全球视野 | 从常春藤学校校长辞职出发，谈谈捐赠人权力的边界

What’s really new when it comes to the campus donor revolt? Assertions of donor prerogatives certainly aren’t novel, especially on college campuses. The inboxes of countless university presidents and development officers attest to that. And plenty of major donors have threatened to withhold future gifts if certain conditions aren’t met, or as a reaction to institutional positions they don’t like. 

关于校园捐赠人的发难，这有什么新鲜的？捐赠人主张自身特权的说法确实并不新鲜，尤其是在大学校园中。无数大学校长和发展官员的收件箱就证明了这一点。很多主要捐赠人曾威胁过，如果不满足某些条件，或回击他们不喜欢的机构立场，他们就会暂停未来的捐赠。 

What does feel new, however, is the public and performative nature of those assertions, a sort of Elon Musk-ification of higher-ed philanthropy. In the past, such demands and threats were typically made behind closed doors and brought to light only after the fact. But during the last few weeks, major donors to elite universities sought to rally other donors to demand these institutions take a stronger stance against anti-Israel campus protests and charges of antisemitism. They deployed social media, traditional media, and their donor networks to spread their message. 

然而，真正让人感到新奇的是，这些主张是公开的，带有表演性质，像一种高等教育慈善事业的“埃隆·马斯克化”。在过去，这类要求和威胁通常是关起门来说的，只有事后才被公之于众。但在过去几周里，精英大学的主要捐赠人试图鼓动其他捐赠人，利用社交媒体、传统媒体和捐赠人网络传播，要求这些机构对反以色列的校园抗议和反犹太主义的指控采取更强硬的立场。

It has already led to more public attention on the issue of donor power and a pulling back of the curtain on major-donor stewardship and development. It also raises questions for the entire sector. 

它已经引发公众更多地关注捐赠人权力问题，拉开了主要捐赠人管理和发展的帷幕。这也给整个行业带来了问题。 

The most charitable read on the actions of Bill Ackman, Mark Rowan, and other outspoken donors is that they are simply using their power and access to speak on behalf of a broader constituency — in this case Jewish students, alumni, and faculty who did not feel heard. 

对于比尔·阿克曼（美国亿万富翁、对冲基金经理，毕业于哈佛，领导了对于前哈佛校长克洛迪娜·盖伊的批评，并指控她在学术工作中抄袭）、马克·罗文（美国亿万富翁、私募股权投资人，毕业于宾夕法尼亚大学，呼吁宾夕法尼亚大学的领导辞职，并要求其他捐赠人停止捐赠）和其他直言不讳的捐赠人的行为，最善意的解读是，他们只是在利用自己的权力和渠道，来代表更广泛的支持者——在这种情况下，就是那些感觉被忽视的犹太学生、校友和教职员工。 

But what does it mean for major donors to be the face of such a campaign? It can certainly alter the nature of the negotiations between the various stakeholders. Ackman, for instance, alleged that one reason why Harvard’s board did not force the university’s president to resign was that it did not want to be seen as “kowtowing” to him. There are certainly ways in which the expectations of major donors — the transactional approaches and entrepreneurial perspectives they borrow from their business realms — shape their perception of grievance, injury, and remedy. 

但是，当主要捐赠人成为这样一场运动的代言人时，这会意味着什么呢？它肯定会改变各利益相关方之间的谈判性质。例如，阿克曼声称，哈佛大学董事会之所以没有强迫校长辞职，原因之一就是不想被认为是他们“屈服”于阿克曼。主要捐赠人的期望——他们从商业领域借鉴的交易方法和企业家观点——在一定程度上影响了他们对投诉、伤害和补救的看法。 

马吉尔的辞职似乎引发了对所谓的“捐赠人滥用权力”的道德恐慌。这种反应是过度的，甚至是可疑的。 

The sudden discovery that donors exert influence over their grantees is disingenuous at best. Every nonprofit executive knows that donors have always had influence over an organization’s choices. Moreover, until it was used to protect Jewish students, donor influence was considered positive, with funders encouraged to make their views heard. 

