In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform those who care about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch includes reporting on the court decision to allow the sale of three valuable paintings at Valparaiso University, a compilation of recent commentary for – and about – higher education donors and a more whimsical story about donor intent deferred, but victorious.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
Court Approves Sale of Paintings from University Collection
In the July 2024 Donor Intent Watch, we discussed the ongoing controversy at Indiana’s Valparaiso University regarding president Jose D. Padilla’s decision to sell three paintings from the university’s art collection to fund an upgrade of freshman dormitories. Artnet News recently reported the issue of an August 29 order from the Porter County Superior Court approving the sale.
The three paintings include works by Georgia O’Keefe, Frederic Church and Chile Hassam, and are expected to sell for a total value of approximately $20 million. The university has not yet set a date for the sale, which has been opposed by students, faculty members and art museum organizations.
In February 2023, a joint statement by the Association of Art Museum Directors, the American Alliance of Museums, the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries and the Association of Art Museum Curators declared, “This remains a fundamental ethical principle of the museum field, one which all institutions are obligated to respect: in no event shall funds from deaccessioned works be used for anything other than support for a museum’s collections, either through acquisitions or the direct care of works of art.”
The court ruling, however, agreed with the university, noting, “… it is no longer economically or practically feasible to display those three paintings, and … it would be wasteful to use any proceeds from any sale of those three paintings for the purpose of purchasing more works of art for the collection given that Valparaiso University already lacks the capacity to display the works that it currently has.”
Read more here.
Higher Education Remains a Hot Topic in the News for Donors and Fundraisers Alike
Below are several recent posts discussing donor intent and D.E.I. in higher education.
From Jim Langley, president at Langley Innovations:
“… donors are increasingly likely to attach themselves to causes, then find the organizations that best advance them. Therefore, they are less and less likely to begin as or become institutional loyalists. … One need only look at the many appeals made by institutions of higher learning to see how so few understand current and emerging philanthropic realities. So many are still stuck on antiquated ideal of alumni “giving back,” never mind the indebtedness of many or the unevenness of economic opportunity that constitutes their reality. … If institutions want to attract more philanthropic energy, their leaders will have to grasp the simple fact that they must behave, respond and organize like a cause and stop acting like a fixed-in-time, entitled institution.
Read more here.
From Patrice Onwuka, Philanthropy Roundtable adjunct senior fellow:
“Donors and alumni have widely rebuked student involvement in riots and violent protests. University presidents, who could not act with moral clarity to protect Jewish students or who have been selective in the application of free speech and academic freedom, have been forced out by pressure from stakeholders. Using the power of the purse, donors canceled pledged gifts and promised to withhold future funding to send a clear message to university leadership.
However, higher education donors and grantmakers should also pay attention to the actions of deans, faculty and lecturers. Are these academics upholding the standards and values that motivate alumni and donors to give to institutions, or are they perpetuating toxic learning environments donors want to change? True diversity calls for a diversity of viewpoints, but not for discriminatory behavior or intolerant rhetoric. … Faculty should know there is no place for antisemitic or violent rhetoric when it comes to education and academic freedom. Philanthropy can play a role in making sure that message is heard loud and clear.”
Read more here.
From Paul Brest and Emily J. Levine, Stanford University:
“We believe that fostering a sense of belonging among students of diverse backgrounds is a precondition for educational success. That said, many DEI training programs actually subvert their institutions’ educational missions. … While issues of diversity, equity and inclusion are sometimes addressed in rigorous classroom courses, university-based DEI programs tend to come in two basic forms: online or off-the-shelf trainings that are more suitable for airline safety briefings than exploring the complexities of interracial relations, and ideological workshops that inculcate theories of social justice as if there were no plausible alternatives. … Overall, these programs may undermine the very groups they seek to aid by instilling a victim mindset and pitting students against one another.
American campuses need an alternative to ideological DEI programs. They need programs that foster a sense of belonging and engagement for students of diverse backgrounds, religious beliefs and political views without subverting their schools’ educational missions. Such programs should be based on a pluralistic vision of the university community combined with its commitments to academic freedom and critical inquiry. … The current system is not good for Jews at Stanford and other universities. It’s not good for Muslims, either. And it’s certainly not good for society as a whole.”
Read more here.
Donor Intent Deferred, Victorious
A New York Times August 30 feature about the renovation of the Sainsbury Wing at the National Gallery in London unexpectedly caught our attention for its discussion of a dispute within the family that funded its construction. In 1990, architects hired by the Sainsbury family included false pillars at the entrance to the gallery. One family member – John Sainsbury – strongly objected to that design feature, complaining it served no structural purpose and was simply out of place.
The current renovation includes removal of the pillars, and as they came down, this note was discovered:
“If you have found this note you must be engaged in demolishing one of the false columns that have been placed in the foyer of the Sainsbury Wing. Let it be known that one of the donors of this building is absolutely delighted that your generation has decided to dispense with the unnecessary columns.”
Read more here.
