OT : Douglass Alumnae Protest Plan to Overhaul Fundraising

[SanFranRutgers]

This probably belongs in the Current Events forum, but I'm going to grant myself some leeway, because a number of the comments following the story point an angry finger at football.

Many alumni of the former Douglass College have a very contentious relationship with Rutgers, preferring to see themselves as Douglass -- rather than Rutgers -- alumnae, and wishing to have no connection, whatsoever, Rutgers University, as if that were possible. I'm not making that claim on anyone's behalf; at least two of the story's respondents make explicit statements to that effect.

So, interesting topic. President McCormick manged to do what I thought was impossible, and that was to consolidate all of New Brunswick's liberal arts college fiefdoms into the School of Arts & Sciences. Douglass Alumnae are trying to keep their separation alive by Balkanizing their fundraising efforts from the Rutgers Foundation, and -- presumably -- continuing to hammer home the message to current and future students that they are not actually attending Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Again, please don't take my word for it. Judge their alumnae by their own words.

While I don't want to take away anyone's pride of group affinity at Rutgers -- your identity at Rutgers may have manifested itself largely within your own, whether it was marching band, Cook, Targum, Res Life, intramurals, crew, Greek, honors program, etc. -- has the alumnae effort to to maintain a discrete (and, in fact, totally separate) identity outside the overarching umbrella of the university gotten to the point where its advocates have completely lost touch with Douglass's actual role at Rutgers?

 

[Tango Two]

More on this here: http://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/th...-rutgers-plan-to-overhaul-alumnae-group.8106/

 

[iReC89]

Well since donations affect priority points there is a least some relevance here. While I wish that my wife's Douglass alumni donations helped me move towards the 50 yard line, I won't be able to sit at all if that this change hurts the programs at Douglass that foster leadership in women.

I don't think Douglass alumni are trying to distance themselves from Rutgers at all. I think they are trying to survive as what they are within Rutgers. Programming is a matter of priorities, and the priorities of the University and the Rutgers Alumni Association are probably not the same as the AADC, although they may have some overlap. A few short years ago the university wanted Douglass to go the way of Cook, Rutgers, Livingston, etc and cease to exist. The alumni fought to save Douglass, at least as a residential college, and it has been a popular choice amongst students. Now the wolf wants to come back and say they want to control priorities of where alumni funds go, but don't worry, the students will have everything they need. The reality is, the proposed change guts the ability of the AADC to operate a host of scholarships, externships, leadership programs etc, and alienates the schools most devoted and generous alumni. Its a short sighted effort to plug budget holes. That's it. If the university really still supports Douglass, then put up the money to show it. If they want to talk about transparency, then lets see their investment plans for this women's college.

 

[BeKnighted]

I completely understand how the Douglass Alumnae feel about this. McCormick's reorganization, logical though it may have been, killed off a separate admission women's college, and I can tell you that alumnae of women's colleges feel very strongly about the benefits of single-sex education.

Heck, as a Cook alum, I'm still kind of annoyed by the change - they didn't even have the decency to put George Cook's name on SEBS. (If I ever became rich beyond my dreams, I'd give a chunk of the money to RU on the condition that they bring Cook's name back.)

 

[MidwestKnights]

Well since donations affect priority points there is a least some relevance here. While I wish that my wife's Douglass alumni donations helped me move towards the 50 yard line, I won't be able to sit at all if that this change hurts the programs at Douglass that foster leadership in women.

I don't think Douglass alumni are trying to distance themselves from Rutgers at all. I think they are trying to survive as what they are within Rutgers. Programming is a matter of priorities, and the priorities of the University and the Rutgers Alumni Association are probably not the same as the AADC, although they may have some overlap. A few short years ago the university wanted Douglass to go the way of Cook, Rutgers, Livingston, etc and cease to exist. The alumni fought to save Douglass, at least as a residential college, and it has been a popular choice amongst students. Now the wolf wants to come back and say they want to control priorities of where alumni funds go, but don't worry, the students will have everything they need. The reality is, the proposed change guts the ability of the AADC to operate a host of scholarships, externships, leadership programs etc, and alienates the schools most devoted and generous alumni. Its a short sighted effort to plug budget holes. That's it. If the university really still supports Douglass, then put up the money to show it. If they want to talk about transparency, then lets see their investment plans for this women's college.

