Letters to the Editor

The following are recent University letters to the editor concerning the Robertson lawsuit. They can also be found in the full list of public statements.

Letter to the editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education and Chronicle of Philanthropy - Updated

By Robert K. Durkee · Posted January 26, 2009; 11:00 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the San Jose Mercury News

By Robert K. Durkee · Posted January 5, 2009; 04:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

By Robert K. Durkee · Posted December 19, 2008; 12:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Washington Times

by Cass Cliatt · Posted October 1, 2008; 11:00 a.m. 

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Star Ledger

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted July 28, 2008; 01:00 p.m.

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.  

Full Story

Letter to the editor of USA TODAY

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted June 5, 2008; 01:55 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Washington Times

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted April 18, 2008; 04:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted April 9, 2008; 11:00 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Investor’s Business Daily

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted April 7, 2008; 01:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of Indiana Gazette

by Cass Cliatt · Posted March 28, 2008; 11:48 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of Shreveport Times

by Cass Cliatt · Posted January 4, 2008; 10:33 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted November 12, 2007; 12:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

by Cass Cliatt · Posted November 9, 2007; 10:08 a.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the Nov. 9, 2007, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

The editorial "Battling Princeton" (Nov. 4) 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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted October 18, 2007; 03:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Commentary published on Forbes.com

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted September 20, 2007; 07:00 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Washington Post

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted September 9, 2007; 10:00 p.m.

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. 

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Miami Herald

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted May 27, 2007; 12:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Detroit News

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted May 25, 2007; 03:00 p.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Washington Times

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted March 26, 2007; 10:00 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted March 22, 2007; 11:00 a.m.

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).

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the New York Sun

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted January 9, 2007; 03:15 p.m.

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.”  

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Providence Journal

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted December 15, 2006; 11:00 a.m.

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.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Washington Times

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted November 21, 2006; 10:00 a.m.

A slightly altered version of this letter to the editor was published in the Nov. 21, 2006, Washington Times:

William Robertson’s November 15 commentary was the fourth time in the last three years that the Times has provided him with a platform so he can try to cast his lawsuit against Princeton University in a favorable light. But your readers deserve to know that the party in this case seeking to overturn a donor’s decisions is Mr. Robertson, not Princeton University. 

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted October 24, 2006; 09:00 a.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the Oct. 24, 2006, Daily Princetonian:

Contrary to what you reported in your article about Dean Slaughter’s meeting with graduate students in the Woodrow Wilson School, my July letter to the Wall Street Journal did not say that William Robertson and other family members are attempting to seize control of the Robertson Foundation for their “personal benefit.” But my letter did try to make it clear that what the family’s lawsuit against the University fundamentally comes down to is an attempt by these family members to seize control of funds that their parents chose not to bequeath to them.

Full Story

Guest op-ed column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted August 23, 2006; 01:00 p.m.

This guest column was published in the Aug. 23, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

William Robertson recently published a column (Aug. 13) in which he purported to offer an “ethics lesson” in charitable giving to college freshmen. His basic text was a code of ethics that was created by, among others, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), on whose board I serve. He specifically cited a provision that gives donors the right “to be assured their gifts will be used for the purposes for which they were given.” It is sad and ironic that he should be offering this lesson, since he is seeking, through an expensive lawsuit, to undo much of what his parents did 45 years ago in making a gift to Princeton University.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted August 11, 2006; 10:00 a.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the Aug. 11, 2006, Wall Street Journal:

Professor Arthur C. Brooks failed to do his homework before writing his column, “Caveat Benefactor,” that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 28.

Full Story

Letter to the editor of the Trenton (N.J.) Times

by Robert K. Durkee · Posted February 17, 2006; 09:00 a.m.

This letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 17, 2006, Trenton (N.J.) Times:

The Times' article about the lawsuit brought against Princeton University by William Robertson and other members of the Robertson family, "University funds diverted" (Feb. 10), was based entirely on selective materials recently submitted by them to the court. The result is not only a one-sided view of a complex case covering more than 45 years and several hundred thousand pages of documents, but an article that left several serious misimpressions.

Full Story