Notre Dame’s fundraising: Thank you, Barack Obama?
As part of the protests over Barack Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame, one alum, David DiFranco, launched a website to get ND president Father John Jenkins fired and to tally donations withheld from the university as a way of quantifying the displeasure and pressuring the board to replace Jenkins. The site’s last public tally, on May 13, counted $13.9 million in funds withheld.
Yesterday, Notre Dame announced that it raised $1.54 billion as part of its “Spirit of Notre Dame” campaign–and did so two years ahead of shedule.
In May 2007 the school announced it wanted to raise money to support four areas: undergraduate education; research and graduate studies; diversity and international studies; and Catholic intellectual life.
The Rev. John Jenkins, the university president, said the challenge now is to build on the campaign’s success and fully fund all of the priorities.
University vice president Louis Nanni said there is still work to be done, including raising more money for financial aid in these tough economic times.
The disparity seems to echo the disparity within the student body in terms of support for Obama’s appearance, and the disparity in the Catholic populace. Though not in the conservative Catholic echo chamber. Here’s a thought: Maybe Obama’s appearance–and the opposition to him–actually boosted ND’s fundraising.
H/T: CWNews
I’m sorry – what disparity are you talking about?
I doubt they raised most of the $1+ billion in the last two months. How do we know that they wouldn’t have raised the money a few weeks earlier? There isn’t enough data here to conclude there is any “disparity” at all.
Echooooooooo…….Chamber, Mr. Hannaway.
My wife said the same thing as Mr. Gibson’s last point roughly two days ago.
ND = 1; Bishops = 000000000…….
I don’t know much about the real-world numbers, but the imaginary numbers are brilliant. I love this “pledging not to pledge” protest strategy. This week alone I have pledged not to donate a total of $3 billion to various causes I abhor.
Mollie, that is brilliant. And best of all, no telemarkters…
Fr. Jenkins is a financial genius, so naturally he was right.
How do we know that they wouldn’t have raised the money a few weeks earlier?
Sean,
It’s like the power of prayer. There’s no way to actually prove Obama’s appearance boosted donations. In fact, even if we had much more evidence — say, that Notre Dame only had $540 million up until Obama’s appearance, and following that $1 billion poured in — skeptics could still claim it would have been $2 billion if Obama hadn’t been invited.
You aren’t questioning the power of prayer, are you?
Why would you assume that everyone who is withholding pledges wants Father Jenkins to be fired? Many who protested the honoring of President Obama, including the Bishops, believe Father Jenkins is a man of integrity, Love The University of Notre Dame, and believe that Notre Dame, as a Catholic University, is called to be a strong witness for God’s intention that we Resect the Sanctity of every Human Life from the beginning and we Respect the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family. This is a Time for Notre Dame to have that dialogue in order to be a strong witness for The Truth. Pope John Paul II’s, “Theology of The Body”, is an excellent tool to guide us, as we, who are Catholic, witness to The Truth of Love.
“You aren’t questioning the power of prayer, are you?”
I am … it hasn’t worked for their football team in about 30 years. Which makes Fr. Jenkins’ accomplishment all the more impressive!
Ted Hesburgh anticipated long ago the needs for ND and he was wise enough to plan down the road. The success is due in no small part to his outstanding example as a Catholic Christian. He always was perceptive enough to anticipate Ex Corde Ecclesia by decades.
There’s no echo chamber quite like this blog.
David N,
I’m not the one saying it has any significance vis-a-vis Obama’s appearance – David G is. You are absolutely right. I have absolutely no idea what effect his visit has on fundraising, and neither does he. My question was rhetorical.
Mollie
Then you must love the President’s claims to have “saved” jobs while the unemployment rate is climbing.
Bravo George
And yet you keep coming back, George. We must be doing something right, huh?
Sean, that doesn’t strike me as the right analogy. Better would be if business owners opposed to Obama’s economic policies pledged not to hire X number of people in protest, and then someone tallied all those pledges as proof of jobs lost under Obama.
And the fact that George and Sean post here means they are part of some liberal echo chamber? How’s that work?!
Did/will Obama’s appearance help or hurt ND’s fundraising? Kind of hard to tell, I think. But there is a possibility, which can be argued from polls and evidence, that it could help. Allowing for such doubts is part of what I think of as a “liberal” discussion.
