ACTA's Must-Reads
« Ad Hoc propter hoc | Main | Watching "Dispositions" »
Princeton on trial
Should higher ed donors have a say in how their dollars are spent? And should they have legal recourse when schools don't keep their promises about how they will use a donor's money? The answer is surely yes--and the landmark lawsuit, Robertson v. Princeton, is addressing the issue of "donor intent" head on.
You may have heard about the Robertson family, the A&P heirs who tried to share their largesse in 1961, with a $35 million donation to Princeton. The money was intended to support the education of students planning to work for the federal government, particularly those preparing for careers in international affairs. But the Robertsons claim Princeton used the money for other ends, and after a costly, lengthy pre-trial process, they have finally gained a judicial green light to go forward with a trial. If the Robertsons win at trial, Princeton may be forced to return not only the original gift, but also the sizeable dividends it has earned over the years--today the donation is worth about $880 million. All told, Princeton may have upwards of $1.5 billion at stake, if the courts determine that money from the donation was diverted to the University's general fund.
ACTA president Anne D. Neal called the recent ruling a "resounding victory for all who believe that colleges must be accountable to the people on whose dollars they rely"--a statement quoted today in both the New York Times and the New York Sun. The Sun rightly notes that alumni are a powerful force in higher education, and that they account for a substantial proportion of higher ed giving. A slight correction is warranted, however: The Sun says that "alumni giving accounts for about 30% of all funding for institutions of higher education." In fact alumni are responsible for 30% of all private giving to colleges and universities, a number reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education earlier this year. It's a huge number--in the billions each year--no matter how you count it.
Now, as alumni awareness increases and donors demand accountability, those billions underscore alumni's meaningful stake in the continuing excellence and integrity of their alma maters.
Posted by acta online on October 26, 2007 at October 26, 2007 06:12 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/414
Comments
Since when is a trial of a civil claim not a trial?
Posted by: Federal Dog at October 29, 2007 07:45 AM
Since when is disputing the use of "on trial" an assertion that no trial exists?
Accused criminals are charged by government prosecutors and go "on trial," but civil defendants just get sued by other private parties. Saying someone is "on trial" implies that he has been accused of criminal wrongdoing, which Princeton has not.
The Robertsons have a dispute with Princeton that they are asking a court to resolve. If Princeton were to file counterclaims for harassment or vexatious litigation, the Robertsons would not then be "on trial."
Nobody believes ACTA is either nonpartisan or unbiased, so its headline is par for the course.
Posted by: Correction at October 29, 2007 02:25 PM