Charitable Misgivings

Harvard students are often thought of as possessing those characteristics that forge prominent careers in politics: leadership, charisma, high intelligence—and a dubious interpretation of honesty.

This last trait has, it seems, even infiltrated student groups with a supposed commitment to charity. Thanks to the lofty claims these organizations parade on posters, purchasers are led to believe that all proceeds from the highly priced tickets are donated. However, with an interpretation of honesty that Bill Clinton would be proud of, there are often no actual profits—and consequently, no donations. To market an event based on the assumption of charity and then fail to give away a cent is the peak of hypocrisy. Equally reprehensible is the tacit acceptance suggested by the administration’s failure to enforce these organizations’ promises. Commitments to charity must be genuine, not merely a form of image marketing. If student groups advertise a charitable cause, they should be forced to pay up.

The history of the annual Eleganza fashion show exemplifies the moral waffling many student groups demonstrate. According to a 2009 executive producer, Eleganza failed to actually donate to charity for several years, despite fundraising promises to give 100 percent of proceeds to The Center for Teen Empowerment. A 2009 executive producer acknowledged past lapses with the explanation, “We’re a student organization…we have a budget the same size as Yardfest but without any support from Harvard.” Such excuses over mismanagement are inadequate; Harvard event organizers unable to manage basic business procedures would do well to hand over management to someone who’s taken Ec 10. It’s easier to believe in financial incompetence than the alternative, however, student organizers who are aware that an event may not make a profit and still advertise a charity function demonstrate insincerity and a blatant disregard for their chosen cause.

As much as student groups who subscribe to this practice have a warped view of morality, the administration is also at fault for not enforcing appropriate standards. While Eleganza is an extreme case of failed donations and was eventually reprimanded after 13 years of misleading advertising, no firm regulations prevent the general practice. Nor has the administration ever attempted to raise awareness about the existence of false donation promises, an act that would increase public scrutiny and prevent organizers’ abilities to make false promises. The administration’s nonchalant attitude toward imaginative interpretations of the term “charity event” is unacceptable, and it is its duty to apply firmer rules and enforce greater transparency about donation practices.

This can be achieved through the simple demand that any claim to “donate all profits” must be followed with an actual donation—if need be, from the organization’s own pocket. Student groups could also follow Eleganza’s more recent example; for the past two years, organizers with a clearly different outlook from previous years have set aside a concrete donation as an event cost. Furthermore, student groups that advertise an intention to donate should also publicly announce the amount eventually given. Such policies would allow students to make accurate evaluations when considering the high price of “charitable” event tickets.

Eleganza is an impressive event in its own right, and, although the organizers’ current outlook is commendable, its past false dedication to charity is less worthy of admiration. Similarly, the absence of concrete regulations to prevent abuse of the term “donating all profits” suggests that responsibility for the lack of attention awarded charitable donations extends beyond student groups to University Hall itself. The Office of Student Life and student groups themselves must work to end this lamentable practice—Harvard may be a breeding ground for future politicians, but students should resist embracing the devious persona quite so wholeheartedly.


Olivia M. Goldhill ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government concentrator in Pforzheimer House.