Thirty-six years ago, Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind, calling the crisis of liberal education “an intellectual crisis of the first magnitude, which constitutes the crisis of our civilization.” Bloom viewed the rise of moral and intellectual relativism in the university not only as a threat to the ideal of liberal education, but as a threat to democratic life in America. As he put it, “what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. … No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life.” Without a positive tradition to pass along to its students, in Bloom’s critique, institutions of higher education invited students to an institutional experience unmoored from any sense of higher purpose. 

The degradation of American higher education was frustrating enough to the liberals who once managed it. The principles of liberalism—“belief in progress and the free market of ideas”—were replaced by “values” that “came on the winds.” These values were remarkable for their “thoughtlessness, the utter lack of need to argue or prove. Alternative views had no existence except as scarecrows.” The old project of the university—the quest to understand the nature and existence of the good—was long gone.

If Bloom’s famous critique resonated with classical liberals and academic conservatives in 1987 and beyond, it failed to reach or persuade millions of American alumni who continued to support their alma maters with massive annual donations, endowment gifts, and named buildings on campuses. Many alumni did read Bloom’s blistering critique—and still continued to give because there was still much to admire about the prestige and dynamism of American higher education. 

Now, this winter—more than a generation after Bloom’s indictment—a nationwide, bipartisan movement of alumni and donors is taking form. Donors from every income bracket and every corner of the country are withdrawing support from colleges and universities.

Since the second week of October, many commentators have tried to explain how American higher education ended up in its current predicament. At issue is not only the extent to which antisemitism and other ideologies have found a home in academia, but the extent to which powerful faculty, administrators, and trustees have built this home. Only now are the American people fully seeing the breakdown that Bloom described, and that was evident to him in the armed student occupation of his own Cornell University nearly forty-five years ago.

The problem isn’t that ideologues hold a monopoly over higher education. Most who work in universities are deeply committed to their disciplines and their professional responsibilities, not to political activism. But according to University of Pennsylvania historian emeritus Alan Kors and attorney Harvey Silverglate, who co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “Universities are administered, above all, not by ideological zealots, but by careerists who have made a Faustian deal.” Many parts of campus—the athletic programs, the business department, the physics lab, the medical school, the fundraising office—remain non-ideological. These become the public face of the university in exchange for administrative protection of ideological activities within the institution, according to Kors and Silverglate.

No wonder many alumni and donors speak of feeling misled. Now, the game is up. The question is what donors committed to liberalism, and liberal education, should do next.

Facing financial pressures that were already mounting in the aftermath of the pandemic and growing generational questions about the value proposition of a college degree, university leaders—trustees, presidents, and senior administrators—are at a crossroads. They can set a new course in their institutions and assert the importance of the moral, intellectual, and civic virtues that are critical to the flourishing of a free society. They can commit to the foundational ideals of the liberal tradition while eschewing the rise of intolerant ideologies on their campuses. They can return the quest for truth and the good life to the center of the university’s mission. If they do these things, they may succeed in saving, even growing their universities—and hopefully, reopening the American mind to the wonders of intellectual life in the process.

The opportunity is obvious for an established liberal arts college like Hillsdale College, just as it is for a new institution with big ambitions like the University of Austin.

However, sustainable reform must come through other means as well, and donors and alumni should seize the opportunity to influence the future of higher education at this critical moment.

Donors who seek reform should invest in established universities whose leaders are willing to take a stand for the liberal tradition in higher education. They might choose to support old institutions, including many religious colleges, that are conserving this tradition.

Alternatively, donors might redirect their money to any number of trade schools and technical colleges that are avoiding ideological corruption while providing a reliable pathway to the American Dream. They might donate to nearby community colleges. Such institutions are often well-attuned to local economic needs, focus on a practical agenda of teaching students over professorial research agendas, and serve a variety of learners—from high school students getting an early start on college credits to adults pursuing a degree later in life.

Funders might also support faculty-led centers within universities such as the 90 “Oases of Excellence” programs associated with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. These institutions and centers like Princeton’s James Madison Program and Notre Dame’s Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government “share a commitment to educating students for informed citizenship in a free society by maintaining the highest academic standards, introducing students to the best of the foundational arts and sciences, teaching American heritage, and ensuring free inquiry into a range of intellectual viewpoints.” Or donors might support humane fellowships for college students, such as the Fund for American Studies and the Hudson Institute’s Political Studies program.

Finally, funders should support efforts to strengthen the career pathway for university faculty and leadership who value the educational foundations of democratic citizenship. The Institute for Humane Studies, for instance, “supports the achievement of a free society by connecting and supporting graduate students, scholars, and intellectuals.” And the Jack Miller Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational venture where I serve as president, is building a talent pipeline for academic scholars who value the American political tradition in history, political science, and related fields. 

Several years after The Closing of the American Mind, historian Gertrude Himmelfarb described a possible opening for a return to wisdom and order in American universities, prompted by what she perceived as a spreading boredom within higher education. “Bored with trivia, with a specious relevance, with a smorgasbord of courses, with the politicization of all subjects and the fragmentation of all disciplines,” she wrote, “professors and students might welcome a return to a serious, structured curriculum and to a university that is an intellectual and educational, not a political or therapeutic, community.”

If boredom wasn’t enough to prompt a revolt, the outrages of this fall have been. But retreat is not enough. Donors must find alternatives that honor the liberal tradition, a tradition that is vital to the ultimate recovery and resurgence of American higher education.

This article appeared on Law & Liberty on January 16, 2024.

The post The Next Step for Disaffected Donors appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Ms. Jae came to ACTA from the Jack Miller Center, where she worked on the center’s academic programs, communications, and development team.

The post Emily Koons Jae: Vice President of Development & Philanthropy appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Named gifts have been on my mind this week, not because of the announcement of Mr. Griffin’s gift, but because my grandfather passed away peacefully on April 12. His 93 years left an indelible impression not only on my family, but also on his community, which pooled donations to create a named fund in honor of my grandparents’ devotion to their church.

