March 26, 2008
Show me the money
Still more on the question of where the money is coming from--and what it is being used for, from Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz focuses on foreign gifts, and published a comprehensive list of who has given what to whom:
Through Freedom of Information Act requests and discussions with officials at the Department of Education, I have obtained a comprehensive list of gifts originating in foreign countries to American colleges and universities (as reported under Title 20, Section 1011f of the U.S. Code, "Disclosures of foreign gifts"). By law, all disclosure reports filed under Section 1011f are considered public records, and today, National Review Online is making them available to readers, here.I post this material for two reasons. First, Congress will soon be facing an important decision regarding foreign-gift-disclosure requirements for American colleges and universities. Second, some recent large gifts to American schools originating in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have raised legitimate concerns about foreign influence on American higher education. Given the size of our higher-education system and the variety of potential questions raised by the records I am releasing today, the best way to uncover further problems is to make this material available to mainstream reporters, bloggers, student newspapers, alumni, and concerned citizens throughout the country.
[...]
How do we differentiate between questionable foreign influence and legitimate support for that which is best in American higher education? By itself, the information contained in federally mandated foreign-gift disclosures does not allow us to discern the difference. These reports can only raise questions for reporters, students, and other concerned individuals to pursue. To fairly judge individual gifts will require additional information about its stated purpose and how it is actually being used, and this can only be obtained through inquiries at the institutions in question. Personally, I begin with the assumption that most foreign gifts to U.S. universities are benignly intended and do substantial good. On the other hand, since some foreign gifts do indeed raise legitimate concerns, how do we begin to make sense of the records I’m posting today?
Kurtz makes some provisional stabs at answering that question in his essay, and is careful to say that it's best to assume that most gifts are above board and are used for legitimate ends. But he notes, too, that institutions such as the University of Michigan are almost certainly not reporting foreign gifts when they ought to be, that others such as Harvard and Columbia regularly conceal the names of the donors of major gifts, and that institutions routinely fail to meet the requirement that they report restrictions on gifts. He also raises questions about whether Harvard really returned a 2004 $2.5 million gift from the president of the UAE, as it claimed it did, or whether that gift was simply reissued more quietly and secretly.
Kurtz also notes that bloggers, local media, students, and alumni are ideally positioned to help launch the massive volume of investigative work required right now to get the facts. If you've got an armchair detective in you (and who, in this era of 24-7 Law & Order reruns, does not?), then get to work. Be thorough, be smart, be precise, be fair, and have fun.
UPDATE: For still more on the politics and poetics of donations, see Donald Downs' recent Minding the Campus piece.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1432
Comments:
It's great to have all these requirement, but they don't mean much with weak enforcement mechanisms. Looking at 20 USC 1011f, there are NO criminal penalties. The only existing remedy for non-compliance is for the AG to bring suit in federal district to compel the offending institution to do what the law requires. Presuming the court orders compliance and it still doesn't happen, then the feds could have the court hold the university in contempt and fine it until it complies, but the problem there is that punishes innocent parties--the students, faculty, public, etc., who are being deprived of the funds going to pay those fines---just as much as and arguably more than whatever administrators aren't complying with the reporting requirements. Conceivably the university could then turn around and sue its own individual administrators for contribution to cover the contempt judgments, but realistically how likely is that to ever happen?
The statute screams out to be amended. Individual administrators, not just the universities as corporate entities, need to be responsible, and if they intentionally shirk the law, subject to criminal penalties, not just civil liability.
Post a comment:
![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)