New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Tom Friedman wrote an op/ed piece in today’s Times about corporate sponsorships. His column focuses on a book by Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” and specifically cites public schools. He references a school in Newburyport along with a New Jersey elementary school that in 2001 became America’s first public school to sell naming rights to a corporate sponsor.
Here’s an excerpt:
Why worry about this trend? Because, Sandel argues, market values are crowding out civic practices. When public schools are plastered with commercial advertising, they teach students to be consumers rather than citizens.
Worth the read, given the current discussion in Newton.
Amen.
Agreed: this article is definitely worth the read, and the timing is extraordinarily prescient.
Thanks for writing this, Gail. I just posted on the other blog about this column. I’ll post it here, too.
Everyone interested in this issue should read Thomas Friedman’s timely column in today’s New York Times, “This Column Is Not Sponsored by Anyone,” which discusses Michael Sandel’s new book, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. ”
I think he explains perfectly why I think the NSF’s idea is sad, disheartening, and even disgusting.
He quotes Sandel: “Over the last three decades…we have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society. A market economy is a tool — a valuable and effective tool — for organizing productive activity. But a ‘market society’ is a place where everything is up for sale. It is a way of life where market values govern every sphere of life.”
@Jan– I’ll tell you what’s “disgusting”… The condition of some of our school buildings!
You know what else is “disgusting”? The fact that we’ve gone through three decades of decline in terms of educational offerings to our students.
Three decades of cuts, with no one finding any solutions. And we have allowed this to happen in a city that supposedly puts a high value on education. So when you think of a better way to pay for these things, be sure to let me know and I’ll respect your position a lot more.
For right now, we only get one chance to provide a great education to our children. I don’t give two hoots how we raise the money to pay for it. Put Nike on the side of the building for all I care. Just do it!!!
@Gail. Thanks for posting this.
@Mike. I have to disagree with you on this one. Just turn on the tube, go to any shopping mall or drive down the highway and it becomes abundantly clear just how thoroughly Americans are driven by corporate agendas and sales pitches. Here are a few recent examples:
1. Yesterday afternoon, WGBH TV featured a disturbing and convincing program on how corporations are using television ads and programs to mold kids as young as two into unthinking consumers. Twenty five years back kids wanted to be nurses, firemen, cops and several kinds of public servants or small business people. Now the goal of too many is simply to make a lot of money to buy a lot of consumer stuff that’s peddled to them over television and among their peers.
2. I follow the Washington Nationals baseball team and was listening to a recent game in San Diego against the Padres. The name of the San Diego Stadium—Petco Field. A big comedown from Ebbetts Field, the old Brooklyn Dodgers field.
3. The furious backlash against Michelle Obama when she launched her programs aimed at getting kids to eat healthy food. Powerful sugar and junk food interest and Republicans in Congress were merciless in attacking her for trying to dictate food choices and many Democrats (as usual) were timid in coming to her defense. I had to hold my tongue when I heard two nitwit males slamming her while I was filling up my tank a few weeks back. All this nonsense in spite of epidemic levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes in kids.
In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower ran against my boyhood hero Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson is one of the very few political figures I still consider a hero to this day. Eisenhower and Stevenson were both outstanding leaders and great political figures who were true visionaries. Both wound up warning the country about major societal problems that are even worse now than they were then. Ike’s warning about the military-industrial complex has become the watchword among Americans concerned about excessive military spending and commitments. Less well known was Stevenson’s warning about corporate consumerism and the ways it was certain to dumb down Americans and completely distort our elections. He used to complain that Madison Avenue was packaging candidates like they package breakfast cereal. Oh, if it was only so benign in 2012.
PS. A few months back, I saw a two hour special about Adlai Stevenson on C-Span’s series, “The Contenders. It’s a 12 part series that looks at losing Presidential candidates who still had a big and positive impact. I thought Stevenson might not look as good as I remembered him. I was not disappointed. He came through even better than I remembered him because I could see how so many of his concerns and predictions have come through. This is a bitter sweet must see for anyone who wants to see how things might have been. When the program ended I quickly came back to earth when I turned on the regular programming and heard Rick Perry ranting some nonsense about something.
Didn’t mean to make this so long.
Yes, Mike, I have a better way, it’s called taxes. Citizens contributing for the public good, not the market buying publicity. Read the Friedman column, or even the book, you might find it interesting.
Here’s a link to a related column in the Atlantic by the same author (Michael Sandel)
@Bob– You never have to apologize for one of your posts being too long. I always read every word and have a great deal of respect for your opinion. We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. Although I appreciate all of your examples, only #1 is particularly relevant to this debate. And my response is that there are still plenty of kids who still grow up wanting to be nurses, firemen, cops, and public servants. There’s actually a long waiting list to become a police officer or firefighter. So you may perceive that commercialization has eroded young people’s desire to pursue some forms of public service, but I don’t think the facts really support that position.
