When I was a child my grandmother used to say it was better to give than to receive. My father was a little more direct: “You’ll get what you’re given and if you don’t like it we’ll give it to the little boy down the street!”. I have since learned two things: there was no little boy down the street and although it is better to give than receive there is an art to accepting generosity.

We all like to think that we are capable of making our own way in life but there are some who need a helping hand. That helping hand may be in the form of a government or agency benefit. In other cases it may be once-off relief in response to natural disasters. In our community and society there is a natural expectation that those in genuine need are our collective responsibility.

Then there is the concept of corporate philanthropy. It may not be a topic that readily creeps into water cooler conversation but can be a very real example of our humanity. We see a growing number of organisations getting behind such initiatives as Red Nose Day, daffodil day, crop-a-cop, pink lady and recently Mo-vember. We have also seen high profile individuals initiate their own personal foundations in support of various and often quite personal causes.

Within the past few months, the world mourned the death of Paul Newman. The obituaries seemed to highlight his acting career and philanthropic works in equal measure. And recently the story of Elvis Presley’s charity donations was pointed out to me with the added note the he didn’t claim anything back on tax. Apparently his view was that it wasn’t really charitable giving (my words) if you claimed it back.

Whether corporations or individuals claim it back on tax is arguably secondary to the primary act of giving. If the cause is genuine and the donation is given with a good heart then isn’t that the important thing? Some needy groups wouldn’t receive anywhere near the amounts and support they do if the possibility of a tax break wasn’t at least a consideration. In many ways it can sustain the possibility of being able give over a longer period.

I suspect that many universities within Australia rely on philanthropy in the form of donations and gifts from their alumni. My understanding is that this may amount to tens of millions for some of the more established universities. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop them from crying poor and elbowing smaller educational establishments out of the way when Budget time rolls round. The irony is that some of these institutions are wasteful enough with the taxpayer funds they receive without putting their hands out for more!

Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t that more resources shouldn’t go to the higher education sector, it’s just that some educational institutions appear a little disingenuous when it comes to their priorities for student outcomes.

For example, isn’t the government canvassing the introduction of student fees for sporting, social and welfare services? Didn’t that exist before university boards where “encouraged” to vote them out? How many of those same boards redirected their philanthropic donations to fill that funding shortfall or did those services just disappear?

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.  

Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter