[Christien]

Apples and oranges. If Schulich were a pedophile who ripped off retirement funds, the organization accepting the money should know that beforehand (i.e. do their research). If they didn't know that, and it came to light, I would think they would very quickly rename the building, etc. If there was a contract in place to say the building name couldn't be changed, etc. etc. I would think there would be an escape clause if the donor were to somehow tarnish the image. Surely if I can think of that potential problem in a few seconds of typing, people accepting a donation for $10 million should be able to consider that. Furthermore, I would hope that a school like McGill would have the integrity to out a high-level donor if he/she were found out to be a pedophile, scam artist, etc. and then yes, show the film.

In the case of Exxon, my point has nothing to do with whether or not they were known to be "evil" before the donation, it's the influence said donation wields. Even if it were an organization I fully believed in and supported, even donated money to myself, I would not want them being able to contribute to the education system.

you wrote:
Here's where we differ. You think that a minority of private citizens have an agenda at work when they donate money, I think the opposite. I think a minority DON'T have an agenda.

You're right, we differ on this. We could probably argue this till the cows come home, and never really know for sure, because we just don't know the individuals making the donations personally. Corporations ALL have an agenda - it could be benign, say advertising, or evil, say trying to buy influence in the white house to tilt legislation their way, despite it being bad for everyone except their shareholders. I don't believe ALL private donors, or even the majority of them, have an agenda other than perhaps personal gratification in the form of a legacy. I'm sure there are a few, but definitely only a few.