Home
Showing Appreciation
In May of 1997 Edith and Henry Everitt revoked a $3,000,000 gift for the construction of a children’s zoo in New York City’s Central Park. The zoo was to replace a smaller children’s zoo in the park which had been constructed with funds donated by former New York Governor Herbert H. Lehman and his wife. A granite gate at the zoo entrance has an inscription on it honoring the Lehmans. A contract that the city entered into with the Everitts called for placing a plaque honoring the Everitt’s gift in the center pier of the gateway with two smaller plaques on flanking piers, one noting the Lehman’s gift of the original zoo, and the other noting their gift of the gateway. The city commission, which must approve changes in art and architecture on city owned property rejected the plan called for in the Everitt’s contract because the commission concluded that the name of an original donor should not be removed or obscured from view. Under the plan approved by the commission, the only official acknowledgment of the Everitt’s gift would have been a plaque two inches tall.
Were the Everitt’s justified in revoking their gift? If so, why? If not, why not?
Notes:
Fourth Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl, APPE, 2/26/98
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(c) Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE)
In May of 1997 Edith and Henry Everitt revoked a $3,000,000 gift for the construction of a children’s zoo in New York City’s Central Park. The zoo was to replace a smaller children’s zoo in the park which had been constructed with funds donated by former New York Governor Herbert H. Lehman and his wife. A granite gate at the zoo entrance has an inscription on it honoring the Lehmans. A contract that the city entered into with the Everitts called for placing a plaque honoring the Everitt’s gift in the center pier of the gateway with two smaller plaques on flanking piers, one noting the Lehman’s gift of the original zoo, and the other noting their gift of the gateway. The city commission, which must approve changes in art and architecture on city owned property rejected the plan called for in the Everitt’s contract because the commission concluded that the name of an original donor should not be removed or obscured from view. Under the plan approved by the commission, the only official acknowledgment of the Everitt’s gift would have been a plaque two inches tall.
Were the Everitt’s justified in revoking their gift? If so, why? If not, why not?
Notes:
Fourth Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl, APPE, 2/26/98
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
(c) Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE)
