Lower Achievement Jump

It is amazing that a debate about philanthropy so readily jumps to minorities, at least those of Hispanic or African heritage, being less able to meet the standards of “ivy” institutions. Typical.

As a professional in the field of development and donor cultivation, I have spent the better part of 15 years working with donors and non-profit agencies seeking support. What amazes me about this conversation is the assumption and slow building agreement that if minority students were prepared academically, these issues would be solved. The issue is not that simple.

When my standardized test scores reflected my ability to perform well in the late 80’s, I was recruited by many colleges. My scores were higher than most white and blacks students statistically, but there were additional issues that plagued my undergraduate experience. Financially, money did not fall out of the sky, irregardless of what academics, test scores and years of private education had proved. Many like me, were and are fully capable of competing in that environment.

Purdue University served as a great learning experience, but the classroom was but a 10th of what I came to understand. Generations of alumni, wealth, conversations at the pool/golf course, etc., indeed impact the network of what happens in institutions of learning. I am thankful that my MBA experience was filled with professors and students who were invested in learning and achieving beyond the color of their skin. Just in case someone missed the memo, not all minority students struggle academically to meet the rigors of a challenging program — and many of my peers spent much more time in those t.a. sessions that were held in the buildings named after their grandparents. A balanced look at this discussion would do everyone well. My husband and I jointly survived Denison, Purdue, Ohio State Law School and UT School of Business. Our experiences were defined in part by the character of the people we encountered, but finances were an issue at every turn. More money invested in quality institutions does not address the attitudes of professors and students alike, that are seeking a color blind society.

Ultimately, a broader and more focused philanthropic community will start to address this mammoth issue. I applaud this gift — because it is a significant gift. This article simply points out, there are other sides of this issue. Only when individuals and families of color, who have created wealth and secured the future of generations to come invest in the programs, institutions and organizations that they care about — will real change happen. The education process must go beyond college and preparation for college, even beyond early learning. Until we create a culture of giving for those who have achieved a level of success and understand the basis for supporting the next generation, will this change at all.

The vast majority of donors each year are not the billionaire neighbors that are few and far between — they are the working people, struggling to make ends meet, who make the decision to support a mission or vision they believe in. Beyond debating this issue, my peers and I are fully aware, our philanthropic efforts must speak beyond the ignorance in higher education that still lingers.

A new culture and category of donor is on the horizon — I hope we collectively speak with our economic & philanthropic power.

Aimee Alaine, MBA Consultant, at 8:45 pm EDT on July 2, 2007

actually

the millions given to these colleges have helped working class students like me attend them on full scholarships. The money is being put to good use. As the wealthy are no longer sure to get into elite universities, they have to go to other schools. If they learn and enjoy their time at these universities, the wealth might trickle down. Of course, there are problems with this theory, but look at some of the non-ivys that are also receiving quite large donations!

ts, at 8:46 am EDT on June 12, 2007

The privileged elitism and sense of entitlement demonstrated in this article — not to mention, downright intolerance — is odd considering the subject of said article. Mr. Kimbrough would take scholarship funds out of the hands of the needy — and underpriviliged (yes, there are low-income students at Columbia) — to satisfy his own demands for “charitable equity.”

Not to mention, Mr. Kluge is no posterchild of privilege. He was a first-generation German immigrant who joined the army to fight in WWII and then made good for himself in business. The arrogance of Mr. Kimbrough that he is the arbiter of the definition of philanthropy is a stance unbecoming of college president... and one that I would think would give donors to his institution great pause.

K.T., at 8:46 am EDT on June 12, 2007

I’m a “person of color” who was hugely benefited by attending an elite liberal arts college. The college did not perpetuate my privilege — but it did enable it. Now I give back as much as I can; if I were Bill Gates, I’d give more.

It’s true that disproportionate philanthropy perpetuates a two-tier (at least) system. However, that consequence alone does not substantiate a number of your points.

First, it is indeed still charitable giving: there is no requirement that wealthy individuals give to anything, let alone academic schools. Do you feel a two-tier system exists when the Christian Church, or the Mormon faith, benefit so much more than other, traditionally poorer religions from charitable giving? If you don’t see a problem, then why single out academic institutions? Surely people should be encouraged to give to their preferred cause — that’s why it’s called “charitable", right?

Further, a big part of the problem in disproportionate results is a systemic one, which occurs at the secondary level. The Ivies and their peers have been trying extremely valiantly to reach out to underprivileged students, yet they have faced real problems in the preparation of these hard working folks who enter college with educational lapses and lacunae. Don’t blame colleges for a much larger problem — academic disparities begin in Pre-K, not in freshman year.

