The Koch brothers have been much maligned in The Maroon lately. The fact that they already donate some amount of money to Loyola and would, in the future, like to donate more has prompted the question, “Is accepting donations from people whose political ideals differ radically from our own, within the Jesuit ideals and the stated goals of the university?”
Unsurprisingly, many have taken the short-sighted view that Loyola should expand beyond education and into the business of vetting potential donors to make sure they are worthy of donating to the school. The goal of the university is to produce educated students capable of examining and analyzing the world around them, and if in the process of achieving that the goals of the Koch brothers and the goals of the university align, then the university would be remiss to refuse their generosity.
Considering the difficulty with which individuals are convinced to donate money, even in the best of times, the current economic recession makes every dollar all the more dear. If even one donor, or one single dollar, is made to feel unwelcome because of petty partisan politics the administration is failing at its goal to best serve its students.
Knowing the importance of additional funding to institutions of higher learning, it is academic treason to give voice to the pretension that a university is so morally superior that it does not deem some donors worthy of supporting it, despite having aligned goals, namely to better educate students. It is especially heinous when such an act is done at the expense of students’ education.
Yes, there are exceptions, such as when the donor presumes to dictate the best way to educate students. A school would be well within its rights to turn down a Nazi’s money if they insisted it be used to preach Holocaust denial. But, if that same Nazi were to donate money, without the odious stipulations, the school would be irresponsible to refuse money legitimately earned and freely given.
On any occasion that administrators are forced to choose between the good of the students or assuaging the fragile over-inflated egos of a blindly partisan vocal minority, there is always the chance that students will lose out. That the administration will kowtow to baseless criticism rather than stand up for what is most conducive to the edification of students is an unparalleled disservice to students past, present and future.
Ugly partisan bickering is celebrated in our culture, as anyone who has ever watched cable news can attest to, but it should have no place in academia. The hubris that accompanies the idea that those with political opinions different from your own are necessarily, “completely contrary to Catholic social teaching” is simply childish. To write off a person based solely on their political beliefs, whether they be Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, Republican or Democrat, is to be willfully ignorant of both Catholic social teaching and the relevant political opponent. To do so is not the act of intellectual giants which every university strives to produce, but rather of the puerile temper-tantrums of the mentally stunted.
David Holmes can be reached at [email protected]
