We might well ask the same question of Rep. Kujawski. The arrogance is in believing that you can make “better” use of someone else’s property than they can. Sounds a lot like a mugger.

Maybe if the state government had been half as intelligent in investing tax dollars over the past few decades, they would have been in a similar position.

As for ignoring donor intent, you still haven’t addressed the very valid question re: Princeton. They are immersed in a lawsuit right now. I wonder about the schools you’ve observed ignoring donor intent and what kind of donors they were dealing with. Is it possible that the general donor to a place like Harvard is more likely to structure their donation in a more legally binding way? I’d argue it’s possible.

No more dvd sorting for me. Going to the fancy ass expensive school taught me to alphabetize quickly. Perhaps that education is also what gives me the upper hand in seeking the legal advice to direct my donations in directions I see fit to institutions that will honor my requests instead of disrespectfully running off with the cash.

As Prof. Soltan pointed out, Harvard has “fuck-you money.”

They don’t really need donations, and they could conceivably say so.

Hypothetically, they could tell donors, “Either your gift is unrestricted, or we don’t want it. And tra la la.”

Actually, I have seen colleges and universities in the past overrule donors’ wishes, particularly in the donors were deceased.

My point, however, is that such arrogance on their part could bear bitter fruit, such as provoking the reaction from the legislators.

And now back to your DVD sorting.

I’m not going to repeat the same questions over and over for different commenters bringing up the same points. See above RE:

1) Why do you want to politicize non-profit status that is currently awarded on mission?

2) How is the school going to pay all of the legal fees for the court challenges they will face when they begin ignoring donor intent?

3) Does such a position put you in favor of having the government nullifying all contracts donors had with the school and awarding the cash to Harvard without concern to those previous contracts?

If you have ideas and defenses for the positions, share them.

I’m quite curious to see the explanation for dealing with donor intent on this matter. Are you proposing that Harvard continue to solicit donations but refuse any and all donations that come with any kind of donor restrictions? That’s the only way they could grow the endowment or even keep the 20% that’s unrestricted remotely stable in order to do the things you suggest, Chas.

If that is what you suggest, then how will they deal with the new PR problem of refusing to honor donor input?

I don’t think my earlier post was as coherent as it could have been. I blame lack of caffeine.

In Harvard’s case, setting aside the other schools, I suggest that the university is increasingly accused (by others in higher ed, by alumni, and now by legislators, of violating a basic social contract.

That contract — the one between govt. and all nonprofits and/or tax-exempt organizations, says, “Do good works, and you will get some breaks on taxation, etc.”

But when a very rich university appears to be piling up more and more money yet not spending it proportionately on the “good works,” people are going to ask if that university is keeping their side of the bargain.

Alumni begin to ask, “Why do they keep soliciting donations if they have billions already?”

Take a look at Prof. Soltan’s comments, if you have not already.

(Me, I teach at an underfunded state university that can barely keep the walls painted. Our situation is totally different. But I am not writing from a place of resentment–I like where I am.)

Nevertheless, I would hate to see legislators step into the process. If the Harvard trustees have any brains, they will figure out how to share the wealth, earn good will, and put out the fire.

Playing devil’s advocate, I’ll say I’m not sure Chas is actually advocating “bringing the rich and famous down a few pegs”, but he is making a good point. There IS that desire out there on the part of many. Yes, those many are ignorant and stupid, but they’re there and in a republic their desires carry some weight. So while I fully agree that this kerfuffle over college endowments is ridiculous and in some technical sense un-American, the college administrations would be dumb to ignore it.

If the arrogance that you are referring to is in regards to the colleges having a great amount of money, “Harvard…is so rich … that it could stop charging tuition altogether” then I feel the need to point out that they also have to employ and continuously recruit top specialist in the fields that they educate. What is it worth to be taught by the best person at … in the world?

I feel that taking money from institutions of higher learning for the sake of “bringing the rich and arrogant down a few pegs” is irresponsible, immature, and desperate. I am sorely disappointed in my state… as I have been as long for as I’ve lived here.

Of course, I may have misunderstood your comment. I’m not entirely sober right now. If this is the case, I apologize.

¹ When it is a government agency. Not the government itself [chortle deleted], necessarily, but certainly bureaus, agencies, bodies, comissions, etc.

² When it is a government of greater than 200 members, or a corporation of more than 100000 employees.

A recent NYT article on the subject noted that about 80% of the endowment at Harvard is of restricted use. If you encourage such willful deceit of donors, then where shall the money for the legal bills come from when the donors or families sue schools over the misuse of funds, a situation Princeton finds itself in now?

These are important issues to consider if you want to do away with respect to donor intent.

You also don’t explain how the application of non-profit status changes with regard to wealth. Non-profit status is applied based on the actions of the university, and those haven’t changed since its founding. They still educate. So do you favor politicizing non-profit status? Again, important questions you have to answer that could fundamentally change many things not just for colleges, but also for non-profits around the state.

But as Aristotle said way back in BCE, arguments have elements of character and emotion too. In this case, the emotion on the university’s part is arrogance, which undercuts any argument about how deserving they are.

Harvard, for example, is so rich (with a fresh infusion of Rockefeller money just recently) that it could stop charging tuition altogether.

But it has not. Perhaps giving 100-percent scholarships would devalue the brand or something.

As Margaret Soltan, one of the best academic bloggers, points out,
pressure is mounting not just from legislators but from alumni. (The alumni part might be in her earlier posts on the subject.)

At some point, there is a desire to bring the rich and arrogant down a few pegs, so the managers in Cambridge, Mass., had better come up with a new approach, for the university’s own good.

They need to show that they are deserving of their nonprofit status, not just using it to get richer and richer — or there will be several varieties of backlash.

This attitude from state and federal politicians who spend trillions on vote buying schemes.