Finally, if you’re lucky and talented enough to get into a top tier school, and to get funded (thanks to a burgeoning endowment), you are likely to become a net contributor to society. That improves the lot of everyone in this country, not just the privileged few. Not to sound too much of a capitalist tool, but I do feel you overlook the social gains that accrue when well-educated people help to create a stable and well-functioning society. And some of them give back in gratitude to the schools that made it all possible, and that might make it possible for others to succeed as well.

It’s foolish to think that any of this “solves” the problem of perpetuation of privilege. But it’s short-sighted not to see the way in which privilege can be *spread* over an increasingly diverse, and healthily successful, population. When I go back to my college reunions, I can’t help but be struck by the increasing diversity — in color, ethnic origin, and socioeconomic background — of future leaders. Pres. Bollinger has seen that at Michigan, and now sees it at Columbia. Don’t be so quick to disparage that. It may be a flawed system — but look around and recognize it’s the best one out there so far.

savitri, at 9:20 am EDT on June 12, 2007

Bravo!

Great piece! More needs to be said about how these gifts could be better distributed — given in such a way as to promote democracy rather than hamper it. — TL

Tim Lacy, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 12, 2007

right on the money

This article is 100%, right on the money. I want to dispell some of the myths perpetuated by some of the respondents.

*K.T. writes that the author would “take scholarship funds out of the hands of the needy” and cites the “underpriviliged” at Columbia. First, Columbia has more than enough money to serve the underpriviliged. Thousands of other institutions do not. The highest economic return on this money would be at institutions that serve low-income students, where the societal return would be highest. Second, Columbia serves very few low-income students. Sorry, KT, but a fact is a fact. If Columbia really cared about “diversity,” they would serve more. Clearly, the research shows they do not.

Finally, the point is not that Columbia does not serve low-income students at all. The point is that Columbia, for all the money it has, serves a pathetically low number of low-income students and could do much more. But they have made a clear and concious decision to perpetuate social and economic inequities, with a few tokens thrown in to parade on the front of marketing materials and to make themselves feel all warm and fuzzy about how they serve a few charity cases. Aww, how sweet!

*Research has shown time and time again that getting into a top tier institution has much more to do with wealth than “talent” (see Jacks’ recent book on Social Inequity in education, along with Tom Mortensen’s research). If someone has the money to go to the best private K-12 schools and SAT-prep summer camps, that is not luck — it is privilege. Granted, there are a few thousand who do work hard and rise to the top out of bad circumstances, but these are rare and certainly the exception to the rule.

*For those who claim that Columbia is “private” (in quotes on purpose) and can do what they want with the money, think again. Columbia receives hundreds of millions of public dollars every year through direct student aid, research grants, and direct public subsidies. It is frustrating that my tax dollars directly support an institution more concerned with serving the needs of the wealthy and, with a few exceptions, shutting most children out. Columbia is the very definition of perpetuating social and economic inequities. This is a fact — the data does not lie.

I think Sarah said it best — devoting resources to institutions that do not need them is insane. Institutions that serve low-income students would be much more efficient and makes more sense economically and morally.

Sorry, Columbia, but your intentions ring hollow and are downright shallow. It is pathetic that your only defense is to parade the few token low-income people you serve, when you have the resources to do so much more. Rationalize it and make all the excuses you want, but facts and research do not lie.

PS, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 12, 2007

Ouch!

Kimbrough nails it ... and it needs to be said more frequently and with a groundswell of diverse voices ... beginning with an ever-compliant media.

K.T.What’s your point ... other than to posture and -as your last sentence indicates- blast your shot across the bow.

SavitriIf we follow your logic, then we need to persuade the Mr. Kluge’s of this so-called democracy to think better of where they decide their philanthropy is best served ... possibly in the primary and secondary school systems.

And Foreign Professor -thank you! You last sentence could be America’s national slogan ... if we had courageous leadership across all our institutions.

Michael, at 12:45 pm EDT on June 12, 2007

the cachet of giving

Being at a community college, you can imagine how hard it is to get big money donations. In trying to get a local high tech firm to donate computers (they make rugged laptops for the police and military; we were hoping for refurbished returns. No dice.) so we can teach more composition classes with computers, the company was pretty clear that they would get more mileage by donating to a four-year institution rather than a community college. (It was a don’t call us, we’ll call you situation. They never called.) Never mind that if any institution needs support, it’s the community colleges who take in the most needy students in just about every sense, whether it’s with regard to academic preparation, sense-of-self, or the ability to pay. There’s no cachet in giving dough to a community college. If you want to help the working class, you’ll reach more of them, getting more bang for your buck, by helping your local community college. If your state’s like mine, nearly half of those enrolled in higher ed are in a community college.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 2:15 pm EDT on June 12, 2007

Perpetuation is a Myth

Sure, most very wealthy people will pass something onto their children. But in fact most very wealthy people themselves earned their money the old fashioned way: They worked for it. How many of America’s wealthy are first or second generation immigrants from places like India? Quite a few, I’m sure.

That is why complaints about the “perpetuation” of inequality and privilege strike a hallow tone to my ears. Anybody who cares to put in the hours and take on the stress can do very well in America, without even having an Ivy League Diploma.

If the children of the very wealthy were the only ones allowed to set foot on campus at schools like Columbia, even that would do nothing to “perpetuate” any real “privilege". Those kids are still going to have to compete with everyone in the free market.

Sam, at 2:25 pm EDT on June 12, 2007

Did you actually read this article??

Let me get this straight. A very rich guy gives lots of money to an elite university so that said university can give MORE FINANCIAL AID to NEEDY STUDENTS who OTHERWISE COULDN"T ATTEND said elite university, and you call that PERPETUATING PRIVILEGE??

Wow!!

Can you explain how allowing more bright and capable lower income kids go to Columbia without having to acquire a crushing burden of debt perpetuates privilege?

That’s a non-sequiter of numbing proportions.

I think you only read and reacted to the first paragraph of the article.

confused, Professor, at 4:30 am EDT on June 13, 2007

Several prior comments have said that Columbia already has plenty of money and that the fact that it doesn’t already help more underprivileged students proves that its priorities lie elsewhere. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities like Columbia operate.

Yes, Columbia has a lot of money in an absolute sense. $6 billion is a lot of money by just about any reasonable definition. The problem is that Columbia has a lot more mouths to feed with that money than do its peer institutions.

Columbia has 23,000 students. It has schools of medicine, law, business, engineering and many other fields. Each division of the University owns some portion of the total endowment. Columbia can’t make the entire $6 billion fund available to support undergraduate financial aid because the vast majority of it is already committed to other uses and cannot be reassigned. Absent an infusion of cash, at best the University can make several hundred million dollars of the endowment available for that purpose, and it already does precisely that. But the interest on several hundred million dollars is not enough to fund the amount of financial aid the university wants to give its undergrads. That is why adding to this part of the endowment is a major priority.

Another commenter mentioned Amherst College which, I believe, has an endowment of about $1.2 billion. This is roughly 1/5 the amount of Columbia’s endowment. Does that mean Amherst can only do 1/5 as much for its undergrads as Columbia can? Absolutely not. Amherst only has 1,600 students, so its endowment works out to about $750,000 per student. This is almost three times Columbia’s per capita endowment. Further, because Amherst does not have medical, engineering, business or law schools claiming disproportionate shares of the endowment (not because these programs are greedy, but rather because they are better able to raise money), its entire endowment can be used for the benefit of its undergrads. The fact that rural Massachusetts has a much lower cost of living than New York City further tilts the balance in Amherst’s favor.

Princeton has plenty of financial aid endowment for its undergrads, but Princeton is about one third of Columbia’s size and has three times as much endowment. It thus has nine times as much money per capita and, like Amherst, does not have to reserve any of that money for schools of medicine, business or law (it does have a small engineering school, but the amount of money left over for the arts and sciences is still simply staggering). The fact that Columbia can’t be as generous with financial aid as Princeton is not because Columbia cares less about poor students but because it just doesn’t have the same level of resources available to it.

My point is simply that a university’s financial strength depends upon more than just the total amount of money it has in the bank. A 25,000-student university with a $1 billion endowment is not in the same position as a 5,000 student university with the same amount of money. Even two equally large universities with the same amount of money can still be in very different financial circumstances if they offer a different assortment of programs.

Columbia wants to enroll more underprivileged students. But its vast resources are already being tapped by its even more vast faculty and student body. There simply isn’t a large untapped fund that can be added to the existing financial aid pool. In order to let more of the nation’s lower and middle class youth enroll, the University needs to raise more money to pay for the financial aid these students will need. It is therefore seeking money from the privileged in order to help the underprivileged — precisely the opposite of what this article accuses of doing. The commenters who respond by saying “Right on!” just don’t know what they’re talking about.

CU Alum, at 6:00 am EDT on June 13, 2007

cure for confused

Señor Confused: PS and Sarah provide the antidote.

However, it’s not merely a question of where/how the underpriveleged can attend a quality college, but where/how to prepare for it. My college, Oberlin, was very aggressive in recruiting minority students, consistent with its pioneering history of such. The result was, to a large extent, a parallel, less challenging, academic program for its African American students. Despite good intentions, the result was the dreaded “separate and unequal.” My present college, also aggressive in minority recruitment, faces high minority attrition, not for reasons of social alienation, but because of academic frustration (failing). As a professor, I’m constantly tempted to grade such students more easily, though this often merely delays the inevitable. The extra office time I spend with my “disadvantaged” students, on my own initiative, amounts to the equivalent of a second job.

To remedy this, we need to begin long before college. Columbia would do well to use its new resources to build primary and secondary school programs, a la Boston University, that would result in more minority students capable of succeeding(!) in a quality college.

Gallinazo, at 10:10 am EDT on June 13, 2007

My thoughts

With all do respect, John W. Kluge had the right to contribute his money the way he did to Columbia University. However, even though this is a “right”, I believe he really was relinquishing in thoughts of racism – not only towards the rich, but also towards any persons of color, whether Black, Latino, or whatever. With his right to donate $400 million, his true philanthropic nature should have considered the obvious. “Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective.” This is my point: True philanthropy, in my eyes, is shown in this definition: Charitable Cause!! If John W. Kluge had a vision of philanthropy, I believe he missed the point from the get-go. There are many institutions that simply need help bettering their education system to offer better education, which in turn leads to better educated professionals. This ultimately could change the face of the earth. These institutions, if given the “privilege” to offer more money to students, could assist them in paying for their degrees and many of our working people would be much better educated. These people would then earn more money than they would without the proper education and could help BUILD or economy, rather than slowly eat away at it. I am one to speak because I did come from a very low-income family. My mother raises my sister and me with very little money – she cleaned houses just to keep our family clothed and fed. When I chose to go to college, I didn’t get much help from Grants at all. I had to work to pay my way through college, which I think is important because it made me work that much harder. However, I am paying on loans for the next 15 years because lets face it, college is expensive and working hourly wage won’t cut it.I think it is great that there are Elite schools out there that want to provide the best of the best education, but this education is only tailored toward high-class white people. These universities have the proper education systems and facilities to provide a nurturing environment, but what about all the other “gated communities of higher education” that struggle with what they have? I just would love to see America: the so called “Melting Pot” to actually become just that. This nation could be so much better, in the sense that the wealthy could better assist those that, given the chance, could better succeed in life and not be considered low-class any longer. I’m sure there are many factors that go into why our economy is the way it is, but we have to start somewhere. If a person claims they are a Philanthropist, then they should honor the act of giving for charitable causes, not the example of John W. Kluge.

Kimberly, at 1:05 pm EDT on June 13, 2007

there is always arguably a better place to give or spend money

A larger philosophic problem: there always is arguably a better place to give or spend money. Somebody already suggested that giving money to fight hunger and AIDS in Africa might be better morally than helping educate young people who are poor by American standards. Is it wrong for a state legislature to provide money for libraries and the arts when not all children have access to adequate health care? And should we take our pets to the vet or worry about abandoned animals when many human beings lack equivalent care and protection? Why fund college faculty members to travel to conferences and archives when many human beings go to sleep hungry? I think at some level most of us accept that our gifts, taxes, and other expenditures can go for a variety of purposes without ranking them on an absolute moral scale. At least this is how we behave.

David M. Fahey, at 5:25 pm EDT on June 13, 2007

Maybe Mr. Kluge should just forget about it

This reminds me of reading comments in a blog, complaining that Bono uses a private jet to raise money for the poor, about all the “pollution” that is created. First-class travel was the demand.

Sheesh! Why give a darn about anything? I mean, really ..

Homer, at 8:25 pm EDT on June 14, 2007

Shame on you for insulting thoughtful, strategic philanthropy...

Read the article, Mr. Kimbrough.

“"I want to help ensure that Columbia will always be a place where the best and the brightest young people can come to develop their intellect, make something of their own lives and give something back to our communities, our country and our world,” Kluge said. “Yet because Columbia’s endowment is not nearly as large as some of our celebrated peer institutions, achieving that goal will take support from many other Columbia alumni and friends. So I invite everyone to join me in this commitment to changing the lives of extraordinary students who will go on to be extraordinary leaders in our society. That’s one way I can try to make a difference for future generations and hopefully inspire others to join me in that effort."”

Ask yourself why your trustees, alumni, donors, or friends are not saying the same thing about your school. Gifts to support financial aid endowment don’t have to be $400 million in size to make a difference. The spirit of such giving, and therefore the inspiration to others, makes a tremendous difference.

mal, at 12:10 pm EDT on June 18, 2007