• RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    302
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’d be ok with anonymous donations if they were truly anonymous both publicly and to the management of the institution receiving the money.

    Maybe this is something that the government could facilitate - pool these resources, then help distribute them where they are needed. Almost like how taxes work.

    Maintains uncomfortable eye contact with the camera

  • Seraph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    257
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not a donation if they get to dictate what the organization does - it’s a bribe.

    • IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      There was a librarian who saved his whole life and when he passed donated I think 1 million dollars to his old university. That university then spent the money on a new score board for the football field. I bet if he saw that he would have wished he put some stipulations on his donation.

      • Hazmatastic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        2 months ago

        I have a similar line of thinking. I’m a musician, so if I was filthy rich I might want to donate money to a school’s music department. If the school is one fiscal entity, I would have to put that as a stipulation to ensure they gave the money to that department, not divert it to something overfunded or just padding the board’s pocket as bonuses for “a job well done”

      • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/15/494134464/-1-million-of-frugal-librarians-bequest-to-n-h-school-goes-to-football-scoreboar

        The only association between the librarian and the football program that was mentioned by the university was the observation that Morin had spent the past 15 months of his life in an assisted living center — and that there, “he started watching football games on television, mastering the rules and names of the players and teams.”

        Yeah that sounds like a load of bull from the administrators to justify an extravagant purchase 🙄

      • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That was such a weird story! On one hand, he has been a big supporter of the football program at the school and the scoreboard didn’t seem totally unreasonable. But as a former university librarian, the salary is generally under $60k for non-mangers, so saving that $1 million was an amazing feat of savings and the scoreboard seemed like a weird choice by the school.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Literally every donation to any organization anywhere comes with strings attached. Nobody just gives money blindly and says “Here, somebody else use this.”

      You drop money in the collection plate, it’s because you want your faith to be shared and your church to prosper. You drop your change in the box at the convenience store, it’s because you don’t want to be walking around with three pounds of garbage money jingling in your pockets like Santa’s nutsack. There’s always a motive for giving.

      • Instigate@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I donate regularly to a charity and don’t try to dictate how they spend that money, because I have faith that they’ll responsibly use my donations.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure, but not just generally “charity.” You pick and choose who you donste to, and you donate to charitable organizations that you think do good work. If they started smelting orphans, you’d probably stop writing checks.

          • Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            smelting orphans

            Haven’t heard that one before. Had a hearty chuckle.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            And so you should.

            Orphans should never be smelted: it’s far wiser to use them down at the mines or for chimney sweeping!

          • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think in the context of the OP, not all donations have strings attached in the sense of trying to exert control. Maybe smelting orphans is undesirable but for donations previously received there’s nothing the donor can do about that other. And picking and choosing who you donate to isn’t a form of exerting control either.

            Whereas large university donations do usually have agreements signed that could drastically change school policy. These are “donations” to exert control in some form or another

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Donations can’t be clawed back, but ongoing donations can be stopped. And you’re right that bigger donors exert more influence, and usually get something in return like naming rights for a building or changes to school policies. And that should be transparent, I don’t oppose requiring large donations be made public. My point was just that it’s always give and take. If the school changes the policy the big donor liked, they will shut off the money faucet. If the school does something most alumni don’t like, many of them will stop giving. Recipients of donations always want to keep donors happy, the difference is a matter of scale. How far are they willing to go to keep a donor happy depends on how big the donation is.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 months ago

        I gave someone from high-school I hadn’t spoken too in 15 years 2 grand so she didn’t get evicted from her apartment and end up homeless. Never told her. Sometimes people just do nice things bcz it’s the right thing to do.

        Nobody should be homeless over hospital bills.

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Removing these biases is the whole point of public funding for things. Everyone shares the same resources and people who have more wealth give more. The fact that major institutions that perform public functions rely on private donations is the problem.

    • Hannes@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      So someone donates money to their city’s library with the specific purpose that they can expand their building to have more space that’s a bribe?

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s the giving a public institution money only if they do a certain thing that can be compared to a bribe, the morality of said “thing” being irrelevant.

