UAB Receives $5 Million Anonymous Donation

whinybabyUAB has received an anonymous $5 million donation, one of at least 16 around the country that have gone to woman-led universities.  The money comes with stipulations: $4 million must be used to fund scholarships for women and minority students, and the recipients can’t attempt to find out the donor’s identity.

Predictably, the white males at al.com, upset that they’ve never, ever, over the course of human history been granted any advantages because of their white maleness, are complaining about discrimination.

Sheesh.  I’m thinking that may deserve a Whiny Ass Titty Babytm Award.

45 Responses to “UAB Receives $5 Million Anonymous Donation”

  1. Jonathan says:

    I haven’t read AL.com today, so I don’t know what the white males over there are saying.

    But this white male is saying that’s wonderful that a donation was made of that size and that it’s going to help minorities and women. I say we need more of that.

    Now all I ask is that when someone wants to start a white males only scholarship or a donor wishes to donate a large sum of money and have stipulations that it can only be used for white males, that it be allowed just as we’ve allowed the above donation and millions other that are just as selective in their criteria.

    Wait, what’s that? That would be discrimination? Interesting… Guess equality is a one way street.

  2. Kathy says:

    No, Jonathan, equality is not a one-way street. If we had reached actual equality of opportunity in this country, you’d see far more women in particular in top leadership positions — we do, after all, make up 50+ percent of the population.

    For centuries, the best jobs and the scholarships, legacies, and recommendations from the power network went almost exclusively to white men. No one had to designate them so; it was simply assumed that white men were better qualified — and the people hiring, granting admission, or distributing scholarships gave them to those who looked and sounded like them.

    We have only just begun in the past couple of decades to progress beyond that way of thinking, and we still have a way to go before we’re really beyond it.

  3. Zach says:

    Wow Jonathan, Douchebag, party of one?

  4. Jonathan says:

    @Zach – Thank you for such a well thought and mature comment.

    @Kathy – Thank you for taking the time to actually write a reply.

    I view equality as not a destination or finish line to be reached, but a constant way of doing things. We don’t “reach” a state of equality, we practice it daily.

    If scholarships are allowed to be designated to certain races, genders, sexual orientation, etc., then the scholarship should be allowed to designate any particular race, gender or orientation, not just the ones that are politically correct. If you don’t agree with that statement, then that’s where our problem lies. Rules can not be different for some people and not for others, that’s the definition of inequality, agreed?

    So my question is why when it has been done in the past, that people wishing to establish scholarships for white’s or white males, or even white women, has it been accused of a discriminatory practice?

    We don’t beat inequality by swinging the pendulum the other way and forcing inequality to the majority and mandating quota’s like we too often see now. We do it by changing the way people think. It’s a heart issue.

  5. Rick says:

    Kathy, sad to finally dissagree with you on something but your argument reminds me of what I hear from my white-female cousin teaching in your neighborhood. When given a bad grade in her class. The african-american student often enough will either express or imply the 400 years of slavery defense. I would stand back if anyone dared to imply to any of the female MDs or Ph.ds in my extended family required ANY discriminaton against males to get their credentials. I’m quite sure they didnt. Yea Zach, just call me douchebag #2.

  6. B says:

    That old argument.

    Not a soul here was claiming that the donation was impartial or equitable. You are right, this is not equality; this is discrimination. Your argument falls apart for me when you say you think equality has already been achieved. I totally disagree. We have a long way to go towards equality of the races or the genders.

    I hear the argument about how hard it is for the white male to suffer under this reverse discrimination, but guys, we are working to correct the results of decades of past discrimination. That’s what affirmative action is all about. Whether you wish to acknowledge that past discrimination has put the minority classes at a disadvantage, it is still true. Because of past oppression, corrective action is needed to achieve equality.

    Most white males have trouble seeing their on own social advantages. They don’t realize that their appearance and gender makes power brokers (who are also white males) more comfortable with them. When hiring is done, it is frequently decided based on who the boss thinks he can work comfortably with. Without even thinking ‘I don’t want to hire the woman’ or ‘I don’t want to hire the black person,’ they are preferentially favoring the person who looks most like themselves. They are continuing the bias. Oh yes, this is happening today.

    The donor of this money did see the advantages that white males have historically enjoyed. They are trying to give an advantage to the disadvantaged. Until equality is truly achieved, I have no trouble discriminating against white males in this manner.

  7. Jonathan says:

    Your argument falls apart for me when you say you think equality has already been achieved.

    Don’t think I ever said we had achieved equality. I said:

    I view equality as not a destination or finish line to be reached, but a constant way of doing things. We don’t “reach” a state of equality, we practice it daily.

    I believe we are very far from equality and thought that was evident in my post.

  8. Rick says:

    I have no trouble discriminating against white males.

    B, How come I suspect you never will.
    At the JC where I take night classes the women have a higher GPA and a graduation rate and yet there is a women’s resource center – but guess wha,t not a men’s resource center. I had rarely seen such fury from feminists as when studies started started showing boys falling behind. What I here isn’t about equality. It’s about self-interest. Dissapointed that whiny-ass-titty-baby is the level of this blog. Thanks anyway, I’ll look elsewhere.

  9. Del says:

    I would have a problem with the gift if somehow it made deserving white men (like my son, for example) less likely to receive a scholarship. But unless I’m missing something this isn’t a zero-sum game – the $4 million just means there is more money in the big pot to hand out to other scholarship winners of any color or gender.

    However: I realize “we aren’t there yet,” but I am growing a little tired of identity politics in academia. Back in the late 80s, I worked for an organization that, as part of its mission, helped graduating MFA and PhD students find teaching jobs. One day someone called from some small liberal arts college and loftily informed us that an individual about to receive her terminal degree was not only a lesbian but also part black and part Native American. I swear, I am not making this up. It was exactly the way you might call your friend the realtor and tell her a great property was about to come on the market. I think this person expected my boss (also a woman, incidentally) to set up a bidding war for her student. (If memory serves, my boss said, “We’ll be happy to send her a copy of our Jobs List.”)

    That was almost twenty-five years ago now. I have an eighteen-year-old son trying to choose a college major and career path, and I honestly don’t know if it’s a good idea for him to aim for an academic career.

    At the same time, my heart aches when I see the way our public school system is still failing to level the playing field in hundreds of ways. We’re comfortable financially, thank God, and between their doctor daddy and their English-major mommy, our kids pretty much have the homework situation covered. Whenever they draw on the family resources, I think about the kids, white and black kids, boys and girls, who are being raised by a single mom who is working her second job at the convenience store and isn’t there to say that yes honey, that’s a good example of foreshadowing in Act I of the Crucible. Or who don’t have Power Point installed on their home computer when the teacher assigns a Power Point project. Or who don’t have a computer at all, and have to rely on the school lab or the library (I guess that’s what they do – I honestly don’t know). We need to work much harder at finding real, practical ways in education to give everybody a chance from the get go, instead of window-dressing with a handful of college scholarships. And it’s going to cost a hell of a lot more than four million dollars, and take a hell of a lot more effort than a couple of Rolling Reader volunteers and a free lunch program.

    I’m sorry. I didn’t mean this to turn into a rant but it did. And in two different directions!

  10. Kathy says:

    Rick, assuming you aren’t already gone…

    The whiny ass titty baby award goes to the commenters at al.com. If you’ve ever wasted spent any time wading around there, you’ll recognize that it reflects the maturity level of many of the regulars.

    Once again, the jobs, scholarships, etc. have been “designated” for white men for centuries. I think most of us still (unconsciously) consider “white male” (and you could add “straight Christian”) as the norm and see those who aren’t white male as deviations. B is right; the power brokers and decision makers are still primarily white males, and they choose successors who look and sound like them — often without any conscious intent to discriminate. It still takes conscious effort to go against the default choice.

    We don’t beat inequality by swinging the pendulum the other way and forcing inequality to the majority and mandating quota’s like we too often see now.

    Jonathan, I’m not sure I understand this. Women do make up the majority of the population in this country, but are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Non-white people are also underrepresented. So either there remains discrimination — or perhaps on some level you really do think non-white non-males are inherently inferior? I’d hate to think that’s true. You may want to examine your privilege.

  11. Kathy says:

    Oh, and Del, you feel free to rant anytime! :)

  12. Jonathan says:

    Women do make up the majority of the population in this country, but are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Non-white people are also underrepresented.

    Kathy, that’s one of the problems right there. The belief that there has to be equal representation. Just because one race/gender comprises xx% of a group, doesn’t mean it HAS to be equal “representation” or that a company has to hire xx% of a certain gender/race.

    For example, what race/gender would you say most NBA athletes are? Black male. Now, using “equal representation” logic, we should force the NBA to have the appropriate number of whites and hispanics on every team. I mean, they are underrepresented in those positions right?

    What about day care workers? There is not equal representation of males in that field. Why is that? Should we force daycare facilities to hire a certain number of males? Maybe on their applications it should say at the bottom “Males highly encouraged to apply.”

    I’m also not saying women/blacks/gays/etc can or can not hold certain positions or titles. Please don’t distort my words to mean that. I’m saying that there are certain predispositions that must be considered. Blacks are predisposed to being more athletically gifted. Females, IMO, are predisposed to being better child care providers due to genetics, the way God made us (or Allah, or whatever someone believes in)and just their all around nurturing abilities.

    Now, that doesn’t mean all blacks should only be athletes or all women are destined for stay at home mom-hood. Just look at Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman. IMO, both very successful CEO’s during their time.

    And I do agree with you Kathy (et al) that there does remain discrimination in the business world for sure. However, as I originally said you can’t fix that by forcing quota’s and certain number of hires. I’ve seen far too often inept and incompetent employees kept because they were serving as a quota, when good employee’s were let go, or not hired. And half the time, the employee in question knew that and took full advantage of it. It’s a heart issue that needs to be addressed in people. You don’t fix racism/discrimination by forcing things, you educate and show people why their wrong.

  13. Kathy says:

    Rick, I just looked back at your commenting history here. It’s sad that you had no trouble with my snark when you agreed with me but one instance of disagreement would make you decide to leave.

  14. Jonathan says:

    And just for the record I have no problem with the $4 million. Like you said, this isn’t a zero sum game. I was just pointing more of the mindset of maybe the reason the numb nuts over on AL.com were griping.

    Oh and Del, you can definitely tell you’re an English major. Great grammar and writing IMO. I wish these comment things had an “Edit” button. :)

    Kathy – You’re keeping track of comment history?? I bet I’m in trouble now… ;)

  15. Bill says:

    As a white male, I congratulate the unknown donor who is being generous to higher education. A toast to you!

    That is all.

  16. Kathy says:

    Ah. Jonathan, I didn’t intend to imply that I think there must be representation exactly equal to the proportion of the population. But I do think a level playing field would be a more diverse one.

    I don’t think we should set quotas; I do think when employers, voters, etc. see two or three candidates with similar qualifications, they still tend to gravitate to the default white male. If that weren’t the case, we would likely have more than 17 women in the 100-person US Senate, and would have had more than 37 since 1789.

    We waste a lot of potential this way, and I don’t see a problem with making an effort to step away from the norm and choose the well-qualified non-white non-male (without demanding that that person be exceptional in a way that a white male wouldn’t have to be).

  17. Flewellyn says:

    It’s hilarious watching the white men get all testerical over this.

  18. Rick says:

    Kathy,

    Sorry, I hadn’t noticed the snardk. the first time. On the flip side you didn’t acknowlegedge the complete lack of support by feminists to studies showing boys falling behind in school. Or that in areas like medical school men are all ready the minority. Or that the reaction if the scholarships had been for white males only the reaction would have dwarfed the reaction here. I do take some comfort in knowing for the sake of her patients, that if my young female cousin ends up practicing at Children’s where her grandfather was chief of staff, it’ll be be because (like her grandfather) she’s smarter and worked harder than any one else. Codify this for me. 5 points extra on tests if your asian, 10 if you’re a woman, 15 if you’re black, 20 if you’re any combination of those. Sorry, it’s 2009 and the bigoted-anti-wihte-male tone wore thin many years ago.

  19. Kathy says:

    On the flip side you didn’t acknowlegedge the complete lack of support by feminists to studies showing boys falling behind in school.

    That’s because I haven’t seen complete lack of support. Links, please.

    Or that the reaction if the scholarships had been for white males only the reaction would have dwarfed the reaction here.

    Wow. One more time: scholarships, etc. have been de facto designated for white men for centuries. No one had to say so; it was simply the way the world worked. Yes, it would look pretty darn sexist and racist (not to mention redundant) if a scholarship were designated for white men only — because they have traditionally held the power and still enjoy tremendous privilege in this country. If, say, black women had traditionally received the scholarship money, the best jobs, the political power, I bet white men wouldn’t object to a scholarship designated for their (white men’s) benefit.

    I do take some comfort in knowing for the sake of her patients, that if my young female cousin ends up practicing at Children’s where her grandfather was chief of staff, it’ll be be because (like her grandfather) she’s smarter and worked harder than any one else.

    Nowhere have I advocated quotas or choosing the less qualified candidates when hiring, giving scholarships, etc.

    ETA: Let me be quite clear that a donor would be completely within his/her rights to designate scholarship money for white men if s/he chose to do so. It’s kind of a College Republican thing to do, but people are free to be College Republicans too.

  20. Red Queen says:

    Oh but who, who will speak for the white menz?

    Certainly not the Senate or the House of Reps (which are made up of mostly white men)

    And not the Supreme Court (ditto)

    Or the titans of business (ditto again)

    Or the vast majority of university heads (and yet another ditto)

    Poor white menz. If things keep up like this, they may have to examine their own privilege.

  21. Rick says:

    Please Kathy,

    Read Red queen, B, Zach, and you’ll get my drift. I wish you could sit down with my cousin in Vestavia a Samford Law School graduate and have this discussion. Female, liberral, and teaching at high school and university and against affirmative action with none of the reverse sexism so evident in these replies.

  22. Kathy says:

    Rick, you may not like some of the replies here, but they are not proof of “the complete lack of support by feminists to studies showing boys falling behind in school”. Three or four comments here do not comprise the consensus of feminists.

    No, not everyone here has bent over backward to be polite to you. Some of them are shaking their heads at the ongoing display of unconscious privilege.

    You know what? There are most assuredly some women and minorities who, in the past couple of decades, were moved ahead in line and got jobs at the expense of white male applicants. And that may happen again. But white men have benefited from affirmative action for centuries, and bemoaning the former without acknowledging the latter is incredibly hypocritical.

  23. Zach says:

    please stop using my comment as some sort of example of intellectual laziness. Rather an example of someone who has a short attention span, and doesn’t like to write comments that are too long. you know, like this one.

  24. Del says:

    Thank you for the compliment, Jonathan. :)

  25. Rick says:

    Now, We’re back to the what somebody’s grandfather did to somebodies grandmother argument. Am I the only one that see’s the irony that I’m the only one here that believes , having seen it over and over again, that women can achieve any goal they set their mind to, without any special treatment whatsoever – southern women I have known showed me this before I started grade school.
    Have you ever seen the #s of how many women absolutely believe in equal opportunities for themselves and their daughters won’t identify themselves as feminists.? Like the woman who started Take your child to work day in response to there only being a Take your daughter to work day. I remember her response to the question why. She said I love my four sons just as much as I wouuld have loved four daughters.
    I keep hearing the same arguments since 35 years ago when BOTH sisters after graduating from Woodlawn went to college and grad school for their doctorates at Berkeley and CU. Funny, I never heard them whine either. I’m guessing they treated their students the same regardless of gender or race. To my sisters, you go girls!

  26. Zurich says:

    There will NEVER be equality as long as people like the author of this blog believe some some groups, based on race, gender, or sexual orientation deserve to be MORE EQUAL than everyone else.

    @Jonathan: You are 100% correct. If I donated $5 million US to Kansas State tomorrow for a male only scholarship, this same blog (and many others) would accuse me of being sexist

  27. Rick says:

    What was your comment. Oh right , calling someone a douchebag. Why would someone have a problem with that.

  28. Kathy says:

    Wow, Zurich, you’re falling down on the job — you neglected to make your usual gratuitous and off-topic dig at the Clintons.

    Yeah, that’s right. I want some people to be MORE EQUAL. Whatever the hell that means. That’s okay, I understand. It’s hard to relinquish your God-given superiority (complex). Competition is scary, especially if the woman or minority is better than you. I have a feeling your definition of “equality” is girls and coloreds and queers knowing their place and staying in it.

    In the unlikely event that you have $5 million, give it to whomever you want for whatever you want. Just like the anonymous donor who gave to UAB, that’s your right.

  29. Vail says:

    OK how about this… All the universities give back all the donations/scholarships that go to the football teams (which are ALL MALE) and then you all can bitch about this donation.

  30. Blue queen says:

    Vail we “douchebags” aren’t bitching we’re “whining”. Haven’t you been paying attention.Your suggestions are fine but then you’d have to give back all the donations/scholarships to the women’s sports teams as if that had anything to do with the discussion. Kathy, you may not like this but a simple google search – boys falling behind in school gave 303,000 places to see. Like african-americans voting against gay rights, feminists seem all too thrilled to discriminate against men and boys if it works in their favor.

  31. Kathy says:

    Blue queen, thanks, but I didn’t ask for links to stories about boys falling behind in school. I have no doubt they’re out there. What I asked for was links to ““the complete lack of support by feminists to studies showing boys falling behind in school”. You sound like you’re channeling Rush Limbaugh.

