Also as I read this article, I get the sense that the person writing it has no clue what an endowment is, and that's driving a lot of the misguided indignation in this article.
If you have a $300 million endowment, it doesn't mean you have $300 million to spend. It's the interest/investment gains from that money that fuel the organization. So the interest/investments from $100 mil vs $300 mil doesn't equal that amount. It's much less. The whole point is that the $300 mil will remain "forever."
I don't know what the solution is, to be honest. I worry more about articles I read about how very few people actually have an outsized amount of contributions, and who is checking their biases?