        I think it boils down to who has the power: if they start a collection for money to expand their building to have more space and you chose to participate then it’s not you dictating what they do with the money, as all you did was see a cause that you found worthy and contribute to it - the power was entirelly in their hands since they could’ve chosen to collect for a different purpose and you were just a passive agent - whilst if you give them money with the proviso that you get to dictate how it gets used, then the power is in your hands not theirs: the former is more akin to charity and the latter to bribing.

        That said, “bribe” is indeed an imperfect metaphor.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The question is; does this give the anonymous donor that ability? Being anonymous implies not.

      • Great Blue Heron@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m fairly certain it is only anonymous “on paper”. Behind closed doors, they know where it came from and what is expected in return.

          • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Perhaps if this was a legal document, but it’s screenshot of… a twitter post I guess. It might not even be real. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Simpsons did it!

    “Well, frankly, test scores like Larry’s would call for a very generous contribution. For example, a score of 400 would require a donation of new football uniforms, 300, a new dormitory, and in Larry’s case, we would need an international airport.”

  • twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Important additional context that didn’t make it into this tweet, this donation was explicitly directed toward promoting “free inquiry and expression” at UChicago. Decades ago that was a legit strength of UChicago that really was pretty ideologically neutral, and that history gives them a phenomenal tool for spinning dog whistles and ultra conservative policies as part of “the life of the mind.”

    Here’s the announcement email from the University’s president yesterday.

    Worth noting that Eman Abdelhadi is faculty at UChicago, speaking out against her own employer alongside hundreds of other faculty. Eman is particularly adept at making sure every time they use “free inquiry and expression” as a conservative dog whistle it gets thrown back in their faces. (She’s also just kind of a badass.)

    UChicago admin work very hard to promote this image of the school as a bastion for “sane conservatives” by taking stances diametrically opposed to the what the students and faculty actually stand behind. The real UChicago is anti-genocide, pro-union, and knows that promoting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating hate speech.

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I only have two words “Chicago Boys”. This shit has been going on there for a long time.

      • twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh 100% absolutely. I mean the gentrification of Hyde Park and Woodlawn with active, deliberate harm to the black community started at the University’s inception in 1898 (1895? 92? They keep changing the “established in” date on all their merch and propaganda, it’s hard to keep up) and continues to this day with no signs of slowing.

        I also should have specified that if we’re talking about student/faculty attitudes the “real” UChicago community does not or at least should include Booth and the psychopathic econ department. That’s where all the money comes from (because it’s evil) but everyone except admin hates them. Also I’m pretty sure they would argue “community” means communism and community of any kind should be abolished in favor of a social free market or some shit, whatever garbage they are peddling these days.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thanks for the context. I know this is a meme community but I wish some more context was posted a long with it.

    • Hannes@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      2 months ago

      Anonymous usually means that they don’t want their name to show up publicly.

      There’s almost certainly knowledge of who that money is coming from at least with a couple of persons that received the funds.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        More like they don’t want the wider public to know it was them that donated. Some folks that are extremely wealthy go to great lengths to keep their names out of people’s minds and stay out of the public eye as a matter of personal security.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The university knows who’s paying its bills and has agreed to keep it a secret.

      A truly anonymous donation should be double-blind to the donor AND recipient. If you don’t want credit, don’t expect influence either.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I don’t know what you mean by

        double-blind to the donor AND recipient

        But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The recipient doesn’t know the donor, and the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.

            I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Seriously if anyone can spend 100 million dollars and the IRS doesn’t know about it, we are doing something Terribly wrong.

              It will be claimed on their taxes im sure

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          He might mean a certain specific group within the university. Ie the donor can donate to the University as a whole, but not say a specific branch of economics.

  • memfree@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 months ago

    It sounds like the donor had requirements. From The Tribune:

    The University of Chicago has received a $100 million gift from an anonymous donor to support free expression, marking what may be the largest-ever single donation to support such values in higher education, the university announced Thursday.

    And:

    Discussions surrounding the donation have been ongoing for over a year, according to a university spokesperson.

    From https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2024/09/26/university-chicago-donation-free-speech-expression-forum :

    The gift was ridiculed by advocates involved in the encampment that highlighted abuses against Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas War and torn down by the university in the spring.

    “It’s truly a slap in the face,” said Yousseff Hasweh, a U of C grad who’s diploma was withheld by the university for two months, allegedly for his involvement in the protest.

    • logos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      And the home of the Chicago school of economics. It’s a little like worrying Fox News is gonna change it’s editorial bias because of a donation. That ship has sailed

    • psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah was gonna say the same. U of C has some pretty balls-out political and economic priorities

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Do you think the donation will somehow make the University of Chicago more conservative?

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just hold out the finger in the air for when there is a change in the intensity of propaganda

  • Hannes@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Should it? I get that political parties should report donors - but for nonprofits and other institutions I feel it’s not that necessary since they are directly investing that money in projects (that the donor may choose - but if that’s not the case then that investment isn’t happening) - for political parties and politicians it can be seen as a bribe as the things they invest in usually don’t have a direct return of investment.

    And there should be rules and regulations making sure that that donation is not ending up in some kind of contract for the company of the donor but that whatever that investment is funding has a transparent process

    Where do we draw the line? Should donors to libraries be made public even if that person wants to remain anonymous but fund an expansion? Should donors to non-profits be made public?

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Agree in general. Ez fix: strings attached that it’s anonymous and unattached. A third party manages the exchange, and everyone is under oath. A step in the right direction at least

    • Entheon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s only anonymous to the public. I imagine the donor and the university are in frequent direct contact.

        • Entheon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Have you never donated to a “charitable” cause before? You can usually talk to them and ask to not have your name released. There’s no legal requirement for name disclosure so it’s up to the institution’s policy.

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, I’ve donated plenty, and typically anonymously, since I’m not trying to use others to advance a personal agenda.

            Non-disclosure would be something quite different from anonymity.

    • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Is it hard to conceive of agreeing to something behind closed doors and donating anonymously to hide the tracks?

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      “i’ll give you 100 million dollars on the condition that $X of it be spent on ______” is how it’s exerting influence

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        But if it’s actually anonymous, how is that communicated?

        Edit: mad that you got no answer, eh?

        • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Letter, fax, pager, smoke signal, Morse code, tin cans with string, eye blinking code, using the first letter of each word in a New York times obituary, carrier pigeon, skywriting… hmm… wait couldn’t they just say it out loud to each other? In person?

            • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re bring an astounding level of naivety to the discussion, it should be a demonstration of how people that refuse to think can be led like sheep.

              • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                2 months ago

                Hard to take anything seriously from someone whose vast majority of comments are on pornography. Did you forget to switch accounts?

                • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  What precisely does any of my post history have to do with you not understanding even the simplest concept of how corruption works? Does everyone speak honestly, confess their sins and never look at porn in your idyllic world? You’re getting angry on the internet, maybe it’s time to let your carer take the computer back?

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          lol there is one person in this whole thread who’s getting mad, but it’s not me

          and yes, as someone else said, it’s no big deal for someone to contact the business office of an institution and offer money on the condition of anonymity and other conditions. and the business people say okay, forms are filled out and signed, and money is transferred. they want to be anonymous because they don’t want all the other institutions calling them asking for money too. and/or they don’t want the world to know they’re the ones influencing the school’s spending

          no one wants donors to be able to influence whoever they’re donating to. but that’s how reality works

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, Coldcell is having a real hissy fit.

            If the identity is known, it’s not anonymous, it’s undisclosed. That would be an entirely different thing.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Are you really that braindead? An anonymous donation can mean the donor requested their name not be made public, it doesn’t necessarily stop the University from knowing where the money came from.

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then it’s not anonymous, it’s undisclosed. Do you not understand what “anonymous” means?

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re the only person here failing to comprehend some very basic english.

              • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Sure, Jan.

                My only mistake was not assuming that the school was lying.

                The definitions of the terms being used are quite clear.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It sounds like the university called it “anonymous donor” for PR reasons whilst it is in fact “undisclosed donor”.

          Your point only makes sense if indeed the donor was genuinelly anonymous (I.e. even the University had no idea who they were) rather than merely described as anonymous by the University for the purpose of divulging it to the outside world.