    The football point is actually a good one. According to Dear Husband, our resident sports expert, the University of Alabama pays its football coach $4 million a year and, like other universities, can provide up to 85 full scholarships (including room and board) for football players. There is tremendous money donated to support football, and even though it isn’t overtly designated as such, it is for men almost exclusively.

    It’s very rare that a women’s sports team would get that kind of monetary support. And that’s not a claim of discrimination on my party; it’s an example of the reality that I have pointed out numerous times above — scholarships, etc. have been de facto designated for white men for centuries. No one had to say so; it was simply the way the world worked. $4 million for women and minorities is a drop in the bucket. It’s not evidence that white men are being oppressed.

  32. Jonathan says:

    One side note re: the University of Alabama. Saban is being paid $4 million per year and even has some more bonuses depending on performance and bowl appearances that could allow him to make over $5 million per year.

    However, last year alone the UA football program generated $54 million in revenue and $32 million of that was profit. They paid for Saban’s entire contract in one year. I know we’re not all MBA’s here, but that’s good business practice. That means the profits over the next few years can be reinvested in the University including endowments and scholarships for all students.

    And no, I didn’t go to UA or am even an UA fan. :)

  33. Blue queen says:

    Kathy,

    I have to get over this. I have to realize Alabama is backward not just on the right but on the left, even thouugh its only been a year since I last visited. I barely remeber the last reverse sexist thought I heard here in San Francisco. Though I do. Several years ago now. I was listening to Kqed (NPR) when a young (sounding) women calls in discussing the Womens Studies program at UC Santa Cruz. She says she had just graduated from the program. She said she had once as to bring her boyfriend to a Take Back the Night. She was refused. Said she had never been around such bigots. The host paused and said , “yes they’re known for that’. This is the same radio show where they had numerous discussions on boys falling behind in school. There were national television shows on the same thing. Only one woman as I recall, a teacher, even acknowledged the possibility of a problem. She said that things as simple as taking more breaks was helping the boys who seemed to have more trouble sitting for long times at their desks. And yes, I supported title 9 to equalize funding in sports. I supported Hillary, both my women senators, and my former woman mayor. Funny not because they were women but because they were, in my opinion, the best candidates. What a concept. And if you reread the blogs you’ll notice I never said men were being repressed. How come I’m feeling with you gender would trump everything. I have a feeling I could check back in 2029 and the gender baiting would have toned down and the discussion would be closer to to what it all ready is here on the west coast. Now go ahead and start replying to things I never said.

  34. Kathy says:

    Ah, I thought the tone sounded familiar, and the reference to San Francisco sent me to check the IP address. Nice sock puppet, Rick. At least I don’t have to make up other commenters to support my opinion.

    Still waiting for those links.

  35. Blue queen says:

    Ah,

    Only because you blocked the comments I otherwise tried to post.
    I’m sure its easier to slant the discussion when edit out the posts
    that disagree. To bad I really respected your blog till now. It had a measured quality even when confronted. Even my lesbian sister who has made no secret of not liking men seems to have moved on. I bet someday you’ll understand that in the same way women don’t like perceived sexist comments, men feel the same way.

  36. Blue queen says:

    But then you probvably never will.
    These are just the first couple. Sorry, I’ll get more but I have to hurry before you block this.

    htthttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtmlp://www.physorg.com/news66925169.htmlin

  37. Blue queen says:

    Sorry Kathy,

    I’m sure you will wast to block this one too.

    Just the first paragraph from the physorg.com one.

    In the United States, girls capture more academic honors, outscore boys in reading and writing, and score about as well on math at the fourth- , eighth- and 12th-grade levels on the National Assessment for Educational Progress exam. Internationally, fourth-grade girls significantly outperformed boys in the eight leading industrialized nations that took part in the 2001 Progress in International Literacy Study. And 15-year-old boys have been surpassed by 15-year-old girls among the 28 countries involved in the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment.

  38. Blue queen says:

    From a british paper Jan 31, 2008

    White working-class boys are doing significantly worse at school than almost all other groups of pupils.
    A mere 15 per cent finish compulsory education having mastered the three Rs, official statistics show.

    I know what youre thinking Kathy, “So what’s the problem?”

  39. Blue queen says:

    From a book written by a woman:

    The system is failing boys, argues Peg Tyre in The Trouble with Boys. A feminized curriculum, behavior norms that disadvantage boys, schools with few men on the faculty, a misguided belief that kids are ready to learn at an earlier age — Tyre rolls out a laundry list of reasons.

