UK should accept this gift and use the controversy to teach about philanthropy

The University of Kentucky has its hands full with a naming opportunity. This is the kind of diplomatic challenge that makes administrative work so engaging.

Joe Craft, who gave the naming gift for the basketball practice facility at UK, has worked with twenty other coal industry players to assemble a $7-million package of gifts to build a new dormitory for the basketball program, to replace the aging Joe B. Hall Wildcat Lodge.

The group of donors has stipulated that the word "coal" must be included in the name of the dormitory as a condition of the gift. This is the rub that has lit up the phones.

A group of students has sent a petition to the trustees, urging them not to accept the gift with this condition. Their reasoning, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader, is that it "does not represent the feelings of all students."

A spokeswoman for the group of students is quoted as further arguing, "I think it shows that Kentucky is not committed to moving forward in terms of energy and new jobs for people in Eastern Kentucky," she said.

Others are worried about other things. Why would the university build this building when there is a hiring freeze in place? What about the $1.5-million the football program needs for a multi-purpose recruiting room?

However, most of the debate is about whether coal is good, bad, or indifferent. (The "indifferent" blogger is worried about euphony in the new name, which is a good point.)

Diplomacy is important in situations like this. Here are some things to consider:

• While the students' objections, as they have expressed them, are irrelevant, it is both right and prudent to treat them with respect and help them understand the gift more fully. Eventually, some of the current students will be in a position to advance their own values with a seven figure gift. The sense they have, that UK is "their" university (so it seems relevant to them that this gift doesn't reflect their feelings), is a valid and strong foundation for their future relationships, as graduates and perhaps as major donors, to the University.

• The question whether coal is good, bad, or indifferent is an opportunity to talk about other aspects of UK's mission as a land grant university, and about their "green" initiatives. Clearly, UK's mission nearly requires it to contest gently any flatfooted claim that coal is bad. However, they can point toward UK's role influencing a future in which coal's role or consequences are different. They can also highlight their mining engineering programs, focusing on mine safety, perhaps.

• This attention to restricted giving creates an opportunity to highlight UK's willingness to work with donors, whose values are always widely diverse, to express what is important to them in advancing the mission of the institution. This is the only purpose for which this gift is offered. It is not an unrestricted $7-million that UK has chosen to use in this way. The only choice facing the administration and trustees is to build this dorm with this name, or to forego the gift. However, other gifts provide other opportunities to emphasize other donors' values, and UK is presumably open to those conversations also.

What should UK do? I think they certainly should accept the gift, since it addresses a genuine need consistent with their mission. At the same time, they should lead the story by talking clearly and abundantly about why they are doing so.