Mon 7 Feb 2005
Long time readers will recall that I have been trying to Name that Donor — i.e., determine who the new Baxter Hall will be named after — for almost a year. I now know the name.
It was revealed to me by an anonymous source who heard it directly from a non-discreet Trustee. Note that this is not the source who has been pointing out my incorrect guesses in the past. I was, however, correct to speculate that:
we want a very rich but not shy Williams grad from a not-wealthy family without a history of major gifts to the College, probably not a current trustee, perhaps approaching a major reunion.
The donor is all those things, although perhaps I should have said “major public gifts” to the university. Apparently, he has been involved in College projects before, although his name appears nowhere in the Record and only once on the Williams web site.
Question: Should I reveal the name?
If I thought that it was clearly in the interest of current students to do so — as I thought in the matter of Nigeleian — I would not hesitate. But EphBlog is not just a news organization, although we are that. Like the Society of Alumni, EphBlog seeks
the promotion of literature and good fellowship among ourselves and the better to advance the reputation and interests of our Alma Mater.
The College is probably better off if it can control the timing of the annoucements of major gifts. But, if my source knows it, the name isn’t much of a secret anymore.
So, let me leave this one in the hands of the EphBlog community of authors, commentators and readers. Do you think that I should reveal the name? Feel free to post a comment or e-mail me privately. If several people, College employees or not, whose opinions I respect recommend/request that I hold off, I probably will.
I suspect that most readers don’t much care one way or the other, but it never hurts to ask. EphBlog is no longer a one man show, to the extent that it ever was. Morever, by giving the College notice — Big “Hello” to all our readers in the Office of Public Affairs! — we provide Williams the opportunity to take charge of the story now. I’ll make an annoucement, one way or the other, next Saturday.
2005-02-07 23:36:37
I think under these circumstances it would be appropriate to respect the donor’s wishes, presumably as conveyed by the appropriate College officials.
2005-02-08 07:25:05
No, don’t reveal the name.
2005-02-08 10:47:10
Kane, you’re conducting yourself like an undersocialized prepubescent male who just found out whom his older brother has a crush on.
2005-02-08 12:14:29
Alright, so a person who just donated 15.75 million to the school asked to remain anonymous. Hmm… this seems perfectly reasonable to me, given that the person must have his/her own reasons for it. I find it hard to believe that you would expect anyone in support of divulging the name. I doubt anyone cares enough to know and potentially harm the relationship between that donor and the college.
2005-02-08 13:46:47
Whitney’s got it right. Maintain the Ephblog’s High Road, and leave it to the Donor and Donee to put this out, if as and when they wish.
But I can’t wait, so it’s OK to send the info to this loyal reader off-line.
2005-02-09 13:51:20
OK, I’ll just put Kane’s worries to an end and fess up — I am the anonymous donor.
Get ready for Zeeman Hall. In Zeeman Hall, all carpet is velvet and the ceilings gold encrusted. Big screen TV’s playing ESPN 24 hours a day are viewable from every seat in Zeeman hall. Instead of soda machines, the dining hall features beer taps (and no High Life, either, all Boddington’s and Sam Smith’s), and every wall is formed from gigantic fish tanks. Moreover, every Amherst alum has been, in their sleep, implanted with a chip which will provide an electric shock should they dare to enter Zeeman Hall. Also, if you have a paper due at 10:00 A.M., entry into Zeeman Hall temporarily stops the passage of time so as to enable its completion (sort of like the “secret” door in Stetson, with better technology).
Williams, you’re welcome.
2005-02-09 19:51:58
Since opinion seems united on this topic, there is no need to wait till Saturday. I will not be posting the name of the mystery donor on EphBlog. As always, other authors may make their own decisions.
EphBlog is an evolving community. We are already a different place then we were last year, and much different than 2 years ago. The future will bring more changes. But I hope that we will always try to craft the nature and style of EphBlog collectively. So far, so good.
To Eislerman. Does my refusal to post the name confirm or refute your claim? Just asking.
2005-02-10 19:35:58
I’ll be brief, because I’m tired.