Grant
Some people just like a good fight. But George is absolutely right in his point. Here I am in a forum where almost no one agrees with me, and someone who agrees with almost everything your regular contributers say is accusing me of being part of an echo chamber – kind of ironic.
I am … it hasn’t worked for their football team in about 30 years.
Jim,
It has just occurred to me that an empirical study could be done on the efficacy of basketball players crossing themselves before making free throws. This is a project for the Albertus Magnus Institute for the Study of Science versus Religion, of which I am the founder.
Mollie,
The analogy is very apt. It’s about taking credit for something on an objective, numerical basis that you can’t possibly prove, and better yet make the claim without anyone being able to really disprove it. He’s already saved 150,000 jobs apparently – I’m sure that comes as news to the more than a million people who lost jobs during the same period.
Sean: you are not a lone crusader for conservatism on dotCommonweal.
Grant
Never said I was. And most of the time people are pretty fair, but it does grate to see criticisms about being in echo chambers and living in bubbles from people who spend a lot of time agreeing with each other. I live in Boston for gosh sakes – I don’t lack for hearing the other side, I just don’t think they’re right most of the time.
As a fellow crusader, I’d like to say that, just as the president has “saved” millions of jobs, I have “saved” countless lives by refusing to drive on the left side of the road. People on the right save lives!
My point is that the views represented in our comboxes are fairly diverse–especially for a blog that covers Catholic issues. If I’m not mistaken, for some time we were one of the only–if not the only–Catholic magazine whose blog allowed free comments.
Sean, the problem with your analogy isn’t the logic so much as the attempt to change the subject. How did the administration’s claims about the economy become the beam in my eye — or anyone’s here?
Sean, I honestly meant no offense, and I’m glad you and others comment here. This really is the most wide-ranging blog I’ve found in the Catholic blogosphere. In reality ALL blogs tend to be “echo chambers” where people go to have their own views validated. That’s too bad, I think. That there is an echo chamber on the Notre Dame issue seems true, in that Obama’s appearance was prophesied as an event that would have grave consequences for the University, in terms of fundraising and applications and her, even the football team. The fundraising report is what it is, but I just don’t see how one compares the ReplaceJenkins numbers with the report released yesterday. Could in fact the Obama visit have had no effect, or even rallied some supporters? I think it’s worth considering, no?
1.54 billion. Now that’s a lot of money. And all they had to do was prostrate themselves before him. I kid, I kid.
As has been noted, it is rather hard to gauge the effect of Obama’s visit on fundraising. I’m not even sure of the point of the exercise. What if they could have raised 2 billion by inviting someone whose positions on life issues were even more morally repugnant?
Adeodatus, if they do that next year, I will not donate $4 billion. That’ll show ‘em!
Mollie, I didn’t know you were such a wealthy woman!
Actually, I wonder how much was raised from people or organizations who donated to Notre Dame specifically for the Obama invite and the resulting fracas. If this number is sizable, this year’s returns may be a one-off windfall.
“For an outcome of the November election which is pleasing to Almighty God, and which best serves the eternal and temporal interests of all of His children.”
If it hadn’t been for the Election Novena . . .
(a) McCain would have won
(b) The election would have been contested, and the Supreme Court would have chosen McCain
(b) Obama would have won by an even larger margin
(c) Ron Paul would have won
Please pardon my interruption, but the latest on Mark Sanford is too juicy to pass up. (Because an American politician had an affair? No. Because she is in Argentina? Yes.)
NR’s Corner has dubbed it “Republican Infidelity Month.”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGY3ZjFhYTY0MzZjN2JmODk2OGU0ZjA2NjIyYWQ5MzA=
Hello All,
David, I think I take your point. You wonder if it is possible that all the sturm und drang worked against the side of those who think UND should actually live up to its Catholic identity? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that prostitution is profitable doesn’t change the fact that its wrong.
I had a similar discussion with a Cardinal a few years ago who was complaining to me that any time the Church publicly criticizes a politician, that politician rides the backlash into office.
I said, “Cardinal, I was under the impression that it was our job to preach the truth, not win elections.” He reluctantly conceded the point. The idea that it is the faithfuls’ job to win fights is addictive, tempting, and wrong. It’s not our job to win. It is our job to preach the truth in the marketplace to anyone who will listen.
