Class is back in session. Philanthropy is attuned to whether the campus protests that overtook many colleges and universities last academic year would be reignited and how school leadership will respond to antisemitic protests and the treatment of Jewish students on campus. 

Donors and alumni have widely rebuked student involvement in riots and violent protests. University presidents, who could not act with moral clarity to protect Jewish students or who have been selective in the application of free speech and academic freedom, have been forced out by pressure from stakeholders. Using the power of the purse, donors canceled pledged gifts and promised to withhold future funding to send a clear message to university leadership. 

However, higher education donors and grantmakers should also pay attention to the actions of deans, faculty and lecturers. Are these academics upholding the standards and values that motivate alumni and donors to give to institutions, or are they perpetuating toxic learning environments donors want to change? True diversity calls for a diversity of viewpoints, but not for discriminatory behavior or intolerant rhetoric.  

Concerning events may have flown under the national radar but they provide cautionary examples of what is happening on campuses around the country. Recently, several Columbia University deans left the university after a scandal ensued from their antisemitic text exchanges during a panel discussion on Jewish life on campus this spring.  

One wrote, “Amazing what $$$$ can do,” while another dean wrote the panel discussion at the event “comes from such a place of privilege.” A third dean used vomiting emojis to refer to an op-ed by the campus rabbi on antisemitism. The text messages were captured by attendees at the event and released by the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce in a hearing. 

Conversely, a Stanford lecturer was dismissed last October for calling Jewish students in the class “colonizers” and asking Jewish students to physically go to the back of the class to illustrate the point that this is “what Israel does to Palestinians,” according to eyewitnesses. University officials stated clearly that “academic freedom does not permit the identity-based targeting of students.”  

These incidents and likely many others that have gone unreported should make donors cautious to ensure their philanthropic dollars are not supporting faculty who disrupt the learning environment for students of all backgrounds. 

My Roundtable colleague, Joanne Florino’s “Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders,” provides some helpful pointers for university donors in this regard. For example, one of Florino’s tips is to form relationships with friendly faculty. They will execute your project and are most likely to serve as guardians of your donor intent because you share the same goals. Faculty with aligned values can also be a trusted source of information for grantmakers on campus happenings or advising on promising philanthropic opportunities there and elsewhere. 

However, be prepared for personnel changes to remove your ally from the equation. Consider funding an academic center that hires professors who share your values and commitment to your mission. And, as always, be careful with unrestricted grantmaking. Grants or gifts with no strings attached can lead to donor intent being undermined and donors supporting people and activities they vehemently disagree with.  

This fall, expect more campus protests, especially as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Israel massacre and hostage crisis on October 7. Colleges and universities must grapple with heated viewpoints on different sides. Faculty should know there is no place for antisemitic or violent rhetoric when it comes to education and academic freedom. Philanthropy can play a role in making sure that message is heard loud and clear. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.   

The post Higher Education Funders: Get to Know the Professors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

As the fall semester begins at colleges and universities across the country, students, faculty, alumni and donors are watching closely, anticipating that new and returning administrators alike may bring with them new policies on free speech, protests and the role that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) will play on campus in areas other than admissions.  

An August 30 op-ed in The New York Times tackled that last issue and suggested current DEI programs are not working and are “subverting their schools’ educational missions.” The guest essay was co-authored by Paul Brest, professor emeritus and former dean at Stanford Law School and president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation from 2000-2012, and Emily J. Levine, associate professor of education and history at Stanford. On the day it was published it attracted over 1,000 comments – enough to shut down the comments section.  

The authors say they are not calling for the complete abandonment of diversity programs as “some of these programs most likely serve the important goal of ensuring that all students are valued and engaged participants in their academic communities.” What they find concerning are the programs and DEI trainings which “undermine the very groups they seek to aid by instilling a victim mindset and by pitting students against one another.”  

Recognizing “how exclusionary and counterproductive some of these programs can be,” they call attention to the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias of protests at Stanford University following the Hamas attacks on Israel. That bias, they note, is baked into current DEI ideology as manifested in “a DEI training program at Stanford a few years ago [where] Jewish staff members were assigned to a ‘whiteness accountability’ group, and some later complained that they were shot down when they tried to raise concerns about antisemitism.” 

In place of current DEI models, Brest and Levine call for programs employing a pluralistic approach, recognizing a universal need for belonging and fostering “empathy with others rather than a competition among sufferings.”  Such programs would involve “facilitated conversations among participants with diverse identities, religious beliefs and political ideologies, but without a predetermined list of favored identities or a preconceived framework of power, privilege and oppression.” 

“Success,” they say, “would be an academic community of equally respected learners who possess critical thinking skills and are actively engaged in navigating challenging questions throughout the curriculum — an approach that teaches students how to think rather than what to think.”   

Brest and Levine acknowledge their recommendations will face strong headwinds from those who advocate for the complete abandonment of DEI and those who are adamant it be retained in its current form. Yet they persist in advocating change, concluding, “The current system is not good for Jews at Stanford and other universities. It’s not good for Muslims, either. And it’s certainly not good for society as a whole.”   

The post How DEI is Failing Students: A View from Stanford University  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently met with John Sailer, senior fellow and director of university policy at the National Association of Scholars, to discuss his groundbreaking investigative research and reporting on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) agenda in higher education. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: Your research started when you looked into mandated diversity statements used in faculty hiring at major public universities. Tell us about your research and its impact. 

Sailer: My job is pretty simple. It’s to show what higher education activists, scholars and administrators are up to in their world, and a primary tool has been public records requests. It’s fun, it’s an art and it requires creative problem solving plus lots of research, along with a deep understanding of universities and how they operate. My approach has yielded really interesting, and in some ways troubling, stories about what universities are doing.  

Texas Tech University is a great example. Around 2020, their Department of Biology passed a DEI resolution requiring faculty job applicants to submit a diversity statement to demonstrate how they will contribute to inclusion and equity. The university also required the department to create a separate presentation on the diversity contributions of each candidate under consideration for a job. This meant documentation existed. I made a public records request for those presentations, and what I found I eventually published in The Wall Street Journal. 

One scientist got a low score for not understanding “the difference between equity and equality, even on re-direct,” which was said to represent “a rather superficial understanding of DEI more generally.” One was given a “red flag” for ostensibly committing micro aggressions, while another was dinged for repeatedly using the pronoun “he” when referring to professors.  

On the other hand, one was rewarded for giving a “land acknowledgment” at the beginning of their job talk, acknowledging that the United States exists on stolen land. This was the first time the public had ever really seen actual evaluations of diversity statements. The result was very swift and a true game changer. 

Q: What was the immediate impact and outcome of your investigative research? 

