TopicalBoost WordPress Demo

Topic: Harvard University

private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts

  • Donor Intent Watch: Higher Education Donors React to Campus Responses to Israel-Hamas War

    Earlier this year, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. We await updates on lawsuits involving Middlebury College and the former Hastings College of the Law, and will continue to inform readers about those topics.    

    Most cases discussed this year have involved gifts to colleges and universities. Art and natural history collections have also experienced disputes, as indicated by our continuing coverage of the Barnes Foundation and the October 2023 discussion of a landmark case at the Berkshire Museum. This month, following nearly six weeks of campus turmoil, we are returning to higher education and featuring several recently-published articles that raise important questions about the relationship between donors and the institutions they support.    

    We encourage donors to contact us with any questions they have about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent that we may have missed.    

     
    Wealth Management: “Philanthropists are Pulling the Plug” 

    Trust & Estates legal editor Anna Sulkin Stern writes about donors’ responses to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and rising antisemitism on campuses, naming those who have suspended or terminated their giving to Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. She also reminds readers that donor dissatisfaction can easily spread to other donors and campuses, quoting from an October Trusts & Estates article:  

    Upholding and respecting donor intent encourages charitable giving. When donors know their intent will be honored, they develop confidence in the charitable sector and the organizations to which they give. However, if donors lack trust or confidence that their intent will be protected by those responsible for upholding it, some either won’t give or will give somewhere else. 

    The article goes on to suggest that although this season’s disputes between donors and higher education grantees do not necessarily involve violations of donor intent, donors who continue to give to colleges and universities may change how they structure their gifts. Avi Z. Kestenbaum, co-chair of Meltzer Lippe’s Trusts & Estates practice group, warns: “ 

    … In the future, I could see major donors putting more conditions and restrictions on their donations, not only as to how the funds are used, which is already common, but also with regard to the world view and belief system the university espouses and supports on its campus, in light of what we are now witnessing at some of these universities. 

    In the current environment, Kestenbaum’s prediction is likely correct. Increased donor restrictions, however – especially those that speak to an institution’s “world view and belief system” – are likely to run head on into faculty and administration concerns about hiring, tenure and ultimately, academic freedom. Donors will need to be well-informed about utilizing appropriate language in their gift agreements and should be prepared to engage legal assistance if needed. 

    Read more here.  


    The Chronicle of Higher Education: “The Dangers of Donor Revolt” 

    In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Lila Corwin Berman, a professor of Jewish history at Temple University, and Benjamin Soskis, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, discuss the unfavorable reactions of many philanthropists to recent campus events. They also worry this signifies an unhealthy and dangerous level of power in the hands of megadonors that warrants increased regulation.    

    The authors note:  

    In 2022, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education calculated that institutions of higher education took in $59.5 billion in charitable gifts and found that the top 1% of givers accounted for at least 80% of all donations. Dependent on these top givers, colleges allowed them to earmark funds through “restricted” gifts dictated by donor-determined limits and priorities. According to one recent study, a full 68% of money in the largest private universities is “restricted” in this way.  

    Of particular concern, Berman and Soskis suggest, is that the political leanings of the wealthiest Americans “tend to skew centrist and conservative on many issues.”   

    While conceding that donors who are now threatening to withhold further gifts if universities fail to address antisemitism on their campuses may be “hold[ing] power to account,” the authors suggest these donors may also be engaging in “public grandstanding … showing the public that, far from balancing power, they are arrogating too much for themselves by elevating their concerns over others’ interests.” Regarding the revolt of Jewish donors, they maintain, “It is safe to assume that some critics will draw on a deep well of antisemitic tropes linking Jews to perfidious uses of power.”  

    “The donor revolt,” Berman and Soskis conclude, “has brought to the surface long-simmering debates about philanthropic power. … At the very least, we should take it as an opportunity to ask whether the philanthropic system as it exists is worth defending, or whether a public revolt against the philanthropic status quo is in order.” 

    Yet the authors never clarify what form such a public revolt might take, or what manner of increased charitable regulation they propose. Their concerns about donors who are demanding that higher education grantees abandon free speech and the protection of academic freedom are certainly warranted, yet they fail to acknowledge that donors have the right to restrict the use of their gifts to programs and institutions aligned with their values.  

    They imply that Jewish donors should avoid voicing their anger and retracting financial support because they will likely inspire more antisemitism. Their focus on donors’ power discounts the bargaining power a university can bring to the table – especially when donors are alumni who are emotionally invested with their alma maters.  

    Finally, Berman and Soskis seem to neither understand nor acknowledge that the common thread in the current communications of dissatisfied donors is a powerful feeling of betrayal. That is true for many donors who cannot be simply written off as “megadonors,” including the 1,600 Harvard alumni who are threatening to end any financial support of their alma mater unless the university addresses the wave of antisemitism on its campus.  

    Read more here. (You may need to create a free account to access this article.)   


