OT: Phil Knight donates $400m to Stanford

Submitted by Blueblood2991 on

This morning Nike co-founder Phil Knight donated $400 million to fund graduate student scholarships at Stanford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/business/philip-knight-of-nike-to-giv…

Highlights if you don't feel like reading:

-Goal is to recruit graduate students from all around the world (2/3rds approximately will come from out of the country) to fix the major global challenges.  Poverty and climate change will be the first issues addressed.

-100 students will be admitted each year, and will be given full tuition and room+board for three years.

-$400 mil is the largest donation in Stanford history, and the 2nd largest ever. (Knight donated $500 million to Oregon in 2013)

Just curious what the board thought about this.  Seems to be generating both a lot of high praise and a lot of negativity as well.

bluebyyou

February 24th, 2016 at 3:14 PM ^

We have this alum named Larry Page who founded an obscure company named Google. Page is believed to be worth about 30 billion.  Both his parents are also Michigan alums.

Does anyone know if Larry Page ever made a substantial gift to Michigan?

LSAClassOf2000

February 24th, 2016 at 4:27 PM ^

I believe he's made a few donations, although I don't know what the bar on substantial would be - I don't think they've been anywhere near Ross-sized, if you will. One thing that I always found interesting regarding Page is that at TEDx in 2014 he said he would rather give his money - should he pass prematurely - to people like Elon Musk and those he said were making a substantial impact on humanity. 

Vengeful Barbarian

February 24th, 2016 at 3:18 PM ^

Good work, I don't think that the effects of large corporations outsourcing jobs to low wage countries has been studied enough yet. It's good he's donating $400 million for Stanford to do it.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 24th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^

Probably the best way to combat global poverty is to employ people in third world countries, wouldn't you say?

Working conditions aside (Nike's record is up and down here, but that's irrelevant to the point) it's really counterproductive to apply American wage standards to factories in Indonesia.  The point isn't whether Nike pays overseas workers American wages - if they did, they might as well just hire Americans and then the "sweatshop" workers, instead of being paid low wages, are paid zero wages.  Which is preferable?

PopeLando

February 24th, 2016 at 3:22 PM ^

Research funding is not the same as a school's endowments. It is VERY hard to secure funding for problems that only affect the poor, and climate change is such a hot button issue that a lot of people will deny funding on principle. Likewise, research which could only "pay off" decades in the future, or not at all, is not well funded. This is a great move.

B1G_Fan

February 24th, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^

 Phil could do a lot to fight poverty by paying his sweat shop workers a descent wage. Funny how you make 25 billion on slave labor (pretty much) and donate 400 million and come out looking like a good guy.

ST3

February 24th, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^

You want their wages to go down even more? The word you are looking for is, "decent."

A friend of mine used to think the way you do. He then spent a year in a Bolivian slum - the actual place, not our MGoHell - doing missionary work for his Church. He came to the realization that a crappy job with low pay is better than no job with no pay. First world societies aren't created overnight. The history of civilization has proven that capitalism buttressed by a social welfare system is the best method we've had so far for improving living conditions.

FidelioHorelick

February 24th, 2016 at 3:58 PM ^

The money might as well been flushed down a toilet, because that is about the only difference it will truly make when it comes to being Charitable. Don't get me wrong, if one wants to flush their own money down a toilet, that is their right.

Now when it comes to marketing and goodwill, now it's paying for a benefit. One wonders though if Nike even owns the plants in which its shoes are made, and also what the pollution laws are in those countries. 

MichiganMAN47

February 24th, 2016 at 5:09 PM ^

Some have mentioned that he could have donated the money to a school that "needs" the money more than Stanford. Do you think he should have donated it to MSU instead? /s In all seriousness though, his donation isn't about helping the needy, it's about Return on Investment. Stanford has a lot of potential to actually produce some results with this money as opposed to the vast majority of institutions with bloated budgets. The rich get richer and the hungry don't get fed- that's a fact of life. Why do so many people not give money to homeless people on the streets? Because they most likely won't produce any results with it. Would any of the people here be complaining if he donated the money here? We are a rich school with many "elitist" students and a huge endowment. No one here has criticized Ross for his donations. Dude donated $400m to higher education and all you people do is complain. I respect the hell out of him, because if I had that kind of money, I'm not sure I'd have the willpower to donate that much. It's a pathetic bitch move to question Phil Knight on this one unless you've donated more money to a better cause.

sadeto

February 24th, 2016 at 7:21 PM ^

At least one Nobel Prize winning economist might disagree with you. Paul Krugman left Princeton last year for CUNY because his main interest now is inequality. He felt he was in the wrong environment to gain any perspective on the issue.

moetown91

February 24th, 2016 at 5:25 PM ^

The guy did a good thing...he shelled out $400M!!!

You can give a man a fish and feed him for the day, or you can teach him to fish and feed him for life.  Seems to me like Phil Knight is investing in the long term of some very serious issues.

...just saying 

SpinachAssassin

February 24th, 2016 at 6:02 PM ^

Stanford is exceptional but the amount of good they can do with that money, over and above the ridiculous amount of resources they already have, is not nearly as high as donating it to fix inner city schools with at-risk teens (as one example).

Better to give than not give, yet if he's truly after impact, that's not the way to do it (in my humble, far less wealthy, anonymous web message board poster opinion)

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 24th, 2016 at 6:48 PM ^

Mark Zuckerberg thought the same as you, and donated $100 million to the Newark public school system.  Five and a half years later the effect on the graduation rate from Newark high schools is literally zero, despite that being the exact metric the donation was intended to improve.