Exactly. And this at the same time there is a national effort to increase the # of women in STEM fields. The DRC provides a really nice home for these efforts at Rutgers (including extensive alumni connections), so I do think that the university's move is short sighted.

However, those comments associated with the article really don't do the alumnae any justice. And if that is the general attitude they bring to their dealings with the foundation, I can understand why they might want to shut down the AADC.

 

[JPhoboken]

I completely understand how the Douglass Alumnae feel about this. McCormick's reorganization, logical though it may have been, killed off a separate admission women's college, and I can tell you that alumnae of women's colleges feel very strongly about the benefits of single-sex education.

Heck, as a Cook alum, I'm still kind of annoyed by the change - they didn't even have the decency to put George Cook's name on SEBS. (If I ever became rich beyond my dreams, I'd give a chunk of the money to RU on the condition that they bring Cook's name back.)

As a Cook Graduate, I used to be so proud driving driving past on Route 1 seeing the Huge Cook College sign with the quote " A committed future from a commanding past." I was one who didn't want the integration. I didn't see the need for it, and thought there were lots of reasons to keep the Cook tradition alive. In some discussions with some decision makers I was told that a primary reason was for better communication. Since email addresses and phone numbers were the same, I am not sure how this necessarily improves communication.

I was intimately involved with intramurals at Cook, as were many on this board. From people who worked in the Phys Ed department, I can tell you that they were not happy that they lost control of their department, and it did not improve it in any way. How is a Dept. Head, who may have no experience in the Cook culture, sitting in an office on another campus, be superior to the way it was before?

 

[RC1991]

The fact that the Faculty of Arts and Science was merged in the early 80's entitling everyone at Rutgers to take the same classes with members of any of the other individual colleges at the time made the merging of the colleges by McCormick unnecessary. He just needed his name on some sort of "signature" move that he could call his own....and really he didn't even do anything in that regard - Barry Qualls did all of the work. What they really should have done was to keep the identify of the individual colleges and work on harmonizing the admissions and graduation requirements and other policies - that way those individual colleges could have still maintained at least some of their identify. Sometimes it's actually a good thing to maintain tradition/identity. I attended Rutgers College but really liked the idea of the various individual colleges and their identities and I know a lot of Cook and Douglass grads who were not happy with the change and I don't blame them one bit as I feel the same way.

 

[derleider]

The fact that the Faculty of Arts and Science was merged in the early 80's entitling everyone at Rutgers to take the same classes with members of any of the other individual colleges at the time made the merging of the colleges by McCormick unnecessary. He just needed his name on some sort of "signature" move that he could call his own....and really he didn't even do anything in that regard - Barry Qualls did all of the work. What they really should have done was to keep the identify of the individual colleges and work on harmonizing the admissions and graduation requirements and other policies - that way those individual colleges could have still maintained at least some of their identify. Sometimes it's actually a good thing to maintain tradition/identity. I attended Rutgers College but really liked the idea of the various individual colleges and their identities and I know a lot of Cook and Douglass grads who were not happy with the change and I don't blame them one bit as I feel the same way.

No - it was necessary because the faculties had been merged, but the standards had not. Creating a system at RU which was confusing to outsiders, and stigmatizing to students at the other colleges.

That doesnt mean you have to wipe out the entire traditions of Cook and Douglas, but it was a sensible move and one that has utlatimtley helped Rutgers advance as a university.

 

[RC1991]

Which is why I pointed out that the admissions and graduation requirements could have been harmonized across the various individual colleges without actually merging the colleges themselves. Not unlike separate business units in a corporation all adhering to an overarching corporate SOP. I honestly don't see how that move has advanced Rutgers as a university - surely not by improving upon the undergrad experience...or at least not the undergrad experience of those that attended (or would have) Douglass and Cook. You may say that it reduced the number of administrators at those individual colleges but did it? Rutgers already had a number of bloated do nothing administrator positions and continues in that vein - they just shifted them around and give the perception that there has been an improvement.

 

[derleider]

Which is why I pointed out that the admissions and graduation requirements could have been harmonized across the various individual colleges without actually merging the colleges themselves. Not unlike separate business units in a corporation all adhering to an overarching corporate SOP. I honestly don't see how that move has advanced Rutgers as a university - surely not by improving upon the undergrad experience...or at least not the undergrad experience of those that attended (or would have) Douglass and Cook. You may say that it reduced the number of administrators at those individual colleges but did it? Rutgers already had a number of bloated do nothing administrator positions and continues in that vein - they just shifted them around and give the perception that there has been an improvement.

For one - you couldnt really do that. If you merged the admissions standards you would have to make Douglas coed (simple math demands it, unless the applicants to Douglas were better than RC+LC, which they werent.)

So if youve already merged the admissions standards, the faculties, and the requirements, and made the whole place coed, then what do you have remaining other than basically what is on the ground now?

 

[BeKnighted]

For one - you couldnt really do that. If you merged the admissions standards you would have to make Douglas coed (simple math demands it, unless the applicants to Douglas were better than RC+LC, which they werent.)

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you adopt uniform admissions standards, all you're doing is saying that applicants with similar records will get into each college. You could still have restricted applications to Douglass to women.

 

[mdk01]

I'd be interested in a breakdown by ages of those protesting the most. My view from the outside is that at least in the 60's and early 70's Douglass had a higher level of prestige than Rutgers itself. This was just before, and during, the process when Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth. Williams, Amherst and other elite all men's college went coed. Douglass was perceived as a school where women who academically could have qualified for admission to those schools but couldn't because they were all male ended up. I'm sure that was a source of immense pride for those women.

 

[Scarlet16E]

Douglass had lower admission standards than RC and CC prior to the reorganization.

This is typical fiefdom leaders trying to maintain the status quo. Douglass needs to raise funds under the Rutgers Foundation umbrella, just like every other part of Rutgers.
Use the same people, fund the same programs if you want, just operate under the RF umbrella.

Don't point to their meager past success. I have news for you. ALL of Rutgers has historically sucked at fundraising, including Douglass College. The people managing the RF today are finally beginning to do things correctly. Douglass and all of Rutgers can raise much more together than separately.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I agree that this is another special interest attempt to end a fiefdom.

I also understand how some alumnae feel about this. But at the end of the day this happened all over. Where is Radcliffe? Is Barnard considered totally distinct from Columbia?

RU bends over backwards to accommodate every group. Which is fine. But when it comes to money, there shouldn't be bending- and that isn't just sports related. We could use nicer and better everything.

The merger worked. This is the last piece.

 

[JPhoboken]

Which is why I pointed out that the admissions and graduation requirements could have been harmonized across the various individual colleges without actually merging the colleges themselves. Not unlike separate business units in a corporation all adhering to an overarching corporate SOP. I honestly don't see how that move has advanced Rutgers as a university - surely not by improving upon the undergrad experience...or at least not the undergrad experience of those that attended (or would have) Douglass and Cook. You may say that it reduced the number of administrators at those individual colleges but did it? Rutgers already had a number of bloated do nothing administrator positions and continues in that vein - they just shifted them around and give the perception that there has been an improvement.

This. From what I have seen and from people I know who work at Cook, Cook is not better for the Merge, nor can I see any tangible way Rutgers is better. Did Rutgers save that much money?

Also, I really can't see how it was was so confusing or stigmitizing to students before the merge. You applied to Cook, Douglass, Rutgers College, etc., and each had its own identity and standards, but was part of Rutgers. I agree that sometimes someone needs to put a stamp on something that wasn't necessary, sounds about right in this case.

And one of the main excuses I heard about communication, jeez, do professors at Rutgers know how to email and call each other? Has communication really improved that much?

 

[Caliknight]

As someone once said, 98% of the women in NJ are beautiful. The other 2% go to Douglass.

 

[GeorgeStreet]

No, the other 2% move to California.

 

[Caliknight]

Huh? Have you been to Southern California? The most beautiful women on the entire planet live here. It's a ridiculous.