人们突然发现捐赠人有在对受赠人施加影响，这充其量不过是一种虚伪的说法罢了。每一位非营利组织的管理者都知道，捐赠人一直在对组织的选择产生影响。此外，在被用来保护犹太学生之前，捐赠人的影响力一直被认为是积极的。资助者被鼓励发表他们的意见。 

When three Pittsburgh foundations halted funding to the city educational system 20 years ago to force change, the Stanford Social Innovation Review cited it as an example of bold philanthropic leadership. The response to the Magill case is no less bold and no less positive. Without donor pressure, the intellectual and moral rot of elite academic institutions wouldn’t have received the attention it urgently deserved. Without alumni activism, the open season on Jewish studies and faculty, the calls for genocide, and the glorification of murder and rape would have continued unabated. 

20年前，当匹兹堡的三家基金会停止对该市教育系统的资助，以迫使其进行变革时，《斯坦福社会创新评论》将其列为大胆的慈善领导力的典范。捐赠人对于马吉尔事件的反应，也同样是大胆和积极的。如果没有捐赠人的压力，精英学术机构在知识和道德上的腐朽，就不会得到应有的迫切关注。如果没有校友们的积极行动，对犹太研究和教职员的无限制攻击、对种族灭绝的呼吁，以及对谋杀和强奸的美化将会继续不断。 

My organization, the Jewish Funders Network, does not believe in funders using the power of the purse to force ideological alignment. However, given the current debate on college antisemitism, not intervening would be the real breach of ethics. Donors have the right and the obligation to advocate for their core values. 

我所在的组织——犹太资助者网络，不认为资助者应该利用财力来强迫意识形态一致。然而，鉴于当前关于大学反犹太主义的辩论，不进行干预才是真正的违背道德。捐赠人有权利也有义务，倡导自己的核心价值观。 

Let’s hope bold leadership by donors can force a reevaluation of a broken paradigm of higher education and bring about badly needed change. 

让我们希望捐赠人的大胆领导，能够迫使人们重新评估破碎的高等教育范式，并带来急需的变革。

Important work to achieve justice is often outside the edges of mainstream political and philanthropic comfort. Many of us who opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion remember that questioning the government was often met with accusations of treason until the war turned into a quagmire and weapons of mass destruction were never found. 

实现正义的重要工作，往往游离于主流政治和慈善事业舒适区的边缘。许多反对2003年入侵伊拉克的人都记得，质疑政府往往会被指责为叛国。直到战争陷入泥潭，大规模杀伤性武器也从未被找到。 

Presenting the Palestinian perspective during the past two months often feels much the same. Public pressure to conform to social norms, even when they are wrongheaded, can lead philanthropists to intervene in nonprofits’ work as the political temperature rises. 

在过去的两个月里，站在巴勒斯坦的立场来发表观点，往往会给人同样的感觉。公众要求遵守社会规范的压力，即使这些规范是错误的。这些压力也会导致慈善家们随着政治升温，而开始干预非营利组织的工作。 

As a supporter of Palestinian humanity, I was horrified to hear Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida argue on the U.S. House floor recently that there are “very few innocent Palestinian civilians.”  Yet I oppose restricting Mast’s speech, even as I forcefully condemn it. Donors should show equal respect for university codes of conduct that conform to the same free speech laws that Mast benefits from. 

作为巴勒斯坦人权的支持者，当听到佛罗里达州共和党众议员布赖恩·马斯特最近在美国众议院声称“几乎没有无辜的巴勒斯坦平民”时，我感到非常震惊。然而，我反对限制马斯特的言论，即使我强烈谴责他的言论。捐赠人也应同样尊重符合言论自由法的大学行为准则。 

Turning donor support into an expectation of influence can easily swerve into censorship, either because in deference to the political mood advocates silence themselves, or because institutions roll back free speech protections. Such actions hurt us all — progressives and conservatives alike. 