    Cornell University and Dartmouth College on Faculty Responses 

    In The Cornell Daily Sun and on Dartmouth’s website, these articles focus on faculty members and their responsibilities to the community of students and others they serve. Both are potent reminders that the core purpose of higher education institutions is not fundraising, not lobbying, not public relations – it is teaching.  

    Responding to the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, eight Cornell University faculty members representing a variety of fields of study sent a joint letter to the student newspaper regarding the tumultuous events on that campus over the month that followed. “Whatever our personal response to the unfolding spectacle of physical and verbal violence now being directed at Jewish people not only here, where we live, but everywhere,” they write, “it is as professors and educators that we wish now to speak and to register our offense.” What follows is a stark reminder of the many ways in which too many faculty members have abrogated their responsibilities not simply to their profession, but – and far more importantly – to their students.  

    Failure to ensure student safety is a primary concern, the authors argue, as students must be given an opportunity to discuss issues in classrooms “without fear of reprisal, intimidation and the threat of public shame.” They go on to say, “If professors abdicate their responsibility to ensure the freedom of all their students to speak their minds, what happens in the classroom hardly deserves the name of higher education. What passes for teaching under such circumstances is called propaganda.” 

    Faculty members who express opinions in public about matters they have not studied are expressing “contempt for the years of painstaking effort that it takes to master any subject,” the authors continue. Those faculty members, they say, are not only disrespecting their colleagues and their profession, but “are also making it very difficult for all of us to ask our students to follow the rules that differentiate the conscientious pursuit of knowledge from the irresponsible reproduction of ignorance.”  

    Finally, the authors say too many faculty members fail to engage students in understanding “the implications of their position on a specific question” and in “confront[ing] fully and honestly the meaning and consequences of what they are saying.” Intentionally – and even unintentionally – allowing one’s students to adopt a mindset based on slogans is one more symptom of the current “assault on the teaching profession and discourse, an assault with which the profession itself seems to be cooperating.” The victims of this assault, the Cornell authors conclude, “are precisely those whose approval we are now shamelessly courting and whose young impressionable minds are our most important charge.” 

    At Dartmouth, faculty members have succeeded in creating a safe forum for open and educated dialogue on matters at the heart of their scholarship. Since October 7, they have offered three on-campus and livestreamed events for the college community. Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish studies program, and Jonathan Smolin, associate professor of Middle Eastern Studies, have led this effort which has featured faculty from Dartmouth and other institutions. Heschel has credited the longstanding practice of scholarly collaboration between the two programs, noting, “Because of that long-term relationship and understanding, we were able to immediately jump right in on this issue as soon as the October 7 attacks took place. … You don’t wait until there’s a crisis.” 

    Beyond this, a Dartmouth senior lecturer, Egyptian author and academic Ezzedine Fishere has taught a course on the politics of Israel and Palestine for seven years. In recent years he co-taught the course with visiting professor Bernard Avishai, a scholar of Israeli politics. “We thought having both perspectives would create a safer space for everybody in class,” Fishere has remarked. Although Avishai will not be available for the college’s winter term, Fishere will bring in other presenters by Zoom, explaining: 

    The idea has always been to teach students to understand the motivations of the players and their concerns and their aspirations so that they can better analyze this conflict and understand its dynamics—where it might be going—rather than to try to get them to know, quote-unquote, the truth and take positions about it. … I’ve seen how students, once they feel safe enough to allow themselves to exercise introspection about the community that they come from and about their own beliefs and stereotypes, they can open up and allow themselves to go beyond the point where they started. It’s heartwarming and it’s also what learning is about. 

    The critical importance of the teaching faculty to donors who are committed to reforming higher education is manifested in both Cornell University’s faculty letter and Dartmouth College’s faculty collaboration. In our guidebook on donor intent, “Protecting Your Legacy,” we recommend that a donor find at least one (ideally tenured) faculty member at the target institution who shares the donor’s vision and can help a donor navigate the bureaucracy of a particular campus. Faculty members can be particularly useful in explaining an institution’s academic processes and the boundaries of academic freedom, and can assist donors in building more support and continuity for their proposed reforms.  

    Read more here and here. 

  • How Donors Can Fight Rising Antisemitism on College Campuses

    It’s been one month since Hamas terrorists brutally murdered over 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians – including babies, children, women and the elderly – and the international community was jarred back to the reality of the evil in this world.  

    Subsequently, an antisemitic backlash to the Israel-Hamas war has ensued. According to the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that fights antisemitism, in the weeks following the Hamas attack, there have been nearly four times as many instances of harassment, vandalism and assault directed at Jewish people and communities in comparison with the same period in 2022.  

    On college campuses in particular, there has been an alarming rise in threats against Jewish students. This week, a Cornell University student was arrested following online threats he would “bring an assault rifle to campus” and “shoot up” a dining hall where Jewish students eat. At Stanford University, an instructor was removed from the classroom after trying “to justify the actions of Hamas” and singling out Jewish students. In response to “an extremely disturbing pattern of antisemitic messages,” the Biden administration announced this week it would partner with campus law enforcement to provide federal resources to schools.  


    Universities Slow to Respond Following Hamas Attacks 

    Sadly, in the wake of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, many people tacitly supported their actions. Yet as anti-Israel rhetoric and actions have intensified among some groups, leaving Jewish students feeling scared and unsafe at American universities, too many higher educational institutions have hypocritically equivocated at the moment they should have stood firm in their opposition to antisemitic hate and violence. Encouragingly, charitable donors are uniquely positioned to hold higher education accountable to its commitments to the safety, dignity and rights of all people.    

    Days after the attacks and amid pressure from donors to respond, universities released statements expressing concern. The responses ran the gamut from clear moral condemnation to near sympathy for the attackers. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian student groups hijacked the conversation with their shocking statements and protests thereby coopting the universities’ responses.  

    Harvard’s reaction illuminates this point. It took days for the most elite university to release a statement, prompting former Harvard President Larry Summers to say: “The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student group’s statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral toward acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.” The university released multiple follow-up statements, but failed to strongly condemn a student statement that held Israel responsible for Hamas’ violence, prompting other alumni and donors to chide the university. 

    In comparison, University of Florida President and former U.S. senator Ben Sasse sent a letter to students and alumni explaining why it was unacceptable that his peers at other institutions were taking a neutral approach: “I will not tiptoe around this simple fact: What Hamas did is evil and there is no defense for terrorism. This shouldn’t be hard. [They] have been so weakened by their moral confusion that, when they see videos of raped women, hear of a beheaded baby or learn of a grandmother murdered in her home, the first reaction of some is to ‘provide context’ and try to blame the raped women, beheaded baby or the murdered grandmother,” he wrote.   

    The neutral approach that some colleges have taken – those that even chose to speak out —stands in stark contrast to letters and commitments made after the murder of George Floyd and the social justice protests of 2020. Many of those statements condemned the officer, the criminal justice system and systemic racism inherent in all institutions against Blacks. This leads us to wonder why those who embraced social justice and the equal rights and protections of all people haven’t stepped up now to defend their Jewish counterparts or condemn the slaughter of 1,400 people. What message does this send to Jewish students, faculty, donors and alumni? 

    As Sasse said on another occasion, “You got so many universities around the country [who] speak about every topic under the sun, Halloween costumes and microaggressions. But somehow in a moment of the most grave, grotesque attacks on Jewish people since the Holocaust, they all of a sudden say there’s too much complexity to say anything.” 


    Donors Can Help Combat Antisemitism on Campuses 

    Now, as violence and intimidation against Jewish students are rising, donors and alumni need not sit on the sidelines in dismay. They can use their voices and dollars to move administrations to stand against antisemitism in word and deed.  

    Philanthropic giving to higher education last year totaled $59.5 billion, including $23 billion from individual donations, according to a 2022 survey of U.S. universities by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. People giving $1 million or more made up less than 1% of donors but 57% of total donations.  

    While higher education giving is a rewarding and meaningful use of philanthropic dollars, it can be challenging for both donor intent and grant compliance. Nonetheless, accountability is a critical element of higher education funding. Academic institutions must be held accountable for the misuse of donor funds and that includes indirectly supporting activities that can be destructive to civility, undermine academic freedom or promote violence. 

    Recently, major higher education donors have ended their financial support and relationships with institutions over their response to the attack. For example, venture capitalist David Magerman, hedge fund billionaire Cliff Asness, private-equity billionaire Marc Rowan, former U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman and other high-profile donors cut ties with the University of Pennsylvania in protest of the university’s support for a festival featuring antisemitic speakers and its subsequent conflicting messages on the Hamas attack. Magerman, who is calling on other donors to do the same, noted, “I was just pushed over the edge by the equivocation of the response.” 

    At Harvard, retailer Leslie Wexner announced he was pulling funding from Harvard over its refusal to support Israel. Meanwhile, a group of prominent alumni including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and investors Seth Klarman and Bill Helman published an open letter criticizing the school’s leadership for creating an increasingly hostile environment for Harvard’s Jewish students and providing steps the university can take to remedy its actions. 

    Perhaps the removal of charitable dollars will nudge universities to action. Academic institutions may say their hands are tied or attempt to hide behind claims they are protecting academic freedom and free speech. However, that rings hollow when we consider the alarming censorship on campus today. Let’s remind them of their sundry diversity, equity and inclusion efforts – from speech codes to removal of faculty — that have been weaponized against opposing viewpoints on campus. There is something deeply wrong when people argue “words are violence” but make excuses for and even celebrate one of the most inhumane acts of violence on a civilian population – including at least 30 Americans – in recent memory.  

    While faculty and students have the right to their viewpoints, the university has a responsibility to ensure everyone’s physical safety and – given their outspoken stance on social justice – to speak out when atrocities like the unprompted murders of innocent Jews occur in the world. And when they forget, donors should remind them.   

  • 2023 Simon-DeVos Prize Winners Laura and Jeff Sandefer Create Change Through Education

    A 2009 encounter with a teacher dramatically changed the course of Laura and Jeff Sandefer’s lives—and the lives of thousands of students—forever. 

    That year, the Sandefers were considering a move from Montessori to traditional school for their sons. During a meeting with a teacher from a local private school, Jeff Sandefer asked when they should make the transition.  

    “As soon as possible,” the teacher said. “Once they’ve experienced so much freedom, they will hate sitting in a desk and being talked at all day.”   

    When Jeff pictured his curious, energetic boys confined to a classroom in this way, he was heartbroken. And that afternoon, when he returned home to Laura, he told her “We’re not doing that to our boys. We’re either going to home-school or start our own school.” 

    That’s how Acton Academy was born.  

    For their groundbreaking contributions to education through platforms like Acton Academy and the Acton Children’s Business Fair, the Sandefers are the recipients of the 2023 Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. This Prize honors living philanthropists who have set an example of leadership excellence through charitable giving, and by conveying the values of individual freedom, resourcefulness, faith in God, personal responsibility, scholarship, volunteerism and helping others help themselves. 

    Awakening Heroes on a Hero’s Journey   

    Acton Academy is a global network of private schools inspired by the one-room schoolhouse approach to education. These schools inspire every student to see themselves as a hero in waiting, with an important quest to embark upon. At Acton Academy, students are encouraged to connect to their unique gifts and genius, much like the small-group learning and apprenticeships of early America.  

    “We believe each child has a special gift, and our role is to inspire them with great stories from the past to be the heroes in their own hero’s journey,” Jeff says.  “We believe children learn best through trial and error, in a tightly knit community, tackling real world problems through sharing the stories, examples, rubrics and recipes widely available because of 21st century technology.” 

    Acton’s founding centered around the idea that each student is a genius in his or her own way. Every individual has a unique calling to uncover, and within that potential lies the ability to change the world for the better.  

    “While our learners excel as thinkers, speakers, writers and users of math and technology, we believe courage, setting goals and getting along with others are even more important,” Laura says.  


    From a Small Rental Space to a Global Movement  

    What started with seven students in a small rental house has expanded to a growing, worldwide educational phenomenon. Acton Academy’s learning model is characterized by:  

    • Game-based learning programs that help students develop core knowledge and skills 
    • Discussions based on the Socratic method that encourage the development of critical thinking  
    • Real-world, hands-on projects and learning experiences  
    • Apprenticeships that equip students with all-important skills and knowledge they can take into their professional lives  

    Now, with 300 schools in more than 25 countries so far, the Acton Academy model is steadily increasing in popularity. Students from kindergarten through 12th grade study and develop their individual talents in these intimate settings as they prepare for entrepreneurship, higher education or the workforce. 

    “My parents had seven children, none of whom learned the same way,” says Bill Simon, Jr., co-chairman of the William E. Simon Foundation, which, along with the DeVos Family Foundation, sponsors the annual Prize. “Laura and Jeff Sandefer are visionaries in helping empower parents to create schools that meet the needs of their children through the Acton Academies. We are so pleased that their accomplishments and generosity are being recognized with the 2023 Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership.”  

    The Sandefers credit Acton Academy’s success to the families who had the courage to try a new approach to education.  

    “We focused on the needs of the end customer,” Jeff says. “Then, we built experiments that turned into kits many could use, and a network of people willing to work and learn together. In every way, it was a bottom-up experiment that relied on the hard work of thousands of young heroes and parents with real skin in the game.”  


    Sifting Through the Past: Education Before the Industrial Revolution 

    As Jeff and Laura began to consider what launching their own school might look like, they traveled back in time—first to the Industrial Revolution of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when our current public school model emerged. The current public school system is professionalized and modeled to train productive citizens. But that means children are being trained in an environment that is, essentially, industrialized.  

    The Sandefers believe the traditional model of education fails to recognize students as individuals. Rather than treating children as cogs in a machine, Acton Academy seeks to transform them into the leaders and heroes they’re capable of becoming.  

    “Children aren’t widgets,” Jeff said in his 2011 TEDxOKC Talk.  

    Rather than emulating the current educational system, Acton Academy is modeled after the one-room schoolhouse educational style that predates the Industrial Revolution. It’s also characterized by apprenticeships that allow students to study under a knowledgeable teacher who can help them learn essential skills for the years ahead.  

    “Jeff and Laura’s visionary ideas have transformed the educational ecosystem by fostering entrepreneurship, critical thinking and character development in young people through experiential student-led learning,” says entrepreneur and investor Rick DeVos. “Their work through Acton Academy has empowered students to discover their unique gifts and become independent lifelong learners. Jeff and Laura’s outstanding contributions uplift communities and ignite a ripple effect of transformational impact.”   


    Creating an Agile, Powerful Network Through Experimentation  

    Acton Academy’s founders and leaders have demonstrated a deep willingness to experiment and remain agile in their quest to develop its strong educational programs. According to Laura, they’ve carefully “defended against mission creep,” remaining focused on the task at hand.  

    “We learned from groups like the early Christian church and Alcoholics Anonymous how to create lightweight, powerful networks where those we serve promise to serve others and pay it forward,” she says.  

    Throughout Acton Academy’s development, its leaders have experimented in order to improve the educational model. They repeat what works until they can package it into a kit for others. Then, they create networks to learn from one another. When experiments are proven to be effective, they become part of Acton Academy’s playbook.  


    Entrepreneurial and Educational Roots Inspire a Fresh Method of Learning  

    At its core, Acton Academy helps to develop critical thinking and entrepreneurial skills in young students. The concept formed in part as a result of the Sandefers’ unique backgrounds.  

    A successful entrepreneur and educator, and the founder of seven businesses including the oil and gas company Sandefer Offshore and the energy investment firm Sandefer Capital Partners, Jeff learned entrepreneurship at an early age. His father, an oil businessman from Abilene, Texas, made his living from wildcatting, a high-risk method of exploratory oil drilling that may or may not yield results. At 16, Jeff launched his first business painting oil tankers.  

    He earned his bachelor’s degree in petroleum and gas from the University of Texas. From there, he went on to Harvard University to earn his MBA. During this time, he learned about the Socratic method, a teaching technique that Acton Academy employs today to encourage critical thinking in its students. For more than three decades, Jeff worked as a professor, first at the University of Texas then at his Acton School of Business MBA program and later as a guide at Acton Academy.  

    Laura, whose mother was a beloved teacher, holds a bachelor of arts and masters of education from Vanderbilt University. She’s also the author of “Courage to Grow: How Acton Academy Turns Learning Upside Down.”  

    Combining their shared backgrounds, the Sandefers blazed an entrepreneurial trail, establishing and growing Acton Academy into a global movement. Despite its success, they remain mindful of the reasons they first established the school.  

    “Our mission is to serve families and their quest for learning – not to take political positions or participate in educational reform,” Laura says.  


    Making an Impact Through Engaged Philanthropy  

    At the heart of every charitable donor is a desire to improve the lives of others. When it comes to being an engaged philanthropist, Laura says it’s important to focus on “questions, choices and community” over money and top-down solutions.  

    “[We focus on] questions to discover the deeply felt needs of an individual; choices to offer to the individual who becomes the hero in his or her own story and community so the individual becomes part of something grander and more beautiful, and almost always pays it forward by serving someone else,” she says.  

    Rather than using multiple metrics to gauge their success, the Sandefers say they only focus on one: the willingness of learners and their families to recommend Acton Academy to others.  

    Jeff says Acton Academy has looked to Philanthropy Roundtable as a model for its own growth and development.  

    “I found … Philanthropy Roundtable in 1989 when I was 29 years old,” he says. “Over the last several decades, their focus on donor intent, keeping overhead low and staying focused on the needs of those we serve have been guiding lights.”  


    Looking Toward the Future 

    As recipients of the 2023 Simon-DeVos Prize, the Sandefers will receive an award of $200,000, which may be paid toward one or more selected charities. Jeff and Laura have elected to split the award between the Acton Institute, which bears no relation to Acton Academy, and Hope International, a micro-finance organization that helps fight poverty. 

    “Jeff and Laura’s journey has been defined by a relentless pursuit of positive change, a commitment to innovation and a deep compassion for humanity,” says Dick DeVos, president of the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation. “Their ability to inspire, motivate and mobilize others across the globe through the Acton model is a testament to their exemplary leadership and charisma. Their story reminds me that each one of us has the capacity to make a difference, creating a legacy that extends far beyond our own lifetimes.” 

    For the Sandefers, accepting the Simon-DeVos Prize is the culmination of many years of philanthropy and impact. But it’s also a poignant moment for Jeff and Laura, who have been inspired by the Simon and DeVos families for many years.  

    “I’ve long admired the work and character of Betsy, Dick and the DeVos family,” Jeff says. “Likewise, Bill Simon has been a hero of mine since the 1970s, from his pioneering of the leveraged buyout to his world changing service as Secretary of the Treasury.”  

    “Being recognized by the Simon and DeVos families is a great honor and we’ll do everything we can to live up to it,” he adds. 

    The Prize was presented to the Sandefers on October 25, 2023 at Philanthropy Roundtable’s Annual Meeting in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. 

    Learn more about the Simon-Devos Prize here. 

  • Will the “Apprenticeship Degree” Come to America? 

    A version of this essay by Reach University President Joe E. Ross first appeared in Inside Higher Ed on July 25, 2023.  

    Philanthropy Roundtable is pleased to share this essay by Joe E. Ross, president of Reach University. Ross and his team have worked to provide an innovative model that creates pathways to opportunity for individuals working within educational communities while simultaneously solving one of the largest problems plaguing our nation’s schools today – teacher talent pipelines. Reach University is providing a low-cost solution to the barrier of credentialing for individuals who are best positioned to meet the educational needs of their local communities through a groundbreaking apprenticeship model.  

    Among high school seniors, a privileged few get to pick between elite, world-renowned colleges like Columbia, Duke, Harvard, MIT, Northwestern, Stanford, Wellesley or Yale.  

    What if they could spend their next few years at investment bank Goldman Sachs instead?  

    Some now can. Dozens of famous employers — including Goldman Sachs and other corporate luminaries like Deloitte, GE, IBM, J.P. Morgan, Nestlé, UBS and Rolls Royce — have begun to offer a four-year paid “apprenticeship” that leads to a debt-free bachelor’s degree.   

    What’s the catch?  

    Well, to apply for the Goldman Sachs gig and others like it, you need to be based in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, the apprenticeship-to-degree model is only beginning to emerge, particularly for working adults who otherwise lack access to college. If the idea takes off, it could be a long-term solution to the $1.7 trillion student debt crisis and restore lagging faith in American higher education.  

    How does this model work?  

    Imagine a job – a paid job – that turns into a degree. Applicants apply to the employer. The diploma is technically conferred by a collaborating university. But the action happens outside the Ivory Tower. Half of the learning comes from on-the-job work. The rest comes from job-relevant classes typically held outside of working hours. Tuition is largely paid for as part of the learner’s compensation. There are no student loans. 

    Early adopters of a similar approach in the United States include state education agencies and K-12 school districts seeking to address the teacher shortage. The nonprofit Reach University created a debt-free, apprenticeship-based bachelor’s degree specifically for school employees in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado and Louisiana. Launched in fall 2020, the fully job-embedded program has grown from 50 candidates to over 1,500 in less than three years.  

    The federal Pell grant typically covers all but $2,000 of the cost of the job-embedded degree program. Philanthropy or Labor Department apprenticeship funding covers most of the remaining tuition, so each candidate’s out-of-pocket contribution is capped at $900 per year. That’s enough to ensure some skin in the game, while keeping the program affordable without student debt.  

    Dr. Heath Grimes is the superintendent of the rural Russellville City School District in northwest Alabama. The majority of students in Russellville are Hispanic but the district has had a hard time recruiting bilingual staff. Grimes began last year to recruit prospective hires who had graduated from the local community college. He positioned the district as a kind of “transfer institution” where they could use their job to turn their associate degree into a bachelor’s degree.   

    Elizabeth Alonzo, who held an associate degree in business, was among the first to accept this unusual offer. She now serves as an English language aide. Her job is a kind of apprenticeship where what she does at work renders both a paycheck from the district and academic credit from Reach University. Less than a year from now, Alonzo will graduate with the bachelor’s degree she needs to become a teacher. 

    She will be the first fully bilingual elementary school teacher in Russellville.  

    For now, the apprenticeship-to-degree program at Reach exclusively serves school employees – classroom aides, coaches and bus drivers, for example – who aspire to become teachers, and who first need to earn a bachelor’s degree.  

    But could this idea expand in the United States to fields outside of teacher preparation?  

    The answer is yes. Just look at what’s happening in the United Kingdom. More than 100 universities now offer so-called “degree apprenticeships” in fields ranging from management consulting to medicine, and more than 40,000 new students enroll each year. Robert Halfon, the U.K. minister for higher education and skills, likes to say that “degree” and “apprenticeship” are his two favorite words.  

    The ordering of those words — degree before apprenticeship — reflects the complexity of the apprenticeship system in the United Kingdom, where the “degree apprenticeship” is the pinnacle of a multi-level system that also includes the “intermediate apprenticeship” and “advanced apprenticeship.” This nomenclature does not translate on our side of the Atlantic. It makes more sense to refer to the American version as the “apprenticeship degree.”  

    After all, amid skyrocketing student debt, it’s not the apprenticeship that needs to be modified. It’s the degree.  

    That’s why Reach University is bringing together policymakers, philanthropists, employers and entrepreneurial leaders in higher education and workforce development to launch a new nationwide center to advance the apprenticeship degree – not as a postsecondary alternative, but as a postsecondary option – and to make it mainstream in the United States.  

    We believe the emergence of the apprenticeship degree has three notable implications for the future of American higher education:  

    1. For starters, we’re skeptical of narratives that paint the apprenticeship as a mere “alternative” to college. This is a false binary. An apprenticeship that intentionally leads to a degree provides both near-term job skills and long-term upward mobility.  
    1. Second, we imagine the future of college as the future of work: The workplace becomes a campus. Colleagues become classmates. Classes may be online, but learners are not remote. This would be a big change for higher education. To conflate the apprenticeship degree with an online degree or an executive degree would be like mistaking Superman for a bird or plane. 
    1. Finally, when it comes to the nation’s seemingly intractable student loan crisis, we believe the debt-free apprenticeship degree could save the day. But this will only happen if job-embedded higher education goes mainstream, drawing the imagination of learners across all income levels. 

    Enrique Peñalosa, a former mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, has been quoted describing this third dynamic in the context of urban policy: “The sign of an advanced society is not where the poor have cars, it’s where even the rich use public transportation.” 

    Similarly, we’ll know the apprenticeship degree is changing the landscape of opportunity in America when rich and poor alike aspire to a job that will lead to a good degree.  

    Not the other way around.   

    To learn more about Reach University, visit www.reach.edu. If you are interested in helping accelerate Reach’s work addressing the teacher shortage or supporting Reach’s Fall 2023 launch of the new National Center for the Apprenticeship Degree (NCAD), please contact NCAD Executive Director Eric Dunker, edunker@reach.edu.   

    For more information about other organizations providing Pathways to Opportunity, reach out to Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Erica Haines.  

  • Doers to Donors: Hilda Ochoa-Brillembourg Helps Transform the Lives of Young Musicians

    In the latest episode of Philanthropy Roundtable’s interview series “Doers to Donors,” Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera sat down with entrepreneur, author and philanthropist Hilda Ochoa-Brillembourg. Ochoa-Brillembourg is the chairman emeritus and founder of Strategic Investment Group, an independent investment management firm based in Arlington, Virginia. She also is chairman and founder of The Orchestra of the Americas Group, which has helped train talented musicians from around the globe for careers in world-class orchestras.  

    This wide-ranging discussion focused on Ochoa-Brillembourg’s journey as a Venezuelan immigrant to the United States, her work managing an international portfolio of global financial assets and her passion for philanthropy, particularly for the arts. Ochoa-Brillembourg, who detailed Venezuela’s economic collapse, also offered a warning for those in this country to not fall prey to the lures of socialism. 

    Following are some highlights of this interview, which can be viewed in full here:  

    Why Ochoa-Brillembourg Says Managing Assets is a “Noble” Profession  

    Ochoa-Brillembourg, a Harvard University graduate, began her career in the United States managing pension funds at the World Bank. But after a decade as the chief investment officer within the bank’s Pension Investment Division, she decided to strike out on her own.  

    “I actually established a manner of managing pension assets that turned out to be very successful and uniquely successful,” she said. “I developed a business plan. I spent three years marketing that business plan.”  

    That led to the founding of Strategic Investment Group in 1987 and a career she credits with creating financial certainty for those whose assets she managed.  

     “We all have very uncertain futures,” Ochoa-Brillembourg said. “[And] if we have no savings, we have no way to plan our futures.”  

    At Strategic Investment Group, she sought to reduce the uncertainty people feel about their finances by managing their money to produce the highest returns.   

    “Managing people’s assets is probably one of the most noble professions you can have,” she said.  

    “I’ve allowed hospitals to create an incredible cancer ward because of the excess returns we produced.” 


    How The Orchestra of the Americas Group is Changing Lives 

    Beyond the rewards of her career, Ochoa-Brillembourg has found fulfillment through her philanthropic work, most notably her involvement with The Orchestra of the Americas Group (OA Group). 

    The OA Group is a “Grammy-winning symphony orchestra that trains, empowers and presents top-rising talents of the Western Hemisphere and beyond in semi-annual flagship residences around the world.” Recently, it has taken on two additional missions, offering an online music conservatory that bridges the “gap between local and opportunity” and the world’s first MBA in Arts Innovation, co-curated by top universities including Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown and Duke.  

    Ochoa-Brillembourg says the conservatory is attracting some of the top performers in the world as teachers, including renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma, and giving talented musicians, many from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity to make connections that lead to careers with world-class orchestras.   

    “We have testimonies of all of our graduates that we have changed their lives. I mean, thousands of testimonies that we have changed their lives and why,” she said.  

    One of the most notable success stories is that of Gustavo Dudamel, a Venezuelan conductor currently serving as music and artistic director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and music director of the Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra. 

    “We identified him as an extraordinary young conductor in our first tour of the orchestra in 2002,” she said. “We were the first time that he was taken on an international tour and performed all over Latin America and the United States.”  

    In addition to the impact of the orchestra on its young musicians, Ochoa-Brillembourg says her philanthropic involvement with the OA Group has also changed her life.  

    “It is a transformation,” she said. “It opens up your heart, your mind, your soul, your creativity, your spirit. It gives you a sense of the immense opportunities that life brings.” 

    Read more about Ochoa-Brillembourg and the OA Group in our Philanthropy Magazine article, “Beethoven in the Barrio.”  


    A “Cautionary Tale” for America 

    Ochoa-Brillembourg’s discussion with Herrera also turned to her experience with life in a socialist regime.  

    “Caracas is a very special place. It was a very special place to grow up for various reasons,” Ochoa-Brillembourg said. 

    Now though, she says the ongoing economic and political crisis in Venezuela has led to the collapse of the private sector and a “band of criminals is ruining the country.” The humanitarian emergency began during the presidency of Hugo Chavez and has since worsened, leaving millions of people without access to needs like basic health care and safe water.  

    Ochoa-Brillembourg says it should serve as a warning to Americans to safeguard their democracy. 

    “I have never met a socialist who didn’t want to take other people’s money for themselves,” she said. “What’s happened in Venezuela, they have stolen us blind. And it’s what’s happening in China … and what has happened in Russia. Corruption in a socialist regime is extraordinarily more rampant than in a democracy.” 

    It concerns her that Americans, particularly on college campuses, have “lost” the freedom to “disagree and … to argue and reach some form of agreement or middle point,” things that are integral to a democracy.  

    “But we’ll find our way eventually, I do believe,” she said.  

    Learn more about “Doers to Donors” and watch the full interview featuring Hilda Ochoa-Brillembourg here or listen to the podcast on Apple, Google or Spotify. Subscribe to the Roundtable’s YouTube channel to make sure you don’t miss future episodes.  

  • True Diversity Advocates Respond to Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decisions

    In 6-3 and 6-2 rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race-based preferences in college admissions, writing “The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.” 

    President of Students for Fair Admissions Edward Blum, the organization that filed the lawsuits, applauded the ruling, saying, “The polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student’s race and ethnicity as a factor to admit or reject them has been overruled. These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country’s civil rights laws.” 

    The Roundtable compiled reactions from our True Diversity partners, who signed our statement of principles. The True Diversity initiative provides an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity that values each person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need. Read the Roundtable’s official statement on the ruling here.   

    Ian Rowe, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and founder and CEO of Vertex Partnership Academies, which is a charter school serving high school students in the Bronx, said: 

    “Years from now, Black students admitted to top schools will say thank you Supreme Court for a decision that removes the perception the only reason I got in is due to my race. You re-established merit as the core criteria to be considered against a standard bar of excellence.” 

    For more from Rowe on how to provide pathways to opportunity for disadvantaged individuals, check out his book “Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for ALL Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power.”  

    Devon Westhill, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, whose mission is to “promote colorblind equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in America,” said: 

    “The Harvard and UNC cases provided the Court a great opportunity to clean up the mess it created by its decades-long experiment permitting a racial spoils system in college admissions. It has now seized the opportunity—on the 20th anniversary of its misguided Grutter opinion—to vindicate the American principle of equality under law. As a result, today we are a more perfect union, notwithstanding more work that lies ahead.” 

    The Center for Equal Opportunity filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff at every stage of these cases. Check out Westhill’s recent blog on this topic, entitled “Shall We Overcome: What is the Alternative to Affirmative Action?” 

    Stephanie Holmes, an experienced labor and employment lawyer and founder of BrighterSideHR, said: 

    “While the Court’s decision today is not directly applicable to the workplace, employers should take notice. Race-based preferences in the employment context have always been prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the provision applicable to employment. In recent years, however, the proliferation of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs in corporate America, while well-intentioned, have increased the focus on an employee or applicant’s race or sex. This has provided incentives for employers to make hiring or other employment decisions based on protected categories, such as race, which is unlawful.   

    The Court’s majority opinion underscores the value and importance of treating all people – all employees – as the unique individuals they are in order to fulfill the promises guaranteed to every American in our Constitution. Even though the Supreme Court’s decision does not change existing law in the employment context, employers should be prepared for increased focus on and questions around their DEI approach. Employers are encouraged to use this opportunity to review their diversity programs and be prepared for questions from employees, who may have a wide variety of opinions on this topic.”   

    For more from Holmes, an author of our True Diversity toolkit, please read “True Diversity: Legal Overview & Recommendations for Employers.” 

    Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that defends Americans’ liberties from government overreach and abuse, responded to the ruling in a Fox News op-ed. Legal fellow Ethan Blevins said: 

    “While this is a key win for individual rights, the court did not go far enough. The court should have held that race can play no role in university admissions whatsoever. Instead, the court has opted to prop up a feeble precedent that leaves the door ajar for ongoing discrimination.” 

    Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in favor of SFFA in these cases. Read more about their  litigation efforts here.  

    Patrice Onwuka, Philanthropy Roundtable adjunct senior fellow and director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at the Independent Women’s Forum, said: 

    “As a society, we cannot remedy past discrimination by creating new inequities; otherwise, we lock ourselves into a vicious cycle of injustice. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that educational institutions must not infringe on the civil rights of one group of students based on their race regardless of whether some view the desired outcome as virtuous.   

     “Every child in America deserves access to a quality education regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or class. Education is not only an equalizer, but it anchors the ladder of economic opportunity. If we want to ensure that disadvantaged children, including those from minority backgrounds, can compete for spaces in higher education, we should accelerate school choice efforts and be committed to holding all kids to the same high standards.”  

    For more from Onwuka on this topic, read her Philanthropy Roundtable research on the effectiveness of diversity quotas on corporate boards in “Improving Board Diversity: Lessons from Sweden and Norway.” She has also written about the pitfalls of charitable organizations collecting demographic data and using it to make philanthropic decisions. Read more here.