When you found this out, you had three options:
1) Post it, and be obnoxious, but at least take responsibility for your actions and your violation of someone who has been extremely generous to Williams. At the least, perhaps this option would have behooved you to offer a defense- eg ‘As the identity of this donor is so crucial to Williams and the Williams community, I feel going against his wishes is justified by the collective good.’ I find this a flimsy argument, unless you had some sort of amazing (and likely negative) information about him- eg, he made his money through porn and unfiltered tobacco products. Otherwise, unless there’s something pressing, you’re just being completely inappropriate, especially since identity will be revealed soon enough.
2) Keep it quiet. I think (and hopefully I don’t need to offer arguments) that this is the dignified and appropriate thing to do. You yourself notice the significance of lack of discretion by which you obtained this information.
3) Do what you did, or some variation of it (beyond privately asking the advice of a few). By doing so, you nominally avoid responsibility; clearly, there had to be some motive for you to want to post (and claiming ‘pure loyalty to the community of Ephblog’ sounds specious as a justification), but be making it a popular decision, you can reject any criticisms by claiming they are collective.
Option 1 is inappropriate; option 2, respectful. By doing 3, however, your actions are tinted by a variety of more subtly unpleasant qualities- coyness, and a sense of superiority; even though we don’t know and you’re not disseminating the info, there’s this sense of, for lack of more articulate words, ‘Nyah nyah nyah - I know something you don’t.’
Option 1 and 2 are at least strong. Option 3 is puerile and weak.
2005-02-11 22:59:42
Assuming that the source is reliable and some mechanism exists to verify the information, I do not understand why posting it is obnoxious.
Such secrets — and even more important ones — are routinely exposed in the news media. Are the news media obnoxious when they release such information (or merely puerile)?
A charitable gift of this magnitude is news. For Williams, it’s big news. For another institution connected to this donor that did NOT receive $15 mmillion, it’s really very big (bad) news. And so on, and so on.
Another question — if the identity of the donor “will be revealed soon enough” — and the building is going to bear the donor’s name for decades to come — how does it “violate” the donor to reveal the name early? Certainly, it cannot be because the donor does not crave publicity.
Is it your premise that the donor has purchased from the College a guarantee of anonymity with this donation? If so (and if Kane’s source is accurate — which we don’t really know yet), then the donor got a raw deal, since complete anonymity apparently was not actually provided.
And if Williams can’t keep a promised secret for a big donor, then that’s important news as well.
Maybe it’s news that the College would prefer to remain secret. But the last time I checked, it did not appear that the College has a veto here.
So I apologize, Eislerman, but I really don’t see what is so “diginifed and honorable” about staying quiet when a source literally hands you a huge bombshell of a news story about Williams College, especially if you just happen to write for a blog centered on Williams like it was more important than world peace.
This blog — and blogs in general — are all about setting information free.
As for me, yes, I want to know. And I am deeply disappointed that Kane has chosen not to say.
Perhaps there are good arguments for censorship of this information. Maybe lives are at stake (I doubt it, but anything’s possible).
Please note: I doubt that I will be persuaded by arguments that rely heavily on name-calling.
2005-02-12 13:04:03
You offer an argument like that, and you want to be my Latex salesman?
Anywhoo, Kane really enjoys namecalling- just check out his quote wall. I’m just trying to give the people (person?) what t(he)y want(s).
2005-02-12 23:57:11
Eislerman:
I know Aidan Finley. I have been name-called by Aidan Finley. You, sir, are no Aidan Finley.
2005-02-15 20:45:25
The Record scooped Ephblog, announced the donor in tonight’s issue. Of course, Kane will tell you that he knew first, but I say that he in fact had no idea, and, knowing that Ephblog readers would vehemently object to posting of the name, lured us all into believing that he had inside info. Nicely done, David.
By the way, a hearty thanks to this generous individual. I wish I had a cool 15 million to spare … and I love the plan for the new Baxter. Which is more than I can say for the new theater. I was on campus this weekend and it is an absolute monstrosity. Just way, way out of prorportion, both in scope and design, for the space it is located in. I think a more traditional design would have served much better in that location, and something a little scaled down.
I am happy to report that the new B&L building on spring street, as well as the sweet coffee house it houses, are, on the other hand, fantastic. My favorite building on spring street by far. I love the garage-door style touches in particular, evoking the former use of the site. A great addition to town and campus.