http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/News and articles regarding the lawsuit filed against Princeton University by William Robertson and some of the members of the Robertson family.en-usPrinceton Universitydaily22005-01-01T12:00+00:00 Princeton University will have full control of the endowment associated with the Robertson Foundation and will continue to use the endowment to support the graduate program of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs under a settlement agreement that ends the six-year-old lawsuit brought against the University by members of the Robertson family.  http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/81/66C43/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2008-12-10T09:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 13, 2009 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education and a slightly altered version of this letter was published in the Jan. 29, 2009 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy under the headline "Robertson vs. Princeton vs. Donor Intent." In their article about the settlement of the six-and-a-half year old lawsuit brought against Princeton University by current members of the Robertson family (“Settlement Ends Dispute Between Princeton and Donors’ Heirs,” The Chronicle, January 9), Kathryn Masterson and Ben Gose give perfectly sound advice: be clear about the purpose of a gift; have clear guidelines for its use; stay in touch with the donors and involve their children. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/29/90M60/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2009-01-26T11:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was submitted on Jan. 5, 2009, to the San Jose Mercury News: Frederic Fransen’s Dec. 31 opinion (“Lawsuit settlement’s message is: Donors beware”) draws the wrong message from the settlement of the lawsuit brought against Princeton University by descendants of Charles and Marie Robertson. The real message is that a university can be sued even when it fully adheres to the written agreement it reaches with a donor, in this case Marie Robertson, who gave $35 million more than 47 years ago to support the graduate program of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. In their lawsuit, some of her descendants sought to overturn that agreement and substitute their own ideas about how the funds should be managed and spent. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/23/84C51/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2009-01-05T16:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Dec. 19, 2008, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Your Dec. 14 editorial ("The Princeton lawsuit: Don’t disregard donors") draws the wrong lesson from the settlement of the lawsuit brought against Princeton University by descendants of Charles and Marie Robertson. This lawsuit was about adhering to the agreement that was reached between the donor and the University when Marie Robertson made her $35 million gift 47 years ago. In their lawsuit, some of her descendants sought to overturn that agreement and substitute their own ideas about how the funds should be managed and spent.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/94/60K55/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2008-12-19T12:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Oct. 1, 2008, Washington Times: In his Sunday Commentary column, "Donor intent revisited," about a recent lawsuit filed against a New York hospital, William Robertson revives his misrepresentations about the donor-intent issues raised by his own six-year-old lawsuit against Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/28/70E96/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt2008-10-01T11:00-05:00 A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the July 28, 2008, Star Ledger:   In his July 22 opinion piece, "For charities, it's a matter of trust," William Robertson presents blatantly misleading information about why it has taken so long to get to trial in the lawsuit he has brought against Princeton University.   http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S21/72/67I72/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2008-07-28T13:00-05:00 A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published June 5, 2008, in USA TODAY: Princeton University agrees with the overall theme of your May 28 editorial ("Our view on charitable giving: Honor donors' intent") that recipients of charitable gifts should honor the agreements they make with donors. With respect to the gift that you cite, that is exactly what we have done. What you failed to point out is that it is the descendants of the donor, not Princeton University, who are trying to overturn the donor’s intent through an expensive lawsuit and public relations campaign.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S21/26/88Q83/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2008-06-05T13:55-05:00 "Endowments and Donor Restrictions" This presentation was given at the Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations conference, sponsored by Georgetown Law Continuing Legal Education (CLE) in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 24. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/88/84G12/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2008-04-24T12:00-05:00 A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the April 18, 2008, Washington Times: The April 15 Washington Times editorial ("The old college try – in court") incorrectly identifies the donor of the Robertson gift to Princeton and erroneously claims that the Robertson v. Princeton litigation represents "donor activism in cases where colleges fail their donors' standards." This case was not brought by any donor. It was brought by the descendants of a donor who are trying to seize control of funds that the donor entrusted to Princeton, not to them. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/85/50O11/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee 2008-04-18T16:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was submitted on April 9, 2008, to the Philadelphia Inquirer: As their six-year-old lawsuit against Princeton University finally moves toward trial, the Robertson children and their public relations team are heating up their rhetoric, but the facts don’t support their baseless allegations. In his April 9 column about the litigation ("Use of charitable funds is at heart of Princeton case"), Frederic Fransen rehashes several erroneous claims and fails to point out that it is the descendants of the donor, not Princeton University, who are trying to overturn the intent of the donor. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/88/80I37/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee 2008-04-09T11:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was submitted to the Investor's Business Daily: In writing its March 12 editorial about the six-year-old Robertson v. Princeton litigation without talking with anyone at Princeton, Investor’s Business Daily simply rehashed the unsubstantiated allegations that some members of the Robertson family have made in their attempt to gain control of funds that their parents explicitly chose to entrust not to them, but to Princeton. The family members are also trying to dismantle the governance structure that their parents put in place to ensure that Princeton would continue to control the use of these funds. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/75/82C44/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee 2008-04-07T13:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the March 27, 2008, Indiana Gazette: In his March 24 opinion piece about the six-year-old Robertson vs. Princeton litigation, Dan K. Thomasson mischaracterizes the purpose of the Robertson gift and fails to point out that it is the descendants of the donor, not Princeton University, who are trying to overturn the intent of the donor. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/67/18O20/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt2008-03-28T12:18-05:00 New Jersey Superior Court Judge Maria Sypek this week confirmed a trial date of Oct. 1, 2008, to hear the lawsuit brought against Princeton University by several members of the Robertson family in July 2002. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/49/28Q20/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt2008-03-07T18:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Jan. 4, 2008, Shreveport Times: In his opinion piece about "donor intent" (Dec. 26), Frederic Fransen mistakenly identifies the Robertson family members who are suing Princeton University as the party in the case that is seeking to carry out the intent of the donor. In fact, the opposite is true. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/94/60A35/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt2008-01-04T10:33-05:00 An abbreviated version of this letter to the editor was published in the Nov. 10, 2007, Sacramento Bee: In his Nov. 6 commentary "No will power," Cal Thomas expresses concern for donors who "increasingly see their gifts used for purposes other than what they intended" and then Mr. Thomas mistakenly claims that Princeton University has "ignored donor intent" in carrying out the purposes of the gift that it received from Marie Robertson 46 years ago.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/48/86C52/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-11-12T12:00-05:00 New Jersey Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster today issued rulings on seven pretrial motions in the lawsuit brought against Princeton University by several members of the Robertson family in July 2002. His seven rulings totaled 355 pages. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/33/23C63/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2007-10-25T15:50-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Nov. 9, 2007, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: The editorial "Battling Princeton" (Nov. 4 and PghTrib.com) misinforms your readers about the outcome of the pretrial rulings in the lawsuit filed by the Robertson family against Princeton University. These rulings were on summary judgment motions, not on the facts in the case. The only motions fully granted by the judge favored Princeton. In his rulings on the other motions, including the one cited in your editorial, the judge decided to defer the issues until trial.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/46/20A54/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt 2007-11-09T10:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Oct. 18, 2007, Wall Street Journal: Contrary to the claims of the Robertson descendants who are suing Princeton University ("Alms for the Alma Mater," Oct. 13, 2007), Princeton has always used the funds given by Marie Robertson solely for the purpose for which she made her $35 million gift in 1961. Her clear intent, which is stated in a written document, was to "maintain and support at Princeton University" a graduate school "as part of the Woodrow Wilson School," a school that does an excellent job of preparing students for careers in government service and related fields. That is exactly how the funds have been used for more than 46 years.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/27/37A08/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-10-18T15:00-05:00 This commentary was published in the Sept. 20, 2007, edition of Forbes.com: William Robertson recently wrote a commentary for Forbes.com that thoroughly misrepresents the "donor intent" issues raised by his five-year-old lawsuit against Princeton University. Contrary to what he claims, his lawsuit seeks not to honor donor intent, but to violate it. It seeks not to protect arrangements put in place by his parents 46 years ago, but to overturn them. Specifically, through his lawsuit he is seeking to seize control of funds that his mother, Marie Robertson, gave to Princeton in 1961.