How donors large and small can bring about change in woke higher education

opinion

by Christy Herrera

Can philanthropists improve higher education?

I've asked this question to more than 100 major donors over the past few months, ranging from conservatives to moderates to several on the center left.

Most have made seven- to nine-figure gifts to their universities, but even after the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned, many declined to make further donations.

While it is wise to abandon some giving strategies, I urge donors to adopt more effective and more proactive strategies to advance values ​​and secure the reforms that higher education so desperately needs. I have recommended that you take a more approachable approach.

This is something that donors of all sizes can do, whether their gift is $100 million or $100.

Donors are rightfully furious.

Even before higher education institutions' largely anti-Semitic response to the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, many philanthropists were retreating.

A February report from the Educational Advancement and Support Council found that donations decreased by more than $1 billion from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2023, with the largest drop coming from individual alumni.

Donors across the ideological spectrum are concerned about the decline of free speech and academic rigor and the rise of a monoculture of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The campus response to October 7th deepened these concerns and created a new group of disappointed donors. My advice to all donors is to turn that frustration into her three concrete strategies.

Look beyond your alma mater.

Unless your school is one of the few that still excel, the days of nostalgia should be over.

This may be the most painful message for philanthropists, especially those who attended Ivy League and other prestigious institutions.

Instead, funding should go to schools with more principled leaders and schools with a demonstrated commitment to ideals like free speech and intellectual diversity.

Donors should look to institutions like the University of Florida, which hired former Sen. Ben Sasse as president last year. (This is from a Florida State University graduate.)

Other schools, like the University of North Carolina System, are also starting to eliminate DEI. While there are free speech stalwarts like the University of Chicago, UT Austin President Pano Canellos and the donors who helped found UATX are proving it's possible to start from scratch.

There are also many smaller religious and liberal arts schools that provide excellent education, such as Hillsdale College.

This list is not exhaustive.

To increase competition, choosing a different school may be the best way to change your alma mater.

Even if Harvard lost $1 billion in alumni donations, it wouldn't necessarily have to change.

Harvard would get even hotter if those alumni loudly donated their billions to other schools.

Fund individuals and ideas, not buildings.

Having your name on the doorstep and getting top billing at commencement ceremonies and other events is certainly appealing.

However, these donations typically do not change the culture of the university.

Also, unrestricted gifts for things like administrative expenses, which have few restrictions on how schools spend their money, are not allowed.

They often pay for things that donors despise, such as DEI bureaucracy.

A better approach is to support specific scholars and academic centers that directly align with the donor's values.

It is much more difficult for universities to access this funding, as evidenced by Robert P. George at Princeton University, his James Madison Program, the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin (and others). (among many other examples), this approach could have far-reaching implications.

If a donor is giving $1 million to a building or athletic program, they should at least require the university to take principled action, such as signing the Chicago Statement on Free Speech, before accepting the gift. .

Advocate for reform from the outside.

When a donor makes a large gift from a university, the result is a short news cycle.

When donors direct their funds to advocacy groups that criticize universities for their failures, the result is continued pressure.

As with many free speech groups, some groups are well-known and others are less prominent.

Philanthropists can also set up or fund independent school-specific organizations.

The goal should not simply be to displace leaders in the short term.

To demand real change in the long term, we need to foster opposition on and off campus.

That's what donors want, a major renewal of the universities they love and America needs.

People across the ideological spectrum share this vision, and those on the centrist and center-left are the most upset, having just realized how broken most universities are.

Over the past few months, an unprecedented number of donors have woken up.

Now is the time to transform our system, not just by withdrawing our endowments, but by giving in ways that make higher education worthy of its name.

Christy Herrera is President and CEO of the Philanthropy Roundtable.