Yale will not name its new residential colleges for donors

Money may not buy happiness, but at most universities it can immortalize you by attaching your name to a building. Yale is not such a school: Officials announced in February that two proposed residential colleges would not be named after the projects’ major donors.

The plans for the new colleges, which would comprise Yale’s largest expansion in a decade, are being examined and may be voted on as early as this April. Unlike the naming of Whitman College and projects at many peer institutions, the titles for Yale’s new colleges would come from other sources.

Proposals to use the names of wealthy donors for the potential colleges were criticized by Yale alumni and subsequently rejected.

“The decision was based on a very strong tradition here at Yale,” Inge Reichenbach, vice president for development at Yale, said in an e-mail. “None of the existing colleges were named for living donors, but for individuals who played a major part in Yale’s history.”

Though this decision differs from policies at Princeton, University officials are not surprised by the contrast between Yale’s plans for the new colleges and similar projects at Princeton, such as Whitman College. “In terms of Yale’s decision not to name the two new colleges after living donors, this is consistent with their tradition,” said Brian McDonald ’83, Princeton’s vice president for development.

Though gifts will not translate into having a building named after the donors, Yale alumni are still willing to donate, Reichenbach said.

“Our donors, being most likely Yale College graduates, are themselves steeped in this tradition and probably wouldn’t have expected anything else,” she explained.

The Yale Corporation, Yale’s highest governing body, makes the final decision on which Yale figures will become the namesakes for new projects, Reichenbach added.

At Princeton, the lead donor for a project may suggest a name for the facility. “The suggested name needs to be approved by the Trustees,” McDonald said. “To the best of my knowledge, all of the names suggested by donors, at least in recent decades, have been approved by the Trustees.”

Not all donors choose their own names. “There are many examples of donors who have made wonderful gifts and chosen to honor or memorialize others with ‘naming’ gifts,” McDonald said. “For example, Sir Gordon Wu [’58] made a wonderful gift many years ago that enabled us to build Bowen Hall, which Sir Gordon chose to name after former president William Bowen [GS ’58].”

Yale still offers key donors the chance to have smaller features — such as dining halls, libraries, plaques and arches — named after them.

Princeton also gives donors this opportunity. “In addition to Meg Whitman [’77]’s spectacular gift of $30 million to name Whitman College, many other very generous Princetonians stepped forward and provided $50 million of additional support, and many of the interconnected buildings, common rooms and courtyards were named by generous donors,” McDonald said.

The different naming policies are the product of different traditions at the two schools and have been upheld largely to promote alumni relations.

“We try to maintain an excellent relationship with our donors and, as much as possible, respect Princeton’s traditions and culture,” McDonald explained. “Yale has said that their donors strongly support the decision and expressed concern that a change in their tradition might not go over well.”

Despite the differences, both institutions respect the other’s traditions. “There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ regarding the naming of residential colleges,” Reichenbach said. “I am convinced Princeton made the right decision in the Princeton context.”

“If this is the right decision for Yale, I fully expect that their alumni will continue to be very supportive of the institution,” McDonald said.