Trusteeship - November/December 2021 - 13

they will put their research and career in jeopardy for challenging
the administration. Third, they might apply and use the funds knowing
of the funds' dubious nature. And fourth, they might apply for
and use the funds without questioning the ethics of doing so.
In the case of UC Berkeley, Professor Obasogie's actions were
extraordinary as he accepted the risk of being vocal out of moral
obligation. He used his credentials and authority to speak out
during a moment in time when those outside the academy were
poised to listen, and external pressure could cause change. Ultimately,
the university decided to rename the fund and its purpose.
However, it is not the sole responsibility of an individual to
question whether a philanthropic gift represents discriminatory,
corrupt, and unlawful aims, and Obasogie's actions should not have
determined whether the UC Berkeley situation was handled appropriately.
The responsibility rests on the governing bodies to facilitate
systems that enable rigorous vetting, assessment of risk, the ability to
say no to a gift, and the regular review of assets and purposes.
Is there a means of encouraging and recognizing gift officers who
make tough decisions to question gifts and recommend that certain
gifts should not be accepted from donors? The answer to all these
questions is, oftentimes, likely not. But institutions should manage
their development function in this way, because paying attention to
diversity, equity, and inclusion is a moral imperative that can also
have severe economic repercussions.
The cost of accepting ethically bankrupt gifts to a charitable
institution can be high-threats to reputation, standing, ability to
fulfill the mission, and financial support of the main body of constituents,
as well as potential for litigation all exist. Early in 2019,
protesters rallied at numerous major institutions to call out the
institutions accepting contributions from the Sackler Family. The
Sackler's fortune was built from Purdue Pharma profits gained
through the sale of OxyContin. Predatory marketing practices of
the highly addictive painkiller have been blamed for fueling the
opioid crisis. By March 2019, numerous museums vowed to reject
The cost of accepting ethically bankrupt gifts to a charitable institution can be high-
threats to reputation, standing, ability to fulfill the mission, and financial support
of the main body of constituents, as well as potential for litigation all exist.
It Is (and Is Not) All About the Money
A governing board's measure of success for any president, CEO,
or executive director of a charitable organization is the monetary
value of gifts received. The amount of funds raised annually is a
primary, objective measure of success in development offices at all
institutions. Every year, the goal is to beat the previous year's numbers.
However, a focus on bringing in revenue without accounting
for the potential costs of a gift represents a significant risk.
Considering the cost of a gift is not a new concept. Most institutions
have confronted this issue at some time or another. For
example, if someone wants to give an institution a yacht for environmental
science research and an endowment valued at $1 million,
the gift seems great on the surface. But the cost of operationalizing
the gift must be investigated. The coast is four hours away from the
institution, warranting significant investments in time and fuel. The
yacht has a requirement of four crew members, which is an appreciable
cost and also limits available space for students, researchers,
or professors. In all, costs associated with the crew, insurance, fuel,
maintenance, docking, and storage are found to exceed the endowment's
annual spendable earnings. In this case, the gift shifts from
seeming like a great idea to evidently being a poor financial decision.
Most trustees would rightfully reject the gift.
But when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion, are trustees
and senior leaders willing and able to apply the same type of rigor
in vetting? Are gift officers trained to recognize discrimination? Are
they prepared to explain to a donor why a gift cannot be accepted?
AGB.ORG
Sackler contributions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
the Guggenheim Museum and Foundations, and the American
Museum of Natural History. Many museums also removed the
Sackler name from built spaces. These actions represent reactive
measures born of public outcry, not proactive policy setting and
creating a system focused on due diligence and risk management.
Building in Institutional Values:
Gift Acceptance Policies and Procedures
Gift acceptance policies and procedures should include mechanisms
to test whether or not the gift upholds the tenets of diversity, equity,
and inclusion, similarly to how collecting practices in museums are
commonly administered. For example, many museums today do
not accept objects without clear provenance and vetting. The following
questions should be asked: How did the donor come into the
possession of the object? Was it collected legally? Was it collected
by humane means? Was the collecting the result of subjugation or
exploitation of others? Museums developed ethical standards in
collecting to deal with issues that often arise, such as looting during
war times, the slaughter of animals to create decorative objects
such as elephant tusks, and the desecration of indigenous people's
burial sites by Europeans during colonization. The same should hold
true for accepting monetary gifts. Questions about how the donor
acquired the money should be a part of the decision-making process.
Ideally, vetting should be conducted independently of those whose
performance is evaluated based upon achieving monetary goals.
NOV.DEC.2021 TRUSTEESHIP 13
http://www.AGB.ORG
Trusteeship - November/December 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Trusteeship - November/December 2021
