Ivy League schools face donor loss due to anti-Israel student activism during Israel war.
Donor Revolt Hits Ivy League Schools Over Response to Antisemitism and Hamas Attacks
The University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, two prestigious Ivy League schools, are facing a major backlash from prominent financiers who have decided to cut off their support. The reason? Their response to antisemitism and the recent terrorist attacks by Hamas.
These institutions, known for their academic excellence, have witnessed influential donors closing their checkbooks due to international outrage against student activists who have defended the terrorist attacks in Israel. The attacks resulted in the deaths of over 1,300 people, with at least 3,000 casualties in Israel’s military response.
Pressure Mounts on University Administrators
University administrators have been under immense pressure to condemn Hamas and the campus organizations and leaders who have expressed support for the terrorist group. However, their responses, particularly from UPenn President Liz Magill, have infuriated donors who accuse the schools of being indecisive in the face of terrorism.
This week, the University of Pennsylvania lost donations from the foundation of Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and ambassador to Russia and China. Huntsman described the institution as “almost unrecognizable” and criticized its embrace of “moral relativism.”
Ron Lauder, the heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics company, also informed Magill that he would reconsider his financial support for UPenn. Lauder cited a campus climate of antisemitism, including a recent “Palestine Writes Literature Festival” that he personally requested Magill to cancel. Another major donor, David Magerman, also pointed to the event as the reason for ceasing his donations to the school.
Billionaire CEO Marc Rowan went a step further, calling for Magill’s resignation and announcing that he would no longer contribute financially. Rowan criticized the university president for failing to condemn the “hate-filled” event.
“The polarizing Palestine Writes gathering featured well-known antisemites and fomenters of hate and racism and was underwritten, supported and hosted by various UPenn academic departments and affiliates,” Rowan wrote in an op-ed.
At Harvard, the Wexner Foundation, a prominent nonprofit, became the latest high-profile donor to withdraw its financial support. The foundation accused the school of “tiptoeing” around the issues of antisemitism and Hamas after 31 student groups blamed Israel for the deadly attacks.
“We are stunned and sickened by the dismal failure of Harvard’s leadership to take a clear and unequivocal stand against the barbaric murders of innocent Israeli civilians,” the foundation expressed in a letter to the school.
In both cases, the donor outrage primarily focused on the institutions’ responses rather than the incidents themselves. Harvard President Claudine Gay attempted to address the situation by releasing a video statement emphasizing the university’s rejection of terrorism, hate, and harassment based on beliefs, while also affirming its support for free expression.
Regarding Magill, the outrage centered on the university’s refusal to condemn the “Palestine Writes Literature Festival.” Although Magill issued statements condemning Hamas, starting three days after the attacks, donors remained dissatisfied.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that the response to these attacks has exposed significant issues within higher education. He highlighted the horrific nature of the attacks and the subsequent celebration by professors and students, prompting people to question the state of academia.
“I think people have begun to say, ‘Hang on, well, what have we done to ourselves here?'” Gonzalez added.
Gonzalez emphasized that there should not have been any difficulty in addressing the controversy in the first place.
“There’s no gray area for students and professors. This is not a tough one,” he stated. “There’s no context that a professor can give that justifies the raping of women and then humiliating their bodies. … It’s just horrific stuff.”
How do university administrators justify their defense of free speech and open dialogue in the face of donor criticism, and why has this defense not been well received by donors
H-profile donor to withdraw its support. The foundation, known for its commitment to Jewish leadership, released a statement expressing its deep disappointment in Harvard’s handling of antisemitism on campus and its failure to condemn the terrorist attacks by Hamas. The foundation announced that it would redirect its funds to other institutions that prioritize the safety and well-being of Jewish students.
The donor backlash comes as no surprise, as both UPenn and Harvard have faced criticism in recent years for their perceived tolerance of anti-Israel sentiments on campus. Student activist groups that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel have been vocal in their condemnation of the Jewish state, often blurring the line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism.
In response to the donor revolt, university administrators have attempted to defend their positions, emphasizing the importance of free speech and open dialogue on campus. They argue that the universities must provide a platform for all voices, even those with controversial views. However, this defense has fallen flat in the eyes of the donors.
Critics argue that there is a difference between providing a platform for diverse perspectives and endorsing hate speech and terrorist sympathies. They contend that universities have a responsibility to promote a safe and inclusive environment for all students, including Jewish students who may feel targeted by these expressions of antisemitism.
The donor revolt is a wake-up call for Ivy League institutions to take a stronger stance against antisemitism and to support the well-being of their Jewish students. It highlights the importance of fostering a campus culture that values respect, tolerance, and understanding.
It remains to be seen how these schools will respond to the loss of financial support and the public backlash. Will they make a concerted effort to address the concerns of their donors and the wider public? Or will they double down on their commitment to free speech, potentially alienating their financial supporters further?
Regardless of the outcome, this donor revolt serves as a reminder that even prestigious institutions like the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard are not immune to public scrutiny. It sends a clear message that donors expect their funds to be used responsibly and in alignment with their values. The repercussions of this backlash may extend beyond the financial realm, impacting the reputation and standing of these prestigious universities for years to come.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
