From looking at a balance sheet, one could easily forget that the University is a public institution. Though in 1980 state appropriations accounted for 46 percent of the University’s budget, now that number has shrunk to a paltry 5.8 percent — 10 percent for the Academic Division alone. The causes of this precipitous decline are well known: declining state support for public schools, rising costs of higher education, a stagnant economy — the list goes on.
A period of brisk adaptation has followed, one in which current fiscal pressures have triggered a heightened emphasis on private donations and gifts as a source of revenue. The most recent manifestation of this came in the form of Jaffray Woodriff’s 10 million dollar donation to the University in order to support the creation of the Big Data Institute. Such donations now constitute nearly 20 percent of the University’s revenue for the Academic Division, up five percent from ten years ago.
Though the factors that drove the University administration to pursue alternate sources of revenue are understandable, I have concerns about how private donations will impact our University in years to come. Their short-term benefits are often evident, yet the University’s increased reliance on donations may erode the firmness of its public mission and its academic integrity.
State funding per in-state full-time equivalent student has dropped from $15,247 in 2000 to $8,566 in 2012. To put that number in context, it is drastically lower than at comparable public institutions, such as the University of North Carolina, which receives $22,105 per student. In the search to replace cash lost from state and federal sources, universities have turned to philanthropy, which in turn has become a defining characteristic of institutional prestige and excellence.
Wealthy donors clearly have the capacity to alter the shape of the University through the power of their benefactions. There are notable indications that donors have had a significant constructive impact in the past few years alone. The creation of the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy in 2007 stands as perhaps the most notable example of private donation at its best. Yet at the same time, many frivolous gifts have drawn attention and ire.
There is a strong argument that with less dependence on taxpayer dollars comes more freedom. While it is true that philanthropy can provide a source of discretionary money, a significant amount of gifts come with restrictions or are intended for a specific use. The desire for increased fiscal freedom through intensified emphasis on private resources is inherently limited by the wishes of specific donors.
Nonetheless, public universities across the nation have adopted a similar approach to decreased state funding. U-Cal Berkeley’s most recent fundraising campaign, dubbed the “Campaign for Berkeley,” aims to raise the same amount of money as the University’s campaign: $3 billion dollars. Yet similar concerns have arisen within the Berkeley community about the impact of private donations. Perhaps apocryphally, the Academic Council of the U-Cal Academic Senate passed a resolution at the beginning of the program asserting that the university’s work to seek private funds to augment state cuts could alter “its academic and public service missions with impacts that are not fully understood.”
Despite this early warning cry, insufficient attention has been paid to the possible effects of private money, particularly conditional donations, on public universities. Some consideration has been given, especially in the academic circle, to the ways in which wealthy, often business-minded donors can impart an influence on the universities to whom they contribute. Compare, for example, philanthropic donations to business schools to donations received by schools of education or social work. Last year, the McIntire School of Commerce received nearly three times the amount of donations as the Curry School of Education.
In an environment in which all academic pursuits should be treated as equal, private money can devalue certain academic concentrations because of their expected lucrativeness. The relative decline of philosophy and literature majors exhibits the influence of donors, along with the influence of market forces. Donations can distort the ideal that all academic areas are of equal intellectual value.
Aside from influencing the academic sphere, donations can affect the University’s public mission. There are certain administrative areas that are too important to leave solely to donors, and financial aid is one of them. It seems improper to place the fate of the University’s foundational principle of providing education for individuals of all economic backgrounds, seen in programs such as AccessUva, in the hands of wealthy donors, whether they are magnanimous alumni or not.
For these reasons, I believe it is more important than ever that the University double its efforts to attract more state funding. At its current rate of decline, state funding will cease by 2032 this drop must be halted. Granted, seeking increased state aid would only be a partial solution. Yet going forward we cannot continue to rely on private donors for the survival of the University’s fundamental visions.
Conor Kelly is an Opinion columnist for the Cavalier Daily. His columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
YesterdayFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
KING: Virginia’s felons deserve the opportunity to work without discrimination
By Michael King | 2 days agoThe sealing law is one step to help place Virginia back on this path of treating its felons as equal citizens but it cannot be the last step.
SHRAUGER: We must fight against transportation deregulation
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoSpecifically, the reduction of funds in public transportation may leave University students stranded without convenient means of transport. But more broadly, the environmental impacts which deregulation may have are long-lasting.
