The University of Oxford has a long history of receiving funds for its buildings from benefactors whose donations may stimulate debate. This time, the Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities has prompted discussion due to its connection with Stephen A. Schwarzman, the Chairman of Blackstone which the United Nations rapporteurs identified as potentially contravening human rights by exacerbating housing insecurity, evictions, and discrimination internationally.
This donation echoes the historical pattern as seen in, inter alia, donations from Cecil Rhodes and the 1st Viscount Nuffield. Rhodes’s racial prejudice did not preclude him from endowing the University of Oxford via the Rhodes Scholarship and a new building at Oriel College. In the same way, Lord Nuffield’s exploitative employment practices and political connection to antisemitism and fascism did not obstruct him from supporting the establishment of a college in the University of Oxford and patronising several departments.
While the donations are manifestly advantageous for the University financially, they may have the effect of rewriting the course of history lopsidedly in a way more favourable to the donors. For instance, when people refer to Nuffield College or the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, they tend to remember his name positively for his donations to the University, but overlook his unfair treatment of workers and the political controversy surrounding him. Such donations may turn guilt into generosity and controversy into credibility.
Are these just unconventional examples? Shall we turn our eyes to the most prominent buildings in Oxford? The Clarendon Building commemorates the 1st Earl of Clarendon. The Sheldonian Theatre bears the name of Gilbert Sheldon. These two men were associated with the Clarendon Code (1661–1665), which persecuted English Dissenters who maintained their conscience by practising faith outside the established Church of England. This dissenting group included Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Quakers, other Free Church members, and Roman Catholics. These two men, nevertheless, funded the University with their wealth, partly derived from their positions from which Dissenters were excluded, or from coercing Dissenters to pay the established Church, which they rejected. Nonconformist colleges such as Harris Manchester College, Mansfield College, and Regent’s Park College, with their dissenting ethos, are undoubtedly familiar with their denominational history of suffering, which shaped their distinct identities. Nonetheless, people walking along Broad Street in Oxford, as they pass the Clarendon Building and the Sheldonian Theatre, might think of these two donors only in terms of their financial contributions to the University rather than their oppressive policies. Yet the University has continued to accept such donations for centuries. I am not sure if the University implies that virtues or reputations are tradable and purchasable. With knowledge of the past, it is unsurprising that the University has once again accepted financial support from a figure who has attracted some controversy.
To clarify, this is simply an observation based on objective facts, not a condemnation or complaint. Bona fide philanthropy, I contend, should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, if donors’ intentions are genuinely benevolent, it may be worthwhile to consider better supporting their charitable aim by removing their names from the benefiting building because an anonymous or nameless donation appears to be more altruistic, egoless, and virtuous. A recent example of this approach was the renaming of the Art, Archaeology and Ancient World Library, which removed the Sackler name. It benefits not only the donor’s modest and humble character but also his soul and spiritual life in eternity. Supporting a philanthropist to contribute in a humble manner without ostentation for self-glorification may facilitate his accumulation of greater heavenly treasure beyond this life (Matthew 6:1-4).
This would ultimately be mutually beneficial to both the donor and the University.