Here's a key point that people are forgetting: What Knight is doing is not "here you go, Stanford, take my money and have fun with it."  He has a very specific idea he wants implemented.  Stanford is getting the money because, by virtue of being Stanford, they can execute that idea better than just about anyone else.  Who is anyone to say that Phil Knight's idea is not worthwhile enough to invest Phil Knight's money in and someone else should get Phil Knight's money instead because their idea is better than Phil Knight's idea?

Coldwater

February 24th, 2016 at 6:47 PM ^

It's 2016 and world poverty hasn't been eradicated. People are still hungry. Knight can throw 400 mil at Stanford, but it isn't going to fix anything. If poverty were "fixable", it would have been fixed by now. But if he feels better about himself for doing it, more power to him. It's his cash

dagupe

February 24th, 2016 at 7:27 PM ^

Unless you are a dumb honky, I don't know how this could be negative... oh wait people don't like minorities in this country

GaryMoellerBre…

February 24th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^

Everyone is all about "support your local" when it comes to hip things like breweries, artists, and farm to table.. But when it comes to aid people are totally fine exporting American money, education, and resources.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Space Coyote

February 24th, 2016 at 8:22 PM ^

First, this donation is to Stanford. This brings some of the brightest young people from around the world to the US. This is the sort of thing that essentially all people think is good for the US. A third guys to US students, which is a significantly higher percentage than the the proportion of US to world population. People give aid locally and domestic all all the time. Food shelters, food drives, animal shelters, Salvation Army, etc. etc. Rich people donate domestically all the time. Jalen Rose started a school in Detroit. Many Michigan fans supported Vince Smith's charity. While ChadTough supports all, it's a US based charity with most research being conducted in the US. What about Katrina, Sandy, Flint, etc.? People give domestically and locally probably more often than not.

Space Coyote

February 24th, 2016 at 8:47 PM ^

Are among the brightest in the world and are coming to America to get an education. While in America they will be exposed to American culture and opportunities and jobs and if they are successful we will try to keep them here. Highly educated people and people becoming highly educated are the people any economy wants to bring to their country, because it infuses that economy with talent and ideas and smarts. Just because 2/3 of the kids will be foreign doesn't mean it doesn't really help America. And 1/3 goes to American students, which is drastically disproportionate to the world population. This is still a $167 million donation to American students. Nice edit. I'm going to guess most of the foreign nationals that get funded by this aren't working in sweat shops back in their nation of birth. And if they do decide to go back, they do so with an American education in an American culture promoting American ideals. It still helps America while helping other equally human people around the world. But God forbid someone tries to help other citizens of the world along with Americans to fight poverty and climate change. By the way, the vast majority of poverty and climate change is going to come from the world population, so teaching those people is important to solving these problems.

GaryMoellerBre…

February 24th, 2016 at 9:41 PM ^

Solve world poverty and climate change all with 266 million graciously donated by Phil Knight.. I never knew it was that easy. Bill Gates must feel like an idiot for wasting all his money.
Fact of the matter is that Phil Knight can do whatever the hell he wants with his money. When it becomes national news it's subject to ridicule. My opinion is that he's flat wasting his time and money.
Want to know a secret that no humanitarian in Palo Alto is willing to admit? Drop $266 million dollars in U.S. Currency printed with Abraham Lincoln's face on it over all the countries that are worthy of aid. Literally drop that money from the sky out of a plane.
You would literally be putting the most stable currency in the world into the hands of the people that truly need it, albeit the ones outside or own borders who could use it just as bad..
Problem Solved. U.S. Currency begins to circulate even more rapidly across the globe which is great for us. Aid is not in the form of consumable goods that are often commandeered and sold on the black market by the worst type of people. It's that simple. But doesn't give you that warm fuzzy feeling, so....



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Space Coyote

February 24th, 2016 at 9:59 PM ^

Hey straw man, no one said it was that easy or said Bill Gates was wasting all his money. But it's a huge contribution that can make a significant impact. Or maybe people shouldn't donate to any charity because regardless of how large it won't be enough alone. And simply handing out money does nothing to solve problems. $10 billion dollars would be spent in a week with that method. And that doesn't even touch the other 2 billion people in just regular poverty. Now tell me how dropping currency will stop or slow human induced climate change.

PopeLando

February 24th, 2016 at 11:08 PM ^

My professional recommendation: don't try to be an economist. I sincerely hope you're kidding and I've just missed it. Dissemination of a lot of money without a monetary policy just means that you'll create a currency which looks exactly like the dollar, but does not behave the same when it comes to value. Economics aside, do you understand the chaos that would result from just giving people that much money? And dropping it from the sky...immediately creates a competitive environment. Great way to get the poor to murder each other, bad way to help them. Summary: direct aid (i.e. cash handouts) can help a poor PERSON, depending on personality and circumstances. POVERTY cannot be solved the same way.

Wolfman

February 24th, 2016 at 10:09 PM ^

his money are as interesting to him as his would be to you. The man is doing something that is helping people and whether or not it meets with your standards is moot. When is the last time you picked up the tabe for the person behind you just because to do so would bring a smile to their face? Charity, no matter in what form, > than those setting around giving their opinions on how it could have done to realize the greatest possible benefit for what we feel is of more importance.