Letter to the editor of Shreveport Times

By Cass Cliatt on Jan. 4, 2008, 10:33 a.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the Jan. 4, 2008, Shreveport Times:

Princeton upholding commitment to donor

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.

When Marie Robertson made her gift of $35 million to Princeton in 1961, she made two key decisions: that the university should control the gift and it should be used to support the graduate program at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Under Princeton's stewardship, Mrs. Robertson's gift is now worth almost $900 million, and for 46 years it has been used solely for its intended purpose. As a result, the Princeton program is a world leader in its field.

Some of Mrs. Robertson's children already have spent more than $20 million from a private family foundation on a five-year legal and public relations campaign. They seek to overturn both of Mrs. Robertson's key decisions so they can seize control of the funds and use them for other purposes.

Princeton has built a well-deserved reputation over more than 250 years for fulfilling the commitments it makes in accepting gifts. Unlike the plaintiffs in this case, Princeton believes the decisions of the donor should continue to be respected, including decisions about how the funds should be used and how they should be administered.

Cass Cliatt is director of media relations for Princeton University.

Related Stories

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.

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 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 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 Detroit News .

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

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 the Washington Times .

This letter to the editor was published in the Oct. 1, 2008, Washington Times: In his Sunday Commentary column, "Donor intent revisited," about a recent lawsuit filed against a New York hospital, William Robertson revives his misrepresentations about the donor-intent issues raised by his own six-year-old lawsuit against Princeton University.