Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Making Your Money Matter
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 1, 2007
There is no doubt that for any university to thrive, financial support from alumni is a necessity. Although most students are not involved in directly soliciting donations from alumni, students’ every move on campus—from activity center to residential hall to reading room has been possible thanks to alumni donations. The recent visit from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahamedinejad puts Columbia at risk of losing important donations from alumni who are angered with the University’s decision to invite such a controversial speaker. Alumni must understand that, despite any animosity about the administration’s decision, their donations are needed and should be considered separately from this isolated event. Ahamedinejad’s visit should not mean many dollars lost from a school that already has a low rate of alumni giving.
It is important for disgruntled alumni to understand that the actions of Columbia’s administration, faculty, and students will not always correspond to their personal beliefs. The University makes countless decisions each day that affect the lives of current students. Columbians past and present may not always agree with administrative decisions, but they must look at the larger institution itself and judge whether their overall experience was valuable. Alumni who had good times at Columbia most likely remember several experiences: a particular professor or an exceptional class. These memories, rather than a single event after graduation, should dictate alumni donations. Donations are essential to the school’s continued operation; they go toward paying for school infrastructure, financial aid, guest lecturers, and University research in the arts and sciences, among many other services and support systems.
Columbia has often had difficulty soliciting funds. In the past, students have graduated and been disillusioned with the University. Others have fond memories of city that they do not immediately associate with the campus itself. The fractured life of Columbia’s community makes it difficult to build school spirit. Alumni should donate to the University with the hope of bridging the gap between a New York City college experience and a Columbia college experience.
Alumni should remember that their college experiences were also enhanced by donations from previous alumni. By supporting Columbia, alumni are nurturing an atmosphere in which students can expand their minds and think critically about free speech and academic freedom. The University’s decision to let Ahamedinejad speak allowed students a chance to do just that. Regardless of their personal opinions on the invitation, alumni should embrace the University’s culture that allows for students and faculty to voice their opinions and engage in scholarly debate. When alumni donate, they are enhancing the value of a Columbia education.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 7)
Post a Comment
bqgsfm xyeg dkez rudgbxz yrasfkz ptub qmcysw
this has to be one of the most pompous articles I have read in a long time. the idea that anyone owes something to this student is ridiculous. the alumnae are not required to do anything. they should support the university because it is worth supporting. when the middle east faculty become part of the problem in our country instead of part of the solution, and scholarship is brushed aside for political (and sometimes anti-Semitic) diatribe, the university is no longer a suitable place to send donations.
I agree with the previous reader who declined to donote. This is like politicians telling their supporters to always donote regardless of the politicians' own actions and decisions.
Enough is enough. Repeated mistakes by Columbia's leadership cannot be tolerated, let alone rewarded: ROTC, mishandling of Minutemen incident, Ahmadinejad invitation and then insults.
I reluctantly told the student who called me yesterday that I will not donate. I came to this decision two years ago, when President Bollinger, knowing that most students favored allowing ROTC on campus, said that he would leave the decision up to the University Senate. At the Senate, President Bollinger, instead of being a leader, was a meek follower, in voting against ROTC. To add insult to injury, he did this at the end of the school year, hoping that the news would get buried. To add even more insult to the situation, it seems free speech applies to leaders who seek our destruction, but ROTC students get the short end of the stick because of a law passed by the US Congress. How many congress people who voted for Don't Ask Don't Tell are boycotted by the University? I wouldn't have minded about Ahmadinejad if the University weren't so hypocritical in relation to ROTC. The purpose of the President is to be a leader, not to let the inmates (i.e. the far left) run the asylum.
Additionally, it is preposterous that the cost of tuition keeps going up more than inflation, even with higher endowments. I am not poor, but neither am I so rich that the tuitions I'll have to pay in 15-20 years can be funded by flying first class instead of charter. (I fly coach.) To hopefully cover future tuition, I set aside $700 per month per child. Am I really supposed to have extra left over to send to the University? Despite this last bit, I would actually still give some money if the ROTC issue would be fixed.
Having said all this, I am actually someone who would be inclined to donate, because I like Eric Furda (from my days interviewing applicants), and Zvi Galil (from my days as an undergraduate) – both of whom wrote recommendations for me to Columbia Business School. When Zvi left to Tel Aviv, I decided that until the University President becomes a leader regarding ROTC, and the inmates no longer run the asylum, I will send my Columbia donation to Tel Aviv in honor of Zvi. I am just as happy with a stranger at Tel Aviv benefiting from my donation as I am with a stranger at Columbia benefiting.
Mark G. SEAS’94 and MBA’00
Alumni are not "required" to understand anything about the University's actions. If Columbia has difficulty soliciting funds, it is often because the administration makes decisions of judgment that offend alumni. Yes, alumni funds help students. But money is fungible, and those same funds can be put to use (a) in cancer and stem-cell research, (b) for political advocacy groups for something that resonates with particular alumni and (d) for other, less privileged colleges and high schools that really need support because those kids won't get the same high-paying jobs to pay off student loans that Columbia students are able to get.
This is not about having a bad professor or two; this is about systemic abuse of the University's right of discretion. No one is saying that the University doesn't have the right to invite a controversial speaker who is a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist and a supporter of terrorist agencies that destabilize the world and result in the deaths of Americans. But, I don't have to pay for the admission ticket to this event. There are plenty of charities that deserve my support - Lincoln Center's art groups (the ballet, the philharmonic and the opera), for example, have minimal endowments; now, if the Met chooses to hire off-key singers or if the Philharmonic decides to play only Alban Berg or if NYCB decides to only dance Polka, then they will not get my money, even though they have the perfect right to run their companies the way they see fit.
No one is owed a private school education on the dime of someone else. There are plenty of public universities offering excellent teaching that are tax-funded, but perhaps don't have the amenities of Columbia. There is nothing so particular about Columbia, except for its elitist exclusivity, that would make a Columbia student a failure if he or she attended CUNY rather than the Ivy League. That a Columbia student is more deserving of charity than a destitute cancer patient is an obscene notion.
Giving to Columbia is largely based on a feeling of connection with the school - partly based on memories and benefit derived from going there and partly based on being proud of the direction of the institution. If the institution decides to veer off the path, don't expect alumni to be lemmings and follow.
As for the "free speech" and "academic freedom" arguments, the Editorial Board, even after a controversial week, don't seem to understand them. With great freedom comes great responsibility. No one is taking away the University's right to offer whatever forum it wants - free speech and academic freedom were not challenged last week and they were not in danger of extinction if Columbia had made a different decision; but don't expect unequivocable monetary support from alumni for bad decisions - after all, alumni still have the right of free speech, and one way of exercising that right is to say "no".
Think about Hamas - they have a wonderful network of schools and also charitable programs to help with the medical and social needs of impoverished people. They also directly engage in some of the worst terrorist acts in human history and have a curriculum of hatred and violence in their wonderful network of schools. Would you donate and hold your nose at their free speech choices? Let's say that the Ku Klux Klan had the same type of network in America - would you donate to it just because you are white, or would you donate to something like Katrina relief or the NAACP or the New York City Public Schools?
I agree with this...alums are hurting the students when they don't donate, they're not sticking it to the administration
Post new comment