(Host)
Hinesburg writer and commentator, Bill Schubart, has been thinking
about philanthropy, specifically who should benefit from major gifts –
the donor or the recipient, and how this question applies to the future
of our colleges and universities.
(Schubart) I’m not sure when
the term "edifice complex" was coined. I first heard it applied
editorially to New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s building spree in
Albany followed by the erection of the Twin Towers in New York City. The
term implies an unhealthy obsession with building buildings or
"edifices" when the question of "for whom and to what purpose?" isn’t
clear.
The great embarrassment of the Twin Towers was how long
they remained empty until finally Governor Rockefeller coerced NY State
agencies to pay out lower cost office leases and move their agencies
into the more expensive Towers to avoid further political embarrassment.
The real question here is NOT who is giving what to whom, BUT RATHER who benefits from the gift – the donor or the recipient?
I
remember years ago a difficult discussion with a wealthy individual,
anxious to leave a big-fish legacy to the small-pond Vermont town in
which he lived. He acquired, restored and gave to his town an historic
building. It was a generous gift, but sadly one the Town could ill
afford to maintain. The donor never asked the town what it needed and
simply chose his legacy gift.
The key question of whether a gift
benefits the giver or the recipient is especially relevant as we
confront challenges facing higher education. The competitive building
race at many colleges and universities, often reflecting donor
priorities rather than institutional ones, is a significant driver in
rising tuition costs. The increased costs to heat, light, clean, insure
and maintain donated buildings are not part of the gift. Colleges
motivated by market economics rather than educational mission poll
students about what they want rather than assuming the educator’s mantel
and applying limited resources solely towards educational excellence.
The
challenge of college Presidents today is to re-prioritize and
articulate the future educational needs of their institutions. If, as
most education theorists maintain, true learning occurs between great
teachers and motivated students, the philanthropic priority shifts to
international networks of scholars & researchers, digital libraries,
and less fixed-residency learning. And if this occurs, will the
profusion of donor-named student centers, libraries, dorms, garages,
sports arenas may simply become so many donor mausoleums.
Philanthropists
have a major role in the well being of our institutions. Our
architectural and cultural history is enriched by their largesse. In
real giving, however, the priority must be the recipient’s need, not the
donor’s immortality angst. As the needs of higher ed. move from campus
infrastructure to funding great educators, leaders must educate donors
to their changing needs. When a college president is approached by a
donor with a plan for his own memorial, I hope he or she will have the
courage to clarify their needs and decline the kind of gift that keeps
on taking.