[Commentary] The University of Iowa has a long history of naming state-owned buildings and institutions after benefactors, who donate large sums of money. You would be hard pressed to walk around the University of Iowa campus for too long without bumping into a building named after Roy J. Carver, John Pappajohn, John Colloton or Marvin Pomerantz. I’ve always imagined that one day my grandchildren will be attending the Pappajohn University of Iowa.
But when the Wellmark Foundation, the charitable arm of Iowa’s largest insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, offered the university a $15 million gift in exchange for naming rights to the University of Iowa College of Public Health, the public health faculty rejected the deal before it reached the Regents’ desk for final approval. The faculty cited ethical concerns about maintaining research neutrality when linking a public institution with a for-profit company in the public health field.
The University of Iowa College of Public Heath is housed on the second floor of the UI Hospital
James Merchant, dean of the College of Public Health, expressed his opposition to the name condition in a letter sent to Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield CEO John Forsyth, contending the move would be viewed “cynically … as a move by Wellmark to gain market leverage” from the college and UI’s image and brand. He also addressed concern for research credibility.
Merchant’s sentiment was echoed by university faculty members.”Wellmark will get the same range of benefits — and more — from having its name on a University of Iowa building,” said Nick Johnson, a University of Iowa law professor. “We’ve long since decided we’re willing to sell off the university’s good reputation. If you haven’t yet guessed, that troubles me.”
While single benefactors wanting naming rights to a building or institution in exchange for a donation may be motivated by immortality, the motives for corporate entities are less clear, and this is where ethical lines are blurred. Wellmark’s philanthropic desire cannot be driven by immortality, because this wouldn’t bode well with its shareholders at the quarterly stockholders’ meeting.
Given the skyrocketing costs of health care and health insurance premiums, maybe Wellmark is trying to cash in on some good will. The health insurance companies have been targeted by presidential candidates lately, and Michael Moore’s new documentary expose, “Sicko,” has singled them out as one of the primary causes for the health care crisis in America.
Or maybe Wellmark was driven purely by philanthropic and altruistic motives. Had Wellmark offered the gift without the condition of naming rights, the public would be more willing to buy this. If the Wellmark Foundation’s gift was inspired by altruism, an unselfish concern for the welfare of others, there should not be any strings attached. Altruism is unconditional. This idealism, however, may have been shattered when Wellmark rescinded its $15 million gift offer. In a letter to Merchant, Forsyth wrote, “Unless and until there is unwavering support from both the college and university administrative leadership for a major gift as originally solicited by the college’s capital campaign committee leadership, our gift offer will remain withdrawn.”
Not only does Forsyth make Wellmark’s motive for procuring the naming rights of the public college evident, but he goes on to implicate the public health faculty’s motives in his letter to Merchant. “Your apparent rejection of our gift could be construed as an attempt to short-circuit the prescribed decision-making processes before the matter ever reaches the (UI) president or the regents. That is disturbing,” wrote Forsyth.
Well, so much for building good will.