What’s in a Name? The Ethics of Building Naming Gifts

(Photo by iStock/ChiccoDodiFCChiccoDodiFC)

Philanthropically-minded individuals through the ages have chiseled their names on buildings as expressions of civic responsibility, prestige, and power. As far back as the first century CE, Roman general Marcus Agrippa had his name inscribed on the Pantheon temple. Today, nonprofit fundraising and especially large capital campaigns emphasize naming opportunities to attract seven-, eight-, and nine-figure donations from high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). Naming gifts provide donors with reputational and market value, what legal scholar William Drennan refers to as “publicity rights,” and beneficiary organizations and their constituents with financial and mission-driven value. Less than one percent of major gifts are offered anonymously, not surprisingly, as fundraisers encourage public acts of charity. A time-honored tenet of fundraising maintains that securing and publicizing lead gifts for campaigns will spur others to give.

For the past three decades, I have guided museums, nonprofit arts organizations, and higher education institutions in planning, programming, fundraising for, and promoting new or renovated cultural facilities that fulfill mission imperatives. Over that time, I have witnessed an increased emphasis on naming opportunities for buildings and a decreased emphasis on ethical practice in capital fundraising where naming gifts often serve as marketing or reputation enhancing vehicles for donors that overshadow sincere charitable intent. In response, I returned to school to study fundraising and nonprofit sector leadership and their relationship to normative ethics.

Do lead naming gifts actually stimulate high-level philanthropy from other donors and is that what motivates HNWIs to make such charitable contributions? My research finds otherwise and implicates current legal constructs and fundraising practices that continue to privilege the self-interests of donors over beneficiaries and society. However, by interrogating and understanding the ethics of such practice, it’s possible to develop a methodology and best practices for capital fundraising that are grounded in socially just principles.

Moral Philosophies and Naming Gifts

Normative ethics is the examination of right and wrong as a guide to human moral behavior. Philosophers since classical antiquity have used moral reasoning to ponder ethical issues and determine the right course of human action for all kinds of debated questions. There are several different ethical frameworks and relating some of their various theoretical concepts to naming gifts offers critical perspectives on philanthropy and its impetuses.

Ethical egoism posits that fulfilling one’s duty to act out of self-interest is the highest moral calling. The late 20th-century Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand argues that the ethical egoist values the self above all else and avoids sacrificing herself for the sake of others. For donors, the personal pleasure that results from giving aid to others underscores that the charitable act is not divorced from the ego. This theory relates to what American economist James Andreoni calls impure altruism, the inherent tension between philanthropy and self-interest. Ostensibly, the ethical egoist who seeks name recognition generously donates to a nonprofit’s building campaign not to drive positive community impact, but to better her own welfare. This idea may not be as exaggerated as it sounds. In 2022, the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation surveyed 200 HNWIs to discern why the wealthy give; many of the top motivations—personal satisfaction, giving back, furthering a legacy or family tradition, and minimizing taxes, for example—relate to the self.

Charitable contributions driven by ethical egoism may provide the most benefit to the donor, however. Consider the $10 million lead gift in 2019 from writer and artist Carolyn Campagna Kleefield to California State University, Long Beach’s contemporary art museum that now bears her name. In addition, an eponymously named gallery displays her paintings, artwork donated by Kleefield to the museum’s permanent collection. Los Angeles Times art critic Christopher Knight has called this eyebrow-raising situation a “train wreck” and “colossal blunder.”

Utilitarian ethics is based on the belief that the ultimate moral purpose of human action is to pursue the best possible outcomes for a majority of people in ways that maximize pleasure over pain. The utilitarian treats both herself and others impartially, and requires no self-sacrifice or ego suppression if the consequences of a person’s actions simultaneously serve the interests of others and her own. The intellectual most associated with classical utilitarianism (also known as consequentialism) is the 18th-century British philosopher and legal scholar Jeremy Bentham.

Today’s utilitarian donor would ensure that others benefit equally and are not harmed by a naming gift for a building. Yet over time, perpetual naming gifts for facilities may prove detrimental to future generations. Law professor John Eason notes that present-day social justice movements often call for renouncing past namings for slave owners, white supremacists, or anti-Semites. Many colleges and universities are responding by establishing “denaming” policies that remove the names of divisive figures or histories from campus buildings. A $50,000 gift in 1933 from the Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) to George Peabody College for Teachers, later absorbed by Vanderbilt University, named in perpetuity a college dormitory called Confederate Memorial Hall. In 2002, the university shortened the building’s name to Memorial Hall in support of inclusion and academic freedom, and UDC sued for breach of contract. Vanderbilt lost in court and had to repay UDC the current fair market value of the gift, which it finally did in 2016 for $1.2 million.

Eason also observes that perpetual naming gifts can constrain opportunities to raise money for future, essential facility renovations, thus inhibiting a nonprofit’s ability to remain responsive to current and future needs. Some organizations and donors accordingly agree on time-limited arrangements, like the 50-year naming of New York State Theater at Lincoln Center for the late industrialist David H. Koch in exchange for his $100 million donation in 2008.

Deontological ethics highlights respect for individuals—their autonomy, agency, and self-esteem. Recognizing that humans are conscious, rational beings, its tenets follow established societal norms and laws that discourage using people to advance personal agendas in favor of valuing their inherent capacities, rights, and liberties. Unlike utilitarians, deontologists are compelled not by the pursuit of happiness, but by duty that is both principled and judicious. Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, foremost champion of deontology, advanced the concept of the morally binding categorical imperative, the idea that universal laws determine how someone should behave. Deontologists assert that an individual should be guided by reason, not feelings or personal preferences, to act morally in ways that can be universalized for the good of all people, for example: do not lie, do not murder.

Although Kant was criticized for intertwining Christian values into his belief system, it should come as no surprise that the great religions of the world espouse moral codes of conduct. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all encourage some form of charity and there are many donors today who engage in philanthropy out of a sense of religious duty. Building naming gifts can certainly fulfill such faith-based obligations, neither compromising sacred principles nor posing moral conflicts. In Judaism, the practice of tzedakah is an ethical duty to give in a just and merciful way to help those in need. Public recognition via a naming offered in exchange for giving is accepted by many as a way to honor donors while inspiring additional gifts.

Virtue ethics emphasizes thinking and acting with noble character and leading a morally good life by embodying certain personal traits, such as honesty, courage, and generosity. Virtue ethics originates from both ancient Chinese and Greek philosophies. Chinese philosopher Confucius understood morality as proper behavior optimally expressed through five virtues. For the late Zhou dynasty sage and his followers, it was important to be generous, wise, fair, honest, and respectful towards self and others to live honorably, at home and in society. Similarly, the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle perceived of the virtuous life as defined by Plato’s four cardinal virtues of being just, intelligent, courageous, and self-disciplined.

For the virtue ethicist, an honest person acquires honesty through knowledge and by consistently pursuing a life that exemplifies truthfulness. The same paradigm applies to all virtues. Western virtue ethicists also embrace Aristotle’s concept of generosity, which advises giving according to one’s means and doing so with pleasure. The virtuous donor has a clear conscience about building naming gifts and attendant rights if they are offered with principled intentions, exemplify a life marked by honor, and provide balanced benefits both to society and self. The late electrical engineer and entrepreneur Henry Rowan personifies such an individual. Made wealthy by the successful industrial technology firm he co-founded, Rowan donated $100 million in 1992 not to his prestigious alma mater in Massachusetts but to a local college in New Jersey to establish a school of engineering to educate the state’s working class. Through his entrepreneurship and philanthropy, Rowan demonstrated any number of virtues—humility, integrity, diligence, trust, generosity, compassion, and justice—and the college was subsequently renamed Rowan University in his honor, not at his request.

