Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
So I guess you don't believe in private property rights.
These records are still the property of the donor, and the donor has the right to do whatever he wants with them.
When he transfers ownership to the University, then it's up to the University to decide.
If the University seems to be bending over backwards to please the donor, well, that's just common sense, when you want more donations, you don't want a story going around that a donor is sorry he donated to the University. That could inhibit future donations.
|
No and incorrect. If a donation is given to a university, whether for the establishment of a foundation or as a gift in general, the university has complete control of said gift and the foundation.
If the gift for the foundation is a lump sum rather than a gift over the years (the latter is usually the case to ensure that the foundation does indeed follow the original intent of the gift), I can see the university
trying to claim that they have no ownership if they are afraid the rest of the gift will not be forthcoming (often phone calls with implied threats work).
Either way, the monies are the property of the university. Any promises of future monies are not, of course.
So, I am assuming that the foundation did not get $50 million in a lump sum from this benefactor, rather the $50 million is a gift doled out over the years (typical type of large gift to universities).
The university owns the monies already transferred and owns the foundation. Now that the university is trying to feed the public a bullcrap line of ownership, one must wonder what put fear in the hearts of the foundation?
Although I can reconcile many things about both candidates which have been discussed, Ayers is not one of them. Not by a long shot. I, for one, need more information on this. And, knowing what I know about academia, I am even more suspicious with the foundation's dillydallying around with disclosure.
This is not winning points with me.