Sailer: The day the article was published, the university announced that it would no longer allow diversity statements. Shortly thereafter, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent a letter to the public universities in his state saying that hiring on the basis of anything other than merit was unlawful. Within a month, multiple university systems in Texas ended the practice of diversity statements. By June of 2023, the state legislature took action and banned the practice statewide. So, it was a pretty massive change. 

Q: What other stories have you uncovered? 

Sailer: Around the time that I published the Texas Tech story, I got a tip from a professor at Ohio State University. He said that every department and every search committee in the College of Arts and Sciences was required to submit an in-depth diversity recruitment report. Approval of these reports was required in order to proceed with finalist job interviews. I made a request for the records and what I got was actually more remarkable than even the Texas Tech documents. 

One job candidate was praised for their contribution to diversity in part, according to the report, because they were married to an immigrant in Texas in the age of Trump. Another person’s diversity contributions were praised for being “a first-generation fat, queer scholar of color.” The DEI statements were given a weight of about one-third of the overall points in evaluating the candidates, right alongside their research and teaching ability. 

Q: You’ve traced some of the stories to the federal government as well, through the National Institutes of Health. Can you explain that? 

Sailer: There’s a quarter billion-dollar NIH grant program called Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation. The program gave $10 million to $20 million grants to universities for faculty hiring that’s focused on DEI. The key requirements are that the universities who received the grant require and heavily weigh diversity statements when they select the funded faculty.  

So, I ended up going to a lot of universities and requesting the rubric that they use to evaluate diversity. Some of them didn’t give me the rubric or said they didn’t have one. But there were two that did: The University of South Carolina and the University of New Mexico. Both rubrics were the same and they give low scores to anyone who says in their diversity statement that they prefer to treat everyone the same. It also gives a low score for things like expressing skepticism about racially segregated affinity groups and focusing exclusively on diversity of thought. 

In later reporting, I found evidence that this program had been a cover for overt racial preferences that would almost certainly be unlawful. When the NIH FIRST program was created, the director of the program essentially said this is not a racial preferences program—that it would be unlawful. Using diversity statements was essentially a way around that. But what’s interesting is that the documents that I uncovered, starting about a year ago, showed that as faculty at these institutions discussed candidates, they very clearly eliminated certain people from contention on the basis of skin color.  

One hiring document from the University of New Mexico said that “candidate No. 42” was eliminated from consideration because they did not fit with the mission of the NIH. I thought that was funny. I requested all emails in reference to the candidate, and what did I find? This candidate was a South Asian man. One director of this program asked whether this person counts as an underrepresented minority. They were told no. The other two candidates on the list of finalists were both women. And so they took him off the list, noting that the math department where they were hiring was “really low on women.” It’s a clear-cut case of both racial and gender discrimination. 

Q: What are some of the biggest takeaways from your investigative research? 

Sailer: I’ve gleaned two broad lessons from my time reporting on higher education. One is that legitimate scoops move the needle more than anything else. If you cut through the noise and actually show people what’s happened with hard-fought research, it changes the conversation and gives you a seat at the table to talk about what reforms are needed. The other is that universities are such closed systems that many of their policies are simply indefensible. When I show what’s going on, when I show how these policies play out in practice, it is very difficult for scholars and administrators to actually defend them, or at least to defend them in a way that appears to be in good faith. 

Q: You’ve emphasized a different kind of diversity—viewpoint diversity—among faculty. Why? 

Sailer: Faculty hiring for the last decade, and especially for the last five years, has involved a high degree of ideological discrimination and has encouraged heterodox thinkers, or outsiders, to simply skip out of the job market altogether. This is the key problem in higher education right now. 

The post John Sailer: Unearthing Corruption and Illiberalism in Higher Education  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

With the recent resignation of the third Ivy League president in the 10-month period following October 7, 2023, university trustees are likely to face continued questions about hiring policies and practices.

All three of those presidents had unusually short tenures. Claudine Gay left the president’s office at Harvard after only six months. Minouche Shafik resigned from Columbia after holding the job for 13 months. Liz Magill resigned from the presidency of University of Pennsylvania after less than two years on the job.

All three women faced accusations from parties within and outside their universities that they horribly mishandled the campus protests following the conflict that erupted after the Hamas attacks on Israel. All three also failed to convince members of Congress they had taken adequate measures to protect their Jewish students from antisemitic attacks. And all three faced public criticism from some of their institutions’ largest donors.

Harvard trustees responded to Gay’s resignation by first appointing provost Alan Garber as interim president and then naming him president of the university on August 2. The Harvard Corporation announced he will be in office until mid-2027. At Penn, medical school dean Larry Jameson has been serving as interim president since December 2023 and has agreed to remain in that role through academic year 2025-2026 or until a successor has been identified. Penn has not yet announced that a presidential search process is underway. Columbia has already named as interim president its executive vice president for health and biological sciences, Dr. Karen Armstrong. No mention has been made of her likely tenure in that position.

The action of the trustees at all three universities indicates a wariness about choosing leaders from outside their inner circles at a time when more turbulence is anticipated. The same is true at Cornell, where provost Michael Kotlikoff was named interim president following the retirement of Martha Pollack, who had assumed the presidency 2017.

In announcing his appointment the university reported, “At the request of the board of trustees, Kotlikoff will serve a two-year term as interim president. The board will form a search committee to select Cornell’s 15th president six to nine months before Kotlikoff’s term ends.”

Higher education donors may well consider how college and university trustees will frame the duties and assess the abilities of the next generation of presidential hires. They may also begin to address needed reforms in private and public universities alike. For the immediate future, however, all eyes will be on the return of students to campus and the ongoing tensions around free speech and campus conduct. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Programs and Services team provides a one-stop shop that helps donors navigate the complexity of higher-ed giving. Learn more about our higher education donor services. 

The post Higher-Ed Transitions: Will New Leadership Offer Opportunities for Needed Reform? appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

WASHINGTON – Philanthropy Roundtable is pleased to announce the selection of business leaders, philanthropists, and brothers Jeff and Pete Coors as the winners of the 2024 Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. Each year, the award is presented to a living philanthropist who has shown exemplary leadership through charitable giving. For 48 years, Jeff and Pete Coors have led the Adolph Coors Foundation, which places a high priority on programs that help youth prosper, encourage economic opportunities for adults and advance public policies that reflect our nation’s founding principles.

“Jeff and Pete Coors have a legacy of protecting the values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and integrity,” said Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera. “Their dedication to preserving and executing the donor intent of Bill and Joe Coors while advancing America’s founding principles, serving their home state of Colorado, and honoring their faith through anonymous giving makes them truly worthy recipients of this year’s Simon-DeVos Prize.”

Since 1976, The Adolph Coors Foundation has granted $308 million with a primary focus in funding adult work programs, entrepreneurship, youth development, integrative medicine and public policy. The Foundation seeks out innovative leaders and entrepreneurs within the organizations they fund to further the mission of their founding donors. By celebrating hard work, imagination, and independence, the Foundation works to ensure that all people have the opportunity to realize their dreams and reach their full potential.

Jeff Coors’ extensive career began with a 25-year tenure at the Adolph Coors Company, where he held various management roles, including Board Member and President. In 1992, he became Co-President of ACX Technologies, a public NYSE company spun off from the Adolph Coors Company, later renamed Graphic Packaging Incorporated in 2000. Jeff Coors is actively involved in civic, educational, and business organizations. He serves on the boards of RW Beckett Corporation, Hillsdale College, Independence Institute, Colorado Christian University, Intercessors for America, and the Adolph Coors Foundation.

Pete Coors is a Director of Molson Coors Brewing Company and has previously held various other positions at the company including Chairman and CEO. His numerous civic responsibilities include board member of American Enterprise Institute, Denver Art Museum Foundation and a president and a trustee of the Adolph Coors Foundation. Pete is also member of the Western Stock Show Association Board and Chairman of its Honoring the Legacy Capital Campaign.

As the 2024 Prize recipients, Jeff and Pete Coors will receive a $200,000 award, payable to the charity of their choice, and will be honored during Philanthropy Roundtable’s 2024 Annual Meeting in Amelia Island, Florida in September.   

ABOUT THE PRIZE 

Philanthropy Roundtable is honored to partner with the William E. Simon Foundation and the DeVos Family Foundation to administer the annual Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership, which seeks to advance the principles of personal responsibility, resourcefulness, volunteerism, scholarship, individual freedom, faith in God, and helping people help themselves. The purpose of the Simon-DeVos Prize is to highlight philanthropy’s powerful and unique role in tackling society’s greatest challenges and inspire others to strive for excellence in their charitable giving. Learn more about the Prize at: SimonDeVosPrize.org. 

### 

For media inquiries, please contact:  media@philanthropyroundtable.org.

The post 2024 Simon-DeVos Prize Winners: Jeff and Pete Coors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In the heart of Palm Beach County, Florida, lies an institution that’s redefining what education can look like for disadvantaged children.  

The Foundations School, spearheaded by the Center for Creative Education (CCE), is an arts-integrated, research-focused demonstration school that’s transforming teaching and learning through the arts and creativity. The ultimate goal of the school is to help impoverished students reach grade-level in reading, social studies, science and math. 

The seeds of The Foundations School were laid in 2011, when Bob Hamon, who today serves as chief executive officer for CCE, first joined the organization. After settling into a new building, the CCE team began to reassess their education programs. 

“We asked ourselves how we could we be sure our efforts were effective and truly moving the needle,” Hamon recalls.  

That introspection led to the realization that while their programs were meaningful, they weren’t solving the core issue of why so many third-grade students were academically underperforming. 

In Florida, only about 50% of third-grade students read at grade level. CCE sought to understand the underlying barriers, recognizing that the traditional education model hadn’t evolved much in 250 years despite significant changes in children’s lives and family dynamics. They aimed to reconstruct the classroom experience to meet the needs of today’s students, acknowledging that many children face challenges like poverty, violence and trauma. 

A large part of what has made The Foundations School possible is Florida’s friendly policy environment for school choice. The Sunshine State boasts three primary school-choice programs—the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship, the Family Empowerment Scholarship for Educational Options and the Family Empowerment Scholarship for Students with Unique Abilities—that help families send their children to participating private schools. These programs prioritize support for low- and middle-income students, plus those with special needs or kids who have been bullied.

But Hamon says The Foundations School isn’t only an example for other private schools—it’s a model for public schools as well to reach as many students as possible and improve their outcomes. 

“We view The Foundations School as a living laboratory to test different approaches that could be implemented in public schools, especially schools in low-income communities,” he says. 

From arts for literacy to The Foundations School 

Before founding The Foundations School, CCE ran an arts for literacy program in partnership with Palm Beach County Schools. This five-year longitudinal study involved three underperforming schools, integrating arts into every kindergarten through third-grade classroom. The program showed promising results, with substantial improvements in reading skills, but was cut short by the closing of school during the COVID pandemic in early 2020.    

However, the program was limited by the school’s schedule to only one hour per week, which prompted CCE to consider a fully arts-integrated school model. Strategic planning in 2019 led to the decision to open a school, initially envisioned as a charter school but ultimately launched as an independent private school on January 4, 2021. 

The Foundations School employs a unique model by hiring teachers for 12 months who earn about $20,000 more per year than their public school counterparts. This approach allows for a collaborative curriculum development process covering 205 academic days, not including summer camps and spring break. 

Focusing on barrier identification, the school has adopted the Orton-Gillingham approach to teaching kindergarten through third grade, particularly beneficial for dyslexic students. Class size maximum is 15 students. Each class has a certified teacher and an assistant teacher, supported by an English Studies Center coordinator, two behavioral technicians and a clinical social worker. 

Donors have taken notice.  

“When I visited this school, there was something so charming, energetic, alive and exciting about it,” shares philanthropist Laura Rehnert, who now serves as a board member for the school. “I immediately wanted to be involved. Most everyone who visits has the same feelings. One of my philanthropic priorities is supporting organizations where my gifts can have an immediate impact. Foundations School is one of those.” 

Unique elements 

Two elements make The Foundations School unique: The challenging population it serves and its integration of arts into the curriculum. 

Admissions criteria include living in poverty, academic lag or zoning to attend poorly performing schools. Most students meet all these criteria. Recognizing the importance of parental involvement, the school plans to launch a parent academy to foster a sense of community and support. 

The school also addresses basic needs, providing two meals and a snack per day and offering extended hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. to accommodate parents’ schedules. This holistic approach ensures students can focus on learning without worrying about food or clothing. 

The second element, an arts integrated model, also plays a central role at The Foundations School. Teachers are given autonomy over their classrooms, with support from teaching artists who help infuse creativity into the curriculum. Dr. Susan Gay Wemette, the director of arts integration and creativity, has introduced programs that incorporate global collaboration, such as partnering with schools in other countries to study folk tales and integrate subjects like math and emotional intelligence. 

“When you walk into the school, you see the children’s artwork everywhere,” says Rehnert. “The school coordinates the artwork with the lesson plans, and you can walk through each classroom and see the wonderful work they are doing. It’s something that’s quite extraordinary.” 

“While we don’t teach kids to create art for art’s sake or how to paint like a fine artist, we use various art forms to engage them in the learning process so that the students are now more engaged with the learning,” added Jonathon Ortiz-Smykla, chief advancement officer for CCE. 

