This op-ed says there’s a line between the naming of a building and usurping what is meant to be an institution collectively owned. The difference is between tangible and intangible assets.
The decision to invest in real estate, collective impact, and collaboration angers the PTAs in this progressive college town in North Carolina.
The Red Sox would like to disavow the artifacts of its reputation of having been “the most racist franchise in baseball” by having the name of Yawkey Way changed. The city agrees, but the fight over this street has some local philanthropic heavies creating a public scene.
We all know that public education funding often falls short of what is needed. But what values does the selling of naming rights for school buildings teach our children?
We all know that when leadership changes suddenly, a nonprofit may lose donor support. This story from a University of Nevada, Las Vegas foundation, in which a $14-million donation was revoked, provides one illustrative example.
At the intersection of awkwardness and trying not to appear ungrateful lies a college athletic center, funded entirely by private donations and bearing the same family name another city institution is trying to quietly shed.
What are the legitimate conditions that can be placed on a donation? Do you know the restrictions on all of your revenue streams? If you can’t answer these questions, you could wander into dangerous territory very fast.
Is money made from intentionally or recklessly exploiting people and environments by business moguls acceptable when some gains are given to charity? It is an age-old question, horribly illustrated by the Sackler family’s philanthropy, since much of their money has been made in pushing opioids.
A fundraiser for children suffering from cancer, unfortunately called the Tri at the Trump, is cancelled as the organizer fiddles.
Why do nonprofits look to change their names? Here is one example.
