One up for the donors.(on the right)(Robertson Foundation)

NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 6

THE Foundation Management Institute lets out what can only be described as a screech of joy. The cause? "Judge Neil Shuster [of Trenton] ruled that the Robertson family is entitled to its day in court. At issue is control of the family's donations to the Robertson Foundation--a fund now approaching $900 million." The point of the suit: William Robertson maintains that his parents gave the money to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs specifically to train students to work for the U.S. government. Princeton claims that the Robertsons gave Princeton the money, period.

The FMI bulletin goes on to quote brief summaries of the meaning of the Robertson decision. A story in the Washington Post is headlined, "Exacting Donors Reshape College Giving." Joe Bull, a development official at Ohio State, is quoted: "[Donor activism is] a wave that is coming and coming fast." The Robertson decision has sent "chills down administrators' spines." The Associated Press cited Martha Dean, head of development at Bryn Mawr: "I wouldn't say it has scared us [but] we certainly have observed it and thought, 'There but for the grace of God ...'" And the New York Times, after examining scores of U.S. foundations, published an article whose headline says it all: "Donors Gone, Trusts Veer from Their Wishes."

The problem of the misuse of donors' gifts is far from new. This critic wrote about the question for The Freeman magazine back in 1954. The contentions in that case were very pointed. When the A. P. Smith Company gave $1,500 to Princeton, a dissenting stockholder sued. What, he demanded to know, goes on at Princeton that has to do with the health and welfare of A. P. Smith, which manufactures valves and hydrants?

It's this simple, Princeton argued. In order for A. P. Smith to prosper it has to work in a free-market society in which profits are solicited, not scorned. A witness for Princeton was Irving Olds, former chairman, no less, of U.S. Steel. He spoke in great detail about the issues at stake: "With the good educational facilities provided by [private universities], the courses of instruction will and do lead the student body to recognize the virtues and achievements of our well-proven economic system; and, on the other hand, to discover the faults and weaknesses of an arbitrary, government-directed and ...