If she received grants or awards, the 'very generous donor' would be Dartmouth and it's alumni, and they may be generous to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
I don't think Dartmouth or its alumni are interested in reimbursement, either. Just a buck right now as an indication of appreciation for their support is sufficient.
Since Dartmouth grads are in the top 5 of the college ROI list I'm sure many of them will volunteer to repay with interest later on, perhaps even on their 50th reunion.
I think the 50 year class reunion coincides with the graduation. There is a lot of tradition involved, and there is a strong bond amongst the corresponding alumni classes.
I gather the graduated class was zealous, perhaps overzealous, in pursuing donations. I'm pretty sure, however, that only a dollar donation was sufficient and that it was prominently communicated as being sufficient.
I think her public statement upped the ante and other students responded. Thus the controversy.
I do scratch my head over the anti-ivy sentiment in this thread, or with the argument that they are stuffed full to the brim with liberals. Ivies seem to be supportive of their students, and, for sure, not every one is paying $50K a year. That's due in part to private party contributions such as those discussed here.
I question, therefore, why this student is reflexively held up as an icon of one standing upon their principles without first questioning if she had availed herself of support from the very system she is criticizing.
An unfortunate situation for all. The school didn't deserve the negative publicity, and it will be just a blip on the radar screen for them. I think the student hurts herself here, though. I don't see this as a resume enhancer. Dartmouth grad on the resume certainly looks better to me than her version of Dartmouth (even though it sucks) grad.
If it were my child I would tell her to divvy up the buck and button it until graduation is over. That's out of respect for the campus atmosphere for the returning alumni.
I understand what you are saying. But I think there is an issue that needs addressing by the University. The heavy-handed demand for 100% participation is very similar to what I have seen happen in the workplace with United Way campaigns.
As a manager at the time I felt that participation was expected, but I resolutely refused to donate a dime that might make its way to an anti-gun group. I found that the policy, as it had been modified to suit people such as myself, permitted me to select a particular organization from a lengthy list. I found a deserving Scout organization in another state that sent me an individualized thank-you for several years.
I don't doubt that the student in this example did a service for her university if they modified their heavy-handed approach. It isn't "charity" if it is extorted from the "charitable", anymore than the massive federal handouts are charity. They are extortion plain and simple. If you don't choose to participate, people with guns will appear and take you to prison. The punishment at the university was less, but still punishment.