2 Ivy League Drives Shame Seniors Who Don't Give

Joined
5/2/06
Messages
12,166
Points
273
Positive recognition has long been a trusted way of raising money on college campuses, where buildings, benches, and even the insides of library books bear the names of donors.

But in an effort to spur gifts among young soon-to-be alumni, students at two Ivy League institutions are trying a different approach: publicizing the names of seniors who don't contribute to their class gift.

With lists supplied by college administrators, student volunteers at Dartmouth College and Cornell University circulated the names of students who had not donated to senior-gift drives. The programs relied on students to single out their peers to meet high participation goals.

Not everyone participated happily. The single student from Dartmouth's 1,123-student Class of 2010 who did not contribute this year was criticized in a column in the college newspaper and on a popular blog, which posted her name and photograph. The student e-mailed a testy response to fellow classmates describing her position.

At Cornell, the 42 seniors who volunteered to raise money were provided lists of classmates who had not given, and one volunteer shared some of the names with other students. In singling out delinquent classmates, volunteers were told to send multiple e-mails and to call students on their cellphones, telling them that they were among the few who had not yet given. At least one student didn't donate because she was turned off by the persistent contact.


Students at 2 Ivy League Colleges Shamed Seniors Who Failed to Donate - Fund Raising - The Chronicle of Higher Education
 
This type of behaviour is exactly what communists do.
 
I wonder if there could be legal ramifications for this type of behavior. I am not 100% sure about libel if it has to be false or if the intention is what defines it. Either way printing someones information with the intention to intimidate or humiliate them into giving money sounds illegal.A nice letter from a lawyer to the dean and newspaper would be enough to stop this behavior.
 
That's harassment, if some fuckwit tried that on me, the sky above them would swiftly darken with lawyers, and if I had even one phone call as a result the police would be involved.

Anthony mentions libel, and although the truth is a defence, it assumes that you have accurate data. These colleges appear to be run by evangelicals, certainly their language of behaviour modification sounds highly faith based. You don't have to make loud public statements about individiduals very often before a shabby database can screw you big time.

It's also stupidly inefficient.
Students don't really respond all that well to threats, and it would not shock me to see Tshirts and Facebook pages for the refuseniks.
 
This type of behaviour is exactly what communists do.
To me the technique doesn't seem to be particularly ideological. Shame is a time-honored method of enforcing social conformity. See also: Japan.
 
Back
Top Bottom