Hello everyone,
For this blog post I'll be discussing a profile of Michael
Bloomberg published by the New York Times several days ago (which you can
find here).
Bloomberg is the current mayor of New York City who is
worth approximately $25 billion from his ownership of the Bloomberg Corporation
which supplies financial technology. The article describes how he has
donated over $1.1 billion over the last four decades to
his Alma Matter; Johns Hopkins University. His donations have
transformed Hopkins immensely in virtually every conceivable manner since he
graduated. I'd like to focus on two aspects of his giving: his decision
to expose his immense giving and whether he donated to where the greatest need
lies.
During our
discussion we spoke about the role of anonymity and discretion in charitable
donations. Some philanthropists ascribe
to the notion that their generosity should not overshadow the effect of their
donation. This is why in virtually any
listing of benefactors for any fundraising there is almost always someone
listed as being anonymous. On the other
hand, there are many donors who want the recognition whatever the reason. They are cast in stone on buildings,
displayed in photographs, and are written about in the New York Times. For Bloomberg it seems as if he has spent
time weighing whether to fully promote his donations or to do them and receive the
minimum amount of publicity. In the
article it describes how he has decided to make his donations public in order
to encourage more donations towards academia.
Do you think people should promote their own donations or maintain their
anonymity like Joshua Rechnitz?
My second
point of focus comes in regards to whether Bloomberg’s donations are going to
the point of greatest need. Higher
Education as an industry does not require revenue to come solely from donations
like other recipients of aid as they receive money from tuition charges. My focus is not regarding Bloomberg’s funding
of 20% of need-based aid but upon his donations for art installations, brick
and marble walkways, and more. Bloomberg
has an immense love of Hopkins as his donations show but at the same time why
do they deserve to receive such an immense portion of his money. In addition, we
discussed in class the merits of SOB donations for culture. Would a donation be better off used to help
pay someone’s mortgage or spent giving them the opportunity to see an art
gallery at a University? Bloomberg’s donations
have been extremely generous and have greatly assisted the development of Johns
Hopkins University over the last 40 years.
However, I have a hard time seeing how donations for sidewalks are a worthy
investment of immense wealth.
I’d love to
hear some of your opinions regarding his donations and the article. I think that some of the points I've brought
up are not black and white decisions but have many shades of gray. Bloomberg’s donations should be a model for
other members of the mega-rich. Enjoy
the Super Bowl and I’ll see you guys on Tuesday.
I am personally on "the fence" with your first question. I think it is very hard to answer that question for the simple fact that we can never really determine an individuals motive for allowing their donations to be public. Like Peter Singer stated in his book, "Donors who were told about another member's above-average contribution were twice as likely [to donate more]" (Page65). Maybe Bloomberg's intentions were similar to what I have quoted from Singer's book, or maybe he was just simply bragging about the good he is doing to have great connotations when his name is mentioned or heard. Like previously stated, it is very hard to have a legit answer to your first question.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your second question, I am not saying I entirely agree to where his donations are going, but I do not fully disagree either. It is his money and he does have that ability to decide where his money will be "best spent". Investing in his University is a great thing to do: but when is it enough. I say yes to an art gallery, but no to marble walls. But then again, we have no control over how his money is both made and spent
Austin,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a number of very good points regarding donations and publicity. With the case of Mayor Bloomberg, I think we are dealing with a special case. Mayor Mike, as the New York City mayor is affectionately called, is constantly under the limelight. I think it would be rather difficult for him to give any sum of money without attracting some type of publicity. Furthermore, Bloomberg’s donation shows that he is giving out of some sense of obligation. He is donating to the very institution, that without which, he may not be where he is today. I think that he is not publicizing his donation, as much as he is publicizing is allegiance and thankfulness to the role that his alma mater has played in his life. I think in this case, it is acceptable for Mayor Bloomberg to show his appreciation for the school, and for his parents as well, by naming a building after them.
In terms of the second question, I believe that the saying “to each, his own” can be acceptably used. I personally have no problem with Mayor Bloomberg using the wealth that he has accrued to further benefit an institution that played a crucial role in his education, and the rest of his life. It is his money, and theoretically, he can do whatever he wants with it. I think it is important to point out that what Mayor Bloomberg did here was make a donation to an educational institution, rather than use the money to take his family on vacation. Simply put, the aid that he is giving, is better than not giving any aid at all.
Thanks for sharing a current article on philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteI think that I personally have always felt strongly about anonymity, not because money is rendered useless when a name is put to the donation, but because humility is necessary for other types of philanthropy such as volunteering. As you stated, I think this issue has many shades of gray, and I rather admire Mayor Bloomberg's tactic I believe. It seems like his donations were a two-way street and that he listened to the university's research on health and funded what was important to the university rather than simply deciding what he thought was best for the university. I think he thought carefully about making his donations public, rather than flashily trying to flaunt his wealth. I think that as mayor it is cool to see that he doesn't "talk the talk" and pass laws but not "walk the walk" and sit on a pile of money like so many other politicians. Often people wonder why they are forced to pay education and welfare taxes when politicians who are so rich aren't doing anything personally to help. This shows that he personally cares.