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/02/50M29/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-09-20T07:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Sept. 9, 2007, Washington Post: Your article “Exacting Donors Reshape College Giving” omits the key phrase in the document that establishes Marie Robertson’s intent in making her gift to Princeton University in 1961. That phrase clearly states her intent that these funds should be used solely to “maintain and support at Princeton University” a graduate school “as a part of the Woodrow Wilson School,” a school that does an excellent job of preparing its students for careers in government service and related fields. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/90/10G10/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-09-09T15:00-05:00 "Donors, Heirs, Desires and Academic Freedom: Perspective and Context Regarding Robertson v. Princeton University” This presentation was given at the Annual Conference of the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) in  in San Diego, CA, June 29, 2007.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/31/24I75/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2007-06-29T09:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the June 5, 2007, Detroit News: Froma Harrop's commentary on the lawsuit against Princeton University by several members of the Robertson family perpetuates inaccuracies about the lawsuit that the family has been disseminating for almost five years.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/01/21M28/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-06-05T15:00-05:00 A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the May 31, 2007, Miami Herald: William Robertson's recent column continues what is now a five-year disinformation campaign in connection with a lawsuit against Princeton University that he is funding from a family foundation that is supposed to be supporting charitable purposes.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/01/09O10/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-05-27T12:00-05:00 Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman has informed members of the Robertson Foundation board of trustees that longtime trustee John J.F. Sherrerd has decided to retire as a University-designated member of the board, and that he is being succeeded by Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor, president of Drew University and chair of the 9/11 Commission.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/79/79M88/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2007-05-01T11:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the March 23, 2007, Washington Times: The article "A&P heirs assail Princeton" (Nation, Wednesday), about the lawsuit filed against Princeton University by William Robertson and some other members of the Robertson family, incorrectly refers to the Robertson Foundation as "the family's foundation." When Princeton and Bill Robertson's parents created this organization in 1961, it was with the clear understanding that it would not be a family foundation but instead would be what the tax code today classifies as a "supporting organization" for the sole purpose of supporting a graduate program in public and international affairs at Princeton University.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/49/21S98/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-03-26T10:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the March 22, 2007, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: The Trib's editorial was wrong when it asserted that the Robertson Foundation has sought the return of funds from Princeton University ("Shameful Princeton," March 19 and PghTrib.com).http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/45/75I21/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-03-22T11:00-05:00 Princeton University has reimbursed the Robertson Foundation for the costs associated with a three-year trial program, known as the Graduate Funding Agreement, that from 2000 through 2002 provided funding for graduate students in academic departments at Princeton that were closely related to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/37/24I62/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesStaff2007-03-12T14:45-05:00 Princeton University submitted the following statement to CBS Evening News for a segment on the Robertson litigation that aired on Feb. 11, 2007. The statement was edited extensively and did not appear in its entirety.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/13/05K24/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesCass Cliatt2007-02-12T13:00-05:00 This letter to the editor was published in the Jan. 9, 2007, New York Sun: Andrew Ferguson’s Dec. 26 column about the lawsuit brought against Princeton University more than four years ago by some members of the Robertson family acknowledges the weaknesses of the Robertsons’ “tricky” legal case, but argues that the case is nonetheless important because of the questions it raises about “donor intent.”   http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/83/88M45/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2007-01-09T15:15-05:00 A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the Dec. 15, 2006, Providence Journal:Your editorial “unaccountable nonprofits” seriously mischaracterized the lawsuit that was brought against Princeton University four and a half years ago by descendants of Marie Robertson, who donated $35 million to Princeton in 1961. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/62/13E13/index.xml?section=robertsonarchivesrobertsonarchivesRobert K. Durkee2006-12-15T11:00-05:00