The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog included the story of a lawsuit settled out-of-court by Princeton University. According to a New York Times story, a $35 million gift given to the university in 1961 “to educate graduate students for careers in government” wound up underwriting most of the “graduate programs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.”

Since the $35 million had grown to more than $900 million by June of this year, Princeton wasn’t too keen on pulling any of this money away from its broader uses.

So what happened?

Under the settlement, Princeton will pay $40 million in legal fees, and, starting in 2012, another $50 million, plus interest, to a new foundation that will support education for government service. Princeton will be able to use the remainder of the money for the Wilson school, as it chooses.

The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog bemoaned the fact that the case did not produce a court ruling offering guidelines for honoring donors’ intent. But, said the TImes, “it did highlight how difficult and costly it can be to challenge wealthy universities. Even without going to trial, each side had spent more than $40 million on the case.”

It’s Princeton’s hubris that shocks me.

Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton, said the university had achieved its highest priorities: the Robertsons’ gift will continue to support the Woodrow Wilson school, and the university can decide how best to use the money. . . .

With the trial approaching, she said, the Robertson family initiated new discussions.

“They had been paying legal fees from another charitable organization, the Banbury Fund, and from what we now know, they had essentially spent out the Banbury Fund, and were looking forward to a six- to nine-month trial which they’d have to pay for out of their own pockets,” Dr. Tilghman said. “I think there is a clear cause and effect there.”

Doesn’t that warm your heart toward Princeton? They are thrilled that they will get to keep the major portion of the money without any more annoying interference from the donor family.

But they have also completely alienated a former–and what could have potentially been future–major donor.

But more than that, hasn’t Princeton also shown all potential future donors that they view themselves as thugs, the biggest thugs on the block? So if you donate to them, they may pretend to have an interest in your donation to achieve one goal, but whether you were motivated by the stated goal or not, THEY WILL DO WITH YOUR DONATION WHAT THEY WANT. And if they need to beggar you in the process, they will.

What an attitude! And as it reveals this attitude toward the public, doesn’t that foretell some potentially great losses to the university for the future? Since when does alienating your donor base count as a win?

But having now seen this kind of vicious attitude being expressed even publicly by the head of an organization that is as dependent on others’ largess as Princeton is, it gets me wondering: Does someone have a database that shows the propensity of different charities to act in this manner? I haven’t seen anything like this on Charity Navigator or GuideStar. . . . But I get the feeling someone should develop one.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

 |  Email This Post  |  Print This Post  |  Subscribe to It!
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm and is filed under charity, giving, philanthropy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.