    Gosh, this feels like shooting ducks in a barrel.

    So many others with exactly the same thesis. But I’m guessing, Kathy, you’re answer is more women’s resource centers.

  40. Kathy says:

    Rick, I haven’t blocked any of your comments. None of them went to moderation. I just found two that went directly to the Akismet spam folder and approved them. If I’d been planning to block you, I would have used your IP address. You know, the one you’re using to sock puppet.

    But you just keep on keepin’ on with that paranoia.

    I have not denied that there are studies showing boys falling behind. What I have asked you for — repeatedly — are links to evidence for “the complete lack of support by feminists to studies showing boys falling behind in school” that you asserted. I looked at your CBS News link, and I see someone blaming feminists for boys’ problems in school. But I still don’t see the “complete lack of support by feminists” that you claim.

    But I’m guessing, Kathy, you’re answer is more women’s resource centers.

    You’re guessing, all right. You have never read that here. I’m not sure why my pointing out that white men, for centuries, have enjoyed the assumption of superiority and all the perks that go with it is so problematic for you. What you call “backlash” was for a very long time typical life experience for non-white-male people. ETA: and non-straight, non-Christian people as well.

    Okay, you’re upset about $4 million set aside to benefit women and minorities. That’s cool. I just don’t understand why you can’t acknowledge the long history of affirmative action benefiting white men, and particularly wealthy white men. God knows that’s how we ended up with GWB as president despite his less than stellar performance at his legacy schools and history of business failures.

  41. Blue queen says:

    Believe it or not I’m actually not that upset about that in general. If some one had given all the money to Mills College here, an all women’s college, or Emory University, a historically black college, I would have said god bless em and never had a second thought. There’s a sense, maybe wrong, that there’s an in your face tone to all of this. The only evidence, on the feminist thing, off hand with me, is anecdotal which would bore you and raise my blood pressure so I’ll spare you. Besides, I’m not sure there are official Feminist websites that speak to any topic. I never denied, all right or acknowledged, but it’s leap on your part to think, that I don’t believe Women or Blacks or Jews or Irish or Poles or Italians etc. were discriminated against. It is nice here though that for them most part that we’ve gotten past the flip this group is good that group is bad style of arguing at least among the people I know. All right, I give up, you win.
    As for my bad spelling and typos and grammar. The school system failed me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…

  42. Blue queen says:

    Sorry, I could help re-reading you post. I’m quite sure I never used the word backlash. And it’s not paronoia if some one is really watching you.
    All right I really do give up. I promise, I promise, I promise…

  43. Del says:

    You know, I have to l say that I sense a bit of the “in your face” thing here too. It’s the exaggerated insistence on anonymity that raises a tiny red flag for me (Disclaimer: I didn’t read the linked article). “On condition that they never attempt to discover the identity…” I don’t know, it has a kind of cheesy Horatio Alger novel sound to it. (Of course, in the penultimate chapter, the mysterious benefactor’s identity would be revealed, after the young recipient had demonstrated his sterling worth.)

    I’d like to think that if I made an anonymous gift to an institution, it would, you know, be anonymous, without any additional stipulation.

  44. Kathy says:

    Why is it an “exaggerated” insistence on anonymity? I’m not really sure how an anonymous donation is “in your face”. Donors frequently designate how their gifts can be used, and recipients generally do their best to honor the request.

    Given the blowback seen here, in this tiny corner of the internet, I can’t really blame the donor for wanting to remain unidentified.

  45. Del says:

    All right, now I’ve read the whole story. The reason I felt the insistence was exaggerated was because it seemed to me that making a gift anonymously was a simple enough act and didn’t need to be accompanied by extra stipulations that the recipient not attempt to discover the donor’s identity. As you say, both anonymous donations and designating their use are very common.

    So, maybe this anonymous donor, who is making this “round of mysterious gifts,” really does wish to not only remain anonymous but not attract attention to the gifts. Too bad, though:

    “We had not announced it because we were trying to respect the wishes of the donor,” [UAB President Carol Garrison] said. “And then we saw what was happening all over the country.”

    She goes on to say,

    “When you have a donor that is being this generous not only with this institution but many institutions across the country, what you really want to do is respect their wishes that it be anonymous.”

    So, could y’all, like, do that? Guess not. Ooh, let’s solve the mystery! Let’s pester Oprah to see if it’s her! And yes, as you point out, it’s bound to stir the sh*t all over the internets. Geez. Maybe he/she/they should take the money back.

Leave a Reply