Harvard’s Money: Attracting Attention
Posted on October 1st, 2007 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
I’ve been arguing for some time now that Harvard is in the midst of an identity crisis it refuses to acknowledge: It has become so rich that it is now better known for its vast wealth than for its educational product, and it is arguably better at raising money than it is at teaching students. (The cart before the horse and all that.)
And because of Harvard’s being defined by great wealth, people are going to start asking questions of it that would typically apply to a business rather than a school.
For example: In today’s Los Angeles Times, the economist Robert Reich wonders why giving to Harvard is considered giving to charity.
I’m all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let’s face it: These aren’t really charitable contributions. They’re often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have too. They’re also investments in prestige — especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.
..I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University (which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion)?
Reich proposes a solution: Revise the tax code so that only gifts to charities explicitly designed to help the poor get a full deduction.
This surely won’t happen. Nonetheless, it’s another example of how Harvard’s fortune is making people reconsider the way they look at the university. And that’s not even mentioning how it changes the way the university looks at itself.…
2 Responses
10/1/2024 8:27 am
There must be something in the air. Earlier this morning, I had almost the exact same thought as in your lede. I imagined a typical market research technique: if you were to present a list of words like “wealth”, “education,” “excellence,” “innovation,” “scholarship,” “service,” etc., to just about anyone, which would they most often pick first to describe Harvard? I suspect the answer would be “wealth.”
It’s a cruel dilemma: the very wealth that entices donors by its demonstration of fiscal solidity, also colors the mind of the larger public that should see Harvard first and foremost as a force for the common good through education, research, scholarship, and influence.
This is different than Reich’s point, however- he suggests that wealthy arts and cultural institutions aren’t necessarily charities; that that word implies service to the poor, and a degree of poverty on the part of the organization as well. I don’t completely agree. I think “charity” covers a much wider range of service, and the arts and educational institutions serve the public in ways that may be different from something like the Salvation Army, but are still fundamentally important.
10/1/2024 8:37 am
Completely agree; Reich’s entire article hinges on his definition of a charity.