<p>Dorian_Mode, thanks for that. It was pretty funny.</p>
<p>As to the situation at hand - I can completely understand why people would be annoyed that the girl refused to donate. Had I been in the position of her fellow classmates, I probably would have been annoyed as well. However, I think that what the school did was uncalled for. They had to know that after released her name for students to harass her, she would be even less likely to donate money. This was a purely petty move on the part of the school.</p>
<p>To the people who are calling what happened “despicable,” “unethical,” “crazy,” “petty”… I don’t think the info posted has painted a very clear picture of what actually occurred. I’ll break it down.</p>
<p>It was a 1 dollar donation that the individual refused at Dartmouth. I don’t think the paper published her picture etc., let alone to out her or anything like that. It’s a school paper, not a tabloid. I mean, the individual’s name spread pretty quickly because it leaked via some undergrads involved in soliciting the donations or something like that, and yeah Dartmouth is pretty small so things get around. To blame it on the “school”… would be imprecise, to the say the least, perhaps part of the student body.</p>
<p>I think the paper did publish an explanation from the individual or something like that, but I’m pretty sure that was a voluntary submission to the paper from the individual. </p>
<p>It was a dollar for I believe 100,000 from the alums. She had personal reasons, yes, against the school, or her experience there, but still… that’s a lot of money that could go towards making someone else’s education possible. Unethical that her name was somehow leaked? I guess. But the controversy/reaction was the natural response, and I feel the same thing would happen pretty much anywhere. We are a community. <em>Everyone</em> else donated. I know sexual assault victims that did… People that were subjected to discrimination of all kinds… The poor… the wealthy… and everyone in between.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the alums decided to still match. The individuals protest will not be remembered - it was just unnecessary controversy. I have no sympathy - the individual stuck her head out, what did she expect was going to happen? Her protest was, at its heart, an attack on an institution/a community. It’s very easy for an outsider to criticize the undergraduate body for its actions.</p>
<p>Could it not be argued that it is also unethical for those alums to essentially hold students hostage and guilt them into donating lest they wish to deprive the school of more money? It’s not as if the alums didn’t have the money, they obviously did or else they wouldn’t have proposed such a deal. Instead of just donating it, they decided to set up an arbitrary condition whereby every senior had to donate, regardless of their own convictions toward donating to the school. </p>
<p>It would be like me winning the lottery and then going to a struggling charity and saying “I’ll give you 2/3 of the money, but only if the bum over on that corner donates a dollar.” And then not donating that money, even though I full well could, if the bum doesn’t donate. Never mind that the guy did not CHOOSE to be part of this game, or that he may not be able to afford it, or that he simply does not care to, the onus has now been placed on him to ensure my donation and the survival of this charity. Even though I could just give them the money anyway and not be a child about it.</p>
<p>I agree with Drelnis. Instead of convincing her to donate, they chose to drag her name through the mud and now she’ll likely never donate even if she becomes a millionaire.</p>
<p>“Could it not be argued that it is also unethical for those alums to essentially hold students hostage and guilt them into donating lest they wish to deprive the school of more money?”</p>
<p>Haha. I don’t think that was the intention, and I don’t think you are aware of the situation. An arbitrary decision? By definition, maybe. But ultimately, it was a decision to encourage solidarity. It was a class thing (and by that I mean a specific year of alums were donating). The alums were all already donating, but offered to double their donation if everyone in the class of 2010 donated as well.</p>
<p>In looking at our kids’ secondary private school and Cornell’s financials, we know our tuition doesn’t cover full cost of education, and we are full pay. A lot of generous donation has made it possible for many more students to attend. It is not just one alum’s job to be so generous, it is collectively the community responsibility to pay forward or pay back. </p>
<p>D1 got an excellent education from her private high school. Her senior class was asked to pledge min $10 each year after gradudation. I am sure many of them would give more later on, but in asking for $10 donation is to teach them (if that’s the right word) that they now have responsibility to give back to younger generation. In the last few years of economic down turn, there were quite a few families in the school who could no longer afford the tuition. The community got together to raise additional money in order to keep those students in school. Many teachers at the school (not the highest earners) were very generous with their donations.</p>
<p>I think it is good to instill in graduating seniors that it is good to give back, and not take their education for granted. It is not always someone else’s responsibility to give.</p>
<p>I see your point oldfort. However, I think I would rather donate to some sort of cause that works to improve public schools throughout the nation (or at the very least, my city/county/state).</p>
<p>oldfort, I get what you’re trying to say… but I place a lot of blame on the donaters. If they had the money to donate, then why not just donate rather than making it mandatory for EVERYONE to donate in order for them to give it? I think the people who pledged to donate were in the wrong here.</p>
<p>The donaters are trying to foster a sense of community with the graduating class and to show them that they all have a certain responsibility to the community. It is no different than what my kids’ private high school did. One of the benefits in going to a tight knit school is a sense of community, and that’ll really come in handy in job search or doing business someday.</p>
<p>I don’t think we have to just give to one charity.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the article, so if they disclosed non-donors publicly, I am not in agreement. I understand perfectly well why the donaters asked all seniors to give (everyone could come up with few $).</p>
<p>Public humiliation of a particular individual is an exceptionally ill-considered and socially malignant method of lamenting the shortfall. In addition to publishing the name and photograph of the individual who failed to “donate,” perhaps the most irritating comment was “Arnold Tungsten’s” abrasive and absurdly ignorant remark, “You’re not even worth the one measly dollar that you wouldn’t give.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The actions of a select few to propagate humiliation are indefensible. An overall unpleasant experience, domineering solicitation, clear inability, and basic decision are perfectly valid reasons not to contribute. Thrusting guilt or additional forms of coercion on students to donate (in Dartmouth’s case, lest the forfeiture of an alumni gift) is not an honorable maneuver either, especially when it pertains to a convention fundamentally based on choice. Moreover, the negative publicity shifted towards the institution itself is entirely advisable in the sense of potentially stimulating critical re-evaluations of these misguided “donation” policies in order to preclude future malicious gossip and individual derogation.</p>
<p>In Dartmouth’s case, it would be quite the irony if DeLorenzo received a defamation settlement that entirely dwarfed the cumulative sum collected from the alumni contributions and the “donated” amount from the Class of 2010.</p>
<p>They could’ve specified 99% or something to foster the sense of community. But 100%, there’s always going to be some special circumstances and they should’ve predicted that those few kids would be bullied, which does the opposite of foster a sense of community.</p>
<p>I agree with DCHurricane, romanigypsyeyes and MisterK. The fact that this happened over the amount of $1 dollar tells me that this girl was trying to make a point.</p>
<p>The alumni’s offer had strings attached, that isn’t a gift. Their strings involved someone who had absolutely no say in what they were doing. Give the money or don’t, but don’t put conditions like this on it. It’s OK to give money with conditions about how the recipient uses the money but it is not OK to say you’ll give money if this person you never even consulted does something. It isn’t fair to that person.</p>
<p>When I was her age I wish I had had the guts to do something like this, but I know I wouldn’t have, I would have caved.</p>
<p>When she’s applying to grad school, and her name gets googled, and these stories pop up, I doubt that the admissions officer at the next school will think her actions were heroic.</p>
<p>Why on Earth would anyone think that FORCING everyone to give money would encourage community? It does just the opposite. It turns people into piranhas.</p>
<p>Which is exactly why this should have never happened. </p>
<p>Any lawyers on here know if the student whose name got published has a right to sue for libel or anything? I am not for suing over petty things, but something like this where the school publishes a newspaper essentially attacking one of its own students makes me think that there has to be SOMETHING that this student can do. </p>
<p>It is not a “donation” if not freely given. Gentle persuasion, yes – force, threats, intimidation, efforts to embarrass – totally inappropriate. </p>
<p>One of my kids essentially worked his way through college and earned money in the interim working to solicit donations for various causes. But I’m sure he was polite and graciously accepted “no” for an answer. In fact – I once questioned him because he would typically ask for very large donations – I thought that asking for $200 was pretty big, people would be more willing to donate $20 or $30. He said his rational was that if he asked each person for $20, then he would have to convince 10 people to give in order to raise $200 … but that if he asked for $200, then he would raise the same amount of money if only 1 out of 10 gave – and of course, once he asked for $200, it was easier to convince someone to give $50. </p>
<p>I’m mentioning this to point out how ridiculous it is to embarrass one or a handful of people with the argument that they could have easily given $1 – yes, they could, but the fundraisers would do much better to leave them alone and ask for $10 or $100 more from those who are receptive to giving donations. Rather than setting a goal of “100%” participation, they easily could set a specific dollar goal - and of course use the time-honored strategy of offering special recognition to larger donors. </p>
<p>It’s not just a matter of financial ability to donate – it’s also that people do have the right to choose their own charities. Yes, the money is going to a good cause – but other good causes abound.</p>
<p>While the points raised here are valid … there’s a lot of misconstruing what went on at Dartmouth last spring. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, the student who did not donate is enrolled in grad school studying physics (if i remember the subject correctly). If you really wanted to know, it’s pretty easy to figure out a) who she is and b) where is now (use google).</p>
<p>The idea wasn’t to raise the most money from the class of 2010. It was to have every student give back in some way, to help a future student experience Dartmouth, and improve their experiences. The Senior Class Gift goes towards scholarships for future students.</p>
<p>The school’s newspapers only published a statement from the holdout herself, from what I remember, and editorials on either side. </p>
<p>You can’t hold a blog to blame for running the comments she sent them along with a photo. </p>
<p>She had her reasons for not donating, and I think it’s okay for her not to donate. Rather, the context of most of the articles about her decision are really arguments against the points she makes criticizing Dartmouth and Dartmouth’s culture. Please read the actual articles and talk to people who were actually here last spring, instead of reading a summary article by an uninvolved party.</p>