__With Comments by Pablo Eisenberg, Peter Frumkin, Heather Higgins, Adam Meyerson, Anne Neal, James Piereson, Terrence Scanlon, Jack Siegel, Tim Walter, and Martin Morse Wooster, and a Response by Neal Freeman__
Commissioned by 华体会鈥檚 Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal
February 2009
Foundation management consultant Neal Freeman analyzes the settlement of Robertson v. Princeton University, arguably the most important court case on donor intent in a generation, from an insider鈥檚 perspective. The case was settled in late 2008 when Princeton agreed to pay nearly $100 million to a new foundation created by the Robertson family. Freeman, who was part of the family鈥檚 litigation support team, offers his insights on the reasons Princeton may have settled, how the Robertson family viewed the outcome, and what the settlement 鈥� a just one, in Freeman鈥檚 opinion 鈥� means for donors, grantees, and philanthropy in America. Freeman鈥檚 essay is followed by comments from several opinion leaders in philanthropy, and Freeman鈥檚 thoughtful, thought-provoking, and often entertaining responses.
For more information on this and other Bradley Center publications, please "email Kristen":mailto:[email protected] or (202) 974-2424.
华体会's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal aims to explore the usually unexamined intellectual assumptions underlying the grantmaking practices of America鈥檚 foundations and provide practical advice and guidance to grantmakers who seek to support smaller, grassroots institutions in the name of civic renewal.