This summer, students are again advocating for Stevens to rename Gianforte Family Hall (GFH) through a change.org petition and other initiatives happening primarily through social media. Citing “harmful legislation […] which include an anti-transgender sports ban and limitations on abortion rights” that Montana Governor Greg Gianforte ‘83 has passed during his time in office, students believe the building name does not align with Stevens’ values even amidst Gianforte’s donations.
But is renaming the building even possible?
Also known as the Gateway Academic Center, GFH was officially named in 2017 after initial plans to name the building Gianforte Academic Center faced criticism. At the time, students organized a change.org petition titled “Explanation behind the naming of ‘Gianforte Academic Center,’” citing concerns about “the implications of accepting a donation from Greg Gianforte and naming a building after him when he has acted antithetically to the Stevens strategic plan and mission statement.”
President Nariman Farvardin responded to student concerns in an email, explaining that Gianforte “never made any request of the University to promote specific political, religious, or other positions associated with this gift […] His gift to Stevens does not come with a political agenda.”
Following this email, Gianforte pled guilty to a misdemeanor assault which triggered an increase in student concerns; President Farvardin appointed a Committee to Consider the Naming of the Gianforte Academic Center as a response. It was this committee that came to the decision of changing the name from Gianforte Academic Center to Gianforte Family Hall, to recognize “others in the Gianforte family including: Susan Gianforte […] and Mr. Gianforte’s mother Dale and father Frank Gianforte ‘58 […] Mr. and Mrs. Gianforte have agreed to this change in the name of the academic center.”
According to an email sent by President Farvardin, the work of the committee additionally found that “The Gianforte gift imposed no requirements or restrictions on Stevens’ programs or operations. The only agreement Stevens has made in accepting these gifts is to devote the funds to the building of an academic center and to provide naming recognition.” With this in mind, it would seem that the naming of the building is final if there was an agreement between Stevens and Gianforte. The extent of this agreement and whether or not it was contractual is unclear.
However, the same email includes details given by the Board of Trustees, stating “the Gianfortes have asked nothing of the University other than that their funds be used to construct the academic center. Their gifts come with no restrictions or requirements which call into question Stevens’ policies or values.” Whether the naming of the building specifically was attached to Gianforte’s donations is unclear.
Stevens additionally has a gift acceptance policy, which was discussed in the Stevens for Solidarity GroupMe chat among students involved in summer initiatives. The policy states that “Stevens reserves the right to consider whether removal of the name would be in the best interests of Stevens. Any decision to rename a building, facility, program or other asset will be made by the Board of Trustees on recommendation of the President.” In addition, it states that gift officers who consider the acceptance of gifts should consider “The historic and current reputation of the prospective donor,” which may be relevant to Gianforte, as well as “core values of the university and the ways in which the gift and any name attached to a supported facility, program or asset will further such values” among other things.
Following and interpreting the gift acceptance policy, it would seem that renaming GFH is possible. However, agreements made between Gianforte and Stevens that have not been made known to students may make the feasibility more complex than currently known.
After reaching out to Beth McGrath, Vice President for University Relations, The Stute received an exclusive response from Thania Benios, Director of Public Relations, which is found in its entirety below:
Response-to-The-Stute-6.18.212Notably, administration has explained that “Legal agreements with donors frequently have associated naming requirements. This is the case with the Gianforte gift.” What exactly the legal agreement consisted of between Stevens and Gianforte is unclear. The response ends with “there is no indication that it [the renaming] will be revisited,” not completely eliminating the possibility but making it unlikely.
Be First to Comment