The university knows who’s paying its bills and has agreed to keep it a secret.
A truly anonymous donation should be double-blind to the donor AND recipient. If you don’t want credit, don’t expect influence either.
Comment on Donors
someguy3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Um, if it’s anonymous can they influence anything?
The university knows who’s paying its bills and has agreed to keep it a secret.
A truly anonymous donation should be double-blind to the donor AND recipient. If you don’t want credit, don’t expect influence either.
I don’t know what you mean by
double-blind to the donor AND recipient
But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind.
The recipient doesn’t know the donor, and the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.
Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.
I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.
the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.
Bank statement from around the same time and of similar amount?
He might mean a certain specific group within the university. Ie the donor can donate to the University as a whole, but not say a specific branch of economics.
hannesh93@feddit.org 1 month ago
Anonymous usually means that they don’t want their name to show up publicly.
There’s almost certainly knowledge of who that money is coming from at least with a couple of persons that received the funds.
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 1 month ago
More like they don’t want the wider public to know it was them that donated. Some folks that are extremely wealthy go to great lengths to keep their names out of people’s minds and stay out of the public eye as a matter of personal security.