Why I Stopped Donating to Penn

I used to be a significant donor to my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. I won’t give any more money to Penn, no matter who they fire or what they change. In fact, I’m not asking them to change. Penn has a right to be whatever institution it wants to be. I’m not going to give to Penn anymore because its mission doesn’t align with my values.

The University of Pennsylvania has a long history, going back to 1740. There was a time when only white Christian men were allowed to attend. The first Jewish student was admitted in 1772. The first African-American students enrolled in 1879. The first women to receive graduate degrees graduated in 1880. But these were relatively rare occurrences, not signs of broad integration of minorities at Penn. In any case, antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic Penn donors might have decided to reduce their support for Penn as a result of these changes. They might even have demanded that the school reverse these diversifying admissions policies. But, if they did, those calls went unheeded, and rightly so.

In 1967, the University adopted an “Admissions Policy for the Undergraduate Schools of the University of Pennsylvania.” This report was a declaration of minimum standards of academic excellence for admissions to the University. It effectively announced that Penn aspired to be a meritocracy. Secondarily, the school might try to achieve other objectives with its admissions policies. But meritocracy was a value, and this report made that clear.

In 1992, the University issued another report, entitled “Minority Permanence at the University of Pennsylvania,” which began with the statement: “The University of Pennsylvania aspires to be a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, international learning, teaching and research community…” Between 1967 and 1992, something happened. The mission of Penn changed. The school went from being an aspirational meritocracy to a school focused on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the change in mission might have been motivated by societal pressures akin to their decisions to admit Jews, African-Americans and women. However, this change in mission has coincided with a noticeable change in values of the University, as evidenced by the behavior of the faculty, students, and administrators in the past few decades, culminating in the abrogation of moral responsibility in response to the October 7th atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel.

I was a first-generation college student, only able to attend Penn based on merit-based and need-based scholarships.

And that brings us to my decision to cease my philanthropic support for the University of Pennsylvania.

I was a beneficiary of the 1967 change to promote academic standards for adjudicating admissions to the University. I was a first-generation college student, only able to attend Penn based on merit-based and need-based scholarships. I met the academic standards set forth by the 1967 report, and I helped diversify the campus with my economic and ethnic (Jewish) background. But the primary reason for my acceptance was my academic abilities, as evidenced by my high school transcript and my board scores.

However, the mission change evidenced by the 1992 report, and the subsequent curricular and culture change in the furtherance of that new mission, has created a University that I no longer recognize. Allowing a pro-Hamas propaganda festival masquerading as a Palestinian literature conference. Allowing antisemitic hate speech to dominate the college green in the aftermath of the most violent and deadly attack against Jews since the Holocaust. Permitting non-student protesters to occupy the main student union, Houston Hall, for weeks on end, in violation of campus rules, making Jewish students threatened and unwelcome in one of the centers of social life on campus.

These decisions have made it clear that Jews who outwardly identify as pro-Israel are no longer welcome and can no longer expect to be protected on campus.

If they want to give voices to people who openly support rapists, murderers, and antisemites, that is their prerogative.

If Penn and other schools want to promote diversity at the expense of meritocracy, I’m sure they will find donors who support that mission. That isn’t me. If they want to give voices to people who openly support rapists, murderers, and antisemites, that is also their prerogative. If there is a market for that behavior among the donor class, they will find support for that mission as well.

I have done very well financially, going from a lower-middle class first-generation college student to being a significant philanthropist in the Jewish world, and perhaps a minor philanthropist in the secular world. Fundamentally, I know that all of my wealth comes from God, and I have an obligation to use it in a manner that is consistent with my Jewish values. There is a place for philanthropic gifts to institutions of higher learning within my worldview.

However, Penn and schools like it no longer qualify. Their values aren’t aligned with Jewish values and they don’t fit in with my understanding of why God has given me outsized wealth. Penn can find other donors, and I’m sure they will. Meanwhile, I will take my philanthropy elsewhere: to Israeli colleges, to institutions that support pro-Israel and pro-Torah messages, and to places where I believe Jews can learn while living healthy spiritual lives.