• 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.