The Conundrum of Donor Influence
It's odd to say, but I love a great conundrum. By definition, a “conundrum" is a confusing or difficult problem or question. Not just for the layperson, but for the experts. And we have one in philanthropy.
With the terrible tragedy/terrorist attack in Israel and related events, mega-donors have made their concerns regarding various higher educational institutions well known. So much so, that there are multiple examples of public comments indicating a dramatic reduction or just outright revocation of current and future philanthropy to certain higher education institutions. All of this is based upon how these organizations reacted to the tragedy of early October, half a world away.
Based on these philanthropists renouncing their charitable intent, there have been several articulated perspectives from different constituencies.
From the administrative/executive leadership of the universities, an attempt at threading the needle as it pertains to the First Amendment and the organization's response to the massacres
From faculty who are screaming about outside influences, outside the university campus, who appear to have more influence and power than they like
From journalists, through articles, who are indicating a concern about philanthropy being restricted to certain projects, not being able to be used for basic services of the institution, and the fact that these donors have opinions and the choice of where their dollars go
And thus, the conundrum.
If these pillars of higher education didn't want the opinions of those donors to influence their internal politics, why did they take the money? The answer is because they needed to. It was the instrument of investment that was required based on a myriad of financial changes over the past 40 or 50 years.
Just because someone donates money to an organization doesn't mean that they lose their ability to comment about the organization nor choose if they'll give again. The fact that some people are surprised that some of these incredibly well-known and successful individuals have an opinion and are willing to take action on those thoughts is somewhat of a surprise, at least to me. They got into these positions of wealth, power, and influence because they were able to make decisions and articulate a point of view.
This also will affect, going forward, at least in conversations, not only how donors will choose to give their money but also how organizations might choose to accept donations. But my guess is that because nonprofits, including institutes of higher education, need philanthropy now more than ever, they'll still find a way to accept the money and worry about the implications of their donors’ opinions at a later date.