 

[RUDouglass]

I don't think Douglass alumni are trying to distance themselves from Rutgers at all. I think they are trying to survive as what they are within Rutgers. Programming is a matter of priorities, and the priorities of the University and the Rutgers Alumni Association are probably not the same as the AADC, although they may have some overlap. A few short years ago the university wanted Douglass to go the way of Cook, Rutgers, Livingston, etc and cease to exist. The alumni fought to save Douglass, at least as a residential college, and it has been a popular choice amongst students. Now the wolf wants to come back and say they want to control priorities of where alumni funds go, but don't worry, the students will have everything they need. The reality is, the proposed change guts the ability of the AADC to operate a host of scholarships, externships, leadership programs etc, and alienates the schools most devoted and generous alumni. Its a short sighted effort to plug budget holes. That's it. If the university really still supports Douglass, then put up the money to show it. If they want to talk about transparency, then lets see their investment plans for this women's college.

This. I could not say it any better. Douglass was, is, and will remain a popular choice for some Rutgers students. They specifically focus on women in STEM careers, something that RU would do well to let them continue doing. The AADC raises funds that specifically fund scholarships, programs like the science and honors ones, externships, grants, and much more. None of these are funded by RU and you don't see them on other campuses. The fear is that Rutgers wants to take over fundraising in order to move funds to other projects on other campuses. Douglass alumni are very often vocal supporters of Rutgers as a whole, but they love Douglass with all their hearts.

I am a season ticket holder and I was a Douglass student. Many of my friends are football and basketball season ticket holders who also graduated from Douglass. We love Rutgers athletics and Douglass. This move will alienate many donors. The donations currently going to the AADC will not move to Rutgers. Most alum will continue to donate to Rutgers and athletics, but the funds earmarked for Douglass will go to other leadership programs outside of Rutgers.

Rutgers has not shown much (if any) interest in preserving Douglass. Sadly, many alum view this as the final nail in the coffin- when Douglass became a residential college is was obvious that some higher-ups at Rutgers were unhappy. Apparently they think this is the way to continue in that direction. Ugh.

 

[TonyLieske]

This. I could not say it any better. Douglass was, is, and will remain a popular choice for some Rutgers students. They specifically focus on women in STEM careers, something that RU would do well to let them continue doing. The AADC raises funds that specifically fund scholarships, programs like the science and honors ones, externships, grants, and much more. None of these are funded by RU and you don't see them on other campuses. The fear is that Rutgers wants to take over fundraising in order to move funds to other projects on other campuses. Douglass alumni are very often vocal supporters of Rutgers as a whole, but they love Douglass with all their hearts.

I am a season ticket holder and I was a Douglass student. Many of my friends are football and basketball season ticket holders who also graduated from Douglass. We love Rutgers athletics and Douglass. This move will alienate many donors. The donations currently going to the AADC will not move to Rutgers. Most alum will continue to donate to Rutgers and athletics, but the funds earmarked for Douglass will go to other leadership programs outside of Rutgers.

Rutgers has not shown much (if any) interest in preserving Douglass. Sadly, many alum view this as the final nail in the coffin- when Douglass became a residential college is was obvious that some higher-ups at Rutgers were unhappy. Apparently they think this is the way to continue in that direction. Ugh.

While I understand you are saying this to "threaten" the Rutgers administration, those types of threats are exactly why it is more important than ever to completely get rid of the this Douglass subculture. And FWIW, while you are being polite, many of the commenters to the article in the OP very clearly state they have no attachment to Rutgers and would never, ever donate to Rutgers. While in the short term such a "threat" might make them think they are arguing for a case to keep the AADC and Douglass College, anyone with a long term outlook will see it as a divisive force within the University that cannot be allowed to exist. In other words, you guys are cutting off your noses to spite your face with these threats.

 

[rutgersnyc]

People need to grow up. Compared to our B1G brothers, RU is very poor. Anything we do to make this place more cost efficient is a good thing. But I have no objections if the few pennies that Douglas alumni contribute go to Douglass or Women's programming - no different than supporting BBall.

 

[GeorgeStreet]

Caliknight - I've been to Southern California many, many times. The problem with many of the females there is that they are either a mess, or stupid, or both.

