What Others Are Saying

2008

"If wealthy donors can't be sure their money will be used appropriately, they're likely to be reluctant to give.  As always, it's the abuse of a few that ruins things for the many."  Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, March 13, 2008.

 

2007

"Success in your suit will provide an extremely valuable weapon in an arsenal of tools critically needed to bring non-profit governance in this country up to snuff. And particularly (but by no means exclusively) in the arena of college and university endowments and governance." Logan McCheek, Senior Managing Director, Trailblazers Capital Management, The Pittsford Group, Inc.

"In addition to dissing the donors' values, Princeton seems to have been caught moving the cash piles to unauthorized places." Columnist Froma Harrop, The Houston Chronicle, May 25, 2007.

"If Princeton has any shame, it will return every cent (with interest) to the foundation that it twice deceived." Editorial, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 19, 2007.

2006

"When it comes to the Robertsons, Princeton has clearly decided to ignore the intent of its donors." Andrew Ferguson, Columnist, Bloomberg News, December 26, 2006.

“Spurred in part by the publicity surrounding Robertson v. Princeton University … development officers are reexamining their institutions’ accountability measures and methods for greater responsiveness to donors.” Jennifer Salopek in CASE Currents, Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Washington, DC, August 2006.

“It’s likely that the Robertson Foundation case will be the most important donor intent case of this decade. If Princeton wins, it will be a grave blow to the cause of donor intent.” Martin Morse Wooster, author of “The Great Philanthropists and the Problem of ‘Donor Intent,” in Foundation Watch, Capital Research Center, Washington, DC, May 2006.

“The battle between Princeton University and the family of its late benefactor Charles Robertson is shaping up to be a defining moment in American higher education.” Editorial, The Washington Times, May 26, 2006.

“This case is disturbing not only because of Princeton’s arrogance but even more because we desperately need to encourage and train young people to go into public service.” Charles Peter, founding editor, The Washington Monthly, Washington, DC, in his “Tilting at Windmills” column, April 2006.

“The lawsuit has uncovered evidence of misspending that is the envy of Enron.” Columnist Eric Wang, Cavalier Daily, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, Feb. 20, 2006.

2005

“Yet those, like Princeton, who arrogantly presume to know better than donors how donations generally should be used, risk undermining confidence in the entire non-profit sector in pursuit of their own narrow aims.” Editorial, Daily Mining Gazette, Houghton, MI, Dec. 31, 2005.

“The issue is bigger than Princeton and the Robertson family. It has to do with how honest recipient groups are with donors and with the threat that dishonesty will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” Columnist Jay Ambrose, Torrance Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA, Dec. 26, 2005. 

“Fortunately, there are private donors, like the Robertsons’ children who support the Woodrow Wilson School, who are civic minded enough to demand that their money be spent for the original purpose of these institutions: to develop intellectuals to serve the nation.” Olivia Albrecht, John Tower National Security Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Washington, DC, Dec. 2, 2005.

“Nose-thumbing seems to have become a bit of a habit at Princeton … Rather than spend even a few of the millions bestowed upon the school on efforts to place graduates in the Foreign Service, the school chose to spend the money on other things and refused to change its ways when called on its own mischief by members of the Robertson family.” Editorial, Wheeling Intelligencer, Wheeling, WV, Sept. 23, 2005.

“However the courts decide this case, this much is already clear: Future donors beware. Your gift may prove someone else’s bonanza.” Columnist Paul Greenberg, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, June 1, 2005.

“Over these four decades, the university’s trustees … came to view the Robertsons’ Foundation as their own little piggy bank, to be shaken and spent as they damn well pleased.” Columnist James J. Kilpatrick, Raleigh News & Observer, Jan. 24, 2005.

“…It is fair to argue that Princeton has, in fact, deliberately ignored the Robertsons’ intent. Instead of employing the funds to train students for government service, Princeton has not just distorted the definition of ‘government service’ beyond meaning, but has used the endowment as a fund for general purposes.” Columnist Philip Terzian, The Providence Journal, Jan. 5, 2005.

2004

“The outcome of the Princeton lawsuit, even though it is in state court, is likely to set a precedent in regard to ‘restricted’ gifts such as the Robertson endowment, either in favor of donor intent or in favor of the corrupt notion that donor intent is irrelevant.” Editorial, Leader-Herald, Gloversville, NY, Nov. 29, 2004.

“The Robertsons’ central grievance is not simply that Princeton has failed to inspire more than a slim minority of students to take jobs in the federal government, as the family specified, but that the university has shown little interest in doing so.” Reporters Greg Winter and Jonathan Cheng, The New York Times, Nov. 27, 2004.

“If the Robertson family wins, another message will be clear to nonprofits: Don’t accept money unless you plan to use it for the designated purpose.” Columnist Alicia Colon, The New York Sun, Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2004.

2003

“The fulfillment of the goals of the Robertsons is as crucial today as it was when they initiated them. The war against terror requires educated men and women to enter government service. This is not a liberal or a conservative issue, but an ethical one of national interest.” Columnist Suzanne Fields, The Washington Times, Dec. 22, 2003.

“Very few of us will ever be able to match the munificence of Charles and Marie Robertson. But it isn’t only multimillionaires who have the right to expect that money donated for a specific purpose will be used for that purpose. It’s sad to see one of the greatest acts of philanthropy in US history become the subject of bitter litigation. But it would be sadder by far if donors came to believe that their intentions count fore nothing.” Columnist Jeff Jacoby, Boston Sunday Globe, Dec. 14, 2003.

“Recipients of charitable donations should use them for the donors’ original purpose.” Editorial, The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 7, 2003.

“This … may seem removed from most Americans’ lives, but the issues – donor intent and impact – will affect anyone who gives to charity this holiday season.” Contributing columnist Laura Vanderkam, Member, Board of Contributors, USA Today, Nov. 6, 2003.

“William Robertson is my new hero … His reason for the suit – and the reason I’m all for it – is that Princeton officials knew that the money was given ‘to send students into federal government,’ and … This government desperately needs these bright people.” Charles Peter, founding editor, The Washington Monthly, Washington, DC, in the “Tilting at Windmills” column, November 2003.

“Instead of stepping down, William Robertson has decided to stand and fight – and insist that a powerful university respect his parents’ wishes. It should serve as an example for all of us.” Columnist Edwin Feulner, President, The Heritage Foundation, Capitalism Magazine, Oct. 27, 2003.

“In this case there is absolutely no room to doubt what the founders wanted; it’s just in conflict with what Princeton wants. No wonder the court said there was reasonable doubt that the board majority was disinterested and acted independently.” Columnist Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Oct. 25, 2003.

“Expect donors to get more aggressive as empire-building non-profits get more creative in how they spend the money that they are given.” Editorial, Providence Journal, Providence, RI, Oct. 16, 2003.

“A court victory [for Robertson] could leave a half billion-dollar wound in Princeton’s side, but a loss could conceivably have detrimental consequences for nonprofits generally,” Columnist Jay Ambrose, The Washington Times, Oct. 14, 2003.

“It’s a battle between elite academic management types, who think they know better than their financial supporters how to spend money, and donors.” Editorial, Messenger, Fort Dodge, IA, Oct. 7, 2003.

“The family’s complaints are understandable … Princeton has not paid enough attention to the foundation’s original goal.” Editorial, The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ, Oct. 6, 2003.

“If donors can’t be sure their wishes will be followed or that money solicited will be used for advertised purposes … then donors will give less and society as a whole will suffer.” Editorial, The Intelligencer, Wheeling, WV, Oct. 6, 2003.

“The children of the late Charles and Marie D. Robertson, whose 1961 gift of 700,000 shares of A&P stock aimed to endow a foreign-service feeder institution, seem to have a strong case.” Editorial, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, VA, Oct. 3, 2003.

“If the school seriously pursued the mission so generously underwritten by the Robertson Foundation, then certainly more than 12 percent of its graduates ought to be found in international relations and [international] affairs.” Editorial, Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Saranac Lake, NY, Oct. 1, 2003.

“A brewing legal case involving the renowned Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is sending shockwaves throughout the charity industry, as well it should.” Editorial, Advertiser-Tribune, Tiffin, OH, Oct. 1, 2003.

“Here’s the most damning bit of information to come to light: Of the approximately 1,700 individuals to receive advanced degrees from the graduate school from 1973 through 2002, just 200 – 12 percent – got jobs with the federal government in international relations/international affairs.” Editorial, The Post-Journal, Jamestown, NY, Sept. 30, 2003.

“On ethical grounds, the Robertsons appear to have a strong case … No matter what happens, some good may come of the case if it creates skepticism among donors and leads to smarter philanthropy.” John J. Miller in National Review, Sept. 29, 2003.

2002

“At a time when the headlines are screaming about corporate malfeasance, the dispute over the Robertson Foundation funds is a good reminder that greed is not confined to Wall Street.” Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2002.