I think our difference of opinion on this issue likely stems from the fact that two of my children have gone through NPS to graduate in the past few years, and my youngest is still at South. I’ve watched their education be compromised by a lack of funding. We are robbing our children of a superior education, and I’m sick of it. My feelings are shared by many, and the proof is in the fact that 1 in 5 school age children in Newton are being sent to private schools.
@Jan– I had already read the Friedman column before I posted my response to you. Honestly, I agreed with a lot of it. As far as Sandel’s book… It’s easy to criticize alternative methods of funding public schools when your paycheck comes from Harvard and it’s billion dollar endowment pool.
Regarding your suggestion that we raise taxes to properly fund our schools, I’m fine with that. But you tell me, Jan… How long are we supposed to wait? Literally tens of thousands of students have gone through our schools in recent years, without the benefits of the system being properly funded. There are no second chances to give our kids the best possible K-12 education. We have a system that’s not working, and I’m in favor of ANYTHING that helps fix the problem.
@Mike. Points taken. Thanks
Here are the donors/sponsors in Newburyport: http://www.newburyportef.org/donors.shtml I don’t see consumer brands like Pizza Hut or Dunkin Donuts, I see financial institutions and a couple publishing companies (I guess they still exist). The sponsor for the Library was “The Institution for Savings” who gave $100,000.
(Newburyport also holds a charitable poker night in case Newton is running low on ideas…)
As Alderman Sangiolo noted on another blog, at its May 23 meeting, the Programs & Services Committee will accept public comment on the Newton Schools Foundation’s proposal to sell naming rights to raise money for technology in the schools. An informed electorate is the bedrock of our democracy, so I encourage everyone who is interested to read the NSF’s FAQ on this topic.
The Chair should update the public hearing notice. It says it’s for another purpose http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=43783
I believe in separation of church and state, and I believe in separation of business and state. The reason for the first is to eliminate the influence of any one church or religion on the functions of the state which affect everyone. Similarly, we don’t want businesses who have specific products or service to sell to have an influence over the functioning of government by virtue of a desire to get funds for the government coffers from them.
It also is tawdry in that it cheapens the hopeful nobility of public spaces like schools, libraries, parks, etc.
A sports arena, like Gillette Stadium, is normally a private enterprise and they can call it whatever they want. It still seems tawdry, but it’s a private matter.
@Hoss, the public hearing is for a different item for which a public hearing is a prerequisite. There is no statutory or other requirement to hold a public hearing on the naming rights policy. Offering an opportunity for public comment on the policy is within the chairman’s discretion as an accommodation on an issue of public interest.
Ted — Bedrock is overrated anyway
@Ted Hess-Mahan, Thank you for posting the link to the FAQ’s. Another great source of information on non-profits and foundations is the Attorney General’s non-profit and public charities search engine which will allow you to search for a specific organization and then view their federal and state informational tax returns. Looking at the info on NSF it does appear that they are behind in filing their 2011 IRS 990 which, from their fiscal year, should have been filed by November 15, 2011. It would be nice to see that information too.
http://www.charities.ago.state.ma.us/charities/index.asp?charities_app_ctx=search&charities_sub_ctx=entry&bod=1337018981
@Barry. You have stated my sentiments exactly.
We ought not do anything with NSF prior to their meeting their statutory requirement to file their 990 for 2011. Raises questions, at least in my mind.
@Dan, Something else that’s troubling me is that on page 6 of the “FAQ’s”, the NSF claims that it has “always had what is termed a ‘clean opinion’ issued by its auditors.” This is a bit confusing because they haven’t been audited but, rather, Edelstein & Company, their CPA, has provided “Accountants’ Review” reports. The April 29, 2011 review report covering both 2009 and 2010 says this:
“A review consists principally of inquiries of organization personnel and analytical procedures applied to financial data. It is substantially less in scope than an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, WE DO NOT EXPRESS SUCH AN OPINION.” (emphasis added.)
I’m not an accountant, but if your auditor says “no opinion” I don’t know how that can be called a clean opinion.
Lisap — That is required language which only means the books are not kept according to GAAP in this type of arrangement. (Since you are a lawyer, if you are employed by a firm — the firm’s audited statements, if any, would say the same thing)
In addition, the DOR not having their annual return listed on it’s database does not mean they didn’t file a return.
Oh, I see Lisap, you’re focusing on the foundation’s statement, not the auditor’s. You are correct that if they didn’t get an opinion, they should not have made reference to one. The auditors’ may have met with the Board and when asked said everything looks fine — but the statement has gone beyond that.
Hoss, Thanks for the info. Is there a reason why prior reports would be audited statements in accordance with GAAP? As for the financials they could have obtained an extension which would explain why it wouldn’t be there, but the A.G.’s website is up-to-date with filings from 2011. The info is not available at Guidestar either. Any organization seeking to take responsibility for the sale of millions of dollars worth of city assets must expect that they are going to be highly scrutinized, and that certainly begins with some of the most basic things such as meeting financial filings and ensuring that those documents are available for public inspection in a timely manner.
The views on both sides of this issue are passionate and well articulated. Since it will be coming to the board soon, I thought I might offer a few thoughts.
I, too, believe in the separation of church and state. But there is a certain amount of play in the joints between the freedom to exercise religion and the prohibition against government establishment thereof in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the cognate provisions of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Courts struggle with balancing these two principles all the time, and have concluded that the separation is not absolute. You need look no farther than the face of virtually any piece of US currency, where you will find the official motto of the United State, “In God We Trust,” prominently displayed.
Similarly, I believe that we should keep our public institutions, particularly our schools, free from commercialism to the maximum extent feasible. But, once again, there is a certain amount of play in the joints between the ideal of a public sphere devoid of commercialism and the realities that we face in trying to provide our children with the best possible public education, which includes teaching appropriate moral and civic values.
On the expense side, school lunches could be prepared and served entirely by public employees, but the city saves a substantial amount of money by contracting a private vendor for food services. Likewise, it is far more economical to hire private transportation companies to transport children to school, provide certain special education services, as well as other support services to ensure the best possible education for our children.
On the revenue side, public schools accept grants and donations from private foundations, and scholarships for graduates from private donors, including corporations, all the time. To utterly reject all grants, donations and scholarships in order to maintain total separation would be counterproductive and might well deprive students of an educational opportunity.
It seems to me that selling naming rights falls into the category of accepting grants or scholarships from private donors, which carry the name of the donor. It serves a beneficial and salutary purpose, and the public schools will gladly accept such a grant even though it has the name of a private foundation or corporation attached to it. So why not accept a donation that carries with it the name of a private donor because it will appear on a sign or plaque on the wall of a classroom? What seems to offend people is that it involves a “sale” rather than a donation. And I understand that.
A few years ago, my wife, a public school teacher,applied for and received a Toyota Tapestry Science Education Grant to build a “science kaleidoscope” which is a permanent fixture at her elementary school (it ain’t braggin’ if it’s true). It says so, right on it, along with the name of the car company, and on the school website as well. Now, without that grant, this project, which was designed by a parent who is an architect and built with the help of the entire school community, would not have happened. It was not only a terrific project, but a wonderful community building exercise as well. So, I ask the purists out there, should she have rejected this grant because it is attached to the name of a multi-national corporation which is also attached to the project itself? Or is there sufficient play in the joints to justify accepting it?
I know distinctions can be drawn between a grant and a naming right, but, in all candor, in the big scheme of things, it is sort of like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In either case, a private donor is giving money to a public school for the benefit of students and receives a little credit for their contribution. What is so un-Godly about that?
@Lisap, do you know for a fact that NSF is late in filing its Form 990 or is it possible that the AG’s office hasn’t updated the online database? And do you know whether NSF is required to file audited financial statements on form 990?
Lisap, Honestly, when I first saw that you drew attention to the DOR database I wondered why you would do it since there is a huge percentage of non-profits that are, as a cycle, behind on their filings. I also wonder how timely the DOR updates information. But I get it now — you’re saying whereas the foundation did not handle large sums in the past, we should ask that they be timing if they are going to handle very large sums in the near future. I agree.
I’m not qualified to get into the technical requirements here, but as a basic the report that you quoted from is a “review”, not an “audit”. There may be additional requirements, including an audit, when a foundation reaches a certain asset threshold. Also as a basic, if any review mentioned that financials were prepared according to GAAP (which is an accrual basis as opposed to cash), then unless the entity took special, unusual, steps they need to keep with the original accounting basis. I don’t know why a foundation as tiny as this would prepare accounting to GAAP as opposed to a cash basis.
Let me push back on Barry’s comments. Obviously I agree with separation of church and state. In part that philosophy and the relationship between the two entities is demonstrated by the absence of taxation. The financial relationship between business and state differs significantly, as businesses are subject to taxation. So I have a couple of questions about this for Barry…
1. Do you support the corporate income tax?
2. If so, do you believe paying taxes gives businesses “an influence over the functioning of government by virtue of a desire to get funds for the government coffers from them”?
3. If we were for example to sell the naming rights for NNHS to Nabisco, and renamed the school “Newton’s High School” to promote their cookie product, what potential “influence over the functioning of government” do you fear that might give them?
