As an addendum to my last post, it's worth mentioning that the term "donor intent" is being tossed around like a dishrag by politicians and others in discussions about the Ford Foundation situation and proposed legislation to make Michigan foundations give more at home. I've said before if I had a buck for every time someone has said "Henry Ford would be rolling in his grave blah blah blah" I'd be on my way to financial solvency.

Donor intent can be an ambiguous thing, particularly for those charters that were written decades ago. I view the donor intent purists a bit like those who take an "originalist" view of the Constitution: If it ain't in the text it doesn't exist. Of course, the donor intent card is usually played by those who oppose a particular grant on ideological grounds. Ford could put a gazillion dollars into a school voucher program and conservatives would leap for joy, regardless of the fact that ol' Henry didn't mention the issue in the foundation charter. In most cases donor intent is a matter of ideological perspective.

That said, I think foundations hurt themselves by not at least providing tacit acknowledgement of their founders as they communicate publicly about what they do. Tying specific grants or grant programs to the vision of the founder is even better. Not doing so just gives the partisan donor intent police more ammunition with which to attack foundation executives for being out of touch with the beliefs and ideas of those who so generously established the institutions they now lead.