Private funding fair, beneficial

In his Jan. 14 submission (“Education shouldn’t be
for sale”), Matthew Kennard claims that “the
introduction of private funding into any enterprise changes its
whole complexion. It moves from working for the people it serves to
working for the stockholders or backers of the private
body.”

This claim is misleading, as it contradicts most instances of
private funding. According to the Web site for the UCLA Run/Walk, a
fund raiser that benefits Mattel Children’s Hospital at UCLA,
“Sponsors provide needed resources for the UCLA Run/Walk to
take place each year.” Several grubby corporations, such as
Reebok, Best Buy, Mattel and Niketown, regularly contribute to the
event. It is clear that corporate sponsorship does not transform
this fund raiser into a profit-driven business endeavor.

While the publicity that arises from sponsorship certainly plays
a role in this partnership, it is not at the expense of the
recipients. Instead, this is a win-win situation in which both
parties stand to gain.

Corporate aid following the tsunami crisis has easily eclipsed
the amount initially pledged by most countries, including the
United States. American companies have donated cash as well as
supplies, such as drugs and clean water. According to the
Associated Press, total U.S. corporate aid has topped $302
million.

Were these corporations motivated by the profitability of
privatizing the governments of Indonesia? Did this aid change the
beneficiaries of the aid efforts? The answer to these questions is
a clear no. The tsunami victims receiving the aid could not care
less whether their benefactors are non-profits or massive
corporations.

Kennard claims that simply soliciting private contributions
would transform UCLA into a private school. But accepting donations
is not tantamount to “privatization.” The basic
administrative and funding structure of UCLA would not change
simply because it accepts donations from outside private
sources.

In fact, private contributions already comprise a large amount
of the UC budget. Unfortunately, student fees at UCLA have been
rapidly rising, with graduate and out-of-state students most
affected by the escalating costs. Accepting private donations helps
to decrease this cost.

Even if the contributions culminated in the dedication of a
Starbucks Physics and Astronomy Building, such philanthropy would
pose no adverse effects to education unless Starbucks was given
control over the curriculum.

But aside from some devious attempt to control our curriculums,
why would for-profit companies seek to contribute to our
educations? Corporations give because they have realized that an
image of social consciousness and generosity is worth its weight in
gold. While these tactics may not maximize profit in the immediate
term, they are likely to increase the profitability of a company
over several years.

Though skeptics argue that corporations are legally prohibited
from giving to charity, this stems from a misinterpretation of
legal precedent ““ corporations are only barred from
withholding excessive dividends to which stockholders are
entitled.

Furthermore, most shareholders support corporate contributions
because they realize that such contributions serve as a valuable
investment, increasing their dividends in the long term.

In a capitalist society, people acquire wealth by offering a
useful product or service to the public. Corporations have no
ability to snatch money without offering something of value in
return.

Consequently, there is no conflict of interest between
profit-seeking corporations and other members of society ““ it
is the very profit-seeking motive of an individual or corporation
that often propels an effective response to our most important
concerns.

Lazar is second-year pre-economics student.