Hacker News Reader

Comment by pseudalopex | Hacker News Reader

Munger's contribution would be 13% of the projected cost. And a public university's money belongs to the public.

Of course. Your note does not seem consistent with the parent points. Different parties will propose conditional contribution. Those who do not agree with the project will retract the participation. The public does not decide on Munger's money, Munger will not decide over the public money.

The parent post makes no sense: Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

> Charlie Munger does not decide "what to build", he decides whether to participate.

Sure, this is a convenient way to look at this particular situation. Yet I google "strings attached donation university" and see many instances of this crap: Koch brothers, John Allison, etc. It's serious enough that Harvard recently issued a "Gift Policy Guide" discourage strings-attached giving. Ironically, only the elite private universities have enough cachet to make such a policy stick.

The schools are entirely free to just reject the donation.

Can they? I have seen politicians cut budgets whenever they smelled blood in the water, even when the idea was completely harebrained^1 . Just the offer existing may interfere with a proper building funded through public means.

^1 For some time German universities had to require higher fees from students, officially to provide an improved learning experience. Seeing that universities now had an alternative income source some states cut public funding, they didn't care about the specifics, the courts did, some universities ended up not heating their buildings during winter because they couldn't legally touch the money.

And what alternative would you propose? Whatever I finance, I will have to approve. This is a pretty solid principle.

What other «way[s] to look at this» are there? Point of view or practical proposal, I do not get what are the other options.

Raising taxes, primarily. Or at least force donations to public institutions to be no-strings-attached. Many years ago when I attended UCSB and this project was in its infancy, someone told me that UCLA has a long-term development plan where large donors can choose from a menu of pre-planned projects. Not sure how true that it, but much better idea.

But my more extreme view is that individuals should not be able to amass so many resources to begin with. It's absurd.

What! Just for 13% of the contribution he is getting his name on the building and able to detect architecture!

You meant to say "dictate" architecture, right? Well, it serves the university right for not building a dorm that was 13% smaller or cheaper. They obviously had that choice and decided to go with the donation option instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com