<p>Heard this on the radio this morning. I remember when this story started, a couple years ago, and FSU was reworkjng the contract. FSU is on our list, but this, and the way John Thrasher seems to be sliding into the position of college president troubles me, and make me wonder about how politically controlled/motivated the school is...and how that compares to other universities.<br>
Is this sort of thing pretty much going on at most colleges?!</p>
<p>^^ It is actually standard operating practice that a high-end donor can make part of the deal to call the shots on how his money is spent. </p>
<p>If a donor gives money for a particular building, colleges typically cannot go and build something else completely opposite. Additionally, donors can request their money be spent for specific types of research: green, carbon-based, solar etc. </p>
<p>And finally, the donor is giving money to support something he supports. It would be rather strange for a donor to agree to support something he does not believe in, including a professor who may be against what the donor does, as a business or in politics. No one is dumb enough to pay to fight against himself. Even the person donating one dollar does not do that.</p>
<p>The question that needs to be asked of people expecting the reverse is this: does anyone think the Bill Gates Foundation gives money to programs and people it does not believe in or that work opposite to their philosophical beliefs? Well, of course not. </p>
<p>The Kochs donate to everybody and if you tried to avoid going to someplace that has accepted Koch money, you’d be avoiding an awful lot of things.</p>
<p>A small list of things they have donated to:</p>
<p>Brown
Mount Holyoke
Sarah Lawrence
UNLV
Kansas State
Wisconsin- Madison
Vassar
MIT
245 other colleges and universities
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
New York Presbyterian
PBS Nova
Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
American Museum of Natural History
New York State Theater
New York City Ballet
New York City Opera
Duck Unlimited</p>
<p>The amount of energy required to try and avoid donors and people who back various things is probably one of the biggest negative return activities you can actually do, short of burning money.</p>
<p>For me, it personally gets downright hilarious. I have had people disagree with my position on something, and they say they could never support what I believe in, which is cool because that is their right; just as it my right not to support what they believe in. </p>
<p>However, I cannot tell you the amount of times I have heard this over 25 years, and the person is literally waving a product my company developed in my face, while saying they will not support me. It is a hoot, and I never tell them. I just compliment the product they have. So much for not supporting what you disagree with. Unless it is really public, it is pretty much impossible to do.</p>
<p>I will say though there are definitely a list of companies, which I will not do business with because we differ on certain fundamental issues, and I see no logic in giving money to a party to have that money used to push back against my beliefs. So, I do understand if the OP has a thing about the Koch Brothers, but those guys, outside of politics, are probably one of the biggest equal opportunity givers to many institutions. Trying to avoid their money is like trying to avoid stop signs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Kochs are libertarian, not conservative. And when have colleges complained about a liberal political group having too much influence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kudos to you - 99% of people do not know this fact. </p>
<p>I do understand that most places will receive donations, from a variety of sources.
The issue, as I see it, is more the contract that seems to allow the donor (in this case the Koch brothers) to have a major say in who is hired and how courses might be taught.<br>
Certainly donors for buildings and facilities might have say in how those are designed, but to influence hiring and curriculum is another matter.<br>
That, coupled with the apparent interest in John Thrasher as president, makes me wonder about how imbedded politics is in the university. Politics is everywhere, but this seems to be more involved than I thought was typical…but then that is part of my question. Just how typical is it?</p>
<p>^^ Very typical. </p>
<p>Lots of money goes to the endowment of professorships, and it is the endowments that pay high-end salaries; pretty much the same as giving a small building. </p>
<p>Of course then the donor should have a say. Why should a donor bankroll professors they may have major ideological disagreements with? Would make little sense. People expect their money to work in their favor, not against. If a school does not like those rules, then best not to take those people’s money.</p>
<p>Think of it this way - how much money do you think Mark Zuckerberg would give Harvard if Harvard was actively, in some way, not supporting his view on immigration policy? Like, none. It is the biggest deal to him, and he should expect his money to work toward that end if he donates it. He would be nuts to do otherwise.</p>
<p>I still don’t see what the problem is. The Kochs aren’t forcing the school to take their money. If the school doesn’t like the terms, it is free to say NO.</p>
<p>^^ I think the OP is just surprised that donations are not free money, which the word implies. Donations come with a price, just like anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s NOT typical for a university to grant a veto power over hiring to an outside committee. If Charles and David are so insecure about how their donation will be spent, let them put the restrictions in writing. Better yet, let them serve as trustees.</p>
<p>
I guess that IS the problem…should they have said “No.”? Would most schools say no to the same arrangement, or should they? I assume that this is making news because there is something about it that is not standard, but I also realize that sometimes news stories just focus on the latest, or just one example.<br>
This issue, at FSU, was first brought to light a few years ago, and changes were made, but we are just learning what those changes were, which begs the question…Why are we just learning of the details?
