At first I was admiring it, or just wondering at the new sections.

And then I saw the signs. The names.

On one small wing -- ONE SMALL, NARROW WING -- there were three -- count 'em: THREE -- rich men's names in large letters, claiming parts of that small wing for themselves. I think it's the somebody Urquhart Wing (top of wing), the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre (main floor), and the somebody McEwen Atrium attached.

I am really offended. Why do people who give money to something like a hospital want their names plastered all over it? To me, that is just the opposite of goodness. Hospitals, any public facilities, are not places for anyone to be preening. If we're giving to them, we should be doing it modestly and humbly. Good works are not good works at all if one is broadcasting them, using them to advertise.

Sheesh. Where were these people brought up???

And beyond that, I would like to know how much these people paid to get their names up in great big letters all over one of our central public hospitals -- I am betting that it was not that much. People have been led to believe that the "philanthropists" paid for the whole bloody wing or atrium or centre, but I suspect that that is not true. They give what is, for them, peanuts, and it becomes cheap advertising over the years.

When a new building goes up at my university, potential benefactors have the option of having the "school" named after them, the building itself, or various facilities within it, each with their own price tag.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
These things are known as "naming rights" and they are most definitely for sale. It's a fairly established part of fundraising now.

---

Not just now, although it's getting worse (somehow the fact that the public has contributed to the building of these facilities never gets mentioned).

This is also a way of making people look good when they might be deplorable human beings. The Nobel Prizes, the Carnegie endowments and the Rhodes Scholarships are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head... oh, and the Munk Centre

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

what McMaster charged Degroot to put his name on the business school was a heck of a lot less than what Schulich payed etc.

I found this on the OMA website. I was wrong it was $5mill for the hospital and $6.4 for UofT.

quote:

---

In addition to the above, individuals in their own name have made some extraordinary
contributions. For example:

In 1997, Peter Munk, Chairman of Barrick Gold Corporation donated $5 million for a
cardiac centre at Toronto Hospital, and $6.4 million for the Munk Centre for
International Studies of the University of Toronto.

---

OMA donations etc

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: miles ]

quote:

---

MUNK'S A HAPPY GUY Barrick Gold Corp. chieftain Peter Munk is said to be feeling awfully good these days after he successfully wrestled $2-million for his eponymous cardiac centre at Toronto General Hospital from Citigroup Global Markets a couple of months ago. You will remember the "donation" came in lieu of a defamation suit that Munk had launched following accusations from a Citigroup analyst regarding corporate governance at another of the outfits that Munk chairs, Trizec Properties Inc. Link

---

And,

quote:

---

An exceptional commitment of $10 million was announced for the creation of the McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine at University Health Network. This very generous gift from Robert and Cheryl McEwen also establishes the Robert R. McEwen Chair in Cardiac Regenerative Medicine and creates the striking Robert R. McEwen Atrium that is the gateway to Toronto General Hospital's new Clinical Services Building. Link

---

Well, we're down to two mill, "in lieu of a defamation suit" (haven't worked through that logic yet), in one case, but ten mill in another.

Without exaggerating, this is perhaps the most extreme version of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that I have ever seen in my life.

Would it be better if they had taken the five mill and put it into a gargantuan second or third personal home with their name on the mailbox at the end of the lane?

People of all income brackets piss money away on monogrammed clothing, vanity license plates, personalized coffee mugs and the list goes on and on, but we should save a sizeable scoop of scorn to heap upon people who would donate millions of dollars to educate people and save lives and ask only for a brass plaque in return?

Hey, I'll probably be in the position to give big chunks of money away to my favorite causes, and I'll probably do it without requiring naming rights (although I do plan to go in with others to make a big donation on behalf of the Class of '99). But who am I to begrudge someone who is willing to add seven or eight zeroes on the end of a digit on a cheque and give to a good cause? Maybe they want to show it to their children/ grandchildren. Maybe they want to show others that buildings get built not just by government dollars but often due to the philanthropic acts of private citizens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Sigh.

Well, we're down to two mill, "in lieu of a defamation suit" (haven't worked through that logic yet), in one case, but ten mill in another.

How did McEwen make his money?

---

I love Turtles. Time for the Turtle song:

quote:

---

Turtles, Turtles,
Ah ah ah,
Turtles, Turtles,
Yeah yeah yeah,
Ooooooh
I love Turtles.

---

quote:

---

somehow the fact that the public has contributed to the building of these facilities never gets mentioned

---

Many will have a plaque or some similar that lists various donors, much like we have at babble: "Friends of ______" for one level of contribution, "Partners" for another, etc., etc.

Here's something I learned from our own fundraiser here at work: when a campaign to raise, say, 10 Million dollars begins, they start with the potential 'large' donors and try and woo them (a process that could take many meetings over months or years) but otherwise the campaign is "silent" (not publicized). Only when half of the goal has been raised will they go public and start canvassing for the smaller donations to help "reach the goal".

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I love Turtles. Time for the Turtle song.

---

The actress/singer in that commercial was from Kitchener too.

quote:

---

But who am I to begrudge someone who is willing to add seven or eight zeroes on the end of a digit on a cheque and give to a good cause?

---

I don't know who you are, Dex, but I am someone who wants to know where all those extra zeroes came from. Whose sweat; whose labour; whose tragedy?

And I want a full accounting: how many public dollars went into that facility?

quote:

---

The actress/singer in that commercial was from Kitchener too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
what McMaster charged Degroot to put his name on the business school was a heck of a lot less than what Schulich payed etc.

---

I was going to tell them, "No, that's okay, I don't want to make a big deal out of my charitable largess," but in the end, I decided to suck up the glory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I don't know who you are, Dex, but I am someone who wants to know where all those extra zeroes came from. Whose sweat; whose labour; whose tragedy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:
And also because every single person who gives any money to charity made that money off of the sweat and tragedy of others.

---

Donations do yield profit for the giver in terms of branding, name recognition, and credibility in the community. Many big donors would not give otherwise. This is a business decision for them - their family name is a brand in the community, associated with philanthropic largesse, and regular donations are really marketing dollars spent to strengthen the brand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Dex, under the current dispensation, "given anonymously" would be the least they could do.

Do I otherwise assume that those are ill-gotten gains? Have you done a survey of CEO salaries lately?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
what McMaster charged Degroot to put his name on the business school was a heck of a lot less than what Schulich payed etc.

I found this on the OMA website. I was wrong it was $5mill for the hospital and $6.4 for UofT.

OMA donations etc

---

Not only business--DeGroote is the first person to have his name on a school of medicine:

DeGroote gift announcement

"McMaster’s medical school is be the beneficiary of the largest single cash gift in Canadian history. In tribute, the School of Medicine is now called the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University, the first Canadian medical school to bear the name of a benefactor."

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed Dex already pointed this out....

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Phil ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
Rockefeller biographer Ron Chernow: "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey, I donated a twonie to my local library branch, and got to write my name in marker on a piece of cardboard and stick it to the check-out counter wall.

---

What Michelle was talking about we could relate to the story of the Widow's Mite, couldn't we. She couldn't give much, but what she gave was as much as she possibly could give, probably more.

There is not only a holy but also a simply social virtue in that kind of giving, and I'm all in favour of acknowledging it. At that level, it may encourage others who can contribute their "widow's mites," which is why I allow my name to appear on a list of donors to rabble.ca. At this level, it matters that people see that there are numbers of us willing to contribute.

But is there a difference that makes a difference with the big profiteers? I think so, and vmichel's posts above are excellent short analyses of how that works.

quote:

---

the instution is only being shrewd to make sure that the donor feels he/she is receiving something of value for his/her money.

---

Precisely. Mainly, the verrrry rich give because they want something back, and that something often looks either like public power or some kind of public cleansing of sins ... or maybe just plain money (from branding).

Very rich people are not allowed to donate to charity!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
What Michelle was talking about we could relate to the story of the Widow's Mite, couldn't we. She couldn't give much, but what she gave was as much as she possibly could give, probably more.

---

Based on your posts, you didn't know a single thing about those people beyond the names on the plaques and the building to which they were attached when you started your judgmental rants. Not a single thing. You didn't know how much they gave, or even if they gave at all, although you were happy to assume that it wasn't enough. You didn't know if they were saintly or dastardly people, although you felt free to make assumptions. You didn't know if they gave every single cent they had ever earned, or if they gave the change they found in their couch. You didn't know if the names were put there posthumously to honor that person's service to the facility (this happens a lot, btw) or if it was to honor a donation. For the most part, you still don't know any of the above information. You even went to such astounding lengths to claim that a donation + a nameplate was "the opposite of goodness".

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
What Michelle was talking about we could relate to the story of the Widow's Mite, couldn't we. She couldn't give much, but what she gave was as much as she possibly could give, probably more.

---

Hee. Well, the truth is, I just sort of noticed it and thought it was a nice cause - I didn't go into any financial hardship giving a twonie, although there have been times in recent memory where I've been counting pennies pretty closely during a lean month here and there. And the only reason I wrote about it here was out of silliness more than anything - as I was reading, I was thinking how unlikely it is that I'll ever have a plaque (or a hospital brick) with my name on it, and then I remembered the cardboard cut-out with my name on it. Hee!

And the funny thing is, I actually DID kind of laugh at myself at the time when I wrote my name on it and stuck it to the wall. But at least it was just my first name. I should've had fun with it and instead written something like, "rabble.ca - news for the rest of us!" or whatever.

quote:

---

Oh my god, this is absurd. How do you know how much Michelle could or could not afford to give? Are you really that close as friends?

---

Actually, skdadl and I are pretty good friends in real life as well as babble (although we met on babble) and she knows that I've gone through some pretty lean times here and there over the last couple of years. So it wasn't overly speculative on her part.

And I agree with skdadl's point about the difference between a campaign where there are a ton of little cardboard nametags on a window or a library check-out counter, and a campaign where you name the library after one person. In the former case, it's kind of a visual reminder of "Look what we can do when all we ordinary people just give a little together - look how much we can raise." I think there's a lot less "ego" involved in sticking your first name up with 200 other names at the drug store when you give a loonie to whatever cause they're pushing than there is in permanently naming a building after yourself.

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

As with hospitals, our university is a public institution. The increased reliance on private philanthropy, especially for capital projects, makes me very nervous. It also increases inequities between educational institutions because quite often the "older" universities with the more (affluent) alumni are more successful at raising dinero.

Which is why there needs to be better public funding. And I'm quite prepared to argue that every successful $10 million donation pitch takes some of the onus off of the government.

BUT the harsh current reality in the university setting is that, in the absence of public funding, any shortfalls that aren't covered by private donations are likely going onto the already overloaded backs of the students.

I'm lobbying for increased $$ to post-secondary education, as part of increased public funding to public programs in general. I find it pretty questionable: reliance on rich people in the private sector to keep the public sector going. And believe me, I can be as cynical as anyone about the $100 million library donation.

Don't even get me started about the negative effects of "public-private research partnerships."

But as a person who works with students -- and as a student myself, although I'm lucky/privileged in being able to afford to pay -- I have to think about the here-and-now, which is that if university budgets are cut by the government, the money's going to be made up somewhere.

I hate the fact that the right is able to argue that subsidies to post-secondary education benefit the elite, because, realistically speaking, it's still the elite who attend universities. Although that's a classic example of circular reasoning, it's still largely true. We can do a much better job as a society in making higher education available to all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
The increased reliance on private philanthropy, especially for capital projects, makes me very nervous.

---

I couldn't agree more with this statement. The end result is often that donor cultivation and the health of the endowment take precedence over the educational goals of the institution.

I am not sure I'm ready to argue for greater public subsidies for higher education here in the US (as along with that would probably come greater public control of the content of the education), but I am ready to argue that Universities consider foregoing the construction of the fanciest building on the block and scaling back a little.

Only once in my career of doing our taxes did I suddenly have to investigate the way that deductions for charitable donations are structured (Thorfinn donated a valuable part of his library -- long story), and did you know that the more you give, the greater the rate of the deduction? I've put that badly (I have such trouble thinking as an accountant), but you catch my drift.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I am really offended. Why do people who give money to something like a hospital want their names plastered all over it? To me, that is just the opposite of goodness. Hospitals, any public facilities, are not places for anyone to be preening. If we're giving to them, we should be doing it modestly and humbly. Good works are not good works at all if one is broadcasting them, using them to advertise.

---

This is a very old problem. It's certainly not just a North American thing. And it's worse than you think. I read a statement from a Grand Poobah of some service club saying that every club needs a crippled kid. Yes, he actually said that. A club can get lots of publicity by donating to children in need. It is unfortunate that so many in our society actually need the help and have to take it from wherever thay can get it. Giving the fat egos some public stroking seems to be a small price to pay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vmichel:
In my ideal world, Universities would consider that it might be worth losing a little donor money in order to gain a little more control of the direction of the institution.

---

Like when
St. Mikes took money from the tobacco industry for its business ethics course:

quote:

---

Health groups escalate campaign to break big tobacco�s partnership with university ethics programme

Campaign to take Big Tobacco out of Universities

Non-Smokers' Rights Association

Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
NEWS RELEASE

Feb. 24th, 2003 (Toronto) -- Health organizations joined with alumni and faculty today to escalate a campaign started last November to break a tobacco company's ties with a university course in business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The Non-Smokers' Rights Association and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada announced the latest phase of their campaign designed to persuade the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto to sever its relationship with Imperial Tobacco. They are pressing to have the $150,000 donation returned to the cigarette company.

The revelation that St. Mike's had accepted the donation from the makers of du Maurier and Player's led to the resignations of members of the CSR Advisory Board, the withdrawal of one of the three CSR programme partners, and protests by alumni and university faculty.

"The St. Mike's decision confers 'innocence by association' on the manufacturers of an epidemic," said Dr. Atul Kapur, President of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. "And it places St. Mike's in opposition to public health and the community as a whole. We fail to understand why a university would agree to partner with Big Tobacco. We have no alternative but to ask the University to make a choice between embracing the interests of public health or legitimizing an industry whose behaviour has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Canadians."

---

There's a library I have fond memories of. Long after all the other libraries had installed the paranoid buzzers and click-stalls at exits, St Mike's remained entirely open, except for a large, beautifully lettered sign over the main exit -- a curse on all those who steal books.

In the 60's the school was on an expansion and building campaign. Well one famous family who had about 4 generations who went to the school donated at that time $10 million to build the new library and put books in it. In return the library is called the XXX library.

Not all donations by the rich are bad, not all donations are done simply for the tax receipt. Many are done because the family or person really beleives that it is the right thing to do.

In the same vein Cornell is named after it's founder.

And it's not just in the US. McMaster University was named after Senator William McMaster (1811-1887), who bequeathed substantial funds to endow "a Christian school of learning"...

So, for instance, if someone had dedicated their lives to fund raising for a hospital, and sat on the executive or board for years, and volunteered their time, then sure, I can see naming a wing after that person. That's recognition for time and effort put into the hospital, not just the buying of advertising space.

I have to admit, the phenomenon is quite overwhelming in Toronto. I am sure it exists elsewhere but it only ever hit my once I moved here.

I don't disagree if someone sets up a foundation (Bill Gates Foundation) and the foundation gives to a hospital. The hospital can have a plaque outside the new cancer ward stating: "New [name of famous hero/surgeon/musical genius/scientist/hockey player goes here] Cancer Ward - Generous funding from the Bill Gates Foundation" but I don't feel comfortable calling it the "Bill Gates Cancer Ward".

Big egos.

On the other hand, if we get a new cancer ward, do I care if it's named after Mr. Munk or some other person? It's cancer ward. It's what's inside, not the plaque that counts, I suppose.

At present we are constructing a building that is extremely relevant to that prof's legacy. Naming rights have not been sold yet. The suggestion has been raised to name it after her. This would be perfectly logical, and the community overwhelmingly supports the idea.

I'd be absolutely stunned if it happened. Naming rights will go hand in hand with a gift large enough to fund much of the construction. It would be charming to name the building after the prof, but the building would never get built if that happened.

There have been some idealistic rumblings that maybe students and staff could collectively raise enough $ to get the building named for the prof, but that is completely unrealistic given the amount of $ required and the incomes of students and staff.

I think the fun would really be in seeing when they crack. They might deny you when you offer a million dollars. Would they continue to deny you when you make it 5? 10? 20 million?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
This is but one of the many abuses of privelege I intend to indulge myself in when I win the 6/49.

---

Hee! You'd better win one of those lotteries stateside instead, where the prizes are sometimes in the hundreds of millions rather than only 10 or 20 million dollars through the piddly provincial ones here.

vmichel, I wasn't thinking university staff, I was thinking just students and interested professors or whatever, not people who have inside information, could mount a publicity campaign or something. In any case, it probably wouldn't work anyhow.

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]