^ that apparently follows an anonymous $100 million gift? Interesting that neither one wants their name on a plaque or whatever 
@OHMomof2 Yes, pretty humble gift giver(s). I’d like to invite them to my next birthday party <:-P
There also was a previous anonymous gift of $100 million in 2009. Some wealthy people want their donation to speak for itself rather than themselves. If something is worthwhile supporting, no personal credit is necessary. I think it shows a certain sense of humility, private gratitude, and self-awareness. Perhaps even noblesse oblige in some cases. Donating in the memory of a loved one or a revered faculty member also is worthy, but somehow donating that type of sum for one’s own name seems a little crass and self-aggrandizing. Something that a person currently in high position in our country would do-except he would do it with other peoples’ money.
I always was impressed by Warren Buffett’s pledge to donate 90% of his wealth to the Gates Foundation rather than set up his own foundation. Several medical schools recently have been renamed for big donors (e.g., Geffen, Icahn, and Perelman). While the donors’ support for a worthy cause are laudable and generous, and one may never know whether their motives were purely altruistic, they do strike me as reminescent of the philanthropy of the robber barons of the 19th century who founded Vanderbilt and Rockefeller Universities. Self aggrandizement, atonement, buying a good name to gain entry into proper society? In contrast, Johns Hopkins and Smith College were founded by behests, and Stanford was founded in memory of Leland and Jane Stanford’s son who died in childhood. However, these donations occurred in a bygone era. Amherst College is named after the town of Amherst which was named after Lord Jefferey Amherst, but that is another story…
gives $50 million dollar gift
new dorm gets named after him
Not so secret…