A kind and soft-spoken man, my grandfather was a Navy veteran and a chemist who spent his entire career with Exxon in Houston after earning his Ph.D. He was devoted to his family, especially his wife Margaret, to whom he was married for 64 years until her passing in 2020. For her memorial service, he filled the halls of their church with photos, letters, watercolor paintings, and even her high school diploma. My grandparents shared a faith that never wavered, and they were charter members of Christ Memorial Lutheran Church, which served as the center of their social lives and civic engagement.

Reflecting on my grandparents’ lives, it stands out to me how remarkably active they were in their community. My grandmother played the piano at retirement homes every week until her eyesight failed. My grandfather tutored children at the local elementary school and taught ESL night classes. Christ Memorial Church was the spring from which their good works flowed, allowing them to build an enriching life together in a city far from where either of them was born.

My grandparents served as models of meaningful civic engagement, not only for their children and grandchildren, but for other congregation members. Last fall, when my grandfather moved from Houston to a nursing home in Austin, members of the church gathered for one last prayer breakfast to wish him farewell. To my family’s surprise, they announced that the church had collected $5,000 in donations to start the Bruce and Margaret Koons Missions Fund, named in honor of my grandparents for all that they had devoted to the church for more than 50 years. Six months later, he is gone, but the fund continues to support the efforts of Lutheran missionaries around the world.

In my professional life, I have the privilege of advising donors on their gifts to higher education. For many donors, naming and legacy are important considerations. When advising donors, I help them to think through the technical details of their gift agreement. How and where will the name appear? Which abbreviations, if any, are acceptable?

These details may seem trivial, but working through them often helps donors visualize the legacy they will leave. My organization has advised donors making named gifts to establish a new building, an internship program, a lecture series, an endowed chair, and more. The size of the gift has no bearing on its meaning or on the importance the individuals place on getting the details of how their name will be used just right. Names carry a legacy, and that can be a beautiful thing.

As I reflect on my grandfather’s life, I find great comfort in knowing that his name and my grandmother’s will live on at a place that meant so much to them both. Of course, their names will live on in our family, too. My daughter’s middle name is Margaret, and it is my greatest hope that her life reflects the same joy, love, and devotion of her namesake.

This appeared on May 2, 2023 in Philanthropy Daily.

The post More Than a Name: Honoring a Memory appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

My research is focused on the complexity of the philanthropy space – how to understand and navigate it. There is far more to private giving for the public good than most people realize, but I also do not want people to feel overwhelmed. There are a lot of choices out there, like who to support and how to do it. Advisers help people navigate that complexity. Despite the growth of the number of philanthropic advisers, there is still a lot of mystery surrounding the career, and I hope to demystify the world of philanthropy advising.

How can a philanthropy adviser help donors give more effectively?

Rationing is the natural state of philanthropy. Nobody can support every good cause, so people have always had to make choices – often between equally worthwhile options. The hope would be that if you have an adviser, you’re being supported to make better choices – better in the sense of being more impactful for society and more meaningful for the donor. An adviser helps donors make those choices by enabling their client to identify and unpack their values, ideals, and hopes for how their money can make a difference.

What do you wish the public knew about the philanthropy sector?

I wish the public were more aware of the positive potential of philanthropy to save and improve lives. No one is obliged to give away anything, and many wealthy people give nothing or only trivial amounts, so it’s frustrating that those who do put their heads above the philanthropic parapet so often get shot down. People relish the cartoon caricatures of big donors as tax-dodging, power-hungry egotists, but that obviously involves unfair generalizations and most often the critique is really about the accumulation of wealth rather than its philanthropic distribution. The general public thinks that if you have money, everyone just dances to your tune, and that is not an accurate representation of the nonprofit sector or the higher education sector. Gifts have to be accepted as well as given, and those responsible for running nonprofits and universities can decide whether or not to accept a gift, for example if they have concerns about the source of wealth being tainted, or if the donor is making unreasonable demands in return for their gift. Philanthropy advisors can support their clients to interact respectfully with potential beneficiaries – for example by avoiding being a burden when visiting projects or not asking for excessive amounts of reporting. So one of my main goals is to shoot down the caricature of irritating big givers, because it’s not fair. You cannot caricature any group of people. They are just people, and within the category of “donor,” there is a whole range of personalities and motivations and so on. Life is always more complicated than stereotypes allow, including in the giving sphere.

Who is the audience for your book?

The first audience is people who are thinking of becoming philanthropy advisers, whether as their main career or those who are already in a professional advising role, like accountants, managers, lawyers, and so on who can incorporate philanthropy into conversations with their clients.

The second audience is other people in the philanthropy space who might work with advisers and have concerns about that—including fundraisers but also nonprofit leaders, grant-makers, and anyone who is thinking, “Who are these people; What are they doing?” We want them to understand what the advising role involves so that they can see them as potential allies, rather than as a barrier that makes reaching donors even harder. Advisers and fundraisers have more in common than they realize. An adviser can be an ally in helping the fundraiser because it is in the adviser’s best interest to put good causes in front of the client.

We know from our work with higher education donors that giving well is harder than it looks. How can nonprofit fundraisers help donors make more meaningful contributions to their organizations?

“Meaningful” is the key word because one thing that we know about philanthropy is that if people do enjoy it and get meaning out of it, then they give more. And without wishing to sound too cheesy, what philanthropy does is it turns money into meaning. That is quite some alchemy, so it is worth taking time over.

No matter how tempting it is to just grab that $100,000 for this year’s target, it is in the fundraiser’s and the institution’s interest to take the time to work with donors. You might discover that a different gift would suit the donor better and still suit the institution. That may turn into a repeat gift or a much bigger gift.

Beth Breeze is the director of the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent. Dr. Breeze has authored and co-edited seven books, launched a master’s program in philanthropic studies, and published extensively in industry journals and media outlets. Her book In Defence of Philanthropy won the Association of Fundraising Professionals’ 2022 AFP/Skystone Partners Prize for Research on Fundraising and Philanthropy. Her most recent book Advising Philanthropists: Principles and Practice, written with Emma Beeston, was released in February of this year.

This appeared in Philanthropy Daily on April 19, 2023.

The post Meaningful Giving: An interview with Beth Breeze appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The provisions in Senate Bill 135, if passed, would give Ohio’s public college and university donors the standing to sue in limited circumstances if institutions failed to uphold the terms of restricted gift agreements.  

Unfortunately, universities too often agree to restricted gift agreements but later fail to meet the provisions. For example, Ohioan Jeffrey Moritz, son of the late Michael Moritz, testified before the Ohio Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee in May 2021 about his late father’s gift of $30.3 million to The Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. Though Michael Moritz’s gift agreement clearly stipulated that the university should award 30 full-tuition scholarships annually, the Moritz family discovered that the university had only been awarding 12–15 scholarships each year.  

Currently, only the attorney general can restitute broken agreements. This bill would allow donors, or designated third parties, to file a complaint if the attorney general’s office fails to obtain “full compliance with the restriction” within 180 days. 

In her testimony, FAR Director Emily Koons Jae wrote, “Oversight of the charitable sector falls on the shoulders of the state attorneys general, but, given their extensive responsibilities, these offices often lack the funding and capacity to enforce restricted gift agreements. . . S.B. 135 modernizes Ohio’s donor standing law and has the potential to make Ohio a leader for protecting donor intent.” 

ACTA’s Fund for Academic Renewal guides higher education donors through the giving process to help them ensure that their gift fulfills their vision and values. FAR has advised on over $178 million in gifts to higher education.

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin 
EMAIL: ganglin@GoACTA.org 
PHONE: (202) 798-5425 

The post Fund for Academic Renewal Provides Testimony on Donor Intent to Ohio House of Representatives appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Higher education must change its attitude toward alumni and higher education donors. They are not cheerleaders or walking checkbooks: They are the guardians of values. They eagerly share the wealth they have earned with the places that have shaped their minds and hearts and the minds and hearts of their children and grandchildren. 

Wise institutions know this and ensure that the consciousness of their past remains strong and that the voice of their heritage is heard distinctly on campus. Alumni remain the sons and daughters of their alma mater because they remember the quality of the education they received and the freedom they had to grow and mature. They wish to vouchsafe that experience for future generations. They are an institution’s ballast that helps it to negotiate a true course amidst the turbulence of fashion and fad. 

The founding mission of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) is to advocate for the college students of our nation to receive the highest quality education at an affordable price. Since 1995, we have helped higher education philanthropists and alumni achieve roles of significance in which they are no longer simply writing blank checks that support an unacceptable status quo, but are agents of positive change and improvement. We are proud to have been partners time and again with alumni and donors in protecting campus freedom of speech and promoting high academic standards. And we will continue to be their allies in such efforts throughout the nation. In keeping with that mission, we inaugurate with this report a series of analytical studies of the opinions of higher education donors. This study focuses on three areas that anecdotal evidence suggests to be of particular relevance to issues confronting Davidson College: freedom of expression, intellectual diversity, and ideological balance. It is our hope that when colleges and universities understand better the hearts, minds, and values of those who so generously support them, they will, in turn, seek out their wisdom and together shape policies that will ensure that American higher education remains the envy of the world.

Michael B. Poliakoff
President, The American Council of Trustees and Alumni

Executive Summary

This American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)/Braun Research, Inc., anonymous survey of 1,114 major donors to Davidson College was conducted by email between September 23 and October 12, 2021. The study was sponsored by Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse. Recipients of the survey were donors identified by the college in the 2021 Ne Ultra Society Honor Role publication (email addresses were collected independently). Three hundred and twelve recipients completed the survey for a response rate of 28%. The survey’s margin of error is 4.7% at the 95% level of confidence.¹ The ACTA staff thanks Dr. Samuel Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College for his kind assistance.

This survey focuses on a universe of major donors, virtually all of whom are also Davidson alumni and whose philanthropy is of high importance to the College. The sample group by nature includes a larger share of alumni donors who graduated before 2000 and who have devoted their giving capacity to Davidson College.

The ACTA/Braun Research survey found:

1. Very high levels of donor dissatisfaction

• 59% of donors surveyed said that they are “somewhat” (24%) or “very” (35%) dissatisfied with the direction Davidson College has taken “over the last decade” (38% said they are “somewhat” or “very” satisfied).
  • 94% of all donors and 99% of dissatisfied donors agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make freedom of speech and open, civil discourse on campus a high priority.”
  • 72% of all donors and 93% of dissatisfied donors agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make achieving ideological and political balance at the College a priority—on the Board of Trustees, in the administration, and on the faculty.”
  • 66% of all donors and 92% of dissatisfied donors agreed that Davidson’s next president “should not take public positions on controversial social and political issues in messaging to faculty, staff, and students.”
• 68% of all donors and 91% of dissatisfied donors agreed with the statement: “Davidson’s next president should be an individual whose life evidences a strong Christian faith.”

2. A widespread perception that the campus is ideologically biased

• 81% of donors described the campus culture at Davidson as “liberal” or “left of center,” compared to 2% who described it as “conservative” or “right of center.”
  • However, 82% said that it is important that “Davidson’s culture [be] ideologically balanced,” including 65% who said “extremely important” (46%) or “very important” (19%).
  • Support for an ideologically balanced campus culture is bipartisan: 88% of “liberal” and “left of center” donors said an ideologically balanced culture is at least “somewhat” important, along with 95% of “centrists” and 99% of “conservative” and “right of center” respondents.

3. Donors do not perceive the administration as committed to protecting free speech

• Only 20% of respondents said it is “extremely” (11%) or “very” (9%) clear that the Davidson College administration “protects free speech on campus.”
  • 51% answered that it is “not clear” and an additional 18% did not know or answer.
  • 92% of respondents who said it is “not clear” that the Davidson College administration “protects free speech on campus” answered that they are “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied with the direction of the college.

4. Donors overwhelmingly support freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity

• 80% “strongly” (62%) or “somewhat” (18%) favor the proposal that Davidson College specifically adopt the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression.
• Donors do not believe that students and faculty should have to self-censor:
  • 87% said it is never or rarely acceptable for a Davidson student to “fear expressing viewpoints about a controversial topic” during an in-class discussion.
  • 85% said that it is “never” or “rarely” acceptable for a Davidson student to “fear publicly disagreeing with a professor” about a controversial topic.
  • 88% answered that it is “never” or “rarely” acceptable for Davidson faculty members to “fear expressing an unpopular ideological opinion in faculty meetings.”

5. Strong support for donor/alumni representation on the presidential search committee

• 71% of respondents said that it is important that “benefactors and alumni/ae” have representation on the presidential search committee.

6. Alarming levels of donor dissatisfaction and disengagement, with negative impacts on giving

• 37% of donors surveyed said that their level of giving had declined or ceased in recent years
  • 91% of those whose giving has declined or ceased cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s direction (41%), dissatisfaction with Davidson’s leadership (38%), or dissatisfaction with specific Davidson policies (12%) as their principal reason.²
  • 94% of those whose giving has declined or ceased agreed that “Davidson’s next president should not take public positions on controversial social and political issues in messaging to faculty, staff, and students.”
• 41% answered that they expect their level of giving to decline or cease going forward.
  • 94% of those who expect their giving to decline or cease agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make achieving ideological and political balance at the College a priority—on the Board of Trustees, in the administration, and on the faculty.”
• Donors who have made major one-time gifts to the college ($100,000 or more) strongly support free expression and viewpoint diversity, and a president aligned with the religious heritage of the college.
  • 67% of major-gift donors support the adoption of the Chicago Principles.
  • 66% of major-gift donors agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make achieving ideological and political balance at the College a priority . . . ”
  • 60% of major-gift donors agreed that Davidson’s next president should “be an individual whose life evidences a strong Christian faith.”
  • 85% of major-gift donors believe it is at least “somewhat” important that benefactors and alumni/ae have representation on the presidential search committee.

The Chart Pack that accompanies this report contains more detailed results on survey findings.

Challenges to Liberal Education

Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Diversity

Davidson’s motto is “Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas”—let learning be cherished where liberty has arisen. Free inquiry is at the heart of the College’s mission to help students develop humane character in preparation for lives of leadership and service.

As Davidson College’s search committee begins its work to identify the school’s 19^th president, there is no better time to assess where the College is today and where it wishes to go in the future. The next president of Davidson will set the College’s trajectory for the next decade, guiding the school through what promise to be turbulent waters for small, liberal arts institutions.

The threats to free expression on college campuses that regularly make newspaper headlines have sparked a national conversation about the purpose and values of our nation’s institutions of higher learning. Earlier this month, when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology canceled Professor Dorian Abbot’s lecture on the potential for life on other planets because of his views on affirmative action, the backlash from the public was harsh and swift.³ Meanwhile, Robert Zimmer, the president of Professor Abbot’s home institution, the University of Chicago, justifiably won praise in the New York Times for his quick reminder to the campus that the university’s commitment to freedom of expression would most assuredly obtain in protecting this faculty member’s rights.⁴

Although Davidson College has never made national news for a misstep such as MIT’s, there are too many institutions around the country where, as the old wisdom tells us, pride preceded a fall. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Disinvitation Database chronicles 490 controversies since 2000⁵, and a new repository of academic cancelations has quickly grown to 194 examples.⁶ Disinvitations and shout-downs send the wrong message to students and faculty. But they are also a public relations nightmare that can negatively affect development efforts and hamper student recruitment. Setting out clear principles and processes in advance—designed to communicate the college’s commitment to free expression to all constituencies—can help prevent such controversies from occurring in the first place (and spare the Davidson community a place in higher education’s Hall of Shame).

The College leadership must take a proactive role to foster such a culture of freedom at Davidson, and that depends on fostering intellectual diversity. National studies reveal that college faculty and administrators are overwhelmingly Left-leaning. A study of faculty voter registration at 40 top universities found registered Democrat-to-registered Republican ratios as high as 60 to 1.⁷ Another, based on a sample of 8,688 tenure-track, Ph.D.-holding professors from 51 of the top 66 liberal arts colleges, found that “78.2 percent of the academic departments” surveyed “have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.”⁸ All too often, students studying economics or political science or sociology or any of a great range of academic disciplines never have the opportunity to learn from scholars of conservative and classical liberal persuasions. (A future study to determine where Davidson faculty fall on this spectrum would be illuminating.) Liberal education can only occur in an environment where students are free to express their opinions, explore other viewpoints, and boldly challenge the status quo.

National polls suggest that our country’s colleges and universities have fallen short of these stated ideals. A 2019 ACTA/College Pulse survey of over 2,100 college students found that 61% stop themselves from expressing opinions “on sensitive political topics in class because of concerns [a] professor might disagree with them” at least “occasionally.” Higher numbers report doing so “to avoid offending other students” (85%), and over one-third refrain from expressing views “because of concerns related to [their] college’s speech policies” (38%).⁹ The consequences are serious and wide-ranging. For example, 48% of students “agree” or “strongly agree” that pressure to conform to political correctness can negatively affect the development of close interpersonal relationships, including 78% of those who identify themselves as strong Republicans.¹⁰ Recent analysis by Samuel J. Abrams has shown that the problem is particularly acute at liberal arts colleges, where students tend to be even “more accepting of attempts to silence speech.”¹²

In her email to alumni on October 19, Davidson College President Carol Quillen referenced the problem of student self-censorship on campus, noting that “an unfettered quest for truth is foundational to any educational institution.” She also relayed the encouraging news that the College will adopt its own formal commitment to free expression.¹⁰ There is no room for further delay, and the formal commitment must have the same power and clarity shown in the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression that over 80 institutions have now adopted. 

Why Donors and Alumni Are Indispensable to the Health of an Institution

The graduates of the past are a natural corrective to “presentism,” the desire to see and understand all things through the lens of our immediate experience. “Presentism” is not an unreasonable impulse, for it can spur new ways of thinking. But when it is combined with dogmatism, it becomes as anti-intellectual and, ironically, as anti-progressive as any destructive prejudice of the past. A school with the wisdom to engage its graduates builds a community that extends over generations. Alumni are the voice of a college experience that served them well: It is the height of folly for the institution not to hear them out and hear them receptively.

Higher education philanthropists are generally people who have been successful in business, industry, science, technology, law, medicine, media, and government. They hire college graduates, often with particular interest in graduates of an alma mater that they believe provides outstanding preparation. The institution needs their unfiltered voices, directly, in roundtables and on presidential search committees.

Alumni bring another unique characteristic to their engagement with their institutions: They are free. Students fear the ghosting and marginalization that can come from violating campus orthodoxy; at times this can rise to outright harassment from a “bias response team” or some other organized effort to silence unwelcome viewpoints. Faculty live in fear of the disapproval of their colleagues: Taking unpopular positions can mean prejudicial treatment by tenure and promotion committees, isolation from faculty activities, and stalled professional career opportunities. Administrators live in fear of a faculty vote of no confidence if they stand up for principles unpopular on campus. Even board members too often “go along to get along.” Higher education donors, however, do not face these constraints. They may freely voice their conscience, without fear of censure.

Summary of Key Findings from the 2021 Davidson College Major Donor Survey

The Davidson College donors who answered the anonymous survey conducted by Braun Research, Inc., expressed a high level of dissatisfaction with current trends at the institution.¹³ A majority, 59%, said that they are “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied with the direction Davidson College has taken “over the last decade” compared to 38% who said they are “somewhat” or “very” satisfied. Dissatisfied donors placed a particularly high value on free expression and viewpoint diversity; they also perceived an ideological imbalance in Davidson College’s campus culture. Fully 99% of dissatisfied donors said that ideological balance is important, and not one—0% of dissatisfied donors—located Davidson College in the “center” of the ideological spectrum. (98% placed it left of center, 1% placed it right of center, and 1% did not know).

Donors showed remarkable consensus around issues of free speech and strong agreement that the presidential search should reflect these concerns.

In response to the survey item, “Davidson’s next president should make freedom of speech and open, civil discourse on campus a high priority”, there was near-universal agreement, with 94% of donors agreeing that open and civil discourse is a high priority. Indeed, the consensus crosses partisan lines: 91% of liberal donors and 99% of conservative donors believe protecting free speech is a campus imperative.

Respondents also support the principle of political neutrality on the part of the university administration, so essential to creating a truly free and open marketplace of ideas. Sixty-six percent agreed that “Davidson’s next president should not take public positions on controversial social and political issues in messaging to faculty, staff, and students,” and 96% of those surveyed agree that “Davidson’s next president should be respectful of those with different political and ideological positions.” Here, again, differences corresponding to the political ideology of those surveyed were minimal.

Relatedly, when asked about what value respondents place on Davidson’s Faculty being ideologically balanced, three-quarters of alumni donors (76%) hold that professors being ideologically balanced is important. Ideological differences show divergence: 51% of liberals think that faculty balance is important while two-thirds (66%) of centrists want balance and almost all conservatives (97%) feel that balance is important. Attitudes toward trustees look almost identical. More than three-quarters of alumni donors (81%) want the board of trustees to be ideologically balanced. Although the overall vision of the alumni donors seems clear, political divergence is again evident, with significant percentages of liberals (59%), centrists (77%), and almost all conservatives (99%) agreeing that the ideological balance of the board of trustees is important to a degree.

Should a Davidson student fear to disagree publicly with a professor over a controversial topic? Eighty-five percent state that it is rarely or never acceptable. Majorities of liberals (78%) and centrists (76%) believe that fear to express a controversial view in the classroom is rarely or never acceptable, and 96% of conservative respondents believe that students should never fear disagreeing with their professor about a controversial topic.¹⁴

Eighty-seven percent of respondents do not think that it is acceptable for Davidson students to fear expressing disagreement with one of their professors about a controversial topic in a written assignment. Eighty percent of liberals and 83% of centrists do not think that fear is acceptable, with the number climbing for conservatives (97%).   

Turning to in-class discussion, which may involve disagreeing with one’s peers (and not necessarily the professor directly), 87% of the Davidson sample do not think that current students should fear expressing their views on a controversial topic during an in-class discussion. Some ideological differences are evident, with 80% of liberals and 78% of centrists maintaining that fear is rarely or never acceptable, while 97% of conservatives feel the same way.

As for professors, 88% of the survey respondents stated that it would be rarely or never acceptable for a Davidson faculty member to fear expressing an unpopular ideological opinion in faculty meetings. In this matter, there are notably smaller differences from the mean: 82% of liberals, 81% of centrists, and 99% of conservatives rejected the idea that faculty should fear expressing their ideological views in a faculty meeting setting.

Regarding tenure and promotion, which is a core concern for faculty and an important indicator of academic freedom more generally, 83% of respondents state that it is rarely or never acceptable for a Davidson faculty member to fear negative repercussions respecting promotion and tenure decisions because of their ideological or political views. There is a significant cleavage here: 75% of liberals, 73% of centrists, and 96% of conservatives believe that it is not acceptable to bring politics and ideology into the conversation when tenure is concerned.

It is clear that concerns about the state of freedom of speech on campus are impacting philanthropy. Thirty-seven percent of donors surveyed said that their level of giving had declined or ceased in recent years, and 91% of those whose giving has declined or ceased cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s direction (41%), dissatisfaction with Davidson’s leadership (38%), or dissatisfaction with specific Davidson policies (12%) as their principal reason.¹⁵ The same proportion (37%) increased their giving, with the majority (51%) citing “ability to give” as the reason for the change.

Forty-one percent answered that they expect their level of giving to decline “moderately” (9.3%), “significantly” (9.9%), or cease altogether (21.4%) in the coming years.¹⁶ At universities that are reliant on donor support and income from generously funded endowments, alienating benefactors is a threat to the institution.

Dissatisfied Davidson donors were particularly insistent that the college select a president who is committed to freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity. Ninety-nine percent of dissatisfied donors agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make freedom of speech and open, civil discourse on campus a high priority”; 93% agreed that “Davidson’s next president should make achieving ideological and political balance at the College a priority—on the Board of Trustees, in the administration, and on the faculty”; and 92.4% agreed that “Davidson’s next president should not take public positions on controversial social and political issues in messaging to faculty, staff, and students.

It is worth repeating that these priorities are widely shared by Davidson donors generally. Ninety-four percent of all donors agreed that Davidson’s next president should “make freedom of speech and open, civil discourse a high priority,” with 72.4% agreeing that the adoption of the Chicago Principles “throughout campus life” is a high priority. Support for prioritizing free speech and civil discourse is as high as support for “slowing down the rate of increase in college costs” (91%) and almost as high as giving “close attention to how well the College is preparing graduates for productive work lives” (95%)—which suggests that the campus climate for free expression is a fundamental concern for Davidson donors (see chart on page eight).

Conclusion

This survey of major donors to Davidson College provides crucial information for the presidential search committee and board of trustees and should help guide the challenging work of selecting Davidson’s next president. It reveals a deep divide within the college community, with a large proportion of benefactors dissatisfied with the direction of their alma mater. Many have cut back their philanthropic support to the college in response, which is a serious threat to the institution.

The survey makes clear that concerns about free expression and political and ideological balance on campus are major reasons for donor disengagement. And donors, as they read the news and look around the nation, are justifiably concerned about the damage that the erosion of freedom of expression causes. The survey also suggests that Davidson’s next president is likely to face challenges in fundraising, and in buttressing support from major donors, if the issues are not addressed. The installation of a new president is an opportunity to rebuild relationships with dissatisfied donors and to strengthen alumni loyalty and engagement. The survey results lead to the conclusion that renewing the college’s commitment to building a free and open marketplace of ideas on campus is the essential first step. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has been pleased to contribute to the vision of the presidential search committee with this report and strongly encourages that these findings, unsettling as they may be, be taken to heart.

And, finally, we observe that problems identified in this survey are not confined to Davidson College. Other institutions should take note of these findings and proactively ask if their own practices instill the character and habits that for generations have been the pride and honor of their graduates.

For a more detailed look at the survey findings, click here.

Endnotes

¹There is 95% probability that the reported figures reflect the attitudes of the universe of 1,114 donors within a 4.7% margin of error.
²This question allowed respondents to select multiple reasons. Results presented above are for each respondent’s principal reason. Including all reasons given where respondents provided additional answers, 84% of those whose giving declined or ceased cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s direction, 63% cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s leadership, and 54% cited dissatisfaction with specific Davidson policies.
³Yascha Mounk, “Why the Latest Campus Cancellation Is Different,” The Atlantic,October 10, 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/.
⁴Michael Powell, “M.I.T.’s Choice of Lecturer Ignited Criticism. So Did Its Decision to Cancel,” New York Times,October 20, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html.
⁵Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Disinvitation Database, last accessed October 28, 2021, https://www.thefire.org/research/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_per_page=1000&view_2_page=1.
⁶David Acevedo, “Tracking Cancel Culture in Higher Education,” National Association of Scholars,October 15, 2021, https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/tracking-cancel-culture-in-higher-education.
⁷Mitchell Langbert, Anthony J. Quain, and Daniel B. Klein, “Faculty Voter Registration in Economics, History, Journalism, Law, and Psychology,” Econ Journal Watch 13, no. 3 (2016): 422–451. 
⁸Mitchell Langbert, “Homogenous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty,” Academic Questions 31 (2018): 186–197, https://tinyurl.com/y5dg3e2k. 
⁹The American Council of Trustees and Alumni and College Pulse, “Campus Speech Poll,” Internal Report, October 2019, 2-4.
¹⁰Ibid., 5.
¹¹Samuel J. Abrams, “Many Liberal Arts Students Need a Lesson in Free Speech,” Inside Higher Ed, October 28, 2021, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/10/28/are-liberal-arts-students-less-supportive-free-speech-opinion.
¹²President Carol Quillen, “The new year and free speech at Davidson,” email to Davidson College campus, October 19, 2021.
¹³This anonymous survey of 1,114 major donors to Davidson College was conducted by email between September 23 and October 12, 2021. The independent survey was conducted by Braun Research, Inc., and was sponsored by Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse. Recipients of the survey were donors identified by the college in its September 2021 Ne Ultra Society Honor Role publication. Email addresses were obtained independently. Three hundred and twelve recipients completed the survey for a response rate of 28%. The survey’s margin of error is 4.7% at the 95% level of confidence
¹⁴Throughout, “liberal” includes respondents who identified as “left of center” and “conservatives” includes respondents who identified as “right of center.”
¹⁵This question allowed respondents to select multiple reasons. Results presented above are for each respondent’s principal reason. Including all reasons given where respondents provided additional answers, 84% of those whose giving declined or ceased cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s direction, 63% cited dissatisfaction with Davidson’s leadership, and 54% cited dissatisfaction with specific Davidson policies.
¹⁶Values are occasionally presented to the first decimal to clarify arithmetic and apparent rounding discrepancies.

