Donors and Core Values
We all heard the news: On December 5, 2023, the presidents of MIT, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University were called before a committee in Congress to defend their policies on how to protect free speech and student safety while combating antisemitism and Islamophobia.
One question that lingers, among several: How can or should charities - universities, in this case - best discuss important issues with donors of influence? For me, one thing is certain, although I understand that it’s not certain to everyone: The three presidents who testified before Congress in early December are not deficient in either intellect or compassion.? That – my certainty on this point – is important to note because I use it to grapple with a question that follows: How to respond to donors who don’t have my faith in the integrity of the presidents who described, with excruciating and, some would say, frustrating nuance their dilemmas relating to the charges of antisemitism.
Here are two reactions, from highly regarded thought leaders, that followed the hearing, one in support of the donors who criticized the presidents, the other who criticized the donors:
- “Without donor pressure, the intellectual and moral rot of elite academic institutions wouldn’t have received the attention it urgently deserved.â€
- ?“To use their power as major donors to force or seek the ouster of these presidents is almost as repugnant as the failures of these presidents to unambiguously condemn calls for genocide. It endangers the autonomy of America’s universities.â€
领英推è
I'm not opining on how best to permit free speech on campuses or whether elite academic institutions are filled with moral rot, but I do ask this: Knowing that divisions can run deep and emotions can be intense, what should a charity's leadership be prepared to do when a controversy arises??
I also take note that the three university presidents who testified are women, and wonder if it is significant that all the major donors who have so far complained about their leadership are men.
Last week, Tony Martignetti, a thought leader in the nonprofit world, aired an interview on his podcast - "Big Nonprofit Ideas for the Other 95% - with me on this subject. You can listen to it here. ?
In short, I recommend that charities develop policies outlining how they might deal with outspoken or problematic donors.? We all know philanthropic support is essential to the success of a public charity, but charity leaders must decide whether to alter their programs or even their goals to acquiesce to a donor’s demands, or to best explain the organization's values and how, controversial as they may be, some decisions are not going to be subject to those demands, regardless of the size of past or potential support.
VP & ED @ Forsyth Tech Foundation | Advocate for Equitable Philanthropic Education | Philanthropy Nerd | Consultant
1 å¹´The real problem is the number of donors content in their own self-soothing ignorance and the fear of institutions in fulfilling their mission to strengthen and expand knowledge. If an institution strives to be just in it's mission and truly address the problems/weaknesses of the modern world, along with the donors wishing to join them in their impact, they both would do well to remember, "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times." (Anthony Kennedy).
US Army Retired | National Security Affairs | Author | County Commissioner for the Arts | Nonprofits | Soldier for Life
1 å¹´I'm always curious as to why dissatisfied donors are painted as villains when they express that dissatisfaction. You court them with emotional appeals, get them to give willingly because your cause *matters* to them, then shame them when they feel betrayed by changes in the org and say they are no longer willing to donate to an org they no longer recognize or agree with. This is just how donor money is: it comes from human beings. There may be strings attached that orgs don't mind: "I will donate a kajillion dollars for this project if you name it after my family." Then there are those that they reject: "I've been donating pallets of money for the last 20 years but you have gone too far with [insert controversy here], and if you keep going down that road, I'm not going to donate any more." Well, OK... now the org has a choice: alter their course based on feedback, or let the donors go because staying the course is judged to be more important. But let the few aggrieved donors turn into a donor stampede for the exits and the combined loss of many kajillions in donor money, and now the Board will be having second thoughts about what's more important... and the CEO is right back in the hot seat.
Nonprofit Advisor & Author
1 å¹´Takeaways: 1. Money talks. 2. University boards must determine: "is the juice worth the squeeze?" 3. Free speech must be good for all - there is no room for preference, or it's not free speech. 4. Violence is never acceptable. 5. Philanthropy can advance or counteract deterioration.
Tri-State Director of New York & Long Island at Jewish National Fund-USA
1 å¹´Doug, there is one sentence missing in-between the first and second paragraph: "During the Congressional hearing, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn failed to condemn calls for the genocide of the Jewish people - claiming such speech is dependent on context and action." Having that very important sentence will then lead into your second paragraph of conversations with donors of influence. These valid questions and outrage from donors are not coming out of nowhere. And, I do not believe gender plays into this -- if a male President said the same sentence, donors would be just as angry. As sworn in front of Congress, the Presidents expressed that Jewish students are openly not as protected as other religions, races, or genders -- only when action is taken, aka attacking or killing a student, will genocidal speech be condemned.
Donor values are as important as donor values. Policies are great but taking the time to communicate with donors to better understand their values is paramount to sustaining successful fundraising and avoiding surprises.