EVEN WITH annual tuitions and fees approaching $40,000 at many institutions, colleges and universities are not losing any persistence at passing the hat. Graduating fourth years have already been asked to contribute to a class fund to benefit the University. In the coming months and years, graduates will also be asked repeatedly to donate to annual giving, reunion and general endowment funds.
In the face of strong peer pressure-- often from designated class representatives -- most alumni do not ask any questions when giving to their alma maters. In light of a recent accounting and spending scandal at Princeton University, perhaps they should.
Alumni giving not only signals support for the way an institution is run, but it is also one of the cornerstones of U.S. News & World Report's over-hyped system of rating schools. Thus, to question alumni giving is almost unpatriotic; it suggests a lack of confidence in the school's administration.
At the same time, questioning is caring. Alumni giving is arguably the best way that graduates can influence the institutions they care most about. They have every right to wield political influence through their contributions, especially when their money is involved.
Thus, alumni should ask whether colleges and universities are really making the best use of their money. According to The Wall Street Journal, America's higher education institutions receive approximately $24 billion every year, which is about 10 percent of all charitable giving; only churches receive more. Still, most of these institutions raised tuition and fees by more than double or triple the rate of inflation annually. Many of them claim to need alumni donations because their basic tuition charges do not even begin to cover their expenses.
Given the general trend of runaway spending on state-of-the-art facilities, alumni can reasonably ask whether they are getting the best bang for their buck.. Some might answer affirmatively, which is fine. Others with different priorities might choose to direct their spending, and they should be equally respected. As an eye-opening lawsuit against Princeton demonstrates, however, administrators might have their own designs on funds that are entrusted to them conditionally.
In 1961, the Robertson family donated $35 million to Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, with the stated purpose of steering more graduate students into careers as U.S. diplomats. While the Robertson money, which has swelled to $650 million through investments, went to fund a very fine program -- one that I was privileged to enjoy as an undergraduate -- the family now claims Princeton has not fulfilled its end of the bargain.
While there is some doubt as to whether the Robertsons can legally hold Princeton responsible for their very specific goal, the lawsuit has uncovered evidence of misspending and accounting fraud that is the envy of Enron. For example, one document indicated that $750,000 from the family's fund was used completely outside of the Wilson School, directly contrary to their wishes. Upon realizing the misspending, administrators altered the document to hide the facts.
That, however, was peanuts compared to the whopping $207 million of misspending that a Pricewaterhouse accountant hired by the Robertsons uncovered. The accountant alleges that administrators often double-billed the Robertsons for the actual cost of constructing buildings in order to skim the extra for their own pet projects.
Even smaller, less prominent donations were subject to misuse. Administrators who diverted a $5,000 gift for the Princeton chapel blatantly attached a handwritten note to the treasurer that "[the chapel] is not to know."
What does the Princeton lawsuit have to do with the University? For one thing, it suggests that alumni of all schools must ask more questions about where their money is going -- regardless of whether they give their money with strings attached. Colleges and universities enjoy a reputation as wholesome as motherhood and apple pie. In Latin, "alma mater" literally means "fostering mother." But that "fostering mother" might also have a dark side. If such blatant deceit and deception can happen at Princeton, it can happen anywhere, and with any type of funds -- whether given generally or conditionally.
Despite over a dozen emails and voice messages, various University development officials could not be reached to explain their practices and policies regarding how alumni donations are spent. Still, from my personal experience, the University makes far greater attempts than does Princeton to explain and promote conditional giving to its specific schools, centers, and scholarships. Accordingly, "The trend is definitely to give to a specific area or purpose," said Jennifer Bonenfant, director of the Alumni Association's U.Va. Fund, which includes more than 2,500 accounts for specified uses.
When the University's development office gives future graduates "the ask," readers of this column should in return ask questions of their own. Hopefully they will get more answers than I did.
Eric Wang's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ewang@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
