Quote:
Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Again, if Exxon had said their money was contingent on the school not showing any anti-oil films, then that would be a problem.
|
Actually, I'd say that's LESS of problem, because then it would be a clear decision to not accept the donation. At least they'd be being up-front about it, rather than try to exert pressure after the fact. I'm not saying they necessarily did that, but that door would never open.
Quote:
Even the NTSA has said Exxon has no control and has never attempted to exert control. I suppose they are bad because they are an oil company, and oil companies are ALL bad these days...
|
That's been my whole point all along - maybe they (and you) didn't even realize it, but by saying that part of the reason for not showing the film was the risk of losing a targeted donor shows Exxon, perhaps not even consciously or purposely, exerting control over the curriculum. How many times do I need to say this?
Quote:
|
Just to show MY cynicism....A donor could, (say Exxon) simply "say" they would "appreciate" certain actions. No written record, no paper trail, looks clean and neat to the rest of us.
|
I'm 100% positive that this happens regularly, particularly in politics.