The history of philanthropy shows a recurrent movement from the voluntary to the involuntary, from gift to tax. Without the voluntary dimension there is only the involuntary, without the freedom of the gift there is only the coercion of the tax. To possess the right to give money is an important right we take for granted. When we demean fund raising, we jeopardize the individual right to be philanthropic, the right to seek voluntary support for the ideas and activities we believe to be important.

The purpose that inspired some enlightened administrators back in the 1950's -- such as E. H. Hopkins of Washington University, for example -- was that the end of voluntary support deserved means that were not degrading or discomfiting but disinterested and professional. I think Hoppy and his colleagues of those days were on the right track. I'm not at all sure their effort to advance professionalism has been sustained since that time, or that we understand as well as they did how important the effort is.

To suggest the professionalization of fund raising in higher education is to suggest that institutional integrity and honesty are possible. That comes first. If the institution has not internalized its own basic purposes, advancement of those purposes is bound to be in part a sham. When institutional purposes are formulated for development purposes, it means that the marketing department is in charge of design and production. That may work sometimes in selling appliances; it shouldn't work in education.

To speak of the integrity of an institution means that what it is and what it says about itself are congruent. No development office can make that happen. That is a presidential and trustee responsibility, reflecting the quality and standards of the faculty. In higher education, as in life, deception of others almost always follows deception of self. In the short run, self-deception by the president and the trustees is almost always easier than facing the reality of institutional improvement.

The second requisite of professionalizing fund raising is a set of standards. Fund raising is based on persuasion, on interpersonal relations directed toward a conscious goal. It is an ethical quagmire, a Slough of Despond for those who can't find firm ethical footing underneath. It is a natural field for what is being referred to these days as "applied ethics." Yet I don't recall ever attending serious workshops at development meetings that were designed to help development staff better understand the ethical aspects of their work. Nor do I recall ever attending a meeting at which the institutional responsibility of the president to know and understand these ethical problems had a prominent place on the agenda. Once again, standards of ethical practice are set by the president and the trustees. Presumably, they know what those standards should be.

My third and last point about professionalization pertains to the fund raising staff themselves. There must be institutional purposes that are based in reality, there must be institutional standards of ethical behavior, and the burden for both of these -- for formulating them and monitoring their implementation -- rests on the president and the trustees. When the president and trustees take the responsibility seriously, they put great emphasis on recruiting people who can fulfill the role effectively. They pay a great deal of attention to personal character, and try to get behind the mask that every job candidate is presumed to wear.

They look for intelligence and solid education. Strong verbal skills are essential, because persuasion is an art of words. But reasoning requires intelligence and interpreting an academic institution also requires a sound liberal education.

The development staff member, once found and recruited, is made a full and worthy part of the institution. The development function is recognized and accepted, the rapport between the development office and the faculty is open and balanced.

The development staff member, finally, wants to do this kind of work. He considers it intellectually respectable as well as difficult and complex, and he can cope with the ethical ambiguities that are part of his life. He is also content with a supporting role.

These things do happen. Some institutions come fairly close to trying to be what they say they are, and some have standards of performance that would bring honor to a law court or to a scientific laboratory. But most institutions seem to take their development program for granted, and measure its performance on "results," as if the funds were really raised by the fund raisers alone, fund raisers with their tricks and inside knowledge and thick skin.

I worry about the development function, then, however it is organized, because voluntary support is the key to that degree of autonomy that makes the difference between our system and all others. This dreary, demeaning, grubby, scrambling for money, as we so often think and talk about it, may be the last piece that solves the puzzle that is our free and enviable collection of colleges and universities. It is the one most important interest all of us here today have in common.

It can't be left to fund raisers, public relations officers, or alumni directors. It can't be left to CASE. The entire institution and the entire educational system depend on the integrity of development, or advancement, or even fund raising -- if we can dare to call it that.