<p>[The</a> StreetCar Conspiracy](<a href=“http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm]The”>The StreetCar Conspiracy)</p>
<p>Should the school really be named after Sloan?</p>
<p>no one here interested in conspiracies?</p>
<p>Well, using that same logic, lots of schools should not be named after their benefactors. Stanford, Duke, and Vanderbilt Universities were all named after benefactors who were widely vilified as unscrupulous and ruthless robber barons, with James Duke’s American Tobacco Company being found guilty of antitrust violations for colluding with the British to divide the world’s tobacco markets. </p>
<p>Heck, if personal rectitude is the order of the day, then what about Elihu Yale who, as colonial governor in British India, brutally repressed the the natives and was formally accused several times of corruption and graft? Yet nobody seems to care about that anymore; all that Elihu Yale is known for today is the benefactor of a highly prestigious university.</p>
<p>To continue my above post: What can I say? That’s the way the world is: philanthropy can indeed be used as a tool to whitewash your good name. Donating sums of money to a good cause will vastly improve your public image to the point that people will probably won’t care whether those sums may have been ill-gotten in the first place. For example, take a viciously rapacious industrialist who has repeatedly squashed competitors using unethical (and arguably illegally) tactics, but, laudably, has also founded the largest charity in the world. Such is the perplexing conundrum of Bill Gates.</p>
<p>don’t forget rockefeller</p>