I’d also like to point out that the larger issue of naming rights in general is being overshadowed by the sub-issue of corporate naming rights. In my opinion, the only naming rights a corporation would be interested in are the naming rights for NNHS. Other assets for which we could sell naming rights, are much more suitable for tribute names rather than corporate names. So I’d like to ask Barry, or anyone else who has expressed opposition to corporate naming rights…
4. Are you opposed to a private benefactor buying the naming rights to a public school or park?
If so, I’d like to point out that most of our schools and parks already carry a tribute name, for which the city receives no financial benefit.
As for the other part of Barry’s argument, that corporate naming rights are “tawdry”, and “cheapens the hopeful nobility of public spaces”, I would argue that a lack of funding, proper maintenance, and the deterioration of infrastructure, totally eliminates [not cheapens] any “nobility” these public places might have. So I see this kind of deterioration as a far greater threat than any harm that might come from a corporate or tribute name replacing NNHS.
Lastly, I’d like to ask Barry specifically…
5. Would you support a prop 2 1/2 override to address these infrastructure problems?
6. If not, how would you propose the deterioration of our local infrastructure should be addressed.
@Ted, According to the A.G.’s office, NSF obtained an extension which is expiring today. Of course, once it is received by the A.G.’s office there will be a delay in scanning and posting the document, and the A.G.’s office is somewhat short-handed at the moment. In the interests of transparency and public access, however, given the public interest it would be prudent for the NSF to make the information accessible on their website.
Whether they are required to file a full audit or an accountant’s review depends upon their revenue. If revenue exceeds $200,000 but is less than $500,000 they are required to file an accountant’s review. If revenue exceeds $500,000 then they are required to file a full audit. NSF states in the FAQ’s that they anticipate that, with the campaign, their revenues will exceed $500,000 and that the cost of a full audit will be one of the administrative expenses paid from the named funds donations. (See FAQ’s, page 5 “How Are the Administrative Costs Paid For?”) I would respectfully suggest that this is a cost that should be apportioned between the naming rights campaign and the organization as part of their operational expenses, and not fully borne out by the funding received through the naming rights campaign since the organization anticipates retaining a significant portion of the funds raised: “a significant portion of the money raised through the campaign will be set aside to build a sustainable fund to be used for future annual needs. The foundation may add to this fund on a yearly basis.” (FAQ’s, p. 5″)
With respect to the actual work of the campaign, NSF will be relying extensively upon volunteer “pro bono” services. As anyone who has worked with non-profits is well aware, there is typically a gap between what volunteers intend to do on behalf of an organization and reality. Changes in circumstances, employment, family situations, health, can all impact whether an individual can actually fulfill those promises though the commitments are made with the very best of intentions.
@Hoss – Yes, exactly. I don’t mean to suggest or imply that there’s been any malfeasance or misfeasance by NSF, no, no, no. As I’ve said, I’m not an accountant but any time an organization is going to be entrusted to handle a public asset, and particularly one which is going to be approaching donors for significant funds, they have to be able to withstand real scrutiny. Trying to look at it from a donor’s perspective, if I the donor’s legal representative these are the questions I would be asking before I let my client open their wallet and write a $500,000 check.
Ted – All good points . I wouldn’t consider myself a purist on the issue but I’ do have a few concerns. As always, the devil’s in the details.
Your case seems to be mostly we already do this (accept money with a name attached) so this is just more of the same, no big deal. There’s plenty of name/money deals I’d be happy with and plenty I wouldn’t. Some of the alarm bell got rung with many people I think because of the phrase “selling naming rights”. In the commercial sphere, “selling naming rights” usually involves plastering the name everywhere and very prominently for a substantial sum of cash – i.e. a straightforward advertising arrangement.
The examples you mention are something quite different. They’re more corporate philanthropy with an acknowledgment, which is fine by me. There’s a huge spectrum in between those two. Much of the confusion on the issue is based on all of our imagination’s conjuring up wildly different places on the spectrum.
I think so long as whatever vetting system is set up can filter out the most overtly advertising style deals and the educationally inappropriate sponsors, many of the folks like me that have vague uneasy feelings about it will end up satisfied.
Mike,
A lot of good questions. I’ll try later to answer what I can. I’m on my way out right now.
Thanks for considering what I said, even if you disagree with it.
Ald. Hess Mahan — With respect to the separation of values (church or commercial), I have two points to add for your consideration the matter:
(1) We allow public space to be named after contemporary individuals. Those individuals that are politicians have a political party attachment. All individuals have a history which might include controversial acts. Why is it ok to sit a kid in the William J. Clinton Library, or the Bill Russell Auditorium, and not, for example, “Wellesley Insurance Cafeteria”?