It is not the job of the faithful to win elections, force change of any kind or “make” anybody do anything. Our job is propose the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Injustice will exist as long as people do, poverty will always be with us, and faithful people and institutions will continue to be tempted prostitute themselves for wealth, fame, or acceptance. That’s really not the point. The point is, in the face of it all, faithful people must be willing to stand in the gap and say, “This is not the way. There is a better path. Repent and sin no more.”
As St Francis de Sales said, “We leave the past to God’s mercy, the present to our fidelity, and the future to his providence.”
If UND’s mission is to become a wealthy, culture-whore, then she is welcome to it. But we would be remiss, and indeed, unchartible (because charity is a committment to work for the greater good of the other no matter what the personal cost), to not point out the fact that this is what she is becoming. This whole sad drama has allowed President Jenkins to add a new dimension to the phrase, Madonna-Whore syndrome, and I, for one, think that he deserves to be called on it, even if he laughs all the way to the bank.
G
Whoa, Historyman–that’s some serious breaking news. I was following that story as it seemed so bizarre, but I honestly didn’t think it would turn out like this. At least Wilbur Mills didn’t have to travel so far for an Argetine firecracker…
“The fact that prostitution is profitable doesn’t change the fact that its wrong.”
That’s some serious name-calling. I guess when you don’t have an argument…But I’d appreciate keeping this on a remotely charitable level, thanks.
David,
I don’t see George’s comment as name calling. I think he is simply saying, even if the Obama visit boosts fund-raising, that doesn’t make Fr Jenkin’s right. The people who opposed Obama getting honored at ND didn’t do it because they were afraid it would damage fundraising, and those that predicted it would might very well be wrong (as I said above, I don’t think anyone really knows), but so what?
You may be stunningly attractive, but I don’t think George was labling you a street walker.
$1.54B…How much of it was TARP money? ;)
Alas, I wouldn’t make a living in the sex trade.
But comparing Jenkins and Notre Dame to such characters seems pretty louche, or at least ironic given the aforementioned sensitivity displayed by conservatives to feeling slighted.
Dishing out and taking it, it’s tough.
“Obama’s appearance was prophesied as an event that would have grave consequences for the University, in terms of fundraising and applications and her, even the football team. ”
It certainly generated that searing statement from the bishops’ conference last week:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-144.shtml
The people who opposed Obama getting honored at ND didn’t do it because they were afraid it would damage fundraising…
No, but at least some of them believed that “proving” it would do damage to ND’s fundraising efforts would help achieve their objective — which was either to change the ND administration’s minds or, failing that, to prove ND’s decision was dangerously unpopular. Gregory P. is accusing ND of serving the wrong master and therefore cashing in. But the “Replace Jenkins” folks were accusing ND of serving the wrong master… and therefore shooting themselves in the foot, or rather, in the endowment. I think it’s hard to make both arguments at once.
David N, to what address should I send my check for the Albertus Magnus Institute? And can I direct my donation by writing either “Science” or “Religion” on the check comment line?
(Please note my generosity, unlike Mollie, who has pointedly withheld over $1 billion from the Institute).
Jim is right. But I will consider bringing down the total I won’t donate if Mr. Nickol’s institute will include women’s basketball in his study.
Obama + Notre Dame = Se se puede!
I’m going to tell my pastor to get our Archbishop to publically castigate our parish so our offerings will increase. In our particular case it definitely would help us.
Mollie
I don’t think “Gregory P. is accusing ND of serving the wrong master and therefore cashing in.” It is David G who is speculating that the Obama visit had a positive effect. Gregory (sorry I called you George) is simply pointing out that the financial benefit or detriment of the visit is irrelevant to the underlying issue. He’s not saying Fr Jenkins or anyone else is prostituting himself. At least that’s how I understand what he’s saying.
And David – oh puhleasssse – no one has ever accused me of being sensitive. I can always take as much as anyone hands out. I just observed that accusing me of being part of an “echo chamber” aside from being less than a reasoned argument, is just a little too “pot calling kettle” for me.
It’s not like the posters here never heard of the ‘banned in Boston’ effect on sales volumn.
What i find funny is that they are so angry about it.
After reading all the ND postings in the last month I posited the existence of a daily conservative twitter for posting ‘talking points’….e.g. Obama slick… words are not actions..common ground is bs.. diologue is a stall..anymore?
To whom it may concern: Even if it were true that the invitation to President Obama to speak at the University of Notre Dame’s Commencement and receive an award resulted in financial gain for the University, that doesn’t change the fact that the University was not very convincing in their witness to The Truth. It appears it is time to, “Shake Down The Thunder From The Sky”, as we all bear witness to The Truth.
” He’s not saying Fr Jenkins or anyone else is prostituting himself.
Mr. Hannity –
He sure fooled me.
Yes, Sean, I think you may need to reread. Or read past the first paragraph. Notwithstanding Popcak’s argument that it would be uncharitable not to characterize ND and its administrators and supporters as prostitutes and whores, it still seems pretty plain to me that that’s what he’s doing.
Pay special attention to the terms “culture-whore” and “Madonna-whore,” topped off with “laughing all the way to the bank.”
In the Ralph Reed thread, I tries to show how the connservative movement, not necessarily the GOP or those who argue with the President, are wrapped up in their ideology at all costs.
Of course, the ideologues complain here about being “given a break.” asking for more charity at this (obviously Catholic) blog -though they have problems with that Catholicism- and whine about being pegged about being in their bubbles or echo chambers.
But they can sound off about culture whore or whatever.
But we just love(sic) to have them here.
The fact: ND has quickly raised large donations despite wounded cries from the right.
Empirical data on the nexus: who knows?
But…
it is clear that the brilliant anti-Obamaers have had little effect in that world and now they need to rationalize why that’s the case.
“If UND’s mission is to become a wealthy, culture-whore, then she is welcome to it. But we would be remiss, and indeed, unchartible (because charity is a committment to work for the greater good of the other no matter what the personal cost), to not point out the fact that this is what she is becoming. This whole sad drama has allowed President Jenkins to add a new dimension to the phrase, Madonna-Whore syndrome, and I, for one, think that he deserves to be called on it, even if he laughs all the way to the bank.”
Does this mean that you will be judged in the same way that you judge? Or that as every person is inwardly so s/he judges outwardly? …….
Didn’t someone say something to the effect of there’s no such thing as bad publicity except your obituary?
Bill M, the University of Notre Dame has the same mission all Disciples of Christ have, to bear witness to The Truth by abiding in The Word of Love with the Hope that one day, at the hour of our Death, we hear these Words, “Well done, my Faithful Servant”.
Absolutely, Nancy. But UND might be doing that better than you and others who are condemning her.
Bill, if you Love someone as Christ defines Love, you tell them the truth. I do not condemn Notre Dame, only her actions because they failed to bear a strong witness to The Truth.
It seems to be a truism among higher-ed fundraisers (at least some I’ve talked to), that the alumni who promise never to give another red cent to Old Siwash (or Harvard or Yale) because of its dastardly policies, never gave very much in the first place.
As for me, I will go back to making my normal contributions to the annual Bishop’s Fund when I consider that a) the bishops really have learned something from the abuse crisis; and b) are ready to press for reforms that will deal with the root causes of the crisis. (And, in the old days, I used to give the bishop’s fund more than I gave my particular Old Siwash. In the meantime the extra money goes to charities that serve the social good — local foodbanks, Oxfam, CARE, etc.
I keep coming “back” because 1) You’re one of the 3-4 blogs in my “Liberal Catholic Blogs” folder on Google Reader and 2) I like good entertainment.
Are conservative blogs echo chambers? Yeah. But the idea that this blog or any other leftist output on the internet is this vast array of open discussion is ridiculous.
As ridiculous as calling this blog leftist? Ever crack a copy of the magazine, Mr. “Crosley”? You should give it a shot some time. It’s made of actual paper, though, so it won’t fit into Google Reader–just as well. Bunch of commies run that operation. Pinkos actually use a herd of sheep to control the company lawn rather than good American lawnmowers. Suckers.
If Obama ever stops destroying this economy and I can afford a subscription, I’ll be sure to sign up, Grant.
Don’t feel offended that I haven’t yet. I’m not in your generation — the idea of subscribing to anything in print feels odd.
By the way, with that commie reference, are you refering to allegations of the magazines past?