Letter to the editor of the Detroit News

By Robert K. Durkee on May 25, 2007, 3:35 p.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the June 5, 2007, Detroit News:

Rebuttal: Princeton follows donor's wishes

Froma Harrop's commentary on the lawsuit against Princeton University by several members of the Robertson family perpetuates inaccuracies about the lawsuit that the family has been disseminating for almost five years. To cite just a few examples:

The purpose of Marie Robertson's 1961 gift was not to create a "training" program for government workers. It was to expand and strengthen the graduate program of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, which is exactly how it has been used.

The University has spent funds from the Robertson Foundation solely for this purpose.

While Mrs. Robertson's children claim to be suing "on behalf of the foundation," in fact they are suing on their own behalf in an attempt to seize control of funds that their parents explicitly chose not to entrust to them, but to Princeton. They want to overturn the governance mechanism that their parents created to administer the funds, and they want to use the funds for their own purposes.

For more than 250 years, Princeton has had a well deserved reputation for fulfilling the commitments it makes in accepting gifts. Unlike the plaintiffs in this case, Princeton believes the decisions that were made by the donor and written down more than 45 years ago should continue to be respected, including decisions about how the funds should be used and how they should be administered. That's the issue of principle at stake in this case.

Robert K. Durkee is vice president and secretary, Princeton University.

Related Stories

Letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer .

This letter to the editor was submitted on April 9, 2008, to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal .

This letter to the editor was published in the Oct. 18, 2007, Wall Street Journal:

Letter to the editor of USA TODAY .

A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published June 5, 2008, in USA TODAY:

Letter to the editor of the Washington Times .

A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the April 18, 2008, Washington Times: The April 15 Washington Times editorial ("The old college try – in court") incorrectly identifies the donor of the Robertson gift to Princeton and erroneously claims that the Robertson v. Princeton litigation represents "donor activism in cases where colleges fail their donors' standards." This case was not brought by any donor. It was brought by the descendants of a donor who are trying to seize control of funds that the donor entrusted to Princeton, not to them.

Letter to the editor of Shreveport Times .

This letter to the editor was published in the Jan. 4, 2008, Shreveport Times: In his opinion piece about "donor intent" (Dec. 26), Frederic Fransen mistakenly identifies the Robertson family members who are suing Princeton University as the party in the case that is seeking to carry out the intent of the donor. In fact, the opposite is true.

Letter to the editor of the Providence Journal .

A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the Dec. 15, 2006, Providence Journal: Your editorial “unaccountable nonprofits” seriously mischaracterized the lawsuit that was brought against Princeton University four and a half years ago by descendants of Marie Robertson, who donated $35 million to Princeton in 1961.

Letter to the editor of Indiana Gazette .

This letter to the editor was published in the March 27, 2008, Indiana Gazette: In his March 24 opinion piece about the six-year-old Robertson vs. Princeton litigation, Dan K. Thomasson mischaracterizes the purpose of the Robertson gift and fails to point out that it is the descendants of the donor, not Princeton University, who are trying to overturn the intent of the donor.