(2) There was a recent contract signed by Newton that was a direct expression of values and not a contract signed on the basis of price: the green energy contract. I included my thoughts on this on the Newton Tab blog. My conclusion is that because no additional green energy reaches Newton under this contract, and further, no additional green energy reaches ANYWHERE under the contract, that the premium Newton paid is a donation to a respected industry. It’s a very clear expression of values with public funds.
When viewed against other expressions of values, this proposal gain sponsorship similar to what Newburyport has done seems less extreme. Notice that Newburyport did not except (they may not have been offered) sponsorship from consumer product sources. That is an appropriate boundary.
@Jerry, just so. The devil, as you say, is in the details. Until I understood what NSF had actually proposed, I was appalled at the notion of selling naming rights which, as you also point out, conjures up a mental picture of corporate names and logos plastered across the schools. That is not what NSF is proposing.
@Barry– At your leisure. I appreciate your time, and always value your opinion.
Mike,
1. and 2. Connected, I assume, and not relevant to this discussion. Paying tax is a requirement, for whomever the government taxes. Influence comes from making optional donations, which may create a future sense of indebtedness.
3. Food companies making donations could bias a school administration towards using their foods in a cafeteria, which could influence the kids to buy those foods outside. I haven’t spent time in school cafeterias, but there was a time when companies like McDonald’s were making sweet deals with schools to allow them to set up cafeterias for the schools. Future real estate deals could also ensue giving preferential treatment to donors, like locations for a store or a factory.
4. Private benefactors are not commercial operations. But I do object, anyway, since one shouldn’t be able to buy fame in a city institution. Museums, universities, and hospitals name areas after donors, but they are expected to live off of limited revenues coupled with donations, for which they continuously solicit. Naming a park, with no donation, after a noteworthy citizen of the city is fine.
5. I’d support a Prop 2 1/2 over-ride if I could be convinced that the city hasn’t been using the money it now collects in an irresponsible fashion, and that it has exhausted ways to save money. Until the city reports to the citizens how it uses our money and why it is all necessary, I won’t support just spending more money. The high school was an irresponsible way to spend money for construction, and incur future high regular maintenance and repair costs to support the unnecessary functions that occur.
There’s a tendency to think that just because we want something, we are entitled to it. And once we have it, we can’t give it up, including certain administrative positions. Something like an expensive dining hall and kitchen to support a culinary arts program can be considered excessive in a time of tight finances.
6. See 5.
@Barry– Thanks for taking the time to respond. I disagree with you on several points. Keeping in mind again that the only Newton school likely capable of attracting a corporate naming rights sponsor is NNHS, while some others would more likely attract tribute sponsors.
In the case of a corporate sponsor, all terms of an agreement are spelled out in advance. While there is no assurance a corporate sponsor would not seek favors later, they are far more likely to ask for things in advance in order to include what they want in the written agreement with the city. And of course both parties would be obligated under the terms of an agreement, so a corporate sponsor would have little post-agreement leverage.
I used the example of an agreement with Nabisco, which would would allow them to change the name of NNHS to “Newtons High School” after their cookie product [originally named for this city]. Since it would be highly unlikely that Nabisco would want to build a new factory in Newton, their terms would in all probability be far less onerous. The true value for them lays in the national publicity the name change would generate, along with the goodwill.
I also disagree with you on tribute name sponsors, private individuals or families who pay to have their name on an auditorium, field house, or school building. To my mind, this is just a question of dollars and sense [sic]. Name a school [for example] after a former politician for zero dollars, or for a prominent, private individual who helps fund the school. I’d rather have the money. And I believe a case can be made that someone who contributes a relatively large amount of cash to NPS is more worthy of that specific honor than most politicians.
I was surprised by your contingent support of a potential Prop 2 1/2 override, but I think you’re setting the bar too high. Only in that I’m not sure what it would take to convince you the city was not spending money in an “irresponsible” way. While that was certainly a case to be made under the previous administration, my opinion is that Mayor Warren has restored the confidence of most Newtonites when it comes to fiscal responsibility. And the need for more funds is self evident in the deteriorating infrastructure and long term elimination of many school programs. So I would support an override now.
Perhaps my biggest disagreement with your comments has little to do with naming rights, but the wisdom of building the new NNHS. I was among the first [if not actually the first] resident to advocate replacing the old North with an entirely new school. And I did that in the context of my ill fated 2005 campaign for mayor. Just weeks after I entered the race in part by proposing a new school, the [then incumbent] mayor changed his position from renovation to new construction.
Of course I preferred our students go to school in a beautiful new building, rather than the dump that was the old North. But the primary reason I proposed a new school was that it represented the best value to the taxpayers of Newton. The Newton North Task Force had proposed a renovation that included a new addition. That was the plan the mayor had signed on to. Based on the Task Force number$, for 20% more we could build an entirely new school. I felt there was a high likelihood of substantial overruns in the cost of renovation, plus significant savings in ongoing maintenance from a new structure. While I grant you the project was mismanaged, resulting in a much higher than projected cost, I’m still darn glad we got the thing built, and I smile every time I drive by. While the opportunity to generate revenue through changing the name does not undo the mistakes, I do believe it to be one step toward fiscal responsibility.
