Rutgers will keep Harvey Weinstein's $100K check amid sex harassment scandal

[Tango Two]

Rutgers University officials say they have no plans to give back a high-profile donation from Harvey Weinstein as the film mogul battles allegations that he has sexually harassed women for decades.



http://www.nj.com/education/2017/10/rutgers_will_keep_harvey_weinsteins_100k_check_ami.html

 

[e5fdny]

Hey at this point they're only accusations, right? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Now THAT should be fun comments section to read. LOL

 

[leftoright]

Has the Trump business ever donated to RU? If not would it return a check for being from someone who said the "p" word, if it had?

 

[Tango Two]

The University of Southern California is turning down a $5 million gift from embattled Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, less than a week after Rutgers University announced it will not return a smaller donation Weinstein made to that school.

Rutgers reaffirmed that decision Tuesday, after more actresses came forward accusing Weinstein of harassing them, including Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie.




http://www.nj.com/education/2017/10/california_school_rejects_weinstein_money_as_rutge.html

 

[cyrock3]

Barchi being tone deaf and dumb once again.

 

[RUfinal4]

USC is a private school with a large endowment. They don't need the money as much. Rutgers has financial issues and needs the money to keep programs alive. They should keep the money and use it in a positive way to combat the horrible acts of Weinstein.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Well, if RU does decide to divest themselves of that money, I'll make the sacrifice and take it off of their hands.

 

[m1ipabrams]

The University of Southern California is turning down a $5 million gift from embattled Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, less than a week after Rutgers University announced it will not return a smaller donation Weinstein made to that school.

Rutgers reaffirmed that decision Tuesday, after more actresses came forward accusing Weinstein of harassing them, including Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie.

http://www.nj.com/education/2017/10/california_school_rejects_weinstein_money_as_rutge.html

I think there is some difference between a donation accepted(and spent) prior to knowing about accusations/actions and a donation accepted/rejected after the accusations are public.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

The gift to Rutgers was also in support of Gloria Steinem Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies which one might argue will work to counteract the crap people like him and others have done in the industry. At least that is Rutgers position that more good will come from putting that money to use than returning it.

 

[BoroKnight]

If he gave the kind of money to put his name on something, then of course give it back. But giving back money that every person who proved to be a dirtbag donated would take a hell of a lot of effort. It's not like he made his money off of sexual assault. The money was made legitimately and his name is not going on anything. So keep it.

 

[rutgersdave]

Every time a donor is accused of any crime then donations need to be send back, not only convictions.

 

[HALL85]

The gift to Rutgers was also in support of Gloria Steinem Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies which one might argue will work to counteract the crap people like him and others have done in the industry. At least that is Rutgers position that more good will come from putting that money to use than returning it.

So if a drug dealer donated money for programs to address drug addiction, would you be OK with that?

 

[Scarlet Pride]

The gift to Rutgers was also in support of Gloria Steinem Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies which one might argue will work to counteract the crap people like him and others have done in the industry. At least that is Rutgers position that more good will come from putting that money to use than returning it.

So if a drug dealer donated money for programs to address drug addiction, would you be OK with that?

Are you asking if someone that otherwise appeared to be a legitimate business man made such a donation and then it was revealed he was secretly a drug dealer?

 

[HALL85]

Are you asking if someone that otherwise appeared to be a legitimate business man made such a donation and then it was revealed he was secretly a drug dealer?

Yes

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Are you asking if someone that otherwise appeared to be a legitimate business man made such a donation and then it was revealed he was secretly a drug dealer?

Yes

If the basic facts were similar I wouldn’t have a problem with Rutgers making the same point - that they fully reject the criminal acts and they believe using the money to fight the evils of drug abuse is a better use of the money than returning it to him. This assumes the money could be confirmed not to be the “ill gotten gains” but rather from a legitimate revenue source. That is a wrinkle that is a bit different than the Weinstein case.

 

[FELONIOUSMONK]

Take the money but dont appear glad .

 

[RUinFla]

Keep the money. If he had donated it to a political campaign or cause, they should give it back. But outside of making a gesture that enables Rutgers to posture on the high moral ground, what is the point? Andrew Carniegie, who made his fortune by rather nasty business practices, endowed lots of public libraries. Should they give it all back? Be practical. Be moral in your own conduct and treatment of others, but don't use other people's money to feel good about yourself. The Casting Couch is as old as Hollywood. Read Bud Schulberg's (sp?) What Makes Sammy Run from the 1950's, just one of a million books that show what the movie business is about. Harvey Weinstein. Ollie Stone. Thousands like them over the years, but their money spends. If Tiger Woods gave a million to RU, should they take it? Of course! Money is money. Draw the line at drugs or criminal enterprise, certainly, but remember what Bill Clinton's lawyer said.
TL

 

[srru86]

Is this any different morally that using proceeds seized from drug dealers to fight crime? Source might be bad but the outcome is good.