Letter to the editor of Indiana Gazette

By Cass Cliatt on March 28, 2008, 12:18 p.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the March 27, 2008, Indiana Gazette:

Princeton adheres to donor's wishes

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.

When Marie Robertson made her gift of $35 million to Princeton in 1961, she made two key decisions and put them in writing: that the university should control the gift and that it should be used to support the graduate program of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Contrary to Mr. Thomasson's assertion, she did not say that the purpose was to "train diplomats." Under Princeton's stewardship, Mrs. Robertson's gift is now worth almost $900 million. For 47 years it has been used solely for its intended purpose and Princeton's program has become a world leader in its field.

Some of Mrs. Robertson's children 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.

The "real education" provided by this lawsuit is that decades after a gift is made, the recipient of the gift may find the descendants of the donor attempting to redirect the gift for purposes other than the one the donor intended.

Cass Cliatt is director of media relations for Princeton University.

Related Stories

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 Philadelphia Inquirer .

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

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 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 the Investor’s Business Daily .

This letter to the editor was submitted to the Investor's Business Daily:

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 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.