Letter to the editor of the Washington Times

By Robert K. Durkee on April 18, 2008, 4:28 p.m.

A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the April 18, 2008, Washington Times:
 
Princeton fulfills commitments
 
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.
 
This is not a case where a college has failed to carry out an agreement with a 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. Under Princeton’s stewardship, the gift is now worth almost $900 million and for 47 years it has been used solely for its intended purpose. 
 
It is Mrs. Robertson's descendants who have now spent well over $20 million, not from their own funds but from a family foundation, in an attempt to overturn both the purpose and the governing mechanism for her gift.
 
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.
 
Robert K. Durkee is vice president and secretary, 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 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 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 Investor’s Business Daily .

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

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 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.