10,000 Men, $350 Million

The other day, Director of University Development Thomas Reardon was trying to illustrate the success thus far of the five-year $350 million Harvard Campaign. The subject was major gifts—those in excess of $100,000—the backbone of any capital drive.

Harvard, Reardon said, had solicited 649 of these gifts in the first three years of the fundraising effort. Out of this number of targets, he added, 634 have given “something significant”—all combined to the tune of $135 million, more than one-third the Campaign’s goal.

That statistic is mind-boggling. It illustrates both the technical expertise of Harvard fundraisers and, more important, the deep commitment of alums to the old Veritas. If it isn’t crystal clear now after the more than 300 years of the University’s existence, it should be: Harvard graduates are rich, and they like their alma mater. They’re even richer than University officials thought in the first place; witness the upping of the Campaign goal from $250 to 350 million.

Not surprisingly, this “unique” alumni commitment (as Reardon puts it) goes a long way toward explaining why the University consistently cops more voluntary donations than any other institution.

That is worth remembering in light of oft-heard criticism that although Harvard is facing tough economic times like other colleges, other educational institutions are more deserving of contributions. “Does Harvard ‘need’ my money more than, say, a struggling black college in the South?” asks David Owen in a recent article on the Campaign in Harper’s Magazine. No—just as he points out, the Boston public school system could easily use extra cash.

But although the argument has an appealing ring to it, it is moot. Other universities and colleges, as Owen acknowledges, simply do not have the kind of alumni wealth that makes Harvard’s capital drive—the largest attempted by a college—possible.

With this incredible wealth, however, comes an enormous responsibility for Harvard. Especially if it is going to make the argument, as officials have, that a new infusion of capital is necessary for Harvard to retain its leadership in American education. Harvard can’t make other schools raise more money, but it can make more of an active effort to help out struggling schools on all levels with non-financial resources. More programs are needed like the plans presently forming to have Harvard help retrain Cambridge public school teachers.

What’s more, the University should continue a well thought-out policy of spending its hard-won Campaign loot on building up existing programs and facilities. The specific goals of the Campaign are basically twofold: raising money for student aid and faculty salaries, and renovating the dorms and other buildings. New buildings, facilities, and programs—which often pack unforeseen costs—are notably absent from the drive’s shopping lists. The money, therefore, is not being wasted on mindless expansion, but rather on strengthening the University’s scholarship on all levels, on making it a habitable place and on helping make sure that students of all financial backgrounds are able to attend Harvard. Other schools would do well to emulate the self-restraint shown by Harvard as far as setting priorities.

With the recent raising of the Campaign’s sights, there’s going to be a lot of hullabaloo around here, as development officers try to preserve momentum from the first part of the fundraising drive and refocus it into the new push. There’ll be palm-greasing, backslapping, nostalgia, and simple exhortations to key alums to the fact that the final goal is no longer near, but two years and $135 million away.

The slick efficiency of the Campaign and the apparent certainty that it will reach its mark is slightly disconcerting. But it doesn’t have to be that way if Harvard lives up to the responsibility its enormous wealth and fundraising success bring.