl | Jun 22 2005, 06:19 AM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
People who contribute should not have a voice, or at least no more than anyone else. That gives a very unequal representation to a select few people whose only knowledge and experience in the matter is that they have a lot of money. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 22 2005, 06:49 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"Money talks" is a fact of life. Even when donors are not officially given a voice, I've seen examples of universities/colleges changing their policies because of fear of donors' objection. (E.g., even when the college/university advertises itself as an equal opportunity employer, it wouldn't higher a gay chancellor for the simple fact that she's gay and some major donors just don't like the idea of a gay chancellor). Advertisers don't officially have a say in network TV's programming, but network TV sure modifies its programming when the advertisers throw a fit. I cannot imagine why the institutions of higher learning would be exempt from this basic law of capitalism. Now, whether you can characterize a "gift with strings" as "philanthropy" or just "buying influence," that's debatable. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 07:02 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Money talks, BS walks. If you take the King's shekel..... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Jun 22 2005, 07:27 AM Post #6 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I agree ... some things need not be manipulated with money. This is one of these things. (BTW ... I think Kansas would be most interesting Apple )
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







)
4:15 PM Jul 10