Should the gift have been returned by Queen's? Why? Rich businesspeople and philanthropists have a long history of supporting nonprofit organizations including welfare foundations, colleges, libraries, and hospitals. To express their gratitude and to keep them in mind, the majority of socially conscious organizations name a building, program, hallway, or wing in honor of the contributor. In the case of Queen's University, Mr. Radler pledged $1 million, which will be used to help the university fund one of its buildings. In order to honor the donor, the university gave him a wing in the school of business and put his name to the Queen's Benefactor Wall. James Radler was involved in a fraud case to which he pleaded guilty in front of the Chicago court. Radler was put in jail for 29 months for the commitment of the crime that diverted more than $32million from several newspapers’ sales that were controlled by Hollinger International.
Even though Queen’s had accepted the gift in good faith and as per the Gift Acceptance policy of the university, the institution was caught up in an ethical dilemma following the court proceedings. There were various ways in which it could have reacted. The administration could have chosen to keep the donation and even retain his name for the wing. Another option was to return the gift and dissociate itself from Radler. The University could also have opted to donate the money to another course as a way of compromising (Pettey, 2013).
The final decision of the Queen’s Board of Trustees was to return the gift and break off relations with Radler, which constituted the most appropriate course of action. Giving back the donation indicated that the University condemned the actions of the contributor regarding his involvement in the fraud. Moreover, the institution is tasked with the duty of teaching moral values and principles to its students (Eger, Miller, & Scarles, 2017), therefore a failure to return the donation would contradict the administration’s ethics and its representation of upholding moral values to the learners and the society. According to the press release by Queen’s, the integrity of the gift to the university had been compromised. Even though Radler had given the donation and gift in good faith, he became ‘tainted’ once he pledged guilty to fraud.
To ensure a long-lasting prosperous relationship between the institution and the stakeholders, namely trustees, investors, alumni, students, lecturers and the general public, it must always guarantee that its goals, objectives, and values are in line with those of the shareholders. The execution of the administration’s intentions is to consider the ethical values it upholds to remain accountable to the stakeholders. The same principles must be consistent with and aligned to those of the university’s donors. If there is any contradiction between the two, it is up to the university to make sure that it returns to an original position of maintaining its core values. In this case, by having been charged with fraud, Radler had contravened the moral standards that the institution advocates for, including honesty and integrity. Therefore, if Queen’s had chosen to retain the donation, it would have been compromising on its values to align to those of Radler, while abandoning its moral principles, thus smearing the image of the educational facility.
Radler’s donation was quite huge, there is a lot of development that the university could do with $1 million. It might, therefore, seem like a significant setback to the institution by returning the money. As the university said, the quality of its learning and research environment is heavily dependent on support from its alumni and contributors as well as their generosity. However, it is even more important to always remember that the reputation, the institution can boast of, was built over an extended period. Thus, $1 million donation is not worth the tainting of the administration’s good name. It is much easier to get other gifts than to rebuild a tarnished reputation. By keeping the contribution, the university could even have put off other supporters from donating towards the institution’s future operations. The total of such potential donations and even future contributions is much more than Radler’s input.
Apart from returning the gift, the University also went further and removed Radler’s name from a wing in its School of Business. It also withdrew his name from the Queen’s benefactor wall. These actions were necessary for the university to take because they indicate complete disassociation from the blemished benefactor. According to the school’s policy on naming, no name will be approved or continued if it happens to compromise on the public respect of the university. Hence, preserving Radler’s recognition by keeping his name could result in questionable actions that conflict with the culture of honor and integrity of the university by the stakeholders and the public (Cho & Kelly, 2014).
Furthermore, the institution made a public announcement on the issue, declaring its actions. The administration had the option of keeping quiet and doing those things without public statement. However, communicating the decision to the society was a way of showing its transparency and accountability to the community as well as the previous and the potential donors. Publicizing the announcement cemented the issue of integrity by indicating its stakeholders the institution’s relation towards its reputation and contribution matter. The scandal was already front-page news. The public was actively talking about it. Queen’s could therefore not ignore the issue and had to react quickly. The institution responded immediately after Radler’s conviction with all eyes on it, awaiting the representatives’ response. A lack of reaction from the University would have been construed as wrong and hypocritical. The actions of Queen’s are therefore very commendable.
References
Cho, M., & Kelly, K.S. (2014). Corporate donor-charitable organization partners: A coorientation study of relationship types. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 693-715.
Eger, C., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2017). Corporate philanthropy through the lens of ethical subjectivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-13.
Pettey, J.G. (Ed.). (2013). Nonprofit Fundraising Strategy: A Guide to Ethical Decision Making and Regulation for Nonprofit Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email