Viewpoint: Donations
Source of donations raises ethical questions
Church is big business these days – quite literally. In recent years Mennonite institutions have benefited from millions of dollars that come, ultimately, from a huge pharmaceutical company.
The Lilly Endowment, which derives most of its funds from stock in the Eli Lilly drug company, gave $12.5 million to Goshen (Ind.) College in 2006; $4.2 million to Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary since 2002; and smaller amounts to Eastern Mennonite University, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, and a number of Mennonite congregations.
A donor like the Indianapolis-based Lilly Endowment raises questions: is all money the same in God’s eyes? Does it matter how donated money is made? What happens to our “more-with-less” heritage when we tap into the profit machinery of companies that operate in the “more-with-more” realm of stock market pressures, aggressive advertising, and unbridled accumulation?
When you follow the Lilly money – company profits were nearly $3 billion in 2007 – to its source, more questions arise.
The New York Times reported in 2006 that Eli Lilly and Co. is accused of withholding information (about Zyprexa) and encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The company has paid $1.2 billion to settle cases related to Zyprexa, is being sued or investigated by 42 states, and may face a $2-billion fine from federal prosecutors.
Of course, the company also provides medicines – including Prozac – that have helped millions of people. And members of the Lilly family started an endowment that, in 2007, handed out $336.6 million, including $90 million to religious organizations. So where does that leave potential grant recipients: is the endowment money tainted, redeemable, or just plain money?
Will Jones, Goshen College vice president for institutional advancement, said he is “comfortable with money coming from the Lilly Endowment.” He sees “a big distinction” between Eli Lilly and Co. and the endowment: the latter is a non-profit organization with a separate location and board. However, endowment spokeswoman Gretchen Wolfram said more than 95 percent of the endowment’s stock is in Eli Lilly. So, does the money’s source matter?
“Of course it does,” Jones said. If Eli Lilly and Co. signed the donation checks, “we would have to think long and hard about that gift.” He said any large gift causes Goshen to pause and consider its source. Jones is aware of the criticisms and charges against the Lilly company, but doesn’t have an opinion on them. That said, Jones is deeply grateful for the money that has come from the endowment.
AMBS President Nelson Kraybill said the questions asked about Lilly Endowment funding are “important and appropriate.”
“If there’s money that’s known to be coming from unethical behaviour, I don’t think institutions should accept it,” he said.
But he doesn’t hold Lilly in the wrong. “I have confidence that there is common ground between what AMBS wants to do and what the Lilly Endowment Religion Division is about,” he said.
For Kraybill, important factors are whether Lilly tries to influence AMBS, whether the company’s products improve people’s lives, whether the company is accountable to the law, and whether it is responsive to public concerns. On those counts he gives Lilly a passing grade.
Ted Koontz, AMBS professor of ethics and peace studies, is concerned about the commercialization of health care and the aggressive way Lilly and other drug companies advertise and promote their products to doctors. “The growth of bigger and bigger corporations is a bad thing,” he said, though it’s hard to draw the line between big and too big.
Earlier this year, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) applied to the Lilly Endowment to cover half of a two-year $660,000 internal restructuring initiative. Arli Klassen, MCC executive director, said MCC looks at the immediate place the money comes from and doesn’t ask questions beyond that. Looking into the origins of donated money would be impractical, she said, and most money would be tainted in some way.
The endowment declined to fund MCC’s restructuring.
Klassen, Kraybill, and Jones all believe it matters where the money comes from. While money from a multibillion-dollar company under investigation for illegal marketing is acceptable if received through an endowment, funds from sectors such as weapons, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, and gambling (their lists vary) would not be. But even that list has shades of gray.
In 2007, Goshen received “small amounts – a total of $2,400” – from Lockheed Martin Corp., one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, Jones wrote in an email. Goshen also received a small amount from the GE Foundation, the charity arm of the General Electric Co., which manufactures military equipment in addition to its more well-known home appliances. AMBS also received a $500 matching grant from the GE Foundation. These donations were part of a program in which employers match donations by employees.
Both Jones and Kraybill said what really matters is that donors don’t change or influence the values of the recipient organizations. Neither would seek money from arms manufacturers, but they also would not turn down matching grants from them.
Church institutional leaders who were interviewed defended their acceptance of Lilly money by saying the issues are complex. Yet in every case cited in this article, they resolved the complexity by taking the money.
If dialogue about funding sources is important, as those who were interviewed affirmed, then a key question remains: will complexity be used as an occasion to discuss tough questions or as a reason to avoid them?