Care ethics, shaped by the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s, came of age as a moral theory in the 1980s. It highlights caregiving, empathy, compassion, and relationships with others. Some consider care ethics a feminist expression of morality. American psychologist Carol Gilligan stresses the importance of caring, personal relationships as an alternative to moral theories predicated on patriarchal society and a masculine approach to abstracted concepts of duty. The late New Zealand philosopher Annette Baier reasoned that women and men make different ethical decisions based on distinct value systems—women lean towards trust and care while men lean toward justice.

The care ethics-inclined donor is predisposed to think about others and herself in relationship to others. She engages in what public administration scholar Margaret Stout calls “radically democratic practice” to ensure that everyone is cared for and heard, not only those in positions of influence, but importantly, community members served by philanthropy. American sociologist Paul Schervish refers to personalized, compassionate, outward-facing benevolence that addresses people’s needs as the “moral citizenship of care.”

Advocates are utilizing care ethics to shape policies around gifts designed for public impact. In 2018, the Tate Modern museum in London commissioned Cuban artist Tania Bruguera to create an installation for its monumental Turbine Hall. The artist developed the work to address the immigration crisis and collaborated with 21 community members. As part of the five-month exhibition, Turbine Hall was temporarily renamed not for billionaire Len Blavatnik, who is the museum’s largest donor, but to honor Natalie Bell, a social worker who has helped youth from the area overcome their impoverished circumstances. Bruguera and her community cohort were ultimately able to persuade the museum and the donor to permanently rename the venue for both Bell and Blavatnik as an act of what the artist considers “socially responsible culture.”

Gender or feminist ethics recognizes and seeks to remedy traditional moral philosophies understood as predicated on viewpoints, belief systems, and social practices that have historically privileged men while subjugating women. Acknowledging that gender is not binary and rejecting rigid social conceptions of the feminine (i.e., gentle, compassionate, caring, modest) versus the masculine (strong, independent, assertive, rational), feminist ethics confronts issues of social positioning, privilege, and power. Among the patriarchy, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment that women suffer, feminist theory finds parallels with the effects of slavery, colonialism, and racial discrimination that Black people endure.

Race ethics is based on a framework of egalitarianism that applies to all humans regardless of race and who are all worthy of the same fundamental rights and respect. More than a decade ago, American philosopher Noami Zack asserted that there was no ethics of race and set out to establish its criteria. She proposes 12 tenets for a race-conscious ethical construct, which is international, “race-general” (as opposed to race neutral), and free from politics, where slavery is viewed as morally abhorrent, and laws and social norms consciously manifest these principles.

The donor concerned about gender and race ethics recognizes that naming rights contravene any sense of social equality, as asserted by philanthropy researcher Benjamin Soskis, and reinforce power imbalances between major donors and those with less or no ability to give financially. Such a donor would embrace the principles of philanthropy as reparative justice championed by theologian Ki Joo Choi and political scientist Roseanne Mirabella, among others, and fundraising as community-centric, opting for no recognition attached to her gift. She also would use the naming right to increase power sharing by honoring the legacy of a woman or person of color who advanced a particular cause and made positive contributions to society, as noted in the Bruguera example. In February 2024, former Pennsylvania general counsel Leslie Miller and her spouse, financier Richard Worley, did just that, donating $25 million to the Philadelphia Orchestra to rename its concert hall in honor of the late Black opera singer and civil rights activist Marian Anderson.

The late Charles Feeney is an example of a donor who preferred anonymity in his philanthropy to privilege the nonprofit arts, education, science, medical, human rights, and other organizations he generously supported. The founder of Duty Free Shoppers, he anonymously donated most of his self-made, $8 billion fortune via Atlantic Philanthropies, a suite of foundations incorporated in Bermuda, which meant he was unable to deduct his charitable giving from his U.S. taxes. Feeney contributed to over 1,000 public-sector buildings on five continents, yet none bear his name nor that of his foundations.

When Naming Gifts Can Harm

Charitable naming gifts are replete with symbolism. In their purest form, they demonstrate the donor’s support of a nonprofit and its social mission. They also express an organization’s gratitude for such endorsement. With their implicit transference of values, naming gifts can instill credibility in the donor and a “symbolic goodness,” according to UK political sociologist Jon Dean, that can enhance reputations. Such gestures imply sincerity, authenticity, and integrity that discernibly links the giver and the organization. This phenomenon is compromised when used by a donor for reputation laundering.

Consider the reputational risk when organizations accept tainted money from individuals who either obtained their wealth illegally or whose values are discordant with those held by the nonprofit. Brown University disregarded the known taint of the Lindemann family when it named its new performing arts center after them in exchange for a lead gift. The late billionaire father, George Lindemann, solidified his fortune by owning and then selling the natural gas utility Southern Union Company. Under his watch, the company was fined $18 million in 2009 for environmental pollution in Rhode Island where Brown is located. The younger of two sons, George Lindemann, Jr., an alumnus, was convicted of a felony and sentenced to nearly three years in prison for arranging the brutal execution of his show horse for the insurance payout. The mother, Frayda Lindemann, a Brown University trustee, and the daughter, Sloan Lindemann Barnett, an alumna, recently brokered a deal with the U.S. and Cambodian governments to repatriate over 30 ancient Khmer sculptures in their possession after a years-long investigation into looted artifacts from the country.

By its own admission, Brown University does not prioritize aligning institutional values with those of naming donors whose gifts help to advance its mission. Some constituents and critics view this as a lapse in ethical judgment. Yet the Ivy League school is far from alone in its viewpoint—a recent U.S. study by research scientists Zoe Rahwan and Christina Leuker confirmed that both professional fundraisers and the general public condone nonprofits for accepting charitable donations from “morally ambiguous individuals” if the gifts are substantial and the “benefits outweigh the costs.” While the acceptance of tainted charitable funds may temporarily fill nonprofit coffers, it can also permanently damage an organization’s reputation to be linked with individuals of disrepute.

Nonprofits are increasingly protecting themselves by inserting morality clauses in gift agreements with naming rights. Such clauses enable organizations to terminate an agreement if a donor’s conduct causes scandal or brings disgrace by association to the institution. While morals clauses can help to safeguard nonprofits, they raise concerns about free speech, civil liberties, and the evolving nature of social mores.

Applying Moral Insights to Capital Fundraising

In the early 20th century, Scottish philosopher William David Ross postulated a pluralist theory of ethical practice based on non-Kantian deontology. He conceived of five prima facie duties as fundamental principles to live by: keeping promises, righting wrongs, practicing reciprocity, doing good, and doing no harm. Applying his theory, which combines virtue, care, and deontological ethics, ensures widespread benefit that emanates from moral action delivered with empathy and compassion towards all. More recently, the late American political philosopher John Rawls asserted that there are no universal principles on which to rely in determining moral action. Each situation must be addressed on its own merits and contexts. He wrote of appraising the ethics of a situation by engaging in a practice of “reflective equilibrium,” an intentional process of deliberation and reasoning, much like thought experiments that philosophers employ, examining laws, belief systems, and moral philosophies alongside their application and logical outcomes.

Inspired by Ross and Rawls, I offer a methodology of ethical fundraising for building naming gifts that considers the seven moral philosophies discussed above:

1. Research major donor prospects to determine if their interests align with the mission, values, and priorities of the institution. Vet who the donors are, what they represent, how they came to have money, and their charitable interests. Pursue prospects only when there is a holistic fit with the nonprofit that highlights the donor’s philanthropic intentions and dwarfs self-interest. This may mean, at times, abandoning potential gifts for the greater good of the organization or society.
2. Reach beyond traditional philanthropists to engage individuals who represent diverse constituencies. Instead of a solitary named donor or family, bring together a cohort of donors who represent the communities served by the new facility. Encourage and respect those who choose to give anonymously or designate their contributions to honor someone who has made significant non-monetary contributions to society such as an artist, teacher, or medical worker.
3. De-emphasize naming gifts and make naming rights subordinate to a nonprofit’s charitable purpose, as Eason urges. The first impulse of a capital campaign fundraiser should not be to conceive of a roster of named giving opportunities and their corresponding price tags using market-based concepts like “perceived value.” Rather, it should be to outline the mission-centric, charitable, and intended societal impact of leadership giving, and the positive effect of philanthropic investment designed for and with beneficiaries.
4. Clearly communicate that a naming opportunity is offered in gratitude for a charitable gift, not as a requisite quid pro quo purchase of a naming. Articulate this objective in the gift agreement alongside the intention of voluntary philanthropy on the part of the donor. Be purposeful to not highlight publicity or marketing benefits accruing to the donor, which respects the gift’s public purpose and supports the rationale for its tax deductibility.
5. Carefully consider what law professor Ann Bartow refers to as the “social goals of a naming gesture” in formalizing guidelines for naming opportunities as part of an organization’s overall gift acceptance policies. She contrasts explicit aims that recognize patrons for their generosity and social responsibility from those that are implicit, such as donor visibility and reputation enhancement that infer virtuousness, as Dean contends. Health policy scholar Lauren Taylor cautions nonprofit leaders and fundraisers to reflect on the potential for public harm when considering the amount of “influence and recognition” offered to benefactors in exchange for philanthropic contributions. Make internal policies transparent to staff and the public, including an ethical decision-making process to adjudicate when gifts undergo negative scrutiny post-receipt. Here is a superior example of naming gift policies from George Washington University. And here is an excellent process for ethical decision-making from Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
6. Incorporate into naming gift agreements a mutually enforceable, carefully drafted, and narrowly defined morals clause to protect both the donor and the nonprofit, holding each to the same high standards of ensuring the public trust. Recognize the moral responsibility that donors and nonprofits have to each other and to the communities served. Ensure mutual accountability by incorporating into naming gift agreements the consequential actions that will result from breach by either party.
7. Offer a time-limited naming for a new or expanded facility that equates to the life expectancy of the donor or the planned obsolescence of the facility, for example, a 25-50 year period, as advised by law professor Linda Sugin. For perpetual naming gifts, increase the monetary threshold for such gifts and then set aside a percentage of the total, perhaps 20-25 percent, to establish an endowment for the building’s long-term upkeep.

Understanding and applying moral philosophy to naming gifts reflects the higher purpose responsibility of philanthropy. Charitable fundraisers are in the unique position to help guide their nonprofits in doing the right thing. Naming gifts, which are undemocratic by nature, pose challenges for nonprofits to balance donor recognition with social good while ensuring that fulfillment of the former does not harm the latter. Contrary to what Shakespeare’s Juliet thought, names are symbols that do have relevance and power, and “changing the name of a civic landmark changes its meaning.”

Building naming gifts represent both private acts for public good and public acts for private good. As American political philosopher Michael Sandel laments, “Do we want a society where everything is up for sale? Or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?” I agree with the late civil society scholar and critic Pablo Eisenberg, who routinely urged nonprofit leaders to demonstrate moral courage in the face of conflicting demands. It is time to stop treating donors like Roman statesmen. Nonprofits should reconsider the pervasive practice of facility naming rights in favor of community-centric fundraising and critical philanthropy that prioritize public benefit for beneficiaries and downplay private benefit for donors.

***

Author note: This article is based on my master’s thesis at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, which examines the legal and ethical aspects of naming gifts for buildings. Two excellent primers, Jonathan Wolff’s An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, and James and Stuart Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy, helped to inform this normative ethics analysis.

Read more stories by Anne Bergeron.