In either case, a private donor is giving money to a public school for the benefit of students and receives a little credit for their contribution. What is so un-Godly about that?
@Ted, in the case of Enron’s sponsorship of the Houston Astro’s stadium, it turned out to be quite the negative when Enron went bankrupt and the name “Ken Lay” became synonymous with corporate abuse and fraud. I believe the Astros were stuck scrambling to buy back the naming rights they sold. The good will associated with the purchaser’s name lasts only so long as the purchaser is a good citizen.
I understand that there will be some effort to control who will be permitted to purchase naming rights, but I find myself asking how will this policy be formulated in a manner that is content-neutral and designed to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment? Turning down a purchaser who is viewed unfavorably may not be so simple as the State of Missouri discovered when they tried to say “no” to the Ku Klux Klan’s bid to adopt a portion of a highway. Cuffley v. Mickes, 208 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 200), cert. den. Yarnell v. Cuffley, 532 U.S. 903 (2001). “[V]iewpoint-based exclusion of any individual or organization from a government program is not a constitutionally permitted means of expressing disapproval of ideas – even very poor ideas – that the government disfavors.” Hmmm. Still mulling this over.
@Lisap– While you’re mulling it over, I suggest you take a look at the relationship between Nike and the University of Oregon, [which is a public school]. Phil Knight and his company have done a tremendous job helping elevate that institution to national prominence. It’s a great example of how this type of public-private relationship can work to everyone’s benefit.
@Mike, I did take a quick look and, indeed, their contributions (Nike and Knight) are credited with raising the University to prominence in academics and athletics. I’m not questioning what a huge influx of corporate and high net worth donor cash can do. I’m questioning the “who” and the idea that if Newton opens up the sale of naming rights to corporations, that it will be entitled to pick and choose who gets to buy those rights and who does not. Based upon the research that I have looked at, the intersection of commercial speech, school house speech and government speech in the sale of public school naming rights creates a First Amendment “perfect storm”.
@Lisap: Congratulations. You have proven a corollary to Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Ku Klux Klan approaches 1.”
The federal appeals court case you cited affirms the unremarkable position that a government program may not deny access based on the content of speech. In that case, the state of Missouri denied the KKK’s application to Adopt-A-Highway, and the federal court concluded that the denial was based on the content of the Klan’s message and was therefore an infringement on the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The lower court issued a mandatory injunction to grant the KKK’s application.
There are numerous distinctions. The NSF will be approaching potential donors with a connection to Newton and which “fit” with the School Committee policy on naming conventions. That policy includes that the naming rights “[w]ill not represent a commercial or individual interest that is inappropriate and/or disruptive to a school environment.”
As you suggest, a different set of rules regarding the freedom of speech apply in the school environment. I am not going to cite the litany of cases on point, but, suffice it to say that school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict speech in school than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public, and a determination as to whether there has been a constitutional infringement of the freedom of speech requires a balancing of the legitimate educational objectives and need for school discipline of administrators against the values served by the right to free speech under the First Amendment. This is a case by case determination. Public schools are given particular leeway where a message appears to have the implied message of the school’s imprimatur or where the message is inappropriate (e.g., vulgar, demeaning or aggressive) or disruptive to the school environment.
Nevertheless, I grant you that a prospective donor who is not approached by the NSF to donate might well bring a lawsuit, but, given the current state of the law, there is no guarantee that he/she/it would prevail on the merits. I think it is entirely possible that a court could dismiss a constitutional challenge where the message was deemed by the School Committee to be inappropriate or disruptive to the school environment because it discriminated on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sexual orientation or gender identity. (On a personal note, it should surprise no one that I spent a lot of my public school career testing the limits of a student’s free speech rights in the classroom in what I thought in all modesty were fairly creative and innovative ways. It was during the Vietnam War and the Watergate era, and a lot of students like myself found provocative ways to express our dissatisfaction with the government. I also found some just plain goofy messages I wanted to convey. I fought the law, and the law generally won.)
I am not aware of any cases involving a constitutional challenge–successful or otherwise–to a public school’s naming rights policy by a disappointed donor, but I am sure if there is one you will find it.
The value of naming rights at NNHS would likely preclude unsavory suitors, as a group like the KKK could never raise enough money to make a competitive offer. After another recent thread on this blog, I’m pretty sure we can rule out Facebook as a corporate sponsor as well.
@Ted, I believe it is I who should congratulate you on your Wikipedia-like ability to summarize the entire field of First Amendment jurisprudence into something akin to a sound bite. Indeed, public school students do not enjoy completely unabridged freedom of expression, and you are correct that public school administrators do enjoy some very limited power to control student speech when it will interfere with discipline, invades the rights of others, is vulgar, lewd or plainly offensive, or is school-sponsored such as a newspaper. In each case, the restriction is upon the content of the speech and not upon the speaker. Varying degrees of protection are afforded to speech depending upon the speaker, the message and the forum in which it is delivered, and varying levels of protection are afforded to speech depending upon whether it is government speech, commercial speech, or “schoolhouse speech”. However, the issue is not, as you imply, whether the local school board may impose limitations upon the content of the speech within the schoolhouse but how, in establishing a program to solicit donors, they may pick and choose among potential sponsors.
The concerns raised by the sale of public school naming rights surpass settled questions of suppression of student speech to include issues of whether school boards can reject “bad name” sponsors or those who market undesirable products, whether naming rights constitute advertising (commercial speech subject to a different level of speech protection), whether the speech constitutes governmental speech by a private actor or private/commercial speech. The significance of the KKK case, apart from “Godwin’s Law”, is that the “Name a Highway” sponsor solicitation program is highly analogous to the sale of public naming rights. Personally, I do not share your tepid view of the First Amendment but, rather, whether the program concerns sponsorship of a highway or a school hallway, the First Amendment will not tolerate limiting access based upon the sponsor’s viewpoints. However, I do know of numerous instances where schools sought to distance themselves from disgraced donors, including Ken Lay who spread millions of dollars to schools in Missouri and Texas, Albert Taubman, the price fixing master of Sotheby’s who donated $15 million to Harvard, to Robert Brennan who became a significant embarrassment to Seton Hall after his imprisonment for money laundering to name a few. But, by all means, carry on, carry on; what could possibly go wrong since this is, after all, Newton.
@Lisap, I find the term “wikipedia like” insulting. I hope you didn’t mean it that way. I have been a lawyer for over 20 years, graduated top of my class, and clerked for the highest court in Massachusetts.
I have a little knowledge and experience with the First Amendment on both sides of it. When I got a law passed in Newton barring tobacco sales in pharmacies I was told that it would be overturned on First Amendment grounds. The retail pharmacies threatened a challenge but they didn’t. Commercial speech is not entitled to as much protection as human speech (Citizens United and its predecessors notwithstanding) and administrators in schools do indeed have more control over speech that is disruptive of the school environment or inappropriate, regardless of the source. I stand by my opinion although you are free to differ with it. But naming rights for schools (apart from selling naming rights for schools) has been around a long, long time and I am unaware of any successful challenge to not being picked to have your name on an auditorium or school.
As for potential embarrassment, that may be in the eye of the beholder. But that is something that can be worked out in the naming rights agreement, sort of like morality clauses in actors’ contracts (Charlie Sheen, call your agent).
Here’s where the law meets reality: there are not currently donors knocking on the schoolhouse door to name that door. The likelihood of a challenge because some person or organization was denied naming rights privileges is somewhat short of the likelihood of some person or organization requesting naming rights privileges.
Maybe there’s a sea-change coming that I don’t see. But, some guy just donated millions to BC High or BC Academy. And, St. Paul’s in New Hampshire has an endowment that would make most super-select colleges blush. There just doesn’t seem to be the same desire or willingness to privately fund public elementary or secondary education beyond bake sales and Red Sox ticket donations to the annual raffle.
Here’s the missing sign that there’s an opportunity here: there’s no big organization or wealthy person offering some large sum to the first public school who will take the money in exchange for naming rights. The reluctance seems to go both ways.
Ted,
When a highly relevant and possibly controlling case involves the KKK, it’s hardly out-of-bounds to raise the hypothetical of a KKK donation.
@Sean, I invoked Godwin’s Law only because at some point in every blog thread the Nazis, Hitler or the KKK will get mentioned. I merely found it amusing. But all joking aside, I am unaare of any Newton connection with the KKK (unless you count the Jackson Homestead because it was a stop on the Underground Railroad, but that would really be stretching it).
And to your other points, didn’t Newton resident and local radio personality Matty Siegel, already offer $100,000? Remember, the NSF is looking for people with a Newton connection. He lives here. There are a number of very successful alumni of the Newton Public Schools who might very well be interested in buying naming rights. Mike Striar, for whom I have a lot of respect, also suggested that there was substantial interest out there as well.
The School Committee retains sole authority for naming school facilities, and has adopted a fairly comprehensive and, IMHO, well thought out policy. This is not just some half-assed idea dashed off on the back of an envelope; a lot of thought went into it. I hope people will take the time to review the policy because God, like the Devil, is in the details.
@Sean– In this specific situation involving the naming rights for NNHS, the possibility of the KKK ending up as the sponsor is not hypothetical… it’s ABSURD!
It’s a valid point to ask what happens if an inappropriate sponsor pursues the naming opportunity. It’s equally valid to ask what happens if a good sponsor turns bad. But the threat of the KKK having and spending millions of dollars for the naming rights at NNHS is about as likely as the winning sponsor being from Uranus.
Regarding your “missing sign” theory… That’s simply not the way institutional naming rights work. Potential sponsors don’t come knocking at the door. And they certainly don’t knock on multiple doors waiting for the first door that opens. The process is one of solicitation. The institution or proxy identifies potential sponsors and pitches them on the idea. I’ll stick with my previous example…
While it would make sense for Nabisco to have an interest in changing the NNHS name to “Newtons High School” in order to promote their cookie product, that idea wouldn’t exactly work in Brookline. Nor would it work in [let’s say] Brockton, but for an entirely different reason.
@Mike,
The point of the reference to the case involving the KKK isn’t to suggest that they are likely to pursue naming rights in Newton, but rather because the case addresses whether a government sponsored program which sells naming rights may exclude a particular sponsor based upon disfavored views espoused by that organization. It’s little surprise that First Amendment cases frequently involve actors who engage in speech which is quite noxious to the community.
@Lisap– I understand your point. It’s a valid concern that needs to be addressed. I just don’t feel the KKK has a legitimate place in this debate. I understand you were referencing a specific case. But I think we should all agree, there is zero percent chance that organization is going to end up with the naming rights for NNHS.
Mike,
It’s the absurd cases that test a theory. If your First Amendment approach doesn’t pass the KKK test, it isn’t worth a damn.
But, I’ll give you a less absurd hypothetical. A bunch of liberal do-gooders decide to recognize the wonderfully tolerant environment created in Newton’s high schools and raise some money for the PFLAG Hall of Tolerance, complete with some permanent art commemorating various struggles for equal rights.
At the same time, after years of frustration with the bleeding heart accommodation of GLBT sensitivities, Brian Camenker decides to raise a little money for the Queers are wrong corridor.
Take the money from one? From both? From neither?
Ted,
I don’t doubt that there is a very serious and thoughtful policy. Should there be any interest in naming rights of any magnitude, I’m confident that the policy will be able to manage the interest and convert it into cash and a plaque.
But, there are three issues:
1. It’s a bad idea. With some relatively minor exceptions (auditoria, stadia, and fields), I’m not comfortable commercializing or otherwise offering naming for sale.
2. Whether or not it’s a good idea and Mike’s private conversations notwithstanding, there’s no indication that there’s any interest. Yes, to actually close the deal, you need to market, solicit and convert the interest. But, you also need to have a market, which I don’t think exists or is ready to be created.
3. The hunt for naming rights cash is another sign that the community is unwilling to pony up for high-quality universal free public education. We’re looking for secondary sources, when we should be going to the primary source: the tax-paying citizenry.
Sean– We can all come up with absurd hypotheticals. Under the specific circumstances of your absurd hypothetical, I would take the money from both, and LMFAO all the way to the bank to cash Camenker’s check.
I’d also like to comment on your Issue #3 directed at Ted… While you have every right to your opinion that taxes should pay for everything, I think that philosophy sells everyone short. I personally believe that government, particularly local government, needs to be more creative when it comes to generating revenue. I’ll also point out that the last override failed, leaving serious infrastructure problems with our school buildings and our system continuing its’ downward trend of educational offerings. Your approach would leave us stuck in the mud, right where we are, unless and until an override passes. That’s not a solution, and it’s certainly not something I find acceptable.
@Sean, I just need to check. Are you the same Sean that suggested charging tuition for public school? Really?
Mike,
There all just absurd hypotheticals until some slightly whacky case comes along and there’s no policy to address it. The point of the hypotheticals, however absurd, is to test the policy. If this naming rights ball gets rolling, I can guarantee that some nutjob with a little money is going to come along and want to name something. It might not be in Newton, but it’ll be somewhere.
Sean– Frankly, I don’t think you have too much to worry about. Even though I strongly support the naming rights concept, our best shot was before the ribbon was cut at the new North. We lost a lot of value by not pre-selling the naming rights there. Unfortunately I think NSF took too long to get this rolled out, and floated the idea to the public too early in the process. I admire them for trying and I would encourage them to keep going, because there’s still money to be raised from this idea. I’m also particularly encouraged by Mayor Warren’s willingness to pursue a new revenue source, and success would no doubt encourage him to pursue others. I strongly believe [as I’ve stated about a billion times in the past] alternative revenue sources can solve many of the fiscal problems our city faces year after year.