Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

July 11, 2008

California Universities Review Whether to Strip Buildings of a Donor's Name

The Universities of California at Los Angeles and at Irvine are trying to decide whether to strip Henry Samueli’s name from its engineering schools now that Mr. Samueli has pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to financial regulators, reports the Los Angeles Times

Mr. Samueli, co-founder of Broadcom Corp., and his wife donated a total of $50-million to the two engineering schools in 1999.

His guilty plea last month to making a false statement to federal authorities investigating the alleged backdating of stock options awarded to employees at Broadcom has officials at the universities reconsidering his name on their schools, said Brad Hayward, a spokesman for the University of California. Neither Henry Samueli nor his lawyer, Gordon Greenberg, would comment.

(Free registration is required to view this article.)

Friday July 11, 2008 | Permalink

Comments

1. Well George W. Bush will have his name on a presidential liberarium someday, and he’s lied to everybody.. Really, if they want to take Mr. Samueli’s name off the building, that’s fine as long as they return the money. The odds are good that anyone who can afford to donate 50m has done a little fudging or outright lying here or there, most don’t get caught. If it was for a building at a school of ethics, well that might be a problem. It is a good PR move for UCLA Irvine to publicly consider it, but in the end, they should leave it be.

   — Suzanne    Jul 11, 01:17 PM    #

2. This COP opportunity to offer professional insights is very valuable. But, in order to maintain a reasonable level of decorum you should require that respondents insert their full name. Otherwise, activity by serious individuals will be compromised when the discussion slips to the level of Suzanne’s posting. Even the thought that anyone capable of making a gift of $50M is likely a liar is absolutely absurd.

   — Richard Murray    Jul 11, 02:39 PM    #

3. Sorry didn’t mean to get people in a stir. I’m not calling anyone liars, I’m saying that out there in the business world it’s not all perfect and straight up and nice and that I don’t think that someone’s gift needs to be diminished because he/she did something (not any one specific thing) that probably happens a lot more than we know. i.e not everyone gets caught.

   — Suzanne    Jul 11, 03:14 PM    #

4. And I’ll never post again so you can rest easy.

   — Suzanne    Jul 11, 03:17 PM    #

5. Suzanne- please do not let anyone else keep you from voicing an opinion- especially if that someone is not offering additional value to the discussion but is merely reacting to how you expressed it and not the substance of what you shared. I believe you are correct that the university is wise to publicly consider the dilemma and they will likely decide what to do based on reaction to this issue from their constituents. I also agree that if the name is removed, then the money should be returned. It is a constant challenge for us to adhere to the principles and ethics of our profession while we consider how fine of a social screen we place upon any of our donors- it would not be long before we could not accept donations from anyone. At the same time, we are obligated to uphold the highest ethical standard. I will be interested to see how they resolve this issue and would also like to hear from anyone else who has an actual contribution to this discussion to share- with or without a full name.

   — One with no name (Dick)    Jul 11, 07:49 PM    #

6. Suazanne, I agree that postings should not impune someone based only on a personal assumption or a political position.

   — Steve    Jul 13, 11:17 AM    #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Federal Prosecutors Oppose Action of Civil-Liberties Group in Muslim-Charity Trial
Next: Salaries of College Fund Raisers Climb Steadily, Survey Shows

---

Copyright © 2009 The Chronicle of Philanthropy