Chapman accepts millions from Charles Koch Foundation, headed by conservative donor

Illustrated by Emma Stessman

Last December, Chapman received a $5 million donation from the Charles Koch Foundation to help establish the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy, which aims to combine the studies of humanities and economics.

The Charles Koch Foundation is a philanthropic organization that has donated millions of dollars to colleges across the nation to create a “talent pipeline” of libertarian-minded students, according to findings by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative news organization. Charles Koch and his brother, David Koch, are billionaires known to support conservative efforts and groups that deny climate change. The brothers were the subjects of a 2016 book called “Dark Money,” which revealed how they have pooled their wealth to influence academia and U.S. politics.

The $5 million donation, which is part of the $15.8 million that established the Smith Institute, adds to about $177,000 that the foundation donated to Chapman between 2009 and 2015, according to tax records. The money has been used to fund professorships in departments across the school, mainly in economics and philosophy.

As of January, 319 colleges and universities across the country have received financial support from the Charles Koch Foundation. Chapman is one of the schools that has received a foundation grant, after the foundation donated $5 million to help establish the Smith Institute last December. Graphic by Emma Stessman

“(The foundation wants) to fund positions that will represent a conservative, right-wing, libertarian viewpoint, and that is exactly what the Koch brothers stand for,” said Nubar Hovsepian, the chair of the political science department at Chapman. “I have no problem with people who hold these ideals getting hired. I have a problem when money corrupts the university.”

Hovsepian, whose department has not yet been approached by the institute, said that he would rather step down as chair than accept professors funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.

Read “A Case Study on Academic Crime” here:

George Mason University and Florida State University have received the highest total donations from the foundation’s contributions to higher education, according to tax documents up to 2015. In February, George Mason students filed a lawsuit against the university, claiming that the donations came