Naming Opportunities Can Demonstrate Organizational Commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Nonprofits are subjected to persistent criticism around the practice of naming opportunities. The questions being lobbied are not new. Students, faculty, under-represented constituents, and the media have pointed to the disparities, if not the outright hypocrisy, in how naming rights are awarded. Who is being honored and why? Most often, the answer is the donor making the largest gift.
In light of the current focus on systemic racism, some organizations are considering naming rights removal often under daily pressure from the press. Many nonprofits are coming to terms with the risks inherent in the naming of institutional assets and facing the reality that ethical challenges may come from aligning with the ever-evolving legacies of individual, fallible people.
These risks are especially alarming in terms of philanthropy. There are accusations of donors “buying” a legacy through naming rights and using their financial means to realize self-serving motives. Those responsible for managing naming practices are bolstering naming policies to protect their organizations, provide the option to “unname” a space should a donor’s reputation become problematic. Nonprofits want to safeguard the ability to rescind naming rights should a donor’s behavior reflect negatively on the reputation of the organization.
Removing problematic recognition is, however, a reactive measure. Organizations can do more than plan for dealing with issues should they arise. Naming rights policy can be used to create an organizational environment that expresses gratitude and respect for a wider range of accomplishments, one that is at its core honorific and above the sway of privileged access. Nonprofits have the opportunity to use naming opportunities to actively encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Across the board, organizations need to take a closer look at the purpose of naming opportunities and weigh the benefits and risks of this practice. Traditionally, going back before the 20th century, the naming of institutional assets, especially buildings or physical spaces, was a method for honoring the service or accomplishments of an individual. In recent decades, the practice has become a tool for major gift solicitation, a means of securing large financial contributions.
The practice is, at its core, honorific even in the case of philanthropic naming. The nonprofit is honoring its most generous donors for their financial contributions and promising legacies within their communities for those donors. To those of us familiar with fundraising, philanthropic naming feels normal, obvious, and effective, but it is not seen the same way by other constituents. It is perceived as trading assets that should belong to the community as a whole for money provided by those with the means to make large gifts. To make matters worse, the number of naming opportunities has escalated, exacerbating the alarm of those criticizing the practice as elitist. Constituents outside the advancement team demand equity, seeking an increase in recognition for those who have contributed to the organizational community in ways not measured in dollars.
One answer is readily available: create more opportunities for recognition, especially ones that are based on measures of achievement other than financial giving. Identify the values held by the community as a whole and honor those who demonstrate them. Generosity will likely be one of those values, but not the only one. Honor longtime service and excellence. Honor the first, the most, or the only… by whatever measure matters to your community. Recognizing excellence of every sort only contributes to the legacy-building afforded to those who make major gifts. They are positioned in a larger, broader scope of recognition, a context that is ultimately more valuable than being recognized only alongside their financial peers.
Recommendations for increasing organizational commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion through naming opportunities:
Diversify the recognition opportunities available on campus. Philanthropic naming opportunities should be only one among many opportunities to publicly recognize individuals. Encourage service and accomplishment-based recognition programs. Fund history displays that include recognition of individuals. Demand truthful storytelling.
Create new opportunities for naming recognition. New construction will likely remain the purview of philanthropic namings, whereas the naming of existing streets, green spaces, or building entries provide opportunities to recognize other individuals’ legacies within the organization. The ideas are endless: lockers are named after coaches, conference rooms are named for accomplished researchers, benches are named for the long-standing staff members.
Use all recognition to convey the history of the organization by including a brief statement about the individual(s) and their involvement with and contribution to the organization. Context-setting storytelling is crucial to legacy building. Names alone are not enough.
Define a consistent program of recognition sign components and set a “value” for all nameable assets. This value informs the size, cost, and design of the recognition sign components used for both honorific and philanthropic recognition.
Identify or design multiple opportunities for recognition with clearly communicated qualifications and categories of recognition. The formal naming of spaces is not the only tool available for recognition. There is the opportunity to name intangibles (faculty positions, funds, programs, etc.) as well as various groups to which a person can be inducted.
Establish a review committee with members representing various perspectives. This committee should approve what organizational assets are offered for naming, the values placed on those assets, and the individuals nominated for naming recognition. A committee providing multiple points-of-view will be more likely safeguard to diversity and inclusion. Make diversity, equity, and inclusion a priority for the committee.
Consider a rubric for recognition, especially in terms of naming rights, that is broader than just a single major gift. The set of requirements often includes a long-standing relationship between the donor and the organization, multiple gifts over time, active giving, volunteerism, and a consistent and undeniably positive reputation.
I’ve worked for more than 25 years with nonprofits of every size and type. These experiences lead me to predict and promote restraint in the use of philanthropic naming opportunities. We cannot sustain the pay-to-play nature of philanthropic naming opportunities as they currently exist. Our society will work through issues of inclusion and equity, demanding that nonprofits consider how legacies are built and which characteristics of individual excellence they will encourage and align with along the way. While philanthropy is important, so are professional and academic achievement, outstanding service, long-term engagement, advocacy, and volunteerism. Creating a more diverse community, providing the support necessary for new or rising members of the community to excel, and inclusively recognizing a wider spectrum of excellence will result in a broader cohort of individuals worthy of a permanent institutional legacy.
There is a growing list of policy examples and recognition guidelines available online:
Searches for naming opportunity policy and naming rights policy bring up a wide variety of examples.
The Association of Donor Relations Professionals has compiled examples supplied by its members in the Knowledge Center and past presentations on the topic are available in the Archives.
The Heurista blog post, Latest Thinking Regarding Naming Opportunities, points to recommended resources, including a report prepared by Yale University as it faced name removal on a residential college.
The NC State Naming Opportunities Toolkit is a comprehensive document, itemizing both policies and procedures. It thoroughly addresses the subject of naming from the perspective of philanthropic naming although it is less comprehensive on the subject of honorary naming.
Written By Anne Manner-McLarty, September 22, 2020
Anne Manner-McLarty is the managing editor of the Journal of Donor Relations and Stewardship and the founder and lead strategist of Heurista. Created in 2011, Heurista is the leading resource for consulting specific to donor relations and stewardship, with particular expertise in the donor recognition strategy, program design, and implementation.