I’ve been meaning to write a post asking whether Lawrence Summers was going to start a Harvard matching fund for contributions to the earthquake victims in Pakistan. He’s done the same with victims of the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and while one can’t argue with the humanitarian impulse, I’ve wondered in the past whether that’s an appropriate use of Harvard’s money. (And it’s not a small amount; Harvard matched about $250,000 worth of gifts to Hurricane Katrina related charities.)

I’ve questioned this giving for a few reasons. First, when donors give to Harvard, they’re making a specific choice, and the recipient of that choice ought to respect their wishes, rather than redirecting their money to another charitable cause. Second, such giving changes the nature of the university from a place of education to a world geopolitical actor. Third, if you give for tsunamis and hurricanes, where do you draw the line? Surely the Pakistani earthquake has cost more lives and caused more devastation than Hurricane Katrina did. Fourth, such charitable gifts could be a way of influence-buying and reputation-repairing for the president of the university—any president of the university. Problem is, it’s really not his money to give.

Now the Crimson has weighed in on just this question…and comes down on both sides.

This editorial argues the following:

Offering a donation matching program after these two catastrophes was the right thing for the University to do. Although Harvard’s primary mission is educational and academic, Harvard is also a community of nearly 35,000 and an employer of over 15,000, making it the fifth largest employer in all of Massachusetts, according to the Boston Business Journal. Beyond the philanthropic and noble ends of raising funds, matching donations when there is a community outcry helps build morale, which is why many businesses across the country had a similar matching program for their employees.

A dissenting column disputes that, saying: ….Matching donations for the tsunami and for Katrina have set a dangerous precedent—recently broken by Harvard’s choice not to match donations for the earthquake in Kashmir—that encourages our community to judge Harvard’s responses solely on a monetary basis. It is a slippery slope that the University must not traverse. For future disasters, Harvard should cease impersonating a charitable organization and instead focus on the unique and valuable ways it can help as an institution of higher learning.

I do not find the first argument suasive; boosting “morale” is insufficient justification for transforming the mission of the university.

But, as with the debate over the Solomon Amendment, this is another situation where President Summers should rise to explain himself. What principles underlie his thinking? Why give to tsunami and hurricane victims, but not earthquake victims? When is it appropriate to give and when not? How does this fit into his vision of Harvard in the world?

These are important questions in a debate that the president himself has ignited. He should explain himself now. After all, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has visited Harvard and met with Summers. What would Summers say to him now?