But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.
Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.
I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.
He might mean a certain specific group within the university. Ie the donor can donate to the University as a whole, but not say a specific branch of economics.
The university knows who’s paying its bills and has agreed to keep it a secret.
A truly anonymous donation should be double-blind to the donor AND recipient. If you don’t want credit, don’t expect influence either.
I don’t know what you mean by
But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.
The recipient doesn’t know the donor, and the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.
Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.
I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.
Bank statement from around the same time and of similar amount?
He might mean a certain specific group within the university. Ie the donor can donate to the University as a whole, but not say a specific branch of economics.