A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
For more on those possible consequences for the colleges and universities connected to Jeffrey Epstein we've called Jim Langley. He's a philanthropy consultant who spent 30 years raising money for colleges and universities. He's now president of Langley Innovations.
Jim, Epstein's donations to colleges were widespread, so I'm wondering, what do you think his involvement indicates about a structural problem with how fundraising happens in higher education?
JIM LANGLEY: It exposes a vulnerability for certain, and Epstein is - was very cunning about exploiting those vulnerabilities, and those exist at a human level. So imagine a researcher who is not one who receives a lot of attention for his or her research suddenly being befriended by someone who is not only powerful and is dangling a certain sum of money that he's willing to invest, but talking about bringing in a network of very significant potential donors. And so it's the - sort of the dream that's too good to be true. And one learns in fundraising when it looks like it's too good to be true, it usually is. And when one engages in fundraising, it is rather a long process and one has to be committed to that, but one can understand how tantalizing it would be from the perspective of an individual researcher.
MARTÍNEZ: You said it exposes a vulnerability. Is that vulnerability simply that researchers most of the time need money and sometimes don't know when or where they're going to find it?
LANGLEY: Exactly. Nor are they practiced in the everyday work of fundraising, so they can be naive. They can be susceptible to stereotypes about fundraising and assume that it is fawning over the famous, and it is not. But you could see where they might conclude that, based on a sort of broad public stereotype of fundraising.
MARTÍNEZ: What kind of experience in fundraising would make someone be able to maybe filter out people like Jeffrey Epstein?
LANGLEY: Well, exactly that. When you look at the anatomy of a big gift, which is what everyone is looking for, it's generally at least two years in the making. There's a long negotiation and a back and forth to ensure that the gift is strategic for the university and satisfying for the donor. So when a donor approaches an institution and a donor has no previous philanthropic history, no record of giving and no record of civic engagement and starts dangling large sums of money and big promises, it should set off alarms and it should raise the question of what is he looking for in this arrangement?
MARTÍNEZ: But, Jim, I'm assuming that the money still kind of trumps the fact that maybe extra vetting should happen, right? I mean, if you're talking about a lot of money, like millions of dollars, a university would have a tough time turning that down.
LANGLEY: Well, in some instances that's certainly the case, and I think Epstein proved that to be the case. But it's not always the case, and there are a number of institutions that were approached by Epstein, according to my colleagues, and he was rebuffed. So it does happen in some instances. And yet, as you say, those vulnerabilities exist. I don't think those vulnerabilities are simply need-based - the need for money. I think it is the need to establish oneself as an effective fundraiser or to establish oneself as a - someone who can bring in resources to make things happen. That's, I think, the trap.
MARTÍNEZ: So universities probably should hire people that are very, very versed in fundraising and how it works and how to avoid those traps.
LANGLEY: Exactly. And what we have to now acknowledge is that donors are being much more specific in their designations. Where they once gave to the president for his or her discretion, now we see more and more donors targeting their gifts for specific academic purposes, meaning they're interacting more regularly with deans, department heads and individual researchers. So there needs to be more training about the realities of fundraising and what is a good sign and what should be something that sets off alarms.
MARTÍNEZ: You know, last August, UCLA says that the Trump administration suspended over half a billion in federal grants, and this week, the DOJ sued UCLA over alleged antisemitism. Jim, many schools rely on federal funding for a long time, and if an administration freezes a lot of it, how does that change how important outside donors - donors like Jeffrey Epstein - are to schools right now?
LANGLEY: It's very significant. Some donors will rally to the aid of that particular institution, but they can't do anything close to what the federal government does. In other words, philanthropy cannot replace the loss of federal funds, nor does that make a powerful case. And then the further worry is as the federal government pulls away funds, it makes investment in those enterprises less attractive, right? In other words, when we invest in research, we want to be able to leverage existing resources and...
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah.
LANGLEY: ...To use private funds as the means of going from good to great or great to superb, not using private funds to underwrite basic operations.
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah. Philanthropy consultant Jim Langley of Langley Innovations. Jim, thanks.
LANGLEY: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
