Zachary Goldfarb's article, "House inquiry into Whitman profits raises ethical issues about donations," Oct. 7, raises important questions about University policies on donations. Most important is the ethical issue raised by the possibility that the University accepted money from a donor, University Trustee and eBay CEO Meg Whitman '77, who may have acquired a portion of her fortune through suspect (perhaps corrupt) practices. Whitman, the article states, is facing allegations from congressional investigators that she, "gained special access to and quickly made profits on initial stock offerings because of eBay's banking relationship with Goldman Sachs."
The article quotes from Whitman's Baccalaureate address at Princeton last spring. "Your school, your community and your country are relying on you," she said. "One check I have used in making all kinds of decisions throughout my professional career is to ask myself whether I would be proud for my mother to read about it on the front page of the next day's New York Times." The quote gives a wonderful insight into the hypocrisy of CEOs such as Whitman, whose public images portray them as model citizens who are not ashamed of anything they have done to ascend the corporate ladder, but whose actual records suggest they have been enriching themselves at the public's expense through insider deals.
I disagree strongly with the ethics scholar interviewed in the article, who says that the Whitman situation is not, "the same as going and stealing from kids' lunches." In fact, I think the situation is much worse. In the worst of corporate crimes now coming to light — perpetrated by such figures as Ken Lay, Andy Fastow and Bernie Ebbers — the public and investors have been fleeced of tens of millions of dollars, as compared with the relatively small sums of money typically involved in street-level crime. Yet the criminal justice system exacts stiffer penalties for street-level criminals who steal $50 than it does for the crooks in corporate boardrooms who steal millions from the investing public.
It's interesting to learn in the piece that the University does not seem to have a unified written policy for screening gifts. I wonder what criteria they do have in place in the various fund-raising offices that screen large donations to the University? Are there any ethical criteria in place at all, or simply legal criteria to keep the University out of trouble?
It will be interesting to see how the University responds to this developing investigation of Whitman. I suspect that University officials will try to avoid talking about it, only responding when specifically asked about the situation, in the hope that the story will eventually go away. It is important to keep asking administrators questions about Whitman and her gift to the University. This story has begun to ask these tough questions. No doubt there is a lot more to uncover here, not just about Whitman, but about general University policies on gifts, donations and investments. University officials should be more forthcoming about current policies on donations and gifts. What exactly are the guidelines used for screening such gifts? Do ethical criteria figure into these guidelines? If not, why not? And finally, would a gift — even a $30 million gift — be returned if it were shown that the donor had accumulated portions of her wealth through corrupt practices? Joe Conley, GS Department of History
Read More
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
Faculty call on the Board of Trustees to act in face of hunger strike
Guest Contributors“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
Letter to the Editor: The gross manufacturing of narrative
Sarah Sakha"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
