5. The expectations of benefactors and a responsibility to endow
John Shakeshaft
Let me begin, if I may, with a paradox in lieu of a question. Universities, and particularly Cambridge to whose behaviours I shall refer in this essay, seek the benefactions of accumulated wealth to pursue ideas, teach and publish freely for the public good without private benefit. To give, and not to count the cost, perhaps. I shall argue as Augustine did in his late sermons – this is a famously persistent concern for scholars – that seeking wealth to endow, sustain and manage the institutions of the University is for the benefit of the many and an enduring responsibility.1 Pursuing, considering and receiving benefaction engages Cambridge with its social purpose.
If we turn from the lineage of discovery and the description of scholarly benefaction in the fragilities of fourth-century north Africa to the early nineteenth century, the German savant and natural scientist, Alexander von Humboldt commented at the foundation of the University of Berlin in 1810 that ‘the richest universities are those where sciences enjoy the deepest and most mindful treatment’. He had in mind Cambridge and Oxford, even in their unreformed state before the onset of state-directed change in the mid nineteenth century. Humboldt believed, however, that wealth alone would not produce excellence; that, he thought was a matter of ethic.2 Universities were to be engaged with the proprieties of their own times, including in their management of their finances, as we still are.
Private benefaction is vital to the University of Cambridge and its colleges in several different contexts – in ethical, civic or public engagement, in the broadening and dissemination of science and knowledge, as well as financially in sustaining endowments for income and security. A fifth of Cambridge’s academic income comes from the yield on endowment and a slightly higher proportion of capital expenditure is directly endowed.3 Endowment is itself purposeful wealth. Responsibility for its management and use, and the ideas which inform it, are accountably those of the University as discovered and developed over time and in due process. We seek, receive and acknowledge benefactors and their gifts as nearly as we can in accordance with our stated ethics.4
Private and public benefactions have been essential to the University since its foundation; indeed, they help describe the purposes of the corporation. Understanding the nature of the relationship and the expectations of donors, and ‘describing’ the University and its personnel with possible projects in perspective, helps to determine both the appropriateness of the funds, gifts and benefactions solicited and the value of our teaching and scholarship. Until its reformulation into a regulator under the 2017 Higher Education Act, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (H.E.F.C.E.) was, like the Arts Council established after the Second World War, an effective patron-benefactor of universities.5 It was an important and respected source of funds with well-articulated expectations of performance and assessment rather than regulatory requirements, which allowed the University to describe and account for itself within discovered and constantly questioned purposes. H.E.F.C.E. provided a component of Cambridge’s necessarily diversified finances and also respected, in our case, the importance and peculiarities of self-governance.6
The diversity of expectations of donors, funders and benefactors can only be reconciled if the University has well-articulated, responsive and developing views of its purposes, and the solicitation, receipt and stewardship of funds can be measured and accounted in due process against such values, finance and association. Recent examples might be the gifts of more than £100 million from the Dolby family and foundation for fundamental research and teaching in physics, scientific buildings and a college court, which recognizes thereby the whole civic context of scholarship.7 Or we might point to the gifts of even greater amounts from the Sainsbury family, and other foundations and trusts, similarly directed to the entire purpose of scholarly science, particularly in biology.8 These gifts, and many comparable donations, are comprehensive in their generosity and thereby support the life of the whole corporate University.
But let us take a different and perhaps controversial example. Tuition fees are priced neither by the cost of the service offered nor by the market demand of students, but rather by political determination of certain expected social inputs and outcomes. They are the inverse of private benefactions. Were it not for its diverse sources of funds from outside the public sector, Collegiate Cambridge would be unable to subsidize the cost of undergraduate education to the tune of approximately 45 per cent or £8,000 per student.9 The relationship of the University, as a public good, with the British state is historically complex. Were the expectations of a particular private benefactor or public authority to become determinative, contrary to the open purposes of the place, teaching and scholarship could themselves be impaired.
The value and importance of diversified funding and its congruence with the mission and purposes of the University is also reflected in commercial enterprise. Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment, for example, are integral parts of the University, contributing to its commitment to educate, and generating the funds to do so.10 The University manages its endowment through the Cambridge University Endowment Fund; the quality of its subscription, process and engagement with external managers who look after the funds, and the university’s openness and accountability in the stewardship of them, should also be seen to reflect the mission of the University itself.11 We rehearse these expectations annually in our attestable statement of investment responsibility itself, and our subjection to audit and scrutiny.12
More challenging, perhaps, is to raise or accept funding, principally for research but also for buildings, where there is an expectation of express outcome, or of a particular product, either in the solicitation and proposition of funds or in the gift of the benefactor. Where this takes a particular form and often raises concern is in the establishment of named institutes where directed public policy prescriptions and recommendations derive from research. Separating the concern, fascination and engagement of a benefactor with the purposes of the institute from the promotion of a sectional interest, intentional or not, is a constant task. In the fields of energy and climate change research, the maintenance of appropriate, acknowledged and valued relationships with external sponsors, in highly charged areas of public policy, is a good and robust example of the challenges faced and also met by the University.13 Promoting ideas and policy from evidence without misleading or being misled has to be the University’s aim, and it informs all our external engagements.14
In our latest funding campaign, ‘Dear World … Yours, Cambridge’, for example, we describe the worldliness of our scholarly aspirations for benefaction as causes: ideas, institutions and lines of enquiry that individuals and trusts might wish to understand, support and encourage with or without public recognition.15 With teaching and the dissemination of ideas so integral to our purposes, and with academic self-government our constitution, not to mention the responsibility which inheres in a scholar’s tenured freedom to enquire and express, and the right he or she possesses to retain intellectual property, academics in Cambridge are encouraged, tutored and administratively supported to take the lead in seeking benefaction and engaging with donors.16 And yet – another reference to fourth century debates between Augustine and Leporius might be in order here17 – it is crucial not to tie research to a particular donor or their wishes. Paradoxically, the absence of this type of formal requirement, permitting freedom of enquiry within research, often leads to greater fulfilment of expectations and even utility. We have, as I mentioned earlier, fine and current examples of minerals research, climate change and environmental policy in Cambridge where the apparent and immediate corporate interests of the donor have seemed at variance with the possible results of research into energy alternatives, and yet the freedom of enquiry has yielded useful, applicable science and policy change.18 We also have recent cases of different domestic and external political controversies in area studies where certain appointments – and particularly the published research – have seemed inimical to the shorter-term interests or reputation of the benefactor who has given willingly. One of the enduring reasons why we seek to know our benefactors well, the requirements of the law apart, is to be assured that they appreciate that their expectations may not be fulfilled and that they involve themselves disinterestedly without expecting a hoped-for prescription.19
Priorities for causes are established within the ethic of the University itself. Schools, faculties and departments promote scholarly themes; the General Board, the academic governor of the University, endorses and disseminates areas of expected discovery; initiative at the beginning and end belongs to scholars and their academic teams. The University mediates through administrative support, development, finance and the oversight of multiple external partnerships. There should be no purposeless targeting of wealth or capital for its own sake. Rather, we hope that every approach and proposal for benefaction is based on a genuine academic need and resonates with the interests and intentions of the donor. The development and nurturing of relationships is at the core of our funding, co-ordinated across all possible sources of income and gift, and informs the responsibility assumed. Our current process for solicitation, approval and acceptance of donations, indeed all substantial external engagements of the University affecting reputation and mission, is known by the acronym A.C.B.E.L.A., Advisory Committee on Benefactions and External Legal Engagements. It was established after an institution-wide enquiry led by the University’s Council, the executive body, into political relationships, gifts, naming and corporate integrity. A.C.B.E.L.A is a non-adversarial means of assessing and endorsing engagement through which the Council as trustees can discharge its responsibility openly and knowledgeably.20 We compete for money as indeed we do internationally for students, scholars and professors as well. Competition helps define value, purpose and engagement with our peers in Europe, Asia and North America; it also influences whom we approach and how we conduct ourselves with partners.
Given the diversity and administrative complexity of a collegiate university composed of many institutions and myriad independent thinkers and teachers with multiple corporate, commercial and institutional relationships, I had wanted to avoid the overworked analogy of an ‘eco-system’ until I read in the same essay quoted earlier that Humboldt himself had used the term to describe the organic and fruitful relationship between faculties in Berlin some seventy years before the construction of modern Cambridge.21 We and our benefactors belong to an eco-system; perhaps that is the nature of a collegiate university with multiple faculties; the human geography matters. That leads in acknowledging relationships and recognizing what is an appropriate association – and if it cannot be acknowledged and recognized within occasional bounds of discretion it is unlikely to be appropriate – to attempting in a difficult and yet vital aspect of competition to define, describe and assess the changing narrative of reputation, the brand.
The common culture of expectation within the University is of excellence in teaching, research and enquiry.22 However, there are multiple perceptions of its behaviours, as well as the external assessment of the University’s research, publications and now teaching, meaning that our reputation is always fragile, vulnerable and inherently unmanageable. We know that there is great value placed by donors and business partners on public association with Cambridge; we would hope that we are in turn enhanced by our donors and associates; the brand is renewed and affected by our partnerships and public connections. The memorials of association change over time, affording insight into what was once held to be significant: the histories of the commission and hanging of portraits, the acceptance and placing of busts, and the funding and naming of buildings – whether planned or, more frequently, not – would certainly illuminate the University’s evolving views of itself. But the University is not a garden of remembrance. Each name, each gift, each memorial has to be accounted with the living purposes of the place. In retrospect, there are often once-lauded ideas and individuals whose standing, reputation and behaviour assume different and usually uncomfortable contemporary significance. Here I might instance Jan Christian Smuts, military leader, member of British war cabinets, second prime minister of South Africa, segregationist and former chancellor of the University, whose busts and former portraits have now been removed from prominent places.23
We have no formal means of expulsion from the pantheon.24 To do so would be to censure our own history, though over time the deemed appropriateness of some relationships changes. Tobacco, widely consumed for pleasure nonetheless, is an uncontroversial example.25 Practically though, how do we seek to ensure that our external relations and engagements, including commercial pursuits, maintain and reflect the integrity or expectations of the University and especially its students? The University is a self-governing corporation; its trustees and directors, the members of Council, are bound by law, inclination and regulation to act in its best interests and to be accountable for having done so. We are responsible for the external relationships we enjoy. We determine the appropriateness to the University of soliciting and accepting particular benefactions, donors and external relationships more broadly in the regular, established, consultative and advisory process that is A.C.B.E.L.A.26 The process itself is also regularly scrutinized and reported through the University’s audit committee’s annual reports. If there is a particular area of concern to the University – the nature of responsible investment, for example – we establish competent working groups to hear and analyse evidence openly and to report with policy recommendations to Council.27 Within A.C.B.E.L.A. we examine the terms of an engagement, the expectations on both sides and the limits of control, as well as considering the public acknowledgement of gifts, the recognition of benefactors and the variety of memorials involved, from named buildings to statues, busts and portraits of both the living and the dead.28 We seek to ensure and be assured that the acceptance of any gift or the solicitation of funding is procedurally, legally and demonstrably distinct from offers of admission to the University, the conduct of teaching and research, and the award of degrees. Indeed, this diligence was a consideration in the report advocating the establishment of A.C.B.E.L.A.29
There are, of course, real challenges to the process and to our decisions, born of changing perceptions of ‘appropriateness’ and the changing value placed on certain research or ideas. Equally challenging within an historic community of scholars with changing ideas and sometimes uncommon behaviours, is sustaining and recognizing free enquiry and expression in the institution in the past as well as present. What we choose to affirm in our past, and the greats with whom we might want to be associated, will always be a reflection of our present concerns for the future; understanding these often determines the appropriateness of action, particularly with regard to memorials. We need, therefore, and have instituted a process of self-examination and transparency in the acceptance of gifts in order for trustees to be assured that they have acted in the best interests of the University and sought to maintain the integrity of the diverse place itself.30
In assessing donations, we strive to understand the history of the donor and the context of the benefaction; we consult widely. Certain strictures are given by law, the Modern Slavery and the Anti-Bribery and Corruption Acts for example, which require evident diligence or so-called adequate procedures. Typically, within the University, a senior member would be expected to be responsible for a relationship with a donor; blind reception of a benefaction is now essentially inappropriate. International practice, regarding sanctioned or politically engaged persons, must also be considered, as must be the formal prejudice of association with other sources of funds: tobacco corporations and the subsequent objection of Cancer Research U.K. is perhaps the best known case in Cambridge’s recent history.31 However, understanding what is specifically prejudicial or indeed beneficial is always more nuanced and complex than the more common questions relating to the public value of association with a particular corporation, activity or person.32 We also have to consider the proposed form of association: sometimes corporate, sometimes continuous funding, sometimes a single donation, sometimes eleemosynary, consultative and collaborative. To the extent possible, we use the resources of the University itself, separate from the beneficiaries of a donation, to achieve an understanding of the nuances surrounding particular engagements to determine what is and is not appropriate. This has been notably effective in maintaining and developing valuable partnerships in otherwise sanctioned or politically difficult territories on a transparent basis.
So much for the pursuit of benefactions and the managing of relationships in the best interests of the University. I should note that we are also responsible investors, stewards of these donations. Our periodically assessed statement of investment responsibility essentially says that Cambridge will seek to invest and engage with managers who accountably espouse the values expressed by the University. Scrutiny, accountability and process discover and describe those values, which necessarily change over time. As such, there is no proscription on investment, rather a prescription of engagement and espousal of expected values. By constant assessment and occasional mistakes, we pursue the mission.
I might conclude with Augustine. The responsibility to endow is a public good. Therefore, we must understand our benefactors.
_______________
1 See P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD (Princeton, N.J., 2012), pp. 347–52; P. Brown, Ransom of the Soul (Cambridge, Mass., 2015).
2 See C. Wellmon, Organizing Enlightenment: Information Overload and the Invention of the Modern Research University (Baltimore, Md., 2015), pp. 210–20; Wellmon’s enquiries into concepts of university organization in the Enlightenment were stimulated by contemporary concerns about the pursuit of funds and academic freedom at the University of Virginia.
