![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
One on an anonymous donor who has given nearly $70 million to colleges.
Anonymous Donor Gives Millions to Colleges
By LISA W. FODERARO
The call typically comes from a banker, bringing word of a fairy godmother. This is followed quickly by a check arriving in the mail — or two checks, the larger earmarked for scholarships for women and minority students, the smaller to be spent at the recipient’s discretion.
The only catch, for at least a dozen colleges and universities that have benefited from the surprise largess over the past two months, is that the donor must remain anonymous. Not just to the public, as is typical, but to the institution itself. No one on campus — not the president, not the public relations staff, not the chief fund-raiser — can know where the money came from.
And no one seems to care, especially as the economic crisis bears down on higher education in the form of shrinking endowments and heightened demand for financial aid. Indeed, the mysterious sprinkling of nearly $70 million on schools including Binghamton University in New York, Montclair State University in New Jersey, the University of Southern Mississippi and, with an announcement on Thursday, Michigan State University, has become a sweet diversion and a huge lift.
“Clearly, whoever it is wishes to remain anonymous and I, for one, am perfectly happy to respect that,” said Susan A. Cole, president of Montclair State, which received a call from a Wells Fargo representative followed immediately by gifts of $4 million and $1 million in late March. “In the best of times we never have enough scholarship money for students who have financial need. In these difficult times, that is multiplied. The gift is incredibly important to us. I cannot adequately express the depth of our gratitude.”
While no one wants to jeopardize the money by speculating about its possible sources, within the quiet halls of institutional advancement — as college fund-raising departments are often called — theories abound.
Is it an individual or a foundation? Is it a woman (given that the presidents of all the beneficiary institutions are women)? Is there any significance to the types of institutions chosen (all but one, Kalamazoo College in Michigan, are public) or their location (about half in the East, but also Iowa, Indiana, Colorado)?
“It’s a favorite parlor game in higher education,” said Jeff Palmer, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, which has 1,350 students and received $2 million. “Who’s the mysterious donor?”
Ann E. Kaplan, the director of the Voluntary Support of Education survey at the Council for Aid to Education, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, surmised that the donor might wish to avoid the pressure of additional giving in the future. “It’s a lot of money but it’s not stratospheric,” she said. “If it’s not one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, it’s possible the donor doesn’t want to develop a long-term relationship with any of these institutions.”
There is hardly a clue in the letters accompanying the checks; one letter, for example, was written on a bank’s stationery. “It is hoped that this will make a substantial difference to your students during these challenging times,” they say, “enabling a more confident, sharper focus on their studies with improved career and life prospects.”
Michigan State got the largest amount ($10 million), while Purdue University in Indiana was close behind, with $8 million. The smallest donation, $1.5 million, went to the University of North Carolina Asheville; a larger University of North Carolina campus — in Greensboro — reaped $6 million. In each case, 50 percent to 80 percent of the total was designated for financial aid.
Many of these public institutions have relatively small endowments and are being squeezed by state budget cuts, even as more families priced out of private schools are flooding their admissions offices. More than a few said the gift was their largest ever.
“Particularly for public universities, we don’t have 100 years or 400 years of tradition for getting private support, and that’s a very different kind of culture,” said Robert W. Groves, vice president for university advancement at Michigan State.
David F. Wolf, vice president for advancement at the University of Southern Mississippi, which received $6 million ($5 million of it earmarked for scholarships), called the gift, the largest in the school’s history, “tremendous.” He noted that most of the recipients were not marquee brand-name schools.
“Whoever it was, when you look at the list of schools, you see universities that are not the first to roll off your tongue when you think of state universities,” he said. “Yet we are all relevant and have large enrollments and make an impact in the region.”
The common denominator that seems to have generated the most fascination is that every institution is led by a woman. “Obviously, the giver of these gifts is a person of great wisdom,” said Dr. Cole of Montclair State. “I’m only partly facetious. We’ve had to work very hard to get where we are, and I believe that women presidents are great caretakers of their institutions and their students.”
Lois B. DeFleur, president of Binghamton University, one of the four major research campuses in the State University of New York system, agreed. “The actions say, ‘I’m investing in an institution because it has made achievements and I believe that with women leaders it will have future accomplishments,’ ” she said. “That’s pretty powerful in my view.”
