New UO fundraiser to focus on scholarships, student services

Just kidding, apparently Uncle Phil’s not going to come through with the second $500M for the Knight Campus, so they’re going to hire a specialist to hit up our other donors – to report to Knight Director Rob Guldberg and not UO Development, so there won’t be any leakage. And they’ve hired an external search firm, Isaacson Miller, to keep the details out of the public record.

Trigger warning: They’ve pulled out every buzzword in the lexicon for this one:


Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to New UO fundraiser to focus on scholarships, student services

  1. uomatters says:

    Those are good questions, thanks. I will try and get some answers.

  2. vhils says:

    What is the substance exactly, that we’re hiring a senior director of development for Knight campus? Its not exactly shocking news, and the corporate speak aside (development officers are definitely more corporate-oriented in their rhetoric than academic), I’d say you/we should be somewhat happy that they’re putting fundraising manpower into an individual unit, all be it the newest fanciest unit. If they weren’t you’d either likely complain that Knight Campus funding is coming completely out of central budget or that CAS fundraisers are being used to raise money for Knight. If you want to ask some useful questions, I’d look at how the centralization of development has impacted other units and departments. CAS, for instance, is down to one senior development officer for the entire college, not that long ago they had four, and its my understanding they’re not planning on hiring anyone new anytime soon. Another useful question is exactly what is the total amount of unrestricted gifts are currently controlled by the Provost and the President? One of their rationales for centralizing development was to move away from restricted gifts so that the University had the flexibility to use the endowment income as needed, rather than for narrow special causes/needs. So here we are in a situation where those funds could be easily pointed in COVID-related crisis directions, is that happening?

    • Townie says:

      If I was to guess I would say many potential donors and alumni have expressed interest in contributing to the Knight Campus, after all it is a big project that has serious economic potential.

      As UOM said, Schill implied UO would not try to court new donors for the KC. However, maybe development officers think they lost out on some serious $$$ and now they are reevaluating their fundraising strategy. If I was a big wig from Portland, Seattle or the Bay Area I would probably be seduced/transfixed by the allure of the KC.

  3. vhils says:

    Distract? You didn’t write about Schill’s previous statements anywhere above, you wrote “to report to Knight Director Rob Guldberg and not UO Development,” which is verifiably, via your own linked doc, untrue. You like to distract from the actual facts when it suits you, when perhaps a more measured and researched response would, in fact, be of actual use to the community. You’re an academic, act like one and at least do the reading.

  4. uomatters says:

    Nice attempt to distract. The real question is why is Pres Schill backing off from his statement in the Senate (made after he’d brought in money for an endowed chair for KC, if I recall) that Knight Campus fundraising would be limited to “one specific donor” and the Knight Campus would not compete with other UO causes for donations?

    • Dog says:

      I believe that we now live in a time, at all levels, all the way to Trump that administrators feel duty bound to make the most people happy in the real time moment. This means

      a) there is no such thing as consistency anymore

      b) there is no such thing as commitment (that should be fuckin’ obvious to everyone in America)

      c) backtracking is now acceptable because ZERO accountability now exists

      d) since Schill is an expert at a,b and c he can easily land a new job when the timing exists to make the most people happy in the moment

  5. vhils says:

    Again, UOMatters sloppy when it comes to actual details that don’t fit your narrative. Per the position description you linked to as “etc.” the CDO will be “Reporting to and in consultation with the senior associate vice president for development (SAVP) and the executive director of the Knight Campus”. Joint reporting is exactly how all senior development officers that are embedded in specific units (like CAS) operate. And, btw, there already are multiple UO development officers who focus on scholarships and student success, and who have been working tirelessly, in a very difficult financial environment, to quickly raise money for the student crisis fund.

  6. Townie says:


    Second $500M was always wishful thinking, but more money may come from him down the line.

    I think they want the Knight Campus’ academic programs to be larger. This will require more donor support as the KC endowment will not be sufficient. Furthermore, there is not enough money for the ROC (rest of campus) to pitch in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.