Ethics Corner

This is an online resource for ethical questions and answers as they relate to fundraising and planned giving. The NCGPC posts real questions from real people and Doug White answers them. All identities, both of people and places, are kept confidential.

Autonomy and Donor Control

Submitted December 15, 2023

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCGPC.

Q

After the recent news of the free-speech controversy on college campuses, in particular as it relates to the Israel-Hamas war, our development office is concerned about some of our more vocal donors expressing their dissatisfaction with the way we have dealt with issues of civic importance. We’re a relatively small college and have supported free speech in our public statements, but, as we have seen, campuses don’t always get it right — at least to everyone’s satisfaction. One person has threatened to de-name us in his charitable remainder unitrust. (We are named as a revocable remainderman.) We, of course, don’t want to lose donations over controversies that, in theory, have nothing to do with our educational mission, but we also want to be sure we protect our free speech values. What can we say to our donors?

A

Your question highlights the “dilemma” part of “ethical dilemma.” First, let’s define dilemma this way: “a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more choices, especially equally undesirable ones;” or “a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable.”

It might seem that the choice is clear: You support either students who are upset about calls that amount, in their view, to antisemitism, or those who fervently believe Israel has acted unjustly to the Palestinians for decades. Both sides have a legitimate claim to their beliefs, but in the process of voicing those beliefs, tensions rise so high that civil discourse breaks down. Where, in the ensuing chaos, do we find room for free speech, the idea that is so elusive on campuses these days? Within that, there is no clear choice.

One thing, for me, is certain (although I understand that it’s not certain to everyone): the three presidents who testified before Congress in early December are not deficient in either intellect or compassion. That — my certainty on this point — is important to note because I use it to grapple with a question that follows: How to respond to donors who don’t have my faith in the integrity of the presidents who described, with excruciating and, some would say, frustrating nuance their dilemmas relating to the charges of antisemitism.

Here are two reactions, from highly regarded thought leaders, that followed the hearing, one in support of the donors who criticized the presidents, the other who criticized the donors:

“Without donor pressure, the intellectual and moral rot of elite academic institutions wouldn’t have received the attention it urgently deserved.”

“To use their power as major donors to force or seek the ouster of these presidents is almost as repugnant as the failures of these presidents to unambiguously condemn calls for genocide. It endangers the autonomy of America’s universities.”

We’re not here to debate how best to permit free speech or whether elite academic institutions are filled with moral rot, but we are here to ask this: Knowing that divisions can run deep and emotions can be intense, what should your leadership be prepared to do when a controversy arises?

I’d recommend that you develop policies outlining how you deal with outspoken or problematic donors. We all know philanthropic support is essential to the success of a public charity, but you must decide — as each charity must —whether to alter your programs or even your goals to acquiesce to a donor’s demands or to do your best to explain your values and how, controversial as they may be, some decisions are not going to be subject to those demands, regardless of the size of past or potential support.

In your scenario — to put the question tangibly — are you willing to forego your remainderman status in the unitrust? Or not? You will answer that kind of question in the future by preparing now.

If you have a question, please feel free to contact Doug White at dwhitepg@gmail.com. While all issues discussed are real, identities are kept confidential.

Send us a Comment

Doug WhiteDoug's Bio

Doug White, a long-time leader and scholar in the nation's philanthropic community, is an author and an advisor to nonprofit organizations and philanthropists. He serves as the Co-Chair of the Walter Cronkite Committee at FoolProof, and as a board member of the Secular Coalition of America. He is the former Director of Columbia University's Master of Science in Fundraising Management program, where he also taught board governance, ethics and fundraising. Prior to that, he was a lecturer at and the academic director of New York University's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising.

Doug has published five books. His most recent, "Wounded Charity" (Paragon House, 2019), analyzes the allegations of mismanagement made in January 2016 against Wounded Warrior Project. Kate Bahen, the managing director of Charity Intelligence Canada, wrote, "An epic whodunnit. A sweeping sector perspective. A gripping read for everyone interested in the charity sector. The facts behind the news headlines leaves one reeling. How could this happen? Using the dramatic case of Wounded Warrior Project, Doug White addresses the key forces shaping today's charity sector. From his unique perch, he generously shares his insights and those of the sector's thought leaders. Doug White's books should be required reading for charity directors, journalists, staff and donors alike."

Ethics compass graphic

Ethics Corner Archive

Click to view

Why Should You Read Ethics Corner posts?

The primary objective is to establish and grow an ethics-based dialogue about important issues facing gift planners and other fundraisers at charities today.

Doug, a teacher of ethics and philanthropy at Columbia University, states that, "Based on the queries I receive, it is clear that those who have worked in this field, even those who have served charities for many years, have too few places to go to discuss issues that are not covered by legislation or the IRS. This site is meant to address that need."

Submit a Question

We encourage readers to submit a question to Doug at dwhitepg@gmail.com.

Comments

As ethical decision-making is more of a journey than a destination, we encourage readers' comments. Post your thoughts and reactions to our Linkedin Page.