 

[78CollegeAve]

Wife is a Douglass grad. Ever read the Associate Alumnae newsletter? It drips with contempt for all things Rutgers. It's about time that RU drops the hammer on the AA. We're all in this together. There's no legitimate reason to continue the charade of a substantive Douglass "experience" based on a single-sex dorm and and the same kind of women's studies program that every major state university runs. It's just another stupid distraction to pander to a small group -- the Douglass 100 or whatever.

 

[Upstream]

Heck, as a Cook alum, I'm still kind of annoyed by the change - they didn't even have the decency to put George Cook's name on SEBS. (If I ever became rich beyond my dreams, I'd give a chunk of the money to RU on the condition that they bring Cook's name back.)

Really? The ag school has existed for 151 years. It has been called Cook College for only 36 of those years.

 

[RUseaweed]

Caliknight - I've been to Southern California many, many times. The problem with many of the females there is that they are either a mess, or stupid, or both.

Having lived here for a year now I can say I have met my fair share of stupidity. However, there are PAH-LEN-TEE of absolutely gorgeous women that have a very firm understanding of the world and lofty career ambitions.

Back on topic, I'm backing Rutgers on this. I like the idea of Douglass Residential College and all they do to support women in STEM. However, it is quite apparent that their alumnae association is run by a bunch of shady characters.

Rutgers Accuses Douglass Alumnae Association of Hiding Money, Lying to Donors

 

[BeKnighted]

Really? The ag school has existed for 151 years. It has been called Cook College for only 36 of those years.

Well, it was called Cook when I was there, so that's all that matters.

More seriously, the name honored the original head of the college, who ran it for many years. I think it was fitting and they should have tried to maintain that legacy.

 

[GeorgeStreet]

78collegeave - Now let us hear from your wife. :)

 

[TonyLieske]

Having lived here for a year now I can say I have met my fair share of stupidity. However, there are PAH-LEN-TEE of absolutely gorgeous women that have a very firm understanding of the world and lofty career ambitions.

Back on topic, I'm backing Rutgers on this. I like the idea of Douglass Residential College and all they do to support women in STEM. However, it is quite apparent that their alumnae association is run by a bunch of shady characters.

Rutgers Accuses Douglass Alumnae Association of Hiding Money, Lying to Donors

Wow, some pretty damning stuff in that article, and one of the commenters verified what Rutgers is talking about (via IRS filings). In 2014, the AADC took in $1.6 million in donations and had $1.5 million in overhead expenses. That is crazy. Especially crazy when you read some of the quotes above in this thread that the donors would not donate to Rutgers, but would donate to the AADC. I mean, 90% of your donation is just paying for the salaries/benefits of the AADC to exist. Less than 10% of your donations are actually going to charitable causes.

 

[SanFranRutgers]

Well, it was called Cook when I was there, so that's all that matters.
...

I think your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek when you say this, but you just put your finger on one the most basic and most pervasive problems facing Rutgers.

 

[mal359]

Yes, find more ways to alienate alumni and stifle donations. The BOG brain trust is at it again.

 

[RC1978]

Judge decides with Rutgers over Douglas

http://www.nj.com/education/2015/04...s_in_douglass_alumnae_group.html#incart_river

 

[Caliknight]

Caliknight - I've been to Southern California many, many times. The problem with many of the females there is that they are either a mess, or stupid, or both.

Stereotypical nonsense. Like any city, there are many different types here. There are tons of women here who have the stuff very together. They just happen to be much better looking than their counterparts from other areas.

 

[TonyLieske]

Yes, find more ways to alienate alumni and stifle donations. The BOG brain trust is at it again.

Not sure if you saw the info in the second article, but without the endowment income the AADC wasn't netting much money. Even if they lost every donor it isn't much of a loss, but if the keep half of them then Douglass College will net more funds.

Also not sure if you saw, but the AADC wasn't even including the Dean of Douglass College in their planning or communications.

I can't see how anyone would even want to donate to the AADC after seeing the info in the article and the info released by Rutgers. Something like 70-90% of the donations were just to pay the salaries and expenses of the AADC. That is just crazy.

 

[motorb54]

Where did this $42 million number come from?
What is it?

 

[78CollegeAve]

78collegeave - Now let us hear from your wife. :)

Wife stopped giving to the AADC in the late 90s and switched to giving to RU after a couple of her mentors moved over to Busch.