When UC Berkeley recently wrapped up a private fundraising challenge two years ahead of schedule, the campus proved how vital alternate funding sources are for a strong academic environment. And though concerns about privatization are warranted to a certain extent, it is encouraging to see substantial sums of private money available for a public campus that desperately needs the support.
The Hewlett Challenge, launched in 2007 to endow chaired faculty positions, has allowed the campus to establish 100 new chairs and raise more than $220 million in endowment funding. The chairs are a valuable addition to the campus because holding on to top-tier faculty is critical for the campus to continue being one of the best in the world. Given the state and university’s fiscal atmosphere, the challenge represents one feasible way in which the campus can remain on par with its private competitors in faculty retention.
Similarly, the campus’s progress on its eight-year philanthropy project is a good sign. As of Aug. 31, the Campaign for Berkeley — which is set to conclude next year — had raised $2.6 billion of its $3 billion goal. That apparent success shows how adept UC Berkeley is becoming at garnering large amounts of private support — an important skill that will be even more critical if the state’s recent divestment from higher education becomes permanent.
While campus officials should be praised for meeting their fundraising targets so well, any increase in private money to a public university should be met with some amount of caution. Raising the level of private support to an institution that is supposed to serve the best interests of all Californians raises an ethical concern. The campus’s allegiance should not shift away from the public and toward its donors. In the university’s current situation, UC Berkeley has little choice other than to seek more private funds, but doing so nonetheless presents a fine line on which campus officials must tread very carefully.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
What are the ethical issues of private vs. public funds? Cal is always referred to as the best public university in the world instead of the best university. The best universities are all private. There isn’t an ethical problem with being private. Private funds are all coming from alumni or from foundations that are much more interested in a better world than our legislature. I believe that Cal loses ethical points for being public, because the legislature isn’t as ethical as our donors.
When Berkeley alumni finally figure out that it takes money to stay on top of the academic world, Berkeley’s constant problems will go away. Berkeley alums have horrible give back rates, but don’t hesitate to say,”I went to Berkeley.”And according to Payscale, we make lots of dough. If you truly care, alumni, reach into that pocket and send some money. You’re so CHEAP!! Look at UVA and Michigan… rich.
I have to blame the same attitude that I saw in this opinion piece. Cal students are fed the BS that private funds are not as ethical as public funds. So Cal graduates don’t think it is right to give money to the school. At Michigan and UVA, the students are told that their donations are good for their school. So they donate without thinking that they are doing something bad.
“The campus’s allegiance should not shift away from the public and toward its donors.”
I don’t see the conflict of interest. Since UC should only accept donations from ethical people, companies, and organizations, what’s good for donors is also good for students and good for California’s economy.