And, coincidentally, I have read this at a break in the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the creation of the International Institute at the University of Michigan. Very thoughtful, your piece I wish I had read it 30 years ago today!!!🤭😉👌👏🏽😊🙏😍
Thanks for this breakdown. I've been involved in grant management and research centers and agree with your insights here on the challenges of these places. I am still a bit intrigued into how exactly fifty MILLION were spent so quickly with a fairly small staff and no large plant expenses (like a particle collider or some such...).
I have to say the amounts gave me pause, but I can see it--a lot of generous compensation offers without having to go through BU's structure, a lot of consultation fees, nobody doing that head of operations role. The money comes in and the money leaves unless you do something to stick it in the bank--but when it feels like the money's coming so fast that it'll never stop, it's hard to slow down enough to do that.
I guess I can’t think of a more powerful argument against funding the humanities than, “40 to 50 million dollars lost in just a few short years, and with no accountability whatsoever? Well, sure, that may sound a little bit untoward, but that’s just the way we do things…”
This is not a winning argument outside the academy, to say the least.
Really? Think for a minute on philanthropy associated with charismatic public figures as the primary fundraiser, outside the academy, where there isn't even the accountability of association with an ongoing university. Seems like a pretty winning argument in that there are innumerable examples of foundations associated with public figures and celebrities that raise far more than that with no transparency whatsoever and no consequences when they turn out to have absolutely squandered it all. Doesn't seem to affect the wider public's willingness to donate, or affect the willingness of the billionaire class to make donations when they think the publicity or reputation capital is worth it.
Nor is this "the humanities" even within the academy. The MIT Media Lab chased huge amounts of money from billionaire donors--most notoriously Epstein--and I would say that during that period, it accomplished less than either before or after. But it's still there, it's still pulling in donations. When STEM labs get associated with scientific fraud or serious mismanagement, nobody says "I can't think of a more powerful argument against funding the sciences".
Don't get me wrong--I think this is a really depressing story and it's not at all the "way we do things". There are in fact relatively few humanities centers that have pulled in money through this kind of charismatic high-profile fundraising. But I do understand how someone who is suddenly in the spotlight and getting every ask fulfilled can get so caught up in that moment that they don't pay attention to building a solid foundation for using all those funds. And of course, that gets harder if the fundraising figure also wants to exercise day-to-day executive authority, because you can't do both. As Kendi has discovered, apparently.
I'm just thinking that if you're honestly thinking this is an argument against *ordinary* funding for the humanities, you have to think it's an argument against funding all philanthropies, all think-tanks, all NGOs, all scientific research centers, etc., because the story here is one that you'd find in all of those sectors. Deciding that it is only an argument against the humanities kind of means you're looking for arguments against the humanities already.
“Deciding that it is only an argument against the humanities kind of means you're looking for arguments against the humanities already.”
I have not taken any such decision, and I am certainly not looking for arguments against the humanities. I specified “humanities” in my comment because: 1). Kendi is a Mellon Professor in the Humanities at BU; and 2). I care more about the humanities than I do about the other fields that you mention. Far from wanting to defund the humanities, I’d like to see the field generously and reliably funded, which is precisely why I worry about a hand-wavey response to a potential scandal which seems to say, “Well, this always happens, of course. I mean, c’mon, it happens in every field, it’s just how things are done.”
I am absolutely on-board with *ordinary * funding for the humanities. But I suspect a reliance on high-profile charismatic figures for fundraising purposes, while understandable in the short term, is a very risky strategy in the longer run…
I completely agree with you. It's why I think it's thankfully a rare strategy for building centers and institutes and should be rarer still. I'd rather that donors, if they find a purpose or idea attractive, give within a structure that is independent of a personality or leader. It's why any good center is both autonomous *from* an institution and yet also responsible to it.
Yeah, most humanities centres don't have to worry about how and when and where the money was spent. They never had much money to spend in the first place!....
I think it's one of those things that all of us only learn through experience--that's what sharpened my own thinking.
And, coincidentally, I have read this at a break in the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the creation of the International Institute at the University of Michigan. Very thoughtful, your piece I wish I had read it 30 years ago today!!!🤭😉👌👏🏽😊🙏😍
Thanks for this breakdown. I've been involved in grant management and research centers and agree with your insights here on the challenges of these places. I am still a bit intrigued into how exactly fifty MILLION were spent so quickly with a fairly small staff and no large plant expenses (like a particle collider or some such...).
I have to say the amounts gave me pause, but I can see it--a lot of generous compensation offers without having to go through BU's structure, a lot of consultation fees, nobody doing that head of operations role. The money comes in and the money leaves unless you do something to stick it in the bank--but when it feels like the money's coming so fast that it'll never stop, it's hard to slow down enough to do that.
I guess I can’t think of a more powerful argument against funding the humanities than, “40 to 50 million dollars lost in just a few short years, and with no accountability whatsoever? Well, sure, that may sound a little bit untoward, but that’s just the way we do things…”
This is not a winning argument outside the academy, to say the least.
Really? Think for a minute on philanthropy associated with charismatic public figures as the primary fundraiser, outside the academy, where there isn't even the accountability of association with an ongoing university. Seems like a pretty winning argument in that there are innumerable examples of foundations associated with public figures and celebrities that raise far more than that with no transparency whatsoever and no consequences when they turn out to have absolutely squandered it all. Doesn't seem to affect the wider public's willingness to donate, or affect the willingness of the billionaire class to make donations when they think the publicity or reputation capital is worth it.
Nor is this "the humanities" even within the academy. The MIT Media Lab chased huge amounts of money from billionaire donors--most notoriously Epstein--and I would say that during that period, it accomplished less than either before or after. But it's still there, it's still pulling in donations. When STEM labs get associated with scientific fraud or serious mismanagement, nobody says "I can't think of a more powerful argument against funding the sciences".
Don't get me wrong--I think this is a really depressing story and it's not at all the "way we do things". There are in fact relatively few humanities centers that have pulled in money through this kind of charismatic high-profile fundraising. But I do understand how someone who is suddenly in the spotlight and getting every ask fulfilled can get so caught up in that moment that they don't pay attention to building a solid foundation for using all those funds. And of course, that gets harder if the fundraising figure also wants to exercise day-to-day executive authority, because you can't do both. As Kendi has discovered, apparently.
I'm just thinking that if you're honestly thinking this is an argument against *ordinary* funding for the humanities, you have to think it's an argument against funding all philanthropies, all think-tanks, all NGOs, all scientific research centers, etc., because the story here is one that you'd find in all of those sectors. Deciding that it is only an argument against the humanities kind of means you're looking for arguments against the humanities already.
“Deciding that it is only an argument against the humanities kind of means you're looking for arguments against the humanities already.”
I have not taken any such decision, and I am certainly not looking for arguments against the humanities. I specified “humanities” in my comment because: 1). Kendi is a Mellon Professor in the Humanities at BU; and 2). I care more about the humanities than I do about the other fields that you mention. Far from wanting to defund the humanities, I’d like to see the field generously and reliably funded, which is precisely why I worry about a hand-wavey response to a potential scandal which seems to say, “Well, this always happens, of course. I mean, c’mon, it happens in every field, it’s just how things are done.”
I am absolutely on-board with *ordinary * funding for the humanities. But I suspect a reliance on high-profile charismatic figures for fundraising purposes, while understandable in the short term, is a very risky strategy in the longer run…
I completely agree with you. It's why I think it's thankfully a rare strategy for building centers and institutes and should be rarer still. I'd rather that donors, if they find a purpose or idea attractive, give within a structure that is independent of a personality or leader. It's why any good center is both autonomous *from* an institution and yet also responsible to it.
Yeah, most humanities centres don't have to worry about how and when and where the money was spent. They never had much money to spend in the first place!....