As for the second part, I know that a lot of Binghamton's recent renovations have come from alumni donations. This has allowed not just nicer sidewalks but also a new engineering building, the hiring of new staff, and the expansion of graduate programs. I think it's better to have alumni donate to make our universities better, and a sort of roundabout donation to the poor by keeping tuition from rising to cover these costs. The university can keep expanding without raising tuition on students who can't afford anything more expensive. Of course we know nothing about any other donations that he may or may not make. Of course other causes need donations too. But I don't think his donations are waste.
Although I am a New York City resident, I surprisingly knew very little about Michael Bloomberg. I enjoyed reading your blog post and the article because now I know a great deal more about Bloomberg and his fortune as well as his great deal of philanthropy. The first question you posed in your post was in regards to the anonymity of donations. I believe that it really does not matter if someone decides to go public with their donations or keep quiet on the matter. Either way, the donor is giving a great deal of money to something they consider important. If a person wants to be recognized for their donations, so be it. This doesn’t cheapen the donation. Also public donations can also promote others to donate because often the donors are role models and are looked up to in the community.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second question, I believe that honestly it really shouldn’t matter to us what he funded. It would have been nice if he donated money to people that are in desperate situations, but it is his fortune and I believe that he should be able to do what he wishes with it. If I was a billionaire, I would really dislike it if people told me that my donations were wasteful. I would probably prefer advice prior to donating about where my money could do the greatest amount of good. Also by donating to John Hopkins, I think that he is investing in the future of the students who go there. Not only will the school attract more students but the school will also attract students of the highest caliber. These students will probably become successful people after their education at such a prestigious school and they might also become wealthy enough to be able to donate such large sums themselves. These large sums could then be used in donations for people who are in dire situations.
As I mentioned in class, I place little to no value on anonymity in philanthropy. While it’s admirable to want to avoid any feelings of obligation on the part of the recipient, I think it’s equally admirable to encourage those who have received help to give back when they are able, if not to the donor specifically, to the community in general. Feeling indebted in an abstract way (that is, feeling a moral obligation rather than something like being crushed by ever expanding credit card debt) can serve to propagate philanthropy. Additionally, donations given to an institution, like the mayor’s, rather than an individual, are unlikely to make any individual feel indebted to Mayor Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteAs for the value or morality of his donations to JHU, aside from it being totally up to his discretion whether or not to give at all, the mayor’s donations have done a substantial amount of good at the university. Having spent some time there this past summer, I can attest to the fact that it isn’t particularly lavish by private university standards. Most of Mayor Bloomberg’s money has gone toward bettering the institution. Between funding so much of the need-based aid the university gives out and helping to build a children’s hospital and stem-cell research institute, I feel it’s safe to say his considerable wealth isn’t simply being thrown away.
Hi Austin,
ReplyDeleteThis is a cool and relevant article. Firstly, I'd like to express how I do not approve of a 1.1 billion dollar donation to a school that charges forty thousand dollars to each student. Also, I do not approve of his decision to expose his name to the public, and here's why: If it is academia that you would like to support, doing so by donating straight to the school will only result in that school improving itself to attract more students. Sure there may be a new dining hall or a building named after him, but there are no lives that will be significantly changed by this 1.1 billion dollar investment. To encourage such an investment is to only appeal to those who can afford donating large sums. If, however, Bloomberg decided to use this money for research grants or scholarships, his passion of academia would more than certainly be benefitted as well as the lives of a student who can now afford college or a medical breakthrough that could save millions. While I understand that much of his money may have ended up doing similar things, cutting out the middle man would have made for a much more efficient donation. As we have all learned by reading The Life You Can Save, the difference between efficiently allocated donations and wasted money is extremely significant. All this being said, I would be much more likely to support Bloomberg's decision to expose this donation under his own name if it had been towards something the average person can contribute to. For example, donating money to an organization that accepts money in any increment would potentially encourage millions of middle class donors to contribute their fair share.
Hey Austin,
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing this article with us- it is certainly relevant and provides us with an excellent topic to debate.
Personally, I think for a man with as much wealth and power as Mayor Bloomberg, he sets a disturbing precedent to the other wealthy elites of our country about what it means to donate money. Also, it is doubtful that he knows exactly how these donated funds are being allocated by the university. I have to agree with Dylan- how is it that so that an university with such a large endowment requires its students to pay upwards of $50,000 annually between tuition, books, and room & board? Do our professors really require that high of a salary? Does the university really need to be that aesthetically pleasing? Mayor Bloomberg's motives are highly questionable. He may just be donating out of the kindness of his heart, out of narcissistic tendencies,or so he can have some stake in the decision-making of the university. Still, I have to ask- does JHU really need 1.1 billion? It would be difficult for them to deny the donation, but they could also put it towards philanthropic donations in areas surrounding the university (it's important to note that JHU is in Baltimore, a city with a high poverty and crime rate). Also, Mayor Bloomberg has seen firsthand how poverty afflicts an area, such as his beloved NYC. I was shocked to learn that for someone who is so immensely wealthy the bulk of his donations are (publicly) directed towards a private, elite institution.