Impressive outcomes 

The Foundations School’s innovative approach has yielded remarkable results. For instance, third graders who started the year with only 20% reading at or above grade level finished the year at 80%. Similarly, the kindergarten class improved from 27% to 91% on grade level. One hundred percent of the students who have been with the school since it opened are at or above grade level. They believe the key is to intervene early and consistently, using frequent assessments to provide each student with differentiated support.  

Looking toward the future, The Foundations School is currently conducting a $20 million capital campaign to build an art and science center, aiming to enhance students’ experiences in math and science. The school also has scholarship, operational and capital needs, with plans to acquire a school bus to ease transportation challenges for families. 

While CCE isn’t focused on creating more schools, they are open to collaborating with other districts and sharing their model. 

“We are willing to share everything that we have and everything that we’ve learned with any organization interested in creating a better future for students who are struggling in today’s public school model,” Hamon says. 

The post The Foundations School’s Unique Approach to Academic Success  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

On May 23, university presidents from UCLA, Rutgers and Northwestern appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to answer questions about campus antisemitism, their response to pro-Palestinian encampments and negotiations with protesters. This was the third time the committee has brought university leaders to Capitol Hill to testify on these topics since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the ensuing campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza war. 

Many generous higher ed donors are fed up with the failure of leadership to respond quickly and decisively to the explosion of antisemitism on campuses and protect Jewish students. Unfortunately, not only are these problems not new, they only scratch the surface of the crisis we’re facing in higher education. For decades, America’s universities have drifted from the ideals of academic excellence, intellectual pluralism, open debate and merit – and from conferring degrees that promise better economic opportunity.  

If there is any good news to be found here, it’s that donors and philanthropists have the power to change this situation, provided they go about their giving strategically. As Joanne Florino, Philanthropy Roundtable’s Adam Meyerson Distinguished Fellow in Philanthropic Excellence, noted in a recent guide, higher education can be a minefield for the unwary donor. Few grantees have shown a more whimsical disregard for donor intent than colleges and universities. Here, just as with other forms of giving, success may depend on a donor choosing the right vehicle for an investment. 

For some, that vehicle may be an academic center that aligns with their values. Such centers, whether subject to the authority of a host institution or free and independent, provide a space where students and faculty can debate ideas and consider points of view that may not be tolerated, let alone welcomed, anywhere else on campus.  

Philanthropy Roundtable encourages donors to continue supporting higher education to help advance the reform it desperately needs. In this piece, we discuss one such strategy: by supporting an existing academic center or founding a new one, donors can engage in effective and high-impact grantmaking to improve the intellectual environment at universities.  

The Trendsetters 

The degree of independence that centers enjoy from their host institution varies widely. An example of a center completely independent – financially and administratively – from its parent university is The Witherspoon Institute. Informally associated with Princeton University’s James Madison Program, Witherspoon’s physical proximity to campus allows it to draw on Princeton’s faculty and offer occasional events in collaboration with the university’s departments. To fund its education and research activities, however, Witherspoon relies entirely on its own resources.  

Witherspoon is one of the earliest examples of a university center dedicated to advancing American values. Founded in 2003 by Princeton University Professor Robert P. George, it takes its name from John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and former president of Princeton. 

The Witherspoon model, which focuses on cultural issues, has been so successful many university centers look to it for inspiration. The Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education, a grantmaking organization supporting programs and institutes at elite universities including Princeton, has helped fund similar centers at Johns Hopkins, Yale and Duke universities to name a few. 

But while Witherspoon exists separate from Princeton, an academic program may find success by being closely embedded within a university. In the case of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership (SCETL) at Arizona State University, that’s the whole point. It isn’t just a center – it’s a school with two centers within it, along with degree programs and its own curriculum and faculty.  

Founded in 2017 with appropriated funding from the Arizona Legislature, SCETL launched a national reform movement at public universities that has spread to eight states with new departments and programs being built at colleges and universities in Arizona, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Mississippi and Texas. 

University centers can also be housed within a university while maintaining their own budgets and fundraising as an independent nonprofit. That’s the case with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (GMU), one of the earliest and best-known academic research centers that focuses on how markets solve problems.  

Founded in 1980, Mercatus has served as a model for university centers specializing in economic issues and how research centers can bridge the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems. Led by a faculty director appointed by the provost of the university, GMU Professor of Economics Tyler Cowen, the Mercatus Center is the largest supporter of GMU graduate students and offers fellowships at all levels of study for students from colleges and universities around the world. 

These three very different institutions have served as models for university centers that have emerged in recent years at private and public universities. What all of them have in common is a commitment to advancing American values. 

The Next Generation: Five New Centers Advancing American Values 

The following is a sample of university centers and academic programs to emerge thanks to a renewed interest in funding American values on college campuses in recent years. 

The Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization “promotes study of the intellectual, artistic and political traditions that characterize Western civilization.” Housed within the University of Colorado Boulder, the center is committed to the highest academic standards and intellectual rigor. Through its many programs, the center provides a forum for free and open discourse and aims to serve as a model to other institutions by promoting balanced conversation, academic freedom and intellectual diversity on campus in a time of increasing political polarization and homogeneity. The center’s “The Free Mind” podcast welcomes professors and public intellectuals who present a diversity of viewpoints to engage in candid conversations where reasonable expression of ideas is valued. 

The Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida equips students with the knowledge, habits of thought, analytical skills and character to be excellent leaders and citizens in a free society. This is accomplished through a multidisciplinary undergraduate curriculum centered around Western tradition and the American founding, public programming to highlight the value of debate and disagreement and aiding the Florida Department of Education in implementing civics curriculum in K-12 schools. 

The School of Civic Life and Leadership housed within the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC), is an interdisciplinary home for the study of public discourse, civic life and civic leadership. A degree-granting program within UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences, the school provides students with a range of courses and the opportunity to learn the skills necessary to foster meaningful conversations on contentious topics. The Civic Life and Leadership minor, for example, is structured to benefit all students by teaching how to engage productively and thoughtfully with one another, especially when they disagree. It supports “a culture of robust public argument through curricular and extra-curricular engagement, equipping students with the rhetorical and deliberative capacities to serve North Carolina and beyond as citizens, leaders and stewards of democracy.” 

The University of Texas at Austin’s newly launched School of Civic Leadership and its associated Civitas Institute will be home to a community of students and scholars on a mission to discover what it takes to preserve liberty and foster thoughtful citizenship. The School of Civic Leadership will offer students a major in civics, a minor in civics and a minor in philosophy, politics and economics. The associated Civitas Institute will be a community of scholars committed to independent thought, civil discourse, free speech, reasoned deliberation and intellectual curiosity.  

The Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society is a forthcoming center at The Ohio State University (OSU). The Chase Center will be an independent academic center physically housed in the John Glenn College of Public Affairs. In 2023, the Ohio legislature chose OSU and four other universities to house academic centers focused on American values. Trevor Brown, dean of the Glenn College, stated, “Ohio State is committed to free speech, civil discourse, critical thinking and intellectual diversity on our campuses. The Chase Center will be a focal point for advancing these values and our land-grant educational mission.” A seven-member academic council is conducting the search for an executive director. 

Tips for Higher Ed Donors 

When it comes to investing in higher education, Florino offers the following advice in the form of “Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders” considering supporting an academic center:  

• Ally yourself with a faculty member (preferably tenured) who shares your commitment to the proposed center’s mission and who has the academic and administrative skills to help it succeed. Build your program around him or her. 

• If you are launching a center to champion ideas that may be viewed as controversial elsewhere on campus – free markets or free speech, for example – make sure the institution’s top administrators, right up to the president, respect academic freedom. 

• Always allocate your funding on a year-to-year basis, contingent on the center’s performance and its fidelity in carrying out your intent. Academic and administrative personnel will fluctuate, and new arrivals may not share your same commitment to the center or your goals. 

By following this advice and supporting academic centers such as the ones featured here, higher ed donors can reshape the campus environment and restore American values in the university setting. 

Read the rest of the tips in Philanthropy Roundtable’s “Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders.” 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Programs and Services team provides a one-stop shop that helps donors navigate the complexity of higher-ed giving. Learn more about our higher education donor services. 

The post To Reform Higher Education, Consider Funding Academic Centers  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

But in John Rose’s “How to Think in an Age of Political Polarization” class, discussion is the whole point. “It was very distinct” compared to his experience elsewhere on campus, Criner says. Students were able to disagree strongly without hurling insults or storming out of the room.

“The entire class as a whole was a lot more civil than you’d expect with the type of issues we were talking about, you’d kind of expect it would be more hostile,” he says. “It changed my perspective. I’d assumed people would be more combative with the way they respond to hearing a contrarian view.”

There is a certain selection bias here, with students choosing the class because they want to learn to engage well. But much of this success in civil discourse is thanks to Rose, associate director of Duke University’s Civil Discourse Project.

Rose says his political polarization class is “sort of civil discourse 101.”

“On campus, it’s thought of as the forbidden topics class,” he says. “Students love it. It spends a little bit of time talking about polarization, but most of the semester is reserved for case studies, or I sometimes call them stress tests, on the most controversial topics of our time.”

This is the “signature class” of the Civil Discourse Project, and Rose estimates that 500 students have been through it.

“I’ve seen students have really remarkable conversations on issues of identity and certain no-go zones elsewhere,” Rose says. “I have students who take my class because they have a damaged friendship due to politics, and they come out of the class able to mend that friendship.”

The Tide Is Turning

Destroyed friendships, self-censorship and intolerance of differing viewpoints are just a few symptoms of an ideological rot spreading on college campuses. It’s no secret that free speech in higher education is in trouble. Prestigious universities such as Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and Georgetown rank among the worst for free speech. Nearly 75% of students feel pressure to avoid certain topics among their professors and peers.

Meanwhile, college administrators have done little to assuage the fears of Jewish students as anti-Israel protests have spread across the country. Courses on the Constitution or Western tradition have been replaced with divisive, politicized topics such as gender studies, critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Onlookers may wonder whether the academy is broken beyond repair. But there are plenty of people and organizations working to champion civil discourse and American values on campus, and they’re not giving up.

In some ways, it seems the tide is turning. Over the past few months, following the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack against Israel and the explosion of antisemitism on college campuses, the atmosphere has shifted. After the widely criticized congressional hearing in which the presidents of Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Pennsylvania failed to unequivocally condemn antisemitism at their institutions, one donor pulled a $100 million gift from Penn. Two days later, the university’s president resigned, as did Harvard’s president less than a month later.

There’s no doubt the power of the purse works. But if donors are withdrawing blanket grants to universities they no longer trust to spend their money well, where else can it go?

“The Foundations of Western and American Civilization”

Expanding free speech at a private school has its own pros and cons. Since they are not publicly funded, such schools are not required to have robust First Amendment protections in the same way public schools are. A university such as Duke, Rose says, also struggles with political diversity and a strong pre-professional student body, keenly aware of how saying the wrong thing could affect their future career. At a public university such as the University of Florida, the focus is different. Just ask William Inboden, director of the Alexander Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the university.

In the fall of 2022, the state legislature established the center “to support teaching and research concerning the ideas, traditions and texts that form the foundations of Western and American civilization.”

“We are trying with the Hamilton Center to fulfill our legislative mandate,” Inboden says. “I take very seriously the public part of our mission, our accountability to the public and our need to be responsive to them.”

The center’s “broad mission” as Inboden says, gives it many areas of focus, one of which is “to promote the values of citizenship and to promote civil discourse on campus.”

“What we are doing is trying to be innovative, but in a lot of ways we’re a throwback,” Inboden says. “We’re trying to recover the more traditional classical liberal model of higher education. We’re not going to be doing reverse indoctrination. We’re not engaged in political partisanship. We’re trying to depoliticize higher ed, which has become hyper politicized, and welcome a broader range of views. And that is very consistent with the Western tradition.”

Inboden seems cautiously optimistic about the future of higher education, at least where students learning about Western civilization and America’s founding principles are concerned.  

“We are trying to build something positive here,” he says. “We are trying to show that it is still possible to develop and teach a curriculum based on Western civilization and the great books, that combines knowledge, skills and values, my mantra of the trinity, if you will, of what we want our courses and degrees to embody.”

The center is on track to become its own college within the University of Florida, and it already has the authority to hire tenure-track faculty and offer majors and degrees.

“Those are really the key levers of influence and ability to get things done within any university,” Inboden says. “I think a number of past, smaller-scale efforts at higher ed reform weren’t able to have as much influence because they were a little more tangential in how they were located in the university.”

Considering the state of higher education, there’s certainly a need for efforts such as the Hamilton Center. And among students and faculty, there’s a demand for it too. In just 18 months, Inboden says, the center has had over 1,100 applications for its faculty positions. Inboden considers the strong student interest one metric of success, but he also asks, “Can we inspire imitators and competitors?”

“Ultimately, we hope that we can make a positive difference nationally,” he says. “We’re trying to reset the demand signals there and show the rest of higher ed that there is a demand for these kinds of academic efforts.”

Growing From Center to School

Similar to the Hamilton Center, the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, is a fairly new initiative, spurred by the state legislature, that aims to promote civil discourse and civic virtue on campus. What began as a research think tank will soon be part of a new college with the ability to create courses, confer degrees and hire faculty, with the goal of “exploring the ideas and institutions that sustain a free society and enable individuals to flourish,” according to the institute’s website.

Creating a new college to house the institute is significant, says Justin Dyer, executive director of the Civitas Institute and dean of the new School of Civic Leadership. 

“The standard strategy that people had for higher ed for a long time was to create centers within universities,” he says. “And those are great, and they do a lot of good work. They’re limited in that they do not hire faculty directly and they don’t develop new courses for students. What the school does is it allows us to combine the best the center has to offer with an actual academic unit that can do core academic functions.”

New schools within universities aren’t created every day, he says, making this a “generational opportunity,” he says.

“Through the school, we’ll be able to have an integrated and thoughtful curriculum that prepares students for leadership positions by connecting them to the legacy of American constitutionalism and the Western tradition and equipping them with the skills they need,” Dyer says.

In Texas and elsewhere, addressing civil discourse and reintroducing American values on campus is a wide-ranging problem. Part of the disinterest in free expression on campus comes from faculty, but some of it comes from students. And the faculty members, of course, were once students themselves.

Dyer emphasizes the importance of encouraging students not to turn away from a future in academia. One challenge is to answer the question: “How do we create the talent pipeline for the next generation?”

Through hosting guest speakers and other programs, the institute aims to model open inquiry for its members. The Civitas Institute is in a good location for this.

“Austin is a hub of intellectual energy for people who have different ideas than what we’re seeing in mainstream higher ed,” Dyer says. “It’s a kind of haven for center-right contrarians.

“But free speech isn’t the goal,” Dyer continues. “Free speech is a necessary condition for education, but once we have the necessary conditions in place, we still have to go about the task of education, which is different than just free speech.”

The Donors’ Role in Funding Reform

Tina Snider offers a philanthropist’s perspective on building support for intellectual diversity and the study of Western civilization. A financial supporter and board member of the Benson Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Snider is a big fan of the Western civilization-focused academic center. “If you build it, they will come,” she says, “and that’s what we found.”

Snider has been involved with the Benson Center since its inception in 2013. She received her bachelor’s degree at UC Boulder in the ’80s but found that by the time her daughter was a student, the university had changed. It was hamstrung by bureaucracy and had no rigorous teaching of the Western tradition. So when Bruce Benson, later the president of the university, asked her to join the board of the new center, she said yes.

Snider donates to her alma mater, but it’s important that she didn’t just write the university a blank check. Her money goes specifically to the Benson Center. Before the center was founded, the university sought her financial support, and she wasn’t interested.

“They reached out to me through the development office,” she says. “Well, my answer was, ‘No, I’m not giving you a penny because I don’t like what’s happening there.’”

Now the Benson Center has the second-largest endowment of any center in the UC system. It invites visiting scholars, hosts guest speakers and summer workshops and more. The center “promotes study of the intellectual, artistic and political traditions that characterize Western civilization,” per its website.

According to Snider, the majority of the pushback against it for the teaching of American values comes not from students, but from faculty. “It’s so funny to see people afraid of ideas,” Snider says.

“You Can’t Give Up on Higher Ed”

Leaders of organizations supporting civil discourse and American values within and outside universities agree now is not the time to abandon higher education.

“You can’t give up on higher ed because it’s such a culture-shaping institution,” Rose says. “For better or for worse, what happens on campus, especially at elite schools, has a huge impact on wider society.” He recalls the 2018 headline from writer Andrew Sullivan “We All Live on Campus Now.”

But for many donors, giving to higher education institutions should look different than in the past. Rose recommends donors find just a few faculty committed to intellectual diversity and support them in bringing civil discourse initiatives to campus. Targeted giving is key, as is knowing what institutions deserve donations.

“Sometimes the best way to help your alma mater is to give to a different school,” he says.

Snider cautions against endowments and warns that donors must “go on performance.” She tried to support Lesley University, where she got her master’s degree, in creating a civics course. The course was taught for two years. But the next time she saw the curriculum, after “the scaled tipped so far the other way,” it had been edited to put a heavy emphasis on “the lens of [Ibram X.] Kendi,” author of How to Be an Antiracist. Snider immediately pulled her funding and moved on.

Through the success of initiatives such as the Civil Discourse Project, the Hamilton Center, the Civitas Institute and Benson Center students and professors have shown there is a large demand for greater support of free expression and the study of the Western tradition.

“When donors and others look at the otherwise grim landscape of higher ed and see the hyper-politicization of so many majors and radical activism on so many campuses, we want to show that amidst all that, there is another model being returned to here,” Inboden says of the Hamilton Center.

Dyer says we have to “fight for the soul” of our country’s academic institutions.

“Don’t give up on these institutions because they’re too important for America and for the next generation,” Dyer says. “They’re enormous public resources. On the question, ‘Should we build new things or should we reform old things?’ my answer is always, ‘Yes. We should do both.’” 

The post How Donors Can Restore American Values in Higher Education appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

The top line news is charitable giving to higher education during that period totaled $58 billion, which is $1.5 billion less than the amount received the previous year. The $59.5 billion contributed in FY 2021-22 was the highest amount ever contributed. The drop in 2022-23 represents a decline of 2.5% (5% if adjusted for inflation).   

A cursory look at the sources of gifts to colleges and universities indicates “organizational” giving increased slightly, while individual giving from alumni and non-alumni alike drove the decline, dropping over 10% (12% if adjusted for inflation). Those statistics do not tell the whole story, however. CASE includes corporations, foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs) in the broad category of organizations. As Sue Cunningham, CASE president and CEO, noted, “Many individuals who historically would have been counted in the individual category are now giving through donor-advised funds. It’s certainly a vehicle that we’ve seen growing.”  

Cunningham added individual donors also give to higher education through personal and family foundations and closely held companies, so even more of their giving may be masked under the “organizational” heading. The actual breakdown in that category – which accounted for a 2.7% increase in FY 22-23 (0.1% if adjusted for inflation) – is a 3.2% increase in corporate giving, a 1.8% decline in foundation giving and a 4.4% increase in giving from other organizations including DAFs. Last year’s report was the first to require reporting on giving from DAFs. Both individual higher education institutions and CASE are currently assessing how DAF gifts should be described. 

Jenny Cooke Smith, senior director of CASE Insights Solutions, and Brian Flahaven, vice president/Strategic Partnerships, graciously agreed to speak with me recently about the latest giving numbers. Asked whether CASE had seen a drop in giving after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expanded the standard deduction in 2017, Flahaven said no such drop occurred.  

In fact, CASE reports indicated a significant increase in donations from $43.6 billion in FY 2016-17 to $46.7 billion in FY 2017-18. This is less surprising than a reader might imagine. Wealthy donors would likely continue to qualify for a charitable deduction, while smaller donors – particularly alumni – would continue to express a historic loyalty to the institutions they attended.  

Flahaven also said excluding the period 2020-2022, giving to colleges and universities has generally correlated with fluctuations of the stock market, an observation that agrees with Cunningham’s comments in the latest report. “While colleges and universities operate on fiscal years which typically begin on July 1 and June 30,” she noted, “donors plan giving based on the calendar year.” The primary market indices were indeed down on December 31, 2022, with the S&P 500 alone showing a nearly 20% loss in a year when total charitable giving also declined. 

If the correlation with market performance at the end of the calendar year continues in FY 23-24, higher ed fundraising should produce a banner year. Reversing performance remarkably from 2022, the S&P 500 increased 24% by December 31, 2023, with the Dow Jones average up nearly 14% and the Nasdaq up 43%.  

CASE representatives and higher education officials remain positive about future philanthropy in public conversations. But it is certainly reasonable to anticipate some fallout from the “donor revolt” after October’s Hamas attack on Israel and the many antisemitic campus demonstrations that have continued into this spring.  

Alumni gifts – both large and small – will no doubt continue for all sorts of projects, as evidenced by a recent $25 million donation toward a $60 million, six-story cylindrical tower to serve as the University of California-San Diego’s alumni and welcome center. But will the nature of gifts begin to change in the wake of increased donor dissatisfaction, and if so, how? 

Will we continue to see an increase in the number and size of gifts over $100 million as we saw in FY22-23, or will wealthier donors shrink or discontinue their support? Will higher ed receive fewer gifts for general operating support and more restricted donations to ensure adherence to donor intent? Will donors choose to make fewer gifts to endowments and replace them with short-term gifts that are easier to monitor and evaluate?  

Will next year’s CASE report show a decline in gifts to elite universities as donors seek other options in post-secondary education? How will the anticipated increase in women’s and Gen X philanthropy impact higher ed gifts? 

In light of these and other questions about trust in and support for our nation’s colleges and universities, we will be following CASE, Giving USA and other organizations tracking philanthropy in this area throughout 2024.  

The post Analyzing the Latest Data on the Decline in Giving to Higher Education  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Over the last few decades, leaders from across the political spectrum have been working on criminal justice reform.  Many in the Roundtable network have been part of these movements and many of those reforms have benefited individuals and communities across the country; some have not.  

With recent reductions in law-and-order policies and diminishing police resources available in critical markets, philanthropy, nonprofits and policymakers are reconsidering how our country can most effectively address criminal justice issues. By investing in programs and leaders that prioritize community-based, evidence-informed approaches undergirded by sound policies, Philanthropy Roundtable believes charitable donors can improve public safety and provide more pathways to the American dream. 

The Roundtable’s view on criminal justice reform is informed by the following: 

• Incarceration is a needed response to crime in America, yet more effective policies are needed to address the spectrum of prevention, incarceration, reincarceration and recidivism.  
• Nonprofits and philanthropy have successfully worked together with government to enact policies including the First Step Act (which reauthorizes the Second Chance Act). We believe more policies like this could accelerate significant strides in further criminal justice reform.  
• Since people of color and those who are materially poor are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system, we believe all Americans deserve the right to fair treatment and due process in their legal proceedings. 

Given the diversity of viewpoints regarding the most effective approaches to criminal justice, we’re highlighting a diverse group of organizations taking innovative approaches in the criminal justice space: 

1. Council on Criminal Justice works to advance understanding of the criminal justice policy choices facing the nation and builds consensus for solutions that enhance safety and justice for all. With a wide range of members, the organization redoubled efforts to bridge partisan divides and build common ground for policies rooted in facts, evidence and fundamental principles of justice. The organization works on violence reduction, long prison sentences, racial disparities, veterans in the justice system and more.  

2. EDWINS Leadership & Restaurant Institute is a nonprofit that provides formerly incarcerated adults with a foundation in the culinary and hospitality industries and a support network for long-term success. In addition to culinary training, students receive free housing, legal services, basic medical care, clothing, job coaching, literary programs and more. Brandon Chrostowski, founder of the organization, created the institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 2007. Since then its impact has grown to graduate 100 students each year. Chrostowski was named a semi-finalist for the prestigious 2023 James Beard Awards as Outstanding Restaurateur (nationally).  

3. The Just Trust is on a mission to tackle the incarceration crisis and address public safety side by side. By partnering with organizations across the political and ideological spectrum, The Just Trust helps advance smart solutions to shrink the footprint of the justice system in American lives, and create a system that prevents crime, centers safety and fosters real accountability, rehabilitation and healing. Their core activities include strategic advising, real-time public opinion and messaging research, narrative work and grantmaking. 

4. Manhattan Institute‘s public safety work advances creative, evidence-based policy ideas for better policing, public safety and criminal justice. From reports, interviews, commentary and policy recommendations, their team impacts myriad issues related to public safety and the criminal justice system.  

5. Prison Fellowship believes a restorative approach to prisoners, former prisoners and all those affected by crime and incarceration can make communities safer and healthier. Founded on the conviction that all people are created in God’s image and no life is beyond God’s reach, the organization seeks to bring an amazing awakening to new hope and life purpose. Those who once broke the law are transformed and mobilized to serve their neighbors, replacing the cycle of crime with a cycle of renewal. 

6. The First 72+ mission is to stop the cycle of incarceration by fostering independence and self-sustainability through education, stable and secure housing and employment, health care and community engagement. Through the leadership and wisdom of formerly incarcerated people, the First 72+ transforms the re-entry experience into one that builds on the strengths and abilities of people returning home from prison and ensures they, their families and communities are given the greatest opportunity to grow and thrive. 

The above organizations are taking an impactful approach to addressing criminal justice issues. Given the complexity of the criminal justice system and its impact on communities throughout our country, we recognize no one organization can fully address the nuances we face. But we do believe collective learning and action will lead to more effective and meaningful outcomes for individuals and communities.  

If you are interested in learning more about funding criminal justice and community related initiatives, please contact Senior Director of Programs, Esther Larson. 

The post Criminal Justice and Philanthropy’s Response  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In an op-ed recently published in the New York Post entitled “How Donors Can Shake up Higher Ed,” Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera provides a detailed giving approach for higher-education funders who want to advance American values and reestablish excellence, merit and opportunity for all at universities around the country.

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “How Donors Can Shake up Higher Ed”:  

“Can philanthropists fix higher education?” 

… 

“While it’s wise to abandon some giving strategies, I’ve urged donors to take a more effective — and more aggressive — approach to advance their values and secure the reforms higher education desperately needs.” 

