. . . .
Things
there hit a snag. The college was created with money and land
bequeathed by its founder, Phelps Smith, to honor his father, a local
hotelier. When Phelps died in 1937, his will stipulated that the school
be built on the site of the former Paul Smith’s Hotel. The will also
required that the institution be “forever known” as Paul Smith’s College
of Arts and Sciences.
The
college, which has a student body of about 1,000, argued that it was so
financially strapped (operating at a loss as recently as 2013) that it
needed to be released from this restriction in order to safeguard its
future.
While
some people immediately objected to the name change, Cathy S. Dove, the
college’s president, posted an open letter on the college website,
praising the Weills and arguing for the name change.
“Joan
and Sandy are presenting us with an opportunity to solidify the
long-term financial health of our school,” Dr. Dove wrote. “Joan and
Sandy are held in high esteem among the world’s most generous
philanthropic and educational circles, and her name will bring us new
opportunities to introduce our school to other supporters of higher
education.”
But
in October, a judge ruled that the college had not offered enough
evidence to prove it could not survive financially without a name change
and blocked the agreement to do so. A few weeks later, the college announced that the Weills would no longer donate the $20 million.
“It
was a naming gift, so without the court allowing us to go forward,
there was no money,” said Bob Bennett, Paul Smith’s spokesman. “That was
the deal, right from the beginning.”
. . . .
“I think it’s unfortunate that the Weills are not going to give the
money,” Mark Schneider, a lawyer who represented alumni who opposed the
name change, told The New York Times
after the offer was rescinded. “If they really wanted to give a gift to
the school, it shouldn’t be contingent on something as self-glorifying
as naming the school after Mrs. Weill. They could have named something
else.”"
[remaining 29 grafs of emesis-inducing fawning over two rich people omitted]
– The New York Times, Style Section, December 18, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment