“Poor” Jim Balsillie. Over the past year or so he has watched as the company he led and grew into an international success story has made misstep after misstep. Research in Motion has lost 90% of its value amidst a feeling that they can no longer compete with Apple or Google’s Androids phones. Forced out of RIM he cant even give his money away. This week York University faculty voted to reject a 30 million dollar donation from Mr. Balsillie’s (who is one of Canada’s greatest philanthropists) Center for International Governance to establish a school in International relations. The school claimed the donation came with too many strings attached including veto power over at least some faculty appointments. For the university world in which academic freedom is sacrosanct such conditions were deemed unacceptable. It is most inspiring to see people turn down large sums of money if acceptance would jeopardize principles which they hold dear. Perhaps those in the academic world enjoying the benefit of tenure can more readily ignore the economic fallout of turning down millions of dollars. And while one can argue whether these principles are the correct one, this most honorable display of intellectual honesty raises the interesting question of the proper relationship between donor and donee. There is no doubt that many, likely most donations, come with many strings attached, some overtly mentioned other implied, at times quite strongly even if never stated.
Jewish philanthropy, tzedakah, has traditionally been composed of two parallel tracks – public and private, corresponding to what we might call taxes and charity. Members of autonomous Jewish communities were taxed with such funds going to pay for the necessities of Jewish communal life, primarily free education of the youth. Just as tax revenue can not find all worthy projects individual Jews were expected to provide extra finding. In the western world where Jewish communities no longer have coercive powers of taxation tzedakah is completely voluntary. And while those who can are expected to give between 10-20% of their net income as tzedakah, rabbinic authorities have generally assumed that individuals may direct their monies as they see fit. And with the needs and requests far outstripping the abilities of even the wealthiest of donors choices need to be made. Thus I would expect donors to fund those projects that align with their goals. Questions can be asked and if the answers are unsatisfactory donations can be directed elsewhere. And theoretically conditions can be made as to use of the money; provided that at the end of the day monies are given away, one can give to only those institutions that meet the donors stated objectives. The problem is that often the conditions are not necessarily the most appropriate and the strings hamper rather than help those in need.
Jewish law demands that those in charge of charitable funds be of unimpeachable character, those who command our fullest trust and confidence. It is questions of integrity, even more so than policies that should concern donors. When we are confident that our money is in good hands we should thank G-d that we are blessed to be a donor and give the money with a full heart and no strings attached. Let us trust the trustees of those funds to use them in the most appropriate manner.