Binghamton, which got $6 million, originally planned to keep the gift a secret, in keeping with the request for strict anonymity. “We didn’t have an idea that this was part of a pattern, and I felt we shouldn’t announce it,” Dr. DeFleur said. “Then the announcements started coming out and people said this is so uplifting, so positive. Binghamton — the city — suffered those shootings and people just felt that there is good in the world. There isn’t just evil.”
As much as college leaders are curious to know who their benefactor is, they are too busy figuring out ways to put the money to use to dwell too long on the enigma.
“We’re not focusing on the whodunit part,” said Catherine Sweet-Windham, vice president for institutional advancement at the University of Maryland University College, which received $6 million. “We’re focusing on how this will help our students and letting the donor know that their investment in this institution is good one.”
~~~~~~~~~
One on a Conservative argument for gay marriage
One on the differing moral compasses of conservatives and liberals, which I'm not sure what I think about. It comes with a nifty link.
Anonymous Donor Gives Millions to Colleges
By LISA W. FODERARO
The call typically comes from a banker, bringing word of a fairy godmother. This is followed quickly by a check arriving in the mail — or two checks, the larger earmarked for scholarships for women and minority students, the smaller to be spent at the recipient’s discretion.
The only catch, for at least a dozen colleges and universities that have benefited from the surprise largess over the past two months, is that the donor must remain anonymous. Not just to the public, as is typical, but to the institution itself. No one on campus — not the president, not the public relations staff, not the chief fund-raiser — can know where the money came from.
And no one seems to care, especially as the economic crisis bears down on higher education in the form of shrinking endowments and heightened demand for financial aid. Indeed, the mysterious sprinkling of nearly $70 million on schools including Binghamton University in New York, Montclair State University in New Jersey, the University of Southern Mississippi and, with an announcement on Thursday, Michigan State University, has become a sweet diversion and a huge lift.
“Clearly, whoever it is wishes to remain anonymous and I, for one, am perfectly happy to respect that,” said Susan A. Cole, president of Montclair State, which received a call from a Wells Fargo representative followed immediately by gifts of $4 million and $1 million in late March. “In the best of times we never have enough scholarship money for students who have financial need. In these difficult times, that is multiplied. The gift is incredibly important to us. I cannot adequately express the depth of our gratitude.”
While no one wants to jeopardize the money by speculating about its possible sources, within the quiet halls of institutional advancement — as college fund-raising departments are often called — theories abound.
Is it an individual or a foundation? Is it a woman (given that the presidents of all the beneficiary institutions are women)? Is there any significance to the types of institutions chosen (all but one, Kalamazoo College in Michigan, are public) or their location (about half in the East, but also Iowa, Indiana, Colorado)?
“It’s a favorite parlor game in higher education,” said Jeff Palmer, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, which has 1,350 students and received $2 million. “Who’s the mysterious donor?”
Ann E. Kaplan, the director of the Voluntary Support of Education survey at the Council for Aid to Education, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, surmised that the donor might wish to avoid the pressure of additional giving in the future. “It’s a lot of money but it’s not stratospheric,” she said. “If it’s not one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, it’s possible the donor doesn’t want to develop a long-term relationship with any of these institutions.”
There is hardly a clue in the letters accompanying the checks; one letter, for example, was written on a bank’s stationery. “It is hoped that this will make a substantial difference to your students during these challenging times,” they say, “enabling a more confident, sharper focus on their studies with improved career and life prospects.”
Michigan State got the largest amount ($10 million), while Purdue University in Indiana was close behind, with $8 million. The smallest donation, $1.5 million, went to the University of North Carolina Asheville; a larger University of North Carolina campus — in Greensboro — reaped $6 million. In each case, 50 percent to 80 percent of the total was designated for financial aid.
Many of these public institutions have relatively small endowments and are being squeezed by state budget cuts, even as more families priced out of private schools are flooding their admissions offices. More than a few said the gift was their largest ever.
“Particularly for public universities, we don’t have 100 years or 400 years of tradition for getting private support, and that’s a very different kind of culture,” said Robert W. Groves, vice president for university advancement at Michigan State.
David F. Wolf, vice president for advancement at the University of Southern Mississippi, which received $6 million ($5 million of it earmarked for scholarships), called the gift, the largest in the school’s history, “tremendous.” He noted that most of the recipients were not marquee brand-name schools.
“Whoever it was, when you look at the list of schools, you see universities that are not the first to roll off your tongue when you think of state universities,” he said. “Yet we are all relevant and have large enrollments and make an impact in the region.”
The common denominator that seems to have generated the most fascination is that every institution is led by a woman. “Obviously, the giver of these gifts is a person of great wisdom,” said Dr. Cole of Montclair State. “I’m only partly facetious. We’ve had to work very hard to get where we are, and I believe that women presidents are great caretakers of their institutions and their students.”
Lois B. DeFleur, president of Binghamton University, one of the four major research campuses in the State University of New York system, agreed. “The actions say, ‘I’m investing in an institution because it has made achievements and I believe that with women leaders it will have future accomplishments,’ ” she said. “That’s pretty powerful in my view.”
Binghamton, which got $6 million, originally planned to keep the gift a secret, in keeping with the request for strict anonymity. “We didn’t have an idea that this was part of a pattern, and I felt we shouldn’t announce it,” Dr. DeFleur said. “Then the announcements started coming out and people said this is so uplifting, so positive. Binghamton — the city — suffered those shootings and people just felt that there is good in the world. There isn’t just evil.”
As much as college leaders are curious to know who their benefactor is, they are too busy figuring out ways to put the money to use to dwell too long on the enigma.
“We’re not focusing on the whodunit part,” said Catherine Sweet-Windham, vice president for institutional advancement at the University of Maryland University College, which received $6 million. “We’re focusing on how this will help our students and letting the donor know that their investment in this institution is good one.”
One on a Conservative argument for gay marriage
One on the differing moral compasses of conservatives and liberals, which I'm not sure what I think about. It comes with a nifty link.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 03:20 am (UTC)I really don't see what the threat is, anyway. Marriage between first cousins is legal in several states (can't be bothered to actually look up the number) and yet nobody's forcing churches to marry cousins. I know you can't be married in the Catholic church if you're cousins, for instance, even if it's legal where you are.
One church not only refused to marry my aunt and uncle because they'd lived together before marriage (and come on, would you buy a car without taking a test drive?). Where are all the people trying to make extramarital cohabitation illegal?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 04:57 am (UTC)What conservatives are afraid of is that the inherited-obligation model is being discarded. Allowing gays to marry means that they're not obligated to carry on the inherited obligations found in a heterosexual partnership and family. The idea that negotiated commitments are just as strong as, if not stronger than, inherited obligations is anathema to conservatives. Here's an essay about Ault's theories and findings (http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html), as well as George Lakoff's Moral Politics ideas.
This is also why conservatives tend to believe that liberals are immoral, that we have no commitment to others and that we're as changeable as the wind, that we have no moral foundations. Their idea of a moral foundation is one you don't get to choose for yourself or negotiate around - one that matches the moral foundations that came before you and one that will match the ones that come after you, ad infinitum, world without end.
Liberals just don't see the world that way. Moreover, a world that looks like that looks oppressive, immoral, restrictive, and wrong to us. This surprises conservatives.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 06:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 04:17 am (UTC)Edit: Found it! But it's locked.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 03:47 pm (UTC)The latter three play no part in the golden rule. Let them run unchecked, and you get every form of racism, religious intolerance, and blind obedience that makes (in extreme cases) something like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia possible. The latter three require moderation to create a fair and just society. The first two need no moderation, but simply some common sense in implementing them.
So I would classify the first two "moral impulses" as "ethics" and the latter three as "convenient excuses to avoid ethical behavior." Whenever there is some kind of long-standing injustice that offends either of the first two principles, there are always conservatives hiding behind one or more of the latter three to explain away why the injustice is in fact right and good and moral. But that's not morality (except in the strict sense of following societal mores, however absurd, harmful or unfair they might be), it's a way to dress up tribalism, xenophobia and superstition to make them sound like good things.
My opinion, anyway. But them, I'm one of those immoral liberal types.