If a college is allowing outside influences to make policy (on hiring/curriculum, etc), I suppose that is their option, but I’d want the to be up front about it and have a clear understanding of the agenda that is being supported, and to what extent that would affect what the students are learning. </p>
<p>@circuitrider Best to stick to the subject. </p>
<p>Again, it is typical for donors to have say on how their money is sent. You are quibbling over the process of how that say is implemented, which could be done a multitude of ways. </p>
<p>I do find it interesting you blame and are angry at the Koch Brothers.</p>
<p>How about this novel approach of responsibility? If the university did not like that provision or any other provisions, you should be angry at the dumb administrations who signed a document they disagreed with. Now that is downright stupid. There is no wonder they beg for money, as they are not smart enough to make it if they are signing documents they do not agree with. I would not announce to the world that you actually support such idiocy. Some things are better left private.</p>
<p>I wonder what made the university sign the agreement - the Koch Brothers who must of had a gun to their heads or were the administrators money hungry? Hum… I wonder which is operative in this case. 
</p>
<p>@awcntdb
This country wad founded by people who “quibbled” over process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for looking at the situation in terms of whom is responsible. </p>
<p>Of course, most schools would sign if the donation is big enough. But guess what? FSU is a public university; we have no idea what any of the PRIVATE universities, PRIVATE organizations and charities have signed. It is easy to get up in arms about FSU, which has to make its documents public. </p>
<p>For all we know, this could easily be SOP for many large donors, not just the Koch Brothers, but most of those are private documents. Do not ask me how I know that. 
</p>
<p>Additionally, I do find it interesting there is one document about a set of Brothers demonized in the press. It would be absolutely funny if someone digs up similar provisions demanded by liberal donors. I would bet a pretty good sum that such agreements exist right at FSU itself and in many other places. </p>
<p>it is rather simple - any school that disagrees with the conditions of accepting money should say no to the money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And to you that means this situation is analogous? </p>
<p>OK, last time I checked, the Founders were not taking other people’s money to develop and run the country.</p>
<p>You really need to spend your energy by talking to the absolutely stupid university administrators. They are dumb as posts to sign something they did not agree with.</p>
<p>I would add something else to the mix - it is entirely possible the university admins who signed the documents fully agreed with the provisions. It is just the demonization of the Koch Brothers makes the money now seem tainted. Pretty similar to Donald Sterling money at, I believe, UC and the NAACP. Those groups had no issue taking his money before his private comments became public. </p>
<p>@awcntdb, I am not certain if you are addressing me or another poster when you mention the blame of and anger at the koch brothers. I don’t think I expressed either of those things. If I would consider there to be any blame…it would be directed at the school administration for accepting a deal that may give too much control to an outside source and not being forthcoming about it. That is actually what prompted my original post. FSU has been on our possible colleges list, and this issue makes me wonder what type of institution it is, how it is run, etc.
It makes sense for outside interests to try to influence policy. But I feel that is is important for Universities to either avoid that outside influence or, be transparent about it.
The process can make a great deal of difference.</p>
<p>^^ The other poster, most definitely. You strike me, as sincerely looking into and questioning the issue.</p>
<p>@awcntdb
</p>
<p>Last time I checked the Founders were running the country with slave labor. So, I suppose one could argue that running it on private philantropy (no matter what strings are attached) is a step up from that.
</p>
<p>I thought that was the OP’s point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that is the issue - there is more than one process and more than way to make things work. You can never control or be ahead of it, lest you shut it down.</p>
<p>This kind of story alone has changed the way big donors are operating. Who needs this public demonization potential? No one really. </p>
<p>So, money is starting to come attached with some serious confidentiality agreements and NDAs from donors. This is making it more secretive, not more open. </p>
<p>It is easy it make it a condition of the money that the agreement and provisions are confidential and are never to be made public. And if made public by the private university or other, then the money must be returned.</p>
<p>Donations are goodwill - it would be silly to think that people are going to voluntarily make themselves public targets to be demonized, while trying to do good.</p>
<p>The Koch Brothers are unique for big-time donors because they do not give into bullies, which is great. Most donors are really serious wimps and good public image whores and they admit that, no problem, in private. </p>