Be fair to our rich uncle

By RICHARD BOGARTZ

Published on December 05, 2008

A letter to the editor claimed that Amherst College does not donate its fair share to Amherst. The argument goes: Dartmouth College, endowment of $3.5 billion, recently contributed $9.5 million to Hanover, therefore, AC, endowment of $1.33 billion, should proportionately contribute $3.5 million. AC is here, it has the money, and Amherst has significant financial challenges. The clincher is: AC has a huge impact on the town and so should pay its fair share.

Naturally, agreement is universal.

In childhood, "fair" was simple. If five people ate a small cake, a fair share for each was one-fifth of the cake. Proportionality and equity sufficed. Then things got more complicated. In choosing teams, we let the second captain get two choices after the first captain chose the best player. The consensus was that simply alternating choices prevented fair skill distribution. Such considerations invited disagreement about what was fair. Was second and third choice equivalent to first and fourth? Then we grew up to discover the delights of taxation and its fairness issues. Flat vs. progressive taxes, state taxes or not, taxing churches or exempting. Because alternative criteria could be defended, "fair" devolved into "the way I prefer, and here's why." The seemingly quantitative became the political.

Is comparing AC's contribution to Dartmouth's fair? Is the Dartmouth contribution typical of private colleges in small towns or is it an outlier, an unusual, atypical contribution? Likewise for the Williams College contribution. Were there special circumstances in the relations between these colleges and their towns? Without such facts we can't tell where fairness lies.

Reciprocity is an aspect of fairness. So let's consider the "huge impact" that AC has on Amherst. Probably "impact" does not refer to the availability to Amherst of lectures, concerts, sporting events, AC library, Dickinson Homestead, Mead Museum, the observatory, or the reputation of the town as the home of a world class private college. Probably not the taxes paid by the college employees or the AC students' support for many town businesses. This "huge impact" requires detailing to justify AC owing the town $3.5 million. I wonder if after the tallying is done the town might not in fact owe AC some dollars instead of the other way around. If so, would there be letters to the editor urging that the town pay up?

Naturally, universal snickering.

Lacking facts and valuations, we can't compute where reciprocity lies. Let's look elsewhere. Perhaps it is actually not fairness based on impact that prompts the payment demands. What then? Deep pockets? As if the town has a rich uncle. Your rich uncle doesn't really owe you anything. But he has so much and you are struggling. Wouldn't it only be fair for him to donate? An attempt to restore balance where great imbalance lies. Yes, that seems fair. And it is family. Isn't AC a member of the Amherst family? But should we presume to redirect AC endowment donations from their intended purpose, furthering AC, to the unintended purpose of supporting Amherst? What arguments can be made that supporting Amherst actually does further AC. Perhaps a well-functioning town enriches the lives of AC students. Perhaps increases their safety. Perhaps these are the arguments we should be making rather than unresolvable competing claims of fairness.

Maybe it isn't deep pockets but envy. Do we see unfairness in our having to pay property taxes while AC is exempt? But consider, it is not unheard of for towns to make concessions to attract business. If we had no Amherst College here, I wonder what sort of concessions the town would be willing to make to attract such a "business." Would we be willing to exempt it from paying property taxes? Fortunately the commonwealth has taken the question of taxing educational institutions out of our hands. Once in a while the state gets it right.

"Fairness" is too wobbly. Let's find more stable, consensual incentives.

Richard Bogartz is a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts.