<p>Update article on the legal battle “watched nervously by universities around the country”:</p>
<p>
The case has already affected how colleges and graduates approach fund-raising, prompting donors to be more vigilant and colleges to be more careful about gift restrictions at a time when they are hungry for contributions. Colleges and donors these days are drawing up detailed agreements to prevent disputes over how money should be spent.</p>
<p>Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and an author of “The Intelligent Donor’s Guide to College Giving,” said in a statement that the rulings were “a resounding victory for all who believe that colleges must be accountable to the people on whose dollars they rely.”</p>
<p>Joseph Nye, a former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard who was a witness for Princeton, said, “If the heirs of donors are allowed to micromanage an academic institution a generation after a gift has been given, it will seriously curtail the creativity and initiative that has marked the recent administration of the Wilson school as well as set a bad precedent for other academic institutions.”</p>
<p>Yale is among the universities that have faced similar disputes. It returned $20 million to Lee M. Bass, a billionaire alumnus, after he said the university had not created the classes he had requested in its Western civilization curriculum…
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/education/26princeton.html[/url] ”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/education/26princeton.html</a></p> ;
<p>I’ve been following the case for awhile. I’m of the opinion that while colleges must retain independence over the direction of their academic/scholarly mission, they shouldn’t be taking money designated for specific purposes and then ignore, minimize or abandon said purpose altogether (with the exeception of illegal or immoral limitations requested by the donor) unless they give the money back. Let’s have some integrity.</p>