To Give or Not to Give?

GIVING to Harvard is not such a terrible thing, and after four years the College might actually deserve a little thanks from its students. But the manner in which the Senior Class Gift committee organizes this thanking emphasizes the worst aspects of the University. Not only is the committee's argument about the apolitical nature of the gift specious and manipulative, but the techniques used to raise funds stratify the class and smack of the money mania that makes University fundraising a dangerous ethical game.

Every spring, a group of active members of the graduating class solicits fellow undergraduates for contributions to the Senior Class Gift. These budding fundraisers tell seniors that their contribution, whether it be $10, $50 or $500, is an appropriate way to thank Harvard for four wonderful years. The money will be spent only in the College and can be earmarked for specific projects such as scholarships. Seniors are also told that any misgivings some of them might have about Harvard's investment policy regarding South Africa should not trouble them, as contributions to the class gift do not go into the endowment.

Five years ago students concerned about Harvard's refusal to divest of its South Africa-linked investments set up an alternative endowment that would be held in escrow. Harvard would get the money if it divested or if apartheid ended in South Africa. Those active in this Endowment for Divestiture (E4D) argue that donations to the College implicitly endorse the University's immoral and mulish decision not to divest from organizations that do business in South Africa.

It is important that a large number of graduating seniors give to E4D because the University must be made aware of the strong opposition to its investment policy. If a large number of future alumni refuse on their first solicitation to give to a University fund, no doubt the elder fundraisers and endowment caretakers will take notice.

This year, there exists an even more compelling reason to give to an alternative endowment. The revelation that the dean of the Kennedy School formally offered potential donors Officer of the University status in return for a donation make clear that something stinks in Harvard's attitude toward fundraising, and it's not just the fertilizer used to ensure that, come Commencement, the Yard will be green with grass and the cash of nostalgic alumni.

THE practices of the class gift bear this corruption out. The young fundraisers go through lists of seniors in their houses dividing them by socio-economic standards. Names of individuals rich enough to be earmarked for special treatment are circled, and those whose families are expected to make special contributions in honor of their graduation are crossed off. This elite group will be handled by more veteran fundraisers.

Those expected to give large gifts are then handled by a committee of equally rich seniors who inquire as to how much a particular well-off senior is willing to give. After this initial survey, the committee meets ands sets a figure for all rich seniors--the number this year is said to be $500--and tells everyone to give that amount.

Every fundraising division, even for the most admirable organization, must give special attention to those wealthy enough to meet their needs. But to start stratifying a graduating class even before it enters the company of educated men and women is unnecessary. It indicates a certain zeal for money that can lead to abnormalities as happened at the Kennedy School.

The explanation provided to me by many individuals engaged in the class gift is, "Are you surprised whose names are circled and crossed off?" The implication in this response is that the class has been stratified all along and the class gift just recognizes that reality. Unfortunately such divisions exist; it is even more regrettable that Harvard strengthens this stratification with a formalized process during the spring of senior year.

Harvard treats its rich alumni well. They get invited to fancy dinners. They get a greater voice in making policy. In short they get more attention. Unfortunately such stroking is needed to keep a modern university running. But Harvard can get by without $50,000 from its most recent graduates. Instead of breeding young fundraising zealots, whose hearts will pound 25 years from now at the sight of green grass, perhaps the University should try to instill some unity among all the diversity.

ONE solution is to abandon cash for cash's sake as the senior gift's goal, choosing instead to fund a specific, perhaps moderately-priced, project. Seniors could honor their graduation by helping to build a recreation room in a lower-income neighborhood.

In so doing the class gift would avoid endorsing Harvard's investment policy, and it would also create a unified goal for the class that would have a beneficial impact on the community that hosted us for four years. As the goal would be to meet the needs of this particular project, and not to maximize the full potential of each class members giving power, this type of gift would unify rather than stratify the class.

In the meantime, the only option for those wishing to express their anger at Harvard's investment policy and to protest its fundraising practices is to give to E4D, which emphasizes the numbers who give rather than the number that they give. In the likely event that Harvard does not divest and apartheid does not end, the money in E4D will be given to Phillips Brooks House to aid its worthwhile endeavors in the Boston area.