Church is big business these days – quite literally. In recent years Mennonite institutions have benefited from millions of dollars that come, ultimately, from a huge pharmaceutical company.
The Lilly Endowment, which derives most of its funds from stock in the Eli Lilly drug company, gave $12.5 million to Goshen (Ind.) College in 2006; $4.2 million to Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary since 2002; and smaller amounts to Eastern Mennonite University, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, and a number of Mennonite congregations.
A donor like the Indianapolis-based Lilly Endowment raises questions: is all money the same in God’s eyes? Does it matter how donated money is made? What happens to our “more-with-less” heritage when we tap into the profit machinery of companies that operate in the “more-with-more” realm of stock market pressures, aggressive advertising, and unbridled accumulation?
When you follow the Lilly money – company profits were nearly $3 billion in 2007 – to its source, more questions arise.
The New York Times reported in 2006 that Eli Lilly and Co. is accused of withholding information (about Zyprexa) and encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The company has paid $1.2 billion to settle cases related to Zyprexa, is being sued or investigated by 42 states, and may face a $2-billion fine from federal prosecutors.
Of course, the company also provides medicines – including Prozac – that have helped millions of people. And members of the Lilly family started an endowment that, in 2007, handed out $336.6 million, including $90 million to religious organizations. So where does that leave potential grant recipients: is the endowment money tainted, redeemable, or just plain money?
Will Jones, Goshen College vice president for institutional advancement, said he is “comfortable with money coming from the Lilly Endowment.” He sees “a big distinction” between Eli Lilly and Co. and the endowment: the latter is a non-profit organization with a separate location and board. However, endowment spokeswoman Gretchen Wolfram said more than 95 percent of the endowment’s stock is in Eli Lilly. So, does the money’s source matter?
“Of course it does,” Jones said. If Eli Lilly and Co. signed the donation checks, “we would have to think long and hard about that gift.” He said any large gift causes Goshen to pause and consider its source. Jones is aware of the criticisms and charges against the Lilly company, but doesn’t have an opinion on them. That said, Jones is deeply grateful for the money that has come from the endowment.
AMBS President Nelson Kraybill said the questions asked about Lilly Endowment funding are “important and appropriate.”
“If there’s money that’s known to be coming from unethical behaviour, I don’t think institutions should accept it,” he said.
But he doesn’t hold Lilly in the wrong. “I have confidence that there is common ground between what AMBS wants to do and what the Lilly Endowment Religion Division is about,” he said.
For Kraybill, important factors are whether Lilly tries to influence AMBS, whether the company’s products improve people’s lives, whether the company is accountable to the law, and whether it is responsive to public concerns. On those counts he gives Lilly a passing grade.
Ted Koontz, AMBS professor of ethics and peace studies, is concerned about the commercialization of health care and the aggressive way Lilly and other drug companies advertise and promote their products to doctors. “The growth of bigger and bigger corporations is a bad thing,” he said, though it’s hard to draw the line between big and too big.
Earlier this year, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) applied to the Lilly Endowment to cover half of a two-year $660,000 internal restructuring initiative. Arli Klassen, MCC executive director, said MCC looks at the immediate place the money comes from and doesn’t ask questions beyond that. Looking into the origins of donated money would be impractical, she said, and most money would be tainted in some way.
The endowment declined to fund MCC’s restructuring.
Klassen, Kraybill, and Jones all believe it matters where the money comes from. While money from a multibillion-dollar company under investigation for illegal marketing is acceptable if received through an endowment, funds from sectors such as weapons, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, and gambling (their lists vary) would not be. But even that list has shades of gray.
In 2007, Goshen received “small amounts – a total of $2,400” – from Lockheed Martin Corp., one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, Jones wrote in an email. Goshen also received a small amount from the GE Foundation, the charity arm of the General Electric Co., which manufactures military equipment in addition to its more well-known home appliances. AMBS also received a $500 matching grant from the GE Foundation. These donations were part of a program in which employers match donations by employees.
Both Jones and Kraybill said what really matters is that donors don’t change or influence the values of the recipient organizations. Neither would seek money from arms manufacturers, but they also would not turn down matching grants from them.
Church institutional leaders who were interviewed defended their acceptance of Lilly money by saying the issues are complex. Yet in every case cited in this article, they resolved the complexity by taking the money.
If dialogue about funding sources is important, as those who were interviewed affirmed, then a key question remains: will complexity be used as an occasion to discuss tough questions or as a reason to avoid them?
—Will Braun