The post American Council of Trustees and Alumni With Braun Research, Inc., Survey of Major Donors to Davidson College appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

1. Communicate your vision in-person  

If possible, meet with university officials on campus. Connect with development officers, deans, board members, presidents, faculty, and staff in your giving area and share your vision with them over multiple visits. Conversations with these key university representatives can help to hone your goals and will reveal any roadblocks early in the process. Rather than being a nuisance, frequent communication can help representatives recall your vision when carrying out the logistics of your gift.  

University officials commonly ask about a donor’s motivation for giving. You may describe your motivation as a desire to create a legacy, honor a parent, or pay forward past generosity. But ultimately, it is essential to articulate the issue your gift addresses and the specific details about how it will make a positive, lasting impact.  

For example, perhaps you want to address a lack of intellectual diversity. Through conversations with faculty and administrators who share your concern, you can decide what kind of gift will best address that problem on a particular campus. Your gift could create a student debate program that encourages civil discourse. 

Of course, these conversations are best supported by a strong gift agreement in writing.  

2. Communicate your vision in writing 

Donors should include a vision statement, also called a statement of purpose, in their gift agreement.  

Joanne Florino, vice president of philanthropic services at the Philanthropy Roundtable, explains in her philanthropic guidebook Protecting Your Legacy, “think about your vision from the perspective of those who don’t know you. Would they comprehend your meaning?” Your vision statement should spell out your personal values and your goals for the gift. 

Talk with trusted advisors who know you to help specify that vision. Avoid vague buzzwords, and give yourself time to hone the wording. If your gift seeks to advance liberty on campus, do you want to use the word “freedom” or “liberty”? If your gift focuses on promoting democratic institutions, should you say “autonomy” or “sovereignty”? Trusted advisors can help you effectively convey the true intent of your gift. 

Ms. Florino explains that a vision statement of “‘helping the needy’ opens the door to any number of grants with which you might disagree. ‘Enabling the poor to support themselves with dignity through workforce training and character development’ identifies both end and means.”  

Specificity is a crucial guardrail. Business leader Angelo Pizzagalli sought to endow a professorship in free enterprise at his alma mater, the University of Vermont. Mr. Pizzagalli included a statement of purpose in his gift agreement outlining his intentions, including a brief, clear list of fundamental concepts that the professor should cover in his or her teaching. The specificity of Mr. Pizzagalli’s agreement ensured that the university understood and respected his intent while also being able to exercise its right to academic freedom. You can read more about his gift in The Intelligent Donor’s Guide to College Giving. 

Although there is no “silver bullet” for protecting your intent, a strong and specific vision, communicated clearly and codified in writing, helps significantly to secure your gift. 

This article originally appeared here.

The post Communicating Your Vision appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Few donors understand their legal recourse when a charity ignores—or blatantly disregards—the terms of their gift agreement. Though philanthropy has grown in both scope and complexity over the past three decades, the laws governing the charitable sector remain mired in a time gone by. Oversight of gift agreements remains the domain of state attorneys general, and donors are rarely granted standing, or the authority to bring a lawsuit, to enforce the terms of a gift agreement.

With a myriad of other responsibilities, however, state attorneys general have little capacity—or interest—to oversee the 1.63 million registered charities in the United States. Empowering donors, in certain circumstances, to bring lawsuits to enforce the terms of their gift agreement would ease this burden and strengthen charitable oversight.

Earlier this month, the Ohio Senate passed bipartisan legislation that would make sweeping reforms to higher education in the state, including a provision to modernize donor standing. Senate Bill 135, sponsored by Senator Jerry Cirino (District 18), updates Ohio’s version of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), potentially moving the state from one of the weakest to one of the strongest when it comes to the protection of donors’ rights. The bill passed by a margin of 31 to 2, with 13 cosponsors representing both parties, and now awaits further consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives.

The Ohio bill provides a limited, reasonable expansion of donor standing. A donor to a state institution of higher education can notify the attorney general of any violations of the gift agreement. If the attorney general does not respond after 180 days, donors have standing to bring a case before the courts to enforce the terms of their gift. The bill gives donors six years from the time that they discover a violation of the gift agreement to file a complaint.

Such a measure is commonsense, and sadly necessary. Institutions of higher education are not alone in their willingness to flout donor intent, but they are among the worst repeat offenders. Arguments against donor standing have tended to rely on scare tactics and faulty reasoning. Critics question whether superfluous lawsuits will overwhelm the courts, or that donors will make their gifts contingent on unreasonable restrictions, or that distant relatives will be able to rewrite donor intent. A brief examination of each of these concerns in turn reveals why none are prohibitive of a reasonable expansion of donor standing.

It seems unlikely that allowing donor standing would flood the courts with vexatious litigation. Expanding donor standing does not mean that every donor will be able to sue an institution for the misuse of any gift at any time. To limit the number of eligible donors, legislation should include guidelines such as a threshold amount, a time frame, and potential remedies.

Setting a threshold amount will limit the number of donors eligible to sue. Iowa already allows standing to donors who have given more than $100,000 to an endowment, and yet there is no evidence that this has led to a flood of litigation against nonprofits in Iowa.

The proposed bill in Ohio limits the remedies available to the courts, taking the possibility of damages off the table. Without a financial incentive to enforce a gift agreement, donors will only pursue legal recourse when a serious violation of intent has occurred. The motives would be principled rather than pecuniary.

Nor does it seem likely that donors would give gifts with absurd or impossible strings attached. In higher education giving, both parties negotiate the terms of a gift agreement, but at the end of the day, the school can decline a proffered gift. A donor gives because he or she trusts that the school will honor the terms under which the funds are awarded. The school should decline gifts that run counter to its mission or interests.

An ongoing dispute in Ohio illustrates the issue. Michael Moritz made a gift of $30 million to Ohio State University (OSU) in 2001 to support endowed chairs, form an unrestricted fund for excellence and innovation, and establish 30 full-tuition scholarships annually. In recognition of Michael Moritz’s generosity, OSU named the law school in his honor. Years later, his son Jeffrey Moritz discovered that the school had awarded only up to 16 Moritz Scholarships each year and had taken an undisclosed fee to finance fundraising efforts.

At this juncture, Ohio State University claims that the nearly $10 million set aside for scholarships in Michael Moritz’s gift was never sufficient to support 30 annual scholarships. Surely that should have been addressed 20 years ago.

Some donors may propose eccentric ideas, but the school is free to decline terms they find impossible or onerous. Truly absurd gifts are few and far between. The unfortunate reality is that schools are more often reluctant to fulfill the terms of standard gift agreements, and without sufficient oversight, there is little to prevent the misuse of funds when it occurs.    

Would expanding donor standing to include heirs give distant relatives the ability to interfere with donors’ gifts? In his testimony before the Ohio Senate on the new bill, Bruce McPheron, Ohio State University’s provost, argued against the need for revisions to UPMIFA. He maintained that “the bill undermines a donor’s ability to fully control how his or her donation is used by giving the donor’s family members and professional administrators the right to reinterpret the donor’s intent after he or she has passed away.” Given that the bill is written so that no plaintiff can reap a financial windfall from such a suit, this scenario seems unlikely. On the contrary, the plaintiff would need to devote considerable time and personal resources to protect a loved one’s charitable intent, with no personal profit at stake.

State attorneys general have shown little appetite for enforcing restricted gift agreements, yet they retain sole oversight authority. Passing legislation that creates a limited expansion of donor standing will strengthen public oversight of charitable gifts and allow attorneys general offices to focus on their priorities.

This article originally appeared here.

The post Does $471 Billion Deserve Respect? appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Even with a gift agreement, donors have little recourse in the event of their intent being flouted. There are state Senate bills under review to change that.

Philanthropy affects the lives of every American in some way, but most of the public—and even major donors—know little about the legal structure governing our nation’s charitable sector. Many donors assume that a gift agreement functions like a contract and that a breach of this “contract” by either party will land the matter in court. The perplexing reality, however, is that when a charitable organization fails to fulfill the terms of a restricted gift agreement, donors have far less legal recourse than a reasonable person might expect.   

As philanthropy has grown in scope and sophistication, it is high time to extend the right of legal standing to the donor, his or her heirs, or to a designated third party. This is a particularly urgent need for gifts to higher education, which have too often proven problematic in recent years.

Donor standing bills in Ohio

A bill currently under consideration in Ohio addresses the vital issue of donor standing. Introduced by Senator Jerry Cirino, Senate Bill 135 includes a number of broad reforms to the state’s system of higher education, including a section addressing donor standing. The bill modifies the process of enforcing gift agreements, allowing other parties than the attorney general to file a complaint.

According to the most recent version of the legislation in the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee, donors, their legal representatives, or other parties specified in the gift instrument are to notify the attorney general of potential violations. If the attorney general does not obtain “full compliance with the restriction” within 180 days and “restitution to the endowment fund of property approximately equal to any value lost due to the violated restriction,” the party who notified the attorney general can file a complaint.

Philanthropy is a personal endeavor that often leads to a complicated partnership between various parties. Gifts to colleges and universities, given their size and institutional complexity, are challenging to enforce. Legal disputes at Johns Hopkins University, St. John’s University in Minnesota, and the University of Missouri are just a few of the recent cases where donors, or designated third parties, have discovered violations of donor intent.

Insufficient standing

Most donors are unaware that, once a gift has been made to a college or university, the state attorney general may be the only person with authority to enforce the terms of a gift agreement. Some donors specify in the agreement itself that they, or their heirs, have standing, but this is no guarantee that the court will recognize that claim. Yet the school is usually able to sue a donor for failing to fulfill his or her pledge. There is a startling imbalance of power when it comes to charitable giving.

Senator Cirino’s legislation reflects growing frustration with the difficulties of donor standing. Witness the case of Michael Moritz. The family of Michael Moritz, a donor to Ohio State University, discovered that the school failed to honor the terms of Mr. Moritz’s $30 million gift to the law school. Rather than award 30 scholarships each year, as stipulated in the gift agreement, the university funded significantly fewer. The state attorney general declined to pursue the case, and the family was not granted standing to rectify the matter through the court system.

Nearly $50 billion in charitable gifts went to higher education in 2019 alone, and the number of major gifts continues to grow. Most state attorneys general offices do not have an incentive to pursue the misuse of restricted funds. They are notoriously underfunded and often lack personnel dedicated to enforcing charitable gifts. Establishing standing for donors, or a designated third party, would relieve the pressure on the state attorneys general and allow them to pursue other priorities.

The considerations involved in updating donor standing are numerous and nuanced, but all of them can be addressed. Should gift agreements be honored in perpetuity? What if the donor has passed away and the school has no contact with his or her heirs? Should standing be limited to gifts above a certain threshold so that frivolous lawsuits do not clog the courtroom? When is it appropriate to redirect funds?

Good stewards welcome donor standing 

Colleges that already practice good stewardship have little cause for concern when it comes to expanding donor standing. Being upfront with donors about the difficulties of giving in perpetuity is better than asking them to give under false pretenses. Donors, too, should think twice about giving to a school that discourages third-party enforcement, those institutions that the Bard might say “doth protest too much.”

Philanthropy exists in a murky area of the law. The private decision to give often has profound public effects. As representatives of the public, the state attorneys general should be the first to ensure the proper use of charitable gifts, but donors should not have to rely solely on underfunded attorneys general offices to steward their gift agreements. As colleges and universities face an uncertain financial future in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, they should seek to strengthen their relationships with donors, not undermine them. Donors are neither adversaries nor unfeeling cash cows—they are the foundation of our institutions of higher education.

This article originally appeared in Philanthropy Daily

The post Donor intent should be better protected appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The post How to Save Higher Education | Interview with Dr. Michael Poliakoff appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.