… 

“The days of nostalgia giving must end unless your school is one of the few that’s still excellent. 

This may be the toughest message for philanthropists to hear, especially those who went to an Ivy League or other prestigious institution. 

They should instead fund schools with more principled leaders or proven commitments to ideals like free speech and intellectual diversity.” 

… 

“Choosing another school may be the best way to change an alma mater, since it fosters competition.” 

… 

“When a donor pulls a big gift from a college, the result is a brief news cycle. 

If a donor directs that money to an advocacy group that criticizes the university’s failings, the result is ongoing pressure.” 

… 

“Now it’s time to shake up the system — not merely by withdrawing donations but by donating in ways that make higher education worthy of the name.” 

Please continue reading at the New York Post.

The post Christie Herrera in New York Post: How Donors Can Shake Up Higher Ed  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Ahead of National School Choice Week, the Roundtable spoke with Kathleen O’Toole, assistant provost for K-12 education at Hillsdale College, about the institution’s K-12 Education Office. The office works with K-12 schools, parents and teachers to found and support a nationwide network of classical schools and revive the American tradition of K-12 education. Hillsdale also offers free resources for parents and teachers that focus on the liberal arts and sciences and teaching principles of moral character and civic virtue. In this conversation, O’Toole discusses the role of philanthropic donors in funding Hillsdale’s critical work and explains why philanthropic freedom and donor intent are integral to this mission. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

Q: Tell us about Hillsdale College, its unique K-12 department and the mission behind the institution. 

O’Toole: Founded in 1844, Hillsdale College was created with an extraordinary mission, which we have strived to remain faithful to ever since. An important part of that mission is to teach all who wish to learn. My role as the assistant provost for K-12 education is to lead the College’s K-12 Education Office, which educates people from coast to coast about tried and true K-12 education. We work with teachers, parents, and school administrators to recover the principles of excellent curriculum and instruction that our schools and students deserve.  

We believe America has a tradition of excellence in K-12 education—but we also know that our country is in danger of forgetting what it takes to run a school, what children should be learning and what it means to be a teacher. The work my office is doing is bringing the mission of Hillsdale College to K-12 educators, school founders and parents across the country.  

Q: Why does philanthropic freedom matter to your institution? 

O’Toole: There are so many phenomenal charities and organizations out there doing amazing work in their communities, and it’s always worrisome when folks want to limit the options available to charitable donors to support the work of nonprofit organizations and institutions. The people who have the generosity in their hearts to support our work should have the right and the opportunity to do so—and to remain anonymous in their charitable giving if they wish. When a donor chooses to give, they’re not just giving dollars, they’re saying something about themselves and their beliefs. It’s vital to us that donors can give how, when and to whom they choose as an extension of their values and legacy.  

Q: What sets Hillsdale apart from other institutions?  

O’Toole: The work of our affiliated schools, and the robust support that Hillsdale College provides to them, are simply unmatched with any other institution in the country. Not only do we have a nationwide reach, but we also provide the comprehensive training that school founders, board members and teachers need to do right by K-12 students. 

We offer a program called the Barney Charter School Initiative which helps charter schools get established by providing the classical curriculum, and comprehensive training for teachers, principals and board members. We launched this initiative in 2010 and it has yielded dozens of schools across the country and has helped tens of thousands of students. 

We also founded the Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence in 2000. Through the Hoogland Center, we expand the reach of the College’s curriculum and teacher training to a nationwide audience. With this center, we host training and educational conferences at Hillsdale and also take these trainings on the road to provide free professional development for any teacher in America, whether they are working in public, private or charter schools. This last year we’ve hosted Hoogland Center events on teaching mathematics, the sciences, children’s literature and American history, and they’ve been so popular we’ve had to create a waiting list for each event.  

Q: Can you discuss your American history and civics curriculum? 

O’Toole: Hillsdale’s American history and civics curriculum is a complete collection of lesson plans for teaching American history, civics and government to K-12 students. Last month, we released our final unit on recent American history, completing the sequence. The curriculum builds on itself, so as students move through it in their K-12 years, they will, for example, learn about American history from the colonies through the Civil War four different times. Each time they encounter these units, the lessons increase in depth. This curriculum is intended to be a resource for teachers, providing guidance on planning and teaching any given topic in American history, civics or government-related courses. To help teachers prepare their lessons, we suggest textbooks, online courses, content topics and stories that provide insight into the events and background of each era.  

The curriculum contains questions to ask the students, clarifies important points for teachers to keep in mind and includes student-ready primary sources along with sample assignments, activities and assessments. To ensure our students are learning the most important topics in the best possible way, we thoroughly vet every resource and recommendation. It’s our opinion that the best way to learn from history is to balance our thinking of the past and search for the truth in primary source documents, a stance reflected in the curriculum itself.  

Of our initial release, David Randall said “Hillsdale College’s 1776 Curriculum provides lesson plans aimed for intelligent, curious twelfth-grade students, and that no other institution provides curriculum anywhere near Hillsdale’s level.” Though we are excited to offer a complete series for both American history and civics, this remains an ongoing and transparent project which we consistently work to improve for our teachers and students. 

Q: What type of impact has your K-12 programming had on students? 

O’Toole: We’re changing the face of American public education. We’re helping recover the excellence that was once there in our public system. It’s our goal that one day many hundreds of thousands of students will have access to this tried-and-true curriculum and quality instruction. We want to set students up to be better educated, to be ready to pursue a better life and to serve this country of ours, with greater opportunities than have been afforded to previous generations.  

Q: In which ways are donors able to support your efforts, and how can people get more involved with your work? 

O’Toole: Because Hillsdale doesn’t accept any federal funding, all of our work is made possible by our many hundreds of thousands of friends who have entrusted us with their generosity. As a result of that, we care deeply about donor intent, and honoring the wishes of our donors by using their gifts where they have asked us to use them. Whether our donors give to our general fund, the K-12 Education Office’s endowment or the Hoogland Center, it is paramount to us to be faithful to their intent and to honor their legacy by doing so. We recognize that while we do not solicit a single penny, people have a desire to give, and we are moved by that generosity.  

To know that the work we are doing means so much to people that they’re willing to give their hard-earned dollars to support us is uplifting and extremely encouraging. And for those who want to get more involved, they can give on our website at https://secured.hillsdale.edu/hillsdale/charter-schools/. There are numerous ways to get more involved with us, whether you’re a potential teacher, school leader or if you’re interested in bringing a Hillsdale classical school to your community. We encourage you to visit k12.hillsdale.edu to learn more. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post A Conversation with Hillsdale College: “We’re Changing the Face of American Public Education” appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.