Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ellison breaks Harvard pledge
Billionaire reneges on promise to fund health institute
- Benjamin Pimentel, Jessica Guynn, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
It's official: Larry Ellison is walking away from a promise to donate $115 million to Harvard University.
The Oracle Corp. founder and chief executive, the world's 15th-richest person, made headlines in 2005 when, in an interview with The Chronicle, he pledged to make a major donation to Harvard to study world health. But Ellison decided against the donation after Harvard President Lawrence Summers announced his resignation earlier this year. Summers will leave the university on Friday.
"It's official," said Oracle spokesman Bob Wynne. "The reason is the relationship he had with Larry Summers, who leaves this week. Larry Summers was the brainchild of this whole concept. With his departure, Larry (Ellison) reconsidered his decision."
The donation would have been the biggest gift in Harvard's history. The pledge was also the 10th-largest American charitable contribution in 2005, giving Ellison a spot as the seventh-most generous donor in the United States on a list published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, even though he didn't actually hand over a dime.
The announcement comes at an exciting time in the world of philanthropy. Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates recently announced plans to give up most of his duties at the software giant to devote his full attention to his charitable foundation.
This week, billionaire Warren Buffett said he plans to give most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Wynne said Ellison would make an announcement soon on a donation. He did not offer details.
Summers resigned in February, amid faculty uproar over comments suggesting that differences in "intrinsic aptitude" may explain why fewer women than men succeed in math and science.
Ellison's donation would have been used to track the way health care dollars are spent and what impact they have in developed and developing countries.
Ellison had reaffirmed his pledge as recently as November, according to Christopher Murray, director of the Harvard University Global Health Initiative, who was to run the institute.
The agreement, which was never signed, also called for Ellison to consider donating $500 million more if an external review of the center was favorable.
Mr.Conley said:Also, I think Harvard is about to start a $2 billion capital campaignto fund all the changes they're about to start.
What? Continue with their plans to build a new science center, improve student life, and expand the faculty?rtwngAvngr said:This is what happens when you libs act like vindictive little "truth-o-phobes".
Mr.Conley said:What? Continue with their plans to build a new science center, improve student life, and expand the faculty?
But yes, Harvard was so angry they decided to spite Ellison by raising 115 million dollars in the time it takes you to brush your teeth.
Harvard always wins (except in football).Gem said:Mr. Conley,
While I agree with you that Harvard will not be reduced to bake sales just yet...I'm a bit troubled by the attitude you've chosen to take about the fact that someone felt so strongly about Summers resignation that he would walk away from a University he was previously willing to support to the tune of 115 million dollars. You seem to be saying - oh well, Harvards going to be more than fine...haha to the losers who thought that removing 115 million dollars would make a difference, it won't - Harvard wins.
Nope, you've got it wrong. I wanted Summers to stay. He really started the Allston development, got the curricular review going, invested in undergraduate life and teaching, and worked to improve the college in every way, and he was fast about it. It's really rather sad, he was forced out right before all the changes he started bore fruit. The curricular review, a three year, once in a generation process, just finished, a new student center, cafe, and pub are about to be constructed, and the Undergraduate Life Fund just started accepting donations. Next year all the changes will really come into effect. I'm sorry he won't be President when it all comes together (Summers will still be here, he's going to start teaching economics, I'm hoping to get him as a teacher this year or the next).Gem said:Should I take this to mean that you agree Summers should have stepped down (or are at least aren't concerned that he did) for daring to suggest that there might be, not is, but might be, a biological reason why more men take an interest in science and mathematics than women? Do you feel that a person in our society should be shamed and forced to leave his position for forwarding a hypothesis that people have been discussing for ages? Is it scholarly to blacklist someone for advancing a theory? Afterall, he didn't alter school policy, he didn't forbid girls from taking biology and calculus...he simply stated there could be a myriad of reasons why more women don't come forward for math and science positions...lets try to figure out why. And for that...he was driven out of his position.
Aaahhh... that whole bit. You don't know the whole story then do you? First off, you have to realize that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences didn't push Summers out. The FAS is just one part of the university. There is the administration, the governing body, the graduate schools, the professional schools, and the students. The FAS is only one part of the overall university, and doesn't have the power to oust the President of the university. The group that actually pushed Summers out was the Harvard Corporation. The Harvard Corporation has the real power on campus, and they didn't push Summers out over those comments. The real reasons that the corporation kicked Summers out are multitude. First, a close economist friend of Summers is being investigated for defrauding the univeristy of 20 million dollars and using the money to illegally invest in Russia. While he hasn't been convicted, it seemed that Summers might have assisted him. Would that information look good on the front page? Second, Summers was bad with the faculty, and not just the FAS, even the people at the graduate and professional schools disliked summers. One of the most important jobs of a university is to keep the boat steady. Instead, Summers was rocking it more than anyone. I've had some personal experience with Summers, and I have to admit that he came off as a bit of an ass. Third, Summers forced out Dean Kirby. That was a very, very, very, bad move on Summers part. I won't get into it now, but it was bad, and I think Kirby's ouster was the straw that broke the Harvard Corporation's back. Also, the media attention, regardless of whether Summers was right or wrong, his actions were drawing bad media attention to the school. Harvard is as much a brand name as an educational institution, and Summers was hurting that brand. If he messing up at the rate he was, then pretty soon people were going to be snuffing Harvard for Yale, or even Princeton. That would have been pathetic. Summers was a bad media draw, and forcing him out got rid of the bad press bandwagon.Gem said:I guess what I'm trying to figure out if you are so seemingly smug about the fact that Ellison's lack of donation won't hurt Harvard simply because you want people here to realize that 115 million isn't that big of a deal...or if you really don't care about the fact that one of them most respected educational institutions on the planet just forced out their President for the horrible offense of voicing an unpopular opinion.
I don't think I said otherwise, he was ousted, but if you want to be explicit about it, go ahead.Gem said:Mr. Conley,
It isn't surprising that there are a lot of reasons for Summers ousting (and lets not get involved in silly word games...a forced resignation IS an ousting)...thanks for filling me in on some of them. However, my question still stands.
I disagree with you. I don't think that the science speech was, "the final straw." Afterall, if that had been the breaking point, why did the Harvard Corporation wait an entire year after it occured to oust him? Why wait all that time until everyone had forgotten to kick him out? I think the final straw was when Summers ousted Dean Kirby. Kirby was popular, well liked, and had a vision similar to Summers. He was a threat to Summers, so Summers got rid of him, but that backfired, and created a lot of animosity between him and the rest of the school. I think the Harvard Corporation finally had enough at that point, and got rid of him. That is 'why' Summers was ousted. The science comments weren't the reason. It was Dean Kirby's ouster and the cumulative effect of Summers mismanagement, problems with the faculty, and bad media draw. Those comments weren't the pretext in my opinion, but the media tried to make it appear as such.Gem said:Aren't you upset about the fact that the "final straw" as it seems, was the fact that he voiced an opinion? I mean, surely with all of these allegations and rumors surrounding him the board could have asked him, hinted to him, etc. that they wanted him out or they would have to go public with the problems...instead of basing this on allegations of fraud or incompetence....they "lucked out" with the issue of an unpopular opinion.
You might want to take an interest. Harvard sets the standard for higher education globally. Changes made here eventually reverberate across the planet. Watching what Harvard is doing now can reveal what other colleges will be doing later.Gem said:Personally, I have no stake or great interest in Harvard politics...if Summers was an ass who possibly aided in fraud then he should be out...and possibly in jail...
I think I already covered this. Those comments are a flimsy pretext at best. I genuinely think that the media, and especially conservative and liberal commentators, hyped the incident's importance just so they could write a column.Gem said:What I do have a great interest in, however, is the fact that what finally pushed the Harvard Corporation overboard...what finally got media attention...what got the Harvard liberal academia up in arms...what that he expressed that maybe, JUST maybe...men and women have inherent differences. For that, he received condemnation and hysterics from the so-called professionals at the school....and the Harvard Corporation obviously rubbed their hands together with glee that they finally had a media-grabbing headline they could use.
Uhhh... that lie. That pops up all the time. You've been misinformed at best. Nancy Hopkins, the lady you are referring to, isn't even a professor at Harvard. I think she works at MIT. She doesn't even belong to the Harvard community, but the media tried to portray her as the representative of all thought on the incident. That's a lie. God, did the conservative columnists ever run with that one though.Gem said:Aren't you bothered by that? By the fact that the media-grabbing, ousting-worthy headline was a person expressing the need for the college to engage in scholarly studies about why there were more men involved in math and sciences than women...and that perhaps there was a biological reason behind it...but that they would have to investigate to determine the realy reason....you know...scholarly research...the stuff that universities are supposed to engage in? Instead of this, we had female professors stating that they very thought of inherent differences between men and women made them feel dizzy, like they might pass out or throw up. Um....how....masculine and tough of them...to need a fainting couch when someone states and opinion they dislike....
Well, I don't know whether society feels that way. Every article I read condemned the ouster. I think the media, especially far-right and far-left commentators twisted an event they were totally ignorant about to give themselves a story during a slow news cycle.Gem said:Again, thanks for filling us in on the "inside scoop," but I'm still a bit concerned that you seem more interested in the fact that Summers was an ass who should be ousted (which I really don't care about) and less interested in the fact that our society feels it was ok to oust someone because they voiced an unpopular opinion - and not even stating that they believed it...but simply that it was an option.
I disagree with you. Not because I don't think what you said, if true, would be terrible, but because that isn't the reason he was ousted. That was the reason the media said he was ousted, and my limited experience has led me to believe that society felt that was a bad reason to oust him.Gem said:You could tell me that Summers was approached by the Harvard Corp. and told to say something shocking and then resign to avoid scandal. I really wouldn't care...what I WOULD care about and DO care about...it that our society finds it acceptable that a college president should resign for forwarded one possible hypothesis to a problem...and suggesting that we look into all possible reasons.
The Crimson is the school newspaper. It's printed daily, and they're very through, even fanatical, about their work.The Crimson said:http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513901
SAN JOSE, Calif.Oracle Corp. Chief Executive Officer Lawrence J. Ellison rescinded a year-old pledge to donate $115 million to Harvard on Wednesday, saying that he had lost confidence in the Universitys ability to spend the money now that University President Lawrence H. Summers has resigned.
The donation, which was set to fund the creation of the Ellison Institute for World Health, would have been the largest in Harvards history.
Larry Ellison had an agreement with Larry Summers. Larry Summers departure from Harvard has changed that agreement, said Bob Wynne, a spokesman for Oracle.
But several individuals familiar with the negotiations between Summers and Ellison said that the billionaire technology tycoon had apparently lost interest in the gift months before Summers February announcement that he would resign.
According to two people close to Mass. Hall, Summers had been attempting to persuade Ellison to put the gift on paper for more than a year. The University had been in talks with Ellison even before Summers assumed the presidency in 2001, the sources said, but it was not until Summers came into office that donation plans began to cement.
The individuals, seeking to preserve relations with Summers, agreed only to speak on the condition of anonymity.
Saltonstall Professor of Population Policy Christopher Murray, who was expected to head the new institute, told Bloomberg this week that Ellison had stopped communicating with the University in November of last yearmonths before Summers presidency fell into critical condition.
And according to Wynne, Ellison began questioning the donation long before November, though he did not specify the exact moment.
Murray, who has been traveling overseas, did not respond to e-mails from The Crimson this week.
Harvard only heard about Ellisons withdrawal of his donation through the media and had not heard directly from Ellison, Harvard University Alumni Affairs and Development Director of Media Relations Sarah Friedell said on Wednesday.
According to a source close to Mass. Hall, Summers initially was confident that the gift was secured, and would boast about his relationship with the Oracle chief.
Other University officials were less certain about Ellisons promise, but Summers turned a deaf ear to demands by top administrators to obtain a formal commitment from Ellison. Summers attitude changed sometime last year after frequent delays on Ellisons end, and the president began scramblingwith no successto get the gift in writing, the source said.
The underlying cause of Ellisons change of heart was not immediately clear, but one source close to Mass. Hall said that Ellison had expressed disenchantment with Murray in private meetings on his yacht, and that he was more enthusiastic about having Summers oversee the project than to have Murray lead the institute.
Summers declined to comment through a spokesman.
We are disappointed with Mr. Ellisons decision to withdraw his commitment, Friedell said.
Wynne said he would characterize Ellisons interaction with Summers as a discussion, and he added that there was never any formal agreement between Ellison and Harvard.
The whole project was Larry Summers brainchild, Wynne said.
Ellison plans to announce a new donation later this summer, Wynne said, but he added that he did not know the identity of the recipient or the size of the gift.
This is Larry [Ellison]s money, not [Oracles] money, he said.
Ellisons stunning announcement came amid reports in the media this week that Harvard was still waiting on a $115 million donation from the Oracle CEO. Ellison publicly announced the gift in June 2005.
The Financial Times first reported on June 21 that Harvard had been left in a lurch by Ellison. The newspaper reported that the new global health institute had delayed plans to hire 130 employees by next summer and had dismissed three senior staff members that had already been hired. Murray said in the report that he had expected to receive the money from Ellison by last September.
Staff writer Javier C. Hernandez can be reached at [email protected].
Staff writer Brittney L. Moraski can be reached at [email protected].
Gem said:Looks like you are probably right (NO! Gem not right all the time?!?!? That's not possible. It can not be!!!!!!!!!!!) Hehe.
Mr.Conley said:**Waiting for rtwngAvngr to post something inflammatory before commenting**
Well, I don't think the media was trying to make liberals look bad so much as Summers, but other than that, I'm glad you understand.rtwngAvngr said:Yeah. It's the damn media trying to make liberals look bad again!
