Setting aside the institutional failures within Harvard, shouldn't this also pose legal problems for the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation? I am certainly not a lawyer, but I thought the tax-benefits of a non-profit were supposed to be tied to some governance requirements and operating in pursuit of some mission other than profit. If when the Chan Zuckerberg foundation gives a donation to a school, an exec from Meta is then put on some Dean's council, and if the foundation's donation is used to pressure the school to advantage the corporation, then it seems like the foundation is operating as an arm of Meta, and is compromised as an independent philanthropic org.
CZI and CZF are structured as a for-profit LLC and a non-profit arm, respectively. Depending on where the money came from, it might not be a problem at all, though it could potentially jeopardize Harvard's nonprofit status. I'll leave it up to you to figure the odds of the IRS revoking that designation.
Isn't "Foundation" a word that is usually for non-profits? I understood the different between "Charity" and "Foundation" just to be about "Public" vs "Private" organization, but both of them being non-profits. Am I misunderstanding what "Foundation" means here?
The foundation here is a 501(c)(3) non profit. However it is not a public charity, which is a sub classification that comes with stricter rules and higher donation tax write-off limits.
People tend to assume all 501(c)(3)/nonproft and "public charity" are synonymous, but they aren't and that can make discussions like this confusing.
> However it is not a public charity, which is a sub classification that comes with stricter rules and higher donation tax write-off limits.
It sounds like you mean public charities have stricter rules. I find the opposite to be true. There are additional rules and reporting requirements that apply only to private foundations because of the limited funding and tight control of such organizations by a close-knit group of people.
The rules are different, so which you view as more restrictive dependa on your perspective.
In this case, the context is discussion of this claim:
> I thought the tax-benefits of a non-profit were supposed to be tied to some governance requirements and operating in pursuit of some mission other than profit
Thr greater tax benefits of public charities are indeed tied to governance requirements (specifically rules that restrict the board makeup of public charities) and mission alignment.
It's deeply dirty, in a sort of teflon get-away-with-anything way. Of course Harvard needs money to run, and has in the past accepted all manner of dubious donors, but implicitly receiving a payment quid pro quo to kill research is pretty low.
What's actually dirty? Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF): a tax breaks now, pay-give later DAF. It ostensibly does some community projects that are token billionaire pet projects, but it exists first and primarily to reduce taxes of the gigarich.
