Maybe they could put this activity in the department that teaches advertising & public relations (sorry, "communications studies".) Or even in the law school. That way, they could avoid confusing advocacy with science.

I first clicked on "accepts" to look at the actual press release from Princeton, rather than the article by the Chronicle.

Princeton "accepts $100 million to combat global warming"? The Princeton release doesn't mention "global warming". The release does talk about "sustainable sources of energy, cleantech, healthy environment". Does anyone want to argue that these are bad things, bad things on which to do research? Please be my guest and see how far that goes with the public. (Speaking of cleantech, nuclear energy, anyone? Or in fact, Princeton has had engineers for years who have done research on improved efficiency and reduced pollution in combustion. Perhaps they will be able to get in on some of the loot.)

True, maybe Princeton's dippy president is misinterpreting the donor's intent. Maybe he is the one who's interests need protecting, maybe he should watch his wallet.

Now, if someone wants to come up with $100 million to finance "alternative" climate science, that might not be a bad thing to do. I'll bet they could even find a university or two that would be happy to have the program.

It wouldn't hurt for the global warming naysayers, those with money, if there are any, to put their money where their mouths are.

From the linked piece on Tulane/Newcomb College, which raised this Tulane Law alum's eyebrows, to say the least:

"...would-be heirs lack standing to sue to enforce conditions in a will or gift."

That's just outright incorrect, and moreover, absurd. First, the civil law has historically made conditional gifts enforceable both during a donor's lifetime and by testament after death, unlike the common law which has enforced conditional gifts in wills but regarded them during the giver's lifetime as unenforceable unilateral contracts. I have little doubt that the Louisiana Civil Code preserves these distinctions and that Tulane would be well aware of them, since Tulane's own law professors, Athanassi Yiannopolous and Cynthia Samuel, were the principal drafters of the Code's most recent comprehensive revision, and Professor Samuel is arguably the leading authority on civil-law successions in the western hemisphere.

Second, as I understand it, the civil law also does not follow the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, which means one CAN have enduring and enforceable dormant testamentary claims lasting decades or even centuries that "vest" into causes of action (I'm sure the civil-law terminology is something Latinate, but the idea is the same) when they're violated.

Finally, assuming all the rest is true, who else exactly but a would-be or putative heir, what the common law would call heirs-at-law, WOULD have standing to assert such claims? Otherwise, no one would and the claims would be meaningless. All I can see in terms of Tulane "winning" here was merely a remand for the trial court to inquire further into the narrow factual question of whether the plaintiffs really ARE such heirs, not whether they would have standing assuming they were.

"T]o grant [the plaintiffs’] requested remedy, this Court must reverse more than 150 years of Louisiana jurisprudence ... and expose Louisiana colleges and universities to an ocean of potential claims by distant descendants with no connection to the institution or the donor,” the American Council on Education wrote..."

The American Council on Education doesn't understand the civil law at all, so it shouldn't embarass itself like this.

That's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- not a big deal unless you need to google them to find www.ipcc.ch

Thanks, Linda! I've amended.

In 1886, the donor at Tulane gave several million dollars (equivalent today to 25M) in memory of her daughter Josephine-Louise. She stipulated a "woman's college". Since 1886 there has been a woman's college at Tulane -Newcomb College. Now, in the 21st. century Tulane decides there should not be a woman's college but there should be a woman's study program or a woman's institute or whatever. Women for over 100 years have cherished their diplomas from "Newcomb College".

As for Princeton, maybe they should have been straight with Mr. Andlinger and told him in the beginning to keep his 100M because they were not interested in undertaking some ambiguous project.