将捐赠人的支持，转化为对影响力的期望，很容易演变成审查。这要么是因为倡导者们为了顺应政治气氛而自我沉默，要么是因为机构削弱了对言论自由的保护。这样的行为伤害我们所有人，不论是进步派还是保守派。

How many times have development directors heard that a funder is moving elsewhere because they have “different priorities” or “aren’t aligned with the new direction of the nonprofit?” Donors are mercurial by nature. They have always had power because they control the resources of organizations whose work does not yield an economic return. 

有多少次，发展总监们听说某位资助者因为“优先事项不同”或“与非营利组织的新方向不一致”而选择转投他处？捐赠人生性善变。他们一直拥有权力，因为他们控制着那些不产生经济回报的组织的资源。 

What’s new, as illustrated by the campus cases, is the level of influence major donors are publicly asserting when they object to the direction an organization is taking. Using shareholder-action tactics against nonprofits has been relatively rare until these past few weeks. 

正如校园案例所示，新的变化在于主要捐赠人在反对组织走向时，其公开表达所产生的影响力。之前，针对非营利组织使用股东行动策略的情况还相对较少。 

That said, I believe the campus situation is less about nonprofits yielding to donor pressure (nothing new there), than about the current reality facing our country. As we close out 2023, rhetoric is high, and fear is abundant. 

尽管如此，我认为校园的情况与其说是非营利组织屈服于捐赠人的压力（这并不新鲜），不如说是更多地反映了我们国家当前面临的现实。随着我们结束2023年，言辞激烈，恐惧弥漫。 

What does this mean for nonprofit leaders in the year ahead — a year that will likely be especially contentious and disruptive? I suggest first taking time to clearly articulate your values, publicly and with your donors. Then prepare for some difficult conversations. Explain to donors what truths you are juggling in your role, and get ready to listen, accepting that you might not like everything you hear. You may lose donors, but you also might secure the trust of many more. 

这对于未来一年（可能会特别具有争议和破坏性的一年）的非营利组织领导者意味着什么？我建议，首先花时间在公开场合和捐赠人面前，明确阐述你的价值观。然后为之后一些艰难的对话做好准备。向捐赠人解释你在职责中所面临的真相，并准备好倾听，接受你可能不会喜欢听到的一切。你可能会失去一些捐赠人，但也可能赢得更多人的信任。

Balancing the outsized influence of wealth in our economic and governing systems with community-centered power and priorities is critical to creating a just and equitable multiracial democracy. That’s why I’m deeply disturbed by reports of threats to defund groups that stand against hate and antisemitism but have also called for a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas, labeled the conflict genocide, or otherwise spoken out against the mass bombing of Gaza. 

一方面，财富对经济和治理体系有着过大影响力，另一方面，我们要以“社区为中心”、“以社区为先”。而保持两者之间的平衡，对于创建一个公正而平等的多元民主至关重要。因此，我对那些撤资威胁深感不安。尽管这些团体还呼吁在以色列和哈马斯停火，称这场冲突为种族灭绝，或以其他方式公开反对针对加沙的大规模轰炸。 

Threats like these reflect an abuse of funder power and are antithetical to a vision of partnership and mutual respect between donors and grantees. Weaponizing access to funding creates a chilling effect on nonprofits’ speech and agency, and represents the worst impulses of funders to wield destructive power to control grantees as opposed to engaging with them as equals. It’s a major reason why the philanthropic sector struggles to consistently build trust with many communities. We must all be aware of the long-term consequences of our actions. Relationships that we sever now will not be easily rebuilt. 

诸如此类的威胁反映了资助者的权力滥用。这与捐赠人和受资助人之间的合作和相互尊重的愿景背道而驰。将获取资金的途径武器化，会对非营利组织的言论和机构产生寒蝉效应。这也代表了资助者最坏的冲动，即利用破坏性的权力来控制受资助者，而不是平等地与他们交往。这也是慈善行业难以持续与许多社区建立信任的主要原因。我们都必须意识到我们的行为所带来的长期后果。我们现在切断的关系将很难重建。 

All of us in philanthropy need to engage in hard conversations as we commit to responding to events in ways that move us towards a just and peaceful world. Rather than choosing inaction, censorship, or retaliation, donors should take this opportunity to deepen dialogue with grantees and with communities under threat. Philanthropy’s power should be used with wisdom and in solidarity, not to spread more fear and harm movements with the threat of scarcity. 

慈善事业中的每个人都需要进行艰难的沟通。因为我们致力于以一种使我们走向公正与和平世界的方式，来应对各种事件。捐赠人不应选择不作为、审查或报复，而应借此机会加深与受资助者和受威胁社区的对话。慈善的力量应该以智慧和团结的方式加以利用。而不是通过威胁减少资源，来传播更多的恐惧和伤害运动。

There’s always been an asymmetry of power between donors and the nonprofit leaders they profess to support. What is especially concerning today though is how donors choose to speak out aggressively about issues that affect them personally, but often fail to stand up for the larger issues of equity and justice. 

捐赠人和他们声称支持的非营利组织领导人之间，一直存在着权力的不对称。然而，如今尤其令人担忧的是，捐赠人对影响他们个人的问题咄咄逼人，但对更大的公平和正义问题却往往不能挺身而出。 

But make no mistake: The recent chain of events creates a unique opportunity for nonprofits and their donors. By working together, they can create standards for addressing the conflicting commitments from university and nonprofit donors across the country. We can develop guidelines that explicitly call out all forms of racism, bigotry, sexism, and antisemitism, for example. We can fully support everyone, not just a select few, in combating the rise in anti-democratic behavior by holding people accountable for their actions. Because, of course, actions speak louder than words. 

但请不要搞错：最近发生的一系列事件为非营利组织及其捐赠人创造了一个独特的机会。通过共同努力，他们可以制定标准，来解决全美各地大学和非营利组织捐赠人相互冲突的承诺。例如，我们可以制定指导方针，明确谴责一切形式的种族主义、偏执、性别歧视和反犹太主义。我们可以全力支持每一个人，而不仅仅是少数人。通过让人们对自己的行为负责，来打击反民主行为的抬头。因为，行动当然胜于雄辩。

Donor relationships matter. Donors generally support the mission and values of the organizations they support. When they believe an organization has betrayed its mission, they are well justified in registering their concern. When they are correct, the organization should adapt. 

捐赠人关系很重要。捐赠人通常支持他们所支持的组织的使命和价值观。当他们认为某个组织背离了自己的使命时，他们有充分的理由表达自己的关切。如果他们的看法是正确的，组织就应该进行调整。 

In many nonprofits, major donors are close partners rather than arms-length givers; they are not mere outsiders. Furthermore, communications from large donors tend to be better informed than those from the general public. For these reasons, large donors deserve increased attention. 

在许多非营利组织中，主要捐赠人都是密切的合作伙伴，而不是袖手旁观的捐赠人。他们不是局外人。此外，来自主要捐赠人的信息往往比来自普通公众的信息更灵通。因此，大型捐赠人值得更多关注。 

At the same time, there have been far too many vectors influencing Penn’s specific situation to draw any broad conclusion about the “correct” level of influence of donors on nonprofits. Each organization has the responsibility to properly address internal and external requests and demands without sacrificing its integrity. Donors have the power that an organization allows them. For a wealthy university, even the withdrawal of a nine-figure gift can be absorbed, while a small organization might have much greater temptation to change because of a donor’s influence. Such a change may be the right move nevertheless. Each situation is unique. 

与此同时，宾夕法尼亚大学的特定情况，受到了太多因素的影响。以至于不能就捐赠人对非营利组织的影响的“正确”水平，得出任何笼统的结论。每个组织都有责任在不牺牲自身完整性的前提下，妥善处理内部和外部的请求和要求。捐赠人拥有一个组织所允许他们拥有的权力。对于一所富裕的大学来说，即使被撤回九位数的捐赠，它们也可以消化。而一个小型组织可能会因为捐赠人的影响力，而面临更大的改变诱惑。尽管如此，这样的改变可能是正确的举动。每种情况都是独特的。 

At Human Rights Watch, which I directed for nearly three decades, we understood the importance of ensuring that donors did not compromise the integrity of our investigations and reporting. On the one hand, the need to attract donors kept us on our toes. We had to demonstrate impact sufficient to justify their investment. On the other hand, we drew lines to ensure that donor pressure did not compromise our work. 

在我领导了近三十年的组织——人权观察，我们深知确保捐赠人不损害我们调查和报告完整性的重要性。一方面，我们有吸引捐赠人的需求，必须时刻保持警惕，展现出足够的影响力，以证明他们的投资是合理的。另一方面，我们也要划清界限，确保捐赠人的压力不会影响我们的工作。 

For university presidents, that line should be drawn at any gift, or donor, that would undermine the freedom of faculty and students to comment on the world. A defense of academic freedom should be a foundational principle of any university. Allowing donors to censor professors or students would be akin to Human Rights Watch letting donors dictate its reporting. No leader of either institution should permit donors to cross that line. 

对于大学校长来说，任何捐赠或捐赠人，只要会破坏教职员工和学生评论世界的自由，就都应该划清界限。捍卫学术自由应该是任何一所大学的基本原则。允许捐赠人审查教授或学生，无异于人权观察让捐赠人左右其报道。任何一个机构的领导都不应允许捐赠人越过这条底线。 

But in recent years, universities have effectively invited such donor meddling by commenting on certain world affairs as institutions — not as members of the faculty or student body but in the name of the university as a whole.

但近年来，大学实际上邀请了这样的捐赠人干预。因为大学以机构的名义来对某些世界事务发表评论，而不是以教师或学生团体的名义。

As recommended by the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, university leaders should get out of the business of commenting on global affairs. That would deny donors an obvious target of pressure. 

正如芝加哥大学1967年的《卡尔文报告》所建议的那样，大学的领导者应该退出对全球事务的评论。这样捐赠人就会失去一个明显的施压对象。 

University leaders should still protect the university community from intimidation, harassment, or violence (though not from comments that merely make students uncomfortable, since universities should be preparing students to address uncomfortable issues). But university leaders should refuse, on their own or under donor pressure, to discipline or silence faculty or students for exercising their academic freedom. 

大学的领导者仍应保护大学社区不受恐吓、骚扰或暴力侵害（但不应该对仅仅使学生感到不舒服的评论采取行动，因为大学应该培养学生解决不舒服问题的能力）。但大学领导应拒绝自行或在捐赠人的压力下，对行使学术自由的教师或学生进行处分或噤声。

The response by donors to alleged campus antisemitism should be reframed as a form of donor activism rather than outright control. Donor activism, akin to other forms of activism on campuses, is aligned with the mission of higher education, emphasizing the development of ethical and engaged citizens. Just as student protests advocate for institutional change, donors and alumni leverage their financial influence to shape the direction of their alma mater. 

捐赠人对校园反犹太主义指控的回应，应被视为一种捐赠人行动主义，而不是直接的控制。捐赠人行动主义与校园中其他形式的行动主义类似，与高等教育的使命相一致，强调培养有道德和参与性的公民。正如学生抗议活动倡导机构变革一样，捐赠人和校友也利用他们的财务影响力，来塑造母校的发展方向。 

The growing tension we are witnessing calls for a balancing act that empowers faculty exploration of diverse and controversial ideas while involving alumni and donors as valuable stakeholders — without compromising academic principles or faculty control over curriculum and research. 

我们目睹的紧张局势日益加剧。这就要求在不损害学术原则，或教职员工对课程和研究的控制的前提下，采取一种平衡的做法：既要让教职员工有能力探索多元化和有争议的观点，又要让校友和捐赠人作为重要的利益相关方参与进来。 

Higher education and other nonprofit leaders can prepare for future donor activism by putting measures in place that enhance transparency, communication, and adaptability. All institutions should establish a clear and comprehensive code of ethics that outlines the organization’s values and principles and serves as a guide for both internal decision making and external interactions with donors. This approach will help leaders navigate the donor activism landscape, while maintaining a balance between the concerns of all its constituents. 

高等教育机构和其他非营利组织的领导者，可以通过采取措施来增强透明度、沟通和适应性，为未来的捐赠人行动做好准备。所有机构都应该建立一个清晰而全面的道德准则，概述组织的价值观和原则，将其作为内部决策和与捐赠人进行外部互动的指南。这种方法将帮助领导者在捐赠人行动主义的环境中航行，同时在所有支持者的关切之中保持平衡。

Two things are clear to me from studying the history of American Jewish philanthropy. First, America’s investment in philanthropy has encouraged diverse groups to pursue their diverse interests. Second, philanthropy is not good at equalizing diverse claims within a given community or institution. 

通过研究美国犹太人慈善事业的历史，我清楚地认识到两点：第一，美国对慈善事业的投资，鼓励了不同群体追求各自不同的利益；其次，慈善事业不擅长平衡特定社区或机构内的不同主张。 

The events that occurred at elite universities over the last two months exhibit both the remarkable strengths and profound weaknesses of American philanthropy. For this reason, any effort to understand the story must confront the complex and contentious role that philanthropy plays in American civic life. 

过去两个月在精英大学发生的事件，既展示了美国慈善事业的卓越优势，也暴露了其深刻的弱点。因此，要了解事件的来龙去脉，就必须正视慈善事业在美国公民生活中，所扮演的复杂而又充满争议的角色。 

It is hardly a side note to the story that its main characters are Jewish donors. Their presence highlights how philanthropy, as a structure that organizes and manages society, operates to diversify civic spaces. A broad set of historical transformations, including the end of quota systems that blocked Jewish admissions to some elite universities, enabled these individuals not only to attend elite schools, but eventually to gain the financial and social capital to become philanthropic leaders in those same institutions. Philanthropy was an effective tool for these American Jews to attain positions of power in some of the same universities that had once denied them entry, let alone influence. 

犹太捐赠人是这个故事的主角，而不是边注。他们的存在凸显了慈善事业作为组织和管理社会的结构，是如何使公民空间多样化的。一系列广泛的历史变革，包括阻止犹太人入学的配额制度的结束，使这些人不仅能够进入精英学校，而且最终获得了经济和社会资本，成为这些机构中的慈善领袖。慈善是这些美国犹太人在精英大学获得权力地位的有效工具，更不要说用来获得影响力了。  

The dramatic action in the story, however, reveals the structural limitations of philanthropy when it comes to giving equal treatment to diverse views.

然而，故事中的戏剧性行为，揭示了慈善事业在平等对待不同观点方面的结构性局限。

It seems clear that these individuals had more power than other constituent groups, including students and faculty, to advance their claims. Their demands prioritized their interests, even if they also believed they were speaking on behalf of other university groups. 

犹太捐赠人显然比包括学生和教职员工在内的其他群体，拥有更大的权力来推进他们的主张。他们的要求优先考虑了自己的利益，即使他们认为自己是在代表其他大学团体发言。 

Philanthropy has the potential to bring different voices to the tables of public and institutional power. But nonprofits should not delude themselves into believing that the system is a good or even adequate tool to advance fairness or equality. To achieve that end, they must look well beyond their largest donors, even if that means foregoing a check or enduring harsh and public critique. 

慈善事业有可能为公共和机构权力带来不同的声音。但非营利组织不应自欺欺人地认为，慈善系统是促进公平或平等的良好工具，甚至是足够的工具。为了实现这一目标，非营利组织必须将目光投向其最大的捐赠人之外，即使这意味着放弃支票或忍受严厉的公开批评。

点击回顾更多内容