3 ‘Report and financial statements for the year ended 31 July 2017’, Cambridge University Reporter, no. 6489, 14 Dec. 2017 <https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2017-18/weekly/6489/section4.shtml> [accessed 26 March 2018].
4 See ‘The university’s mission and core values’ <http://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values> [accessed 26 March 2018].
5 ‘Annual report of the general board to the council’, Cambridge University Reporter, no. 6489, 14 Dec. 2017 <https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2017-18/weekly/6489/section3.shtml> [accessed 26 March 2018].
6 See ‘Memorandum of assurance and accountability between HEFCE and institutions’ <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2016/201612/> [accessed 26 March 2018]; University of Cambridge, Council Handbook 2015, ch. 1, ‘Role of council and the duties and responsibilities of members’ <https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/handbook-2015/Pages/Duties-and-responsibilities.aspx> [accessed 26 March 2018].
7 The Dolby gift is described at <http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ps85-million-gift-from-the-dolby-family-to-transform-cambridge-science> [accessed 26 March 2018].
8 See references to the Sainsbury family at <http://www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk> [accessed 26 March 2018].
9 The university cost of educating an undergraduate is approximately £17,000 p.a.; tuition fees for home and E.U. students cover £9,250. Total external research funding covers approximately 70% of the actual costs (see annual efficiency return, value for money report and annual accountability return to H.E.F.C.E. for 2016–7, Cambridge University Reporter, forthcoming).
10 2016/17 annual reports of Cambridge Assessment <http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/463822-annual-review-16-17.pdf> and Cambridge University Press <http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/annual-report> [both accessed 26 March 2018].
11 Cambridge University Endowment Fund, Investment Management report 30 June 2017, information made available privately to the author.
12 Report of the Working Group on Investment Responsibility, 13 June 2016 available in Cambridge University Reporter <http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6430/section1.shtml#heading2-5> [accessed 26 March 2018].
13 Discussions of the University’s Divestment Working Group, information made available privately to the author.
14 This is recognized in the annual reports of the Risk Steering Committee (information made available privately to the author). Mitigated by A.C.B.E.L.A. diligence and Brand Licensing.
15 The campaign for the university and colleges of Cambridge <https://www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk> [accessed 26 March 2018].
16 <https://www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk> [accessed 26 March 2018] and internal guidance.
17 Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, p. 484.
18 This is currently applicable notably in life sciences, area studies and earth sciences.
19 See Board of Scrutiny description, role and reports <http://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk> [accessed 26 March 2018].
20 University of Cambridge, Council Handbook 2017 <https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/handbook-2017/Pages/default.aspx> and Strategic Agreements <http://www.strategic-partnerships.admin.cam.ac.uk/strategic-agreements> [both accessed 26 March 2018].
21 Wellmon, Organizing Enlightenment, p. 228.
22 See the university mission statement referenced at n. 4 above.
23 A portrait of J. C. Smuts, chancellor of the university 1948–50, has been removed from the hall of his college, Christ’s, and his bust from the Old Schools. Less savoury university dignitaries remain.
24 ‘Naming policy for buildings and spaces in buildings’, 2017 (information made available privately to the author).
25 ‘Cambridge University adopts Cancer Research UK guidelines on involvement with tobacco industries and investments’, see Cancer Research UK <http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/tobacco-industry-funding-to-universities> [accessed 26 March 2018].
26 University of Cambridge annual report for the academic year 2012–13, esp. p. 5, ‘Woolf Inquiry Report: Audit Committee Working Group’ <https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/reports_and_financial_statements_for_the_year_ended_31_july_2013.pdf> [accessed 26 March 2018].
27 See University’s Divestment Working Group <https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/divestment-wg/Pages/default.aspx> [accessed 26 March 2018] and reports of its discussions in Cambridge University Reporter <https://www.reporter.admin.cam.ac.uk> [accessed 26 March 2018].
28 ‘Naming policy for buildings and spaces in buildings’, 2017 (information made available privately to the author).
29 ‘Woolf inquiry report: audit committee working group’ (see n. 26 above).
30 University of Cambridge, Council Handbook 2017 <https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/council/handbook-2017/Pages/Duties-and-responsibilities.aspx> [accessed 26 March 2018].
31 ‘Cancer Research UK code of practice on tobacco industry funding to universities’, Cancer Research UK <http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/funding-for-researchers/applying-for-funding/policies-that-affect-your-grant/code-of-practice-on-tobacco-industry-funding-to-universities> [accessed 28 Feb. 2018].
32 Diligence is conducted by A.C.B.E.L.A. principally through the University of Cambridge, department of Development and Alumni Relations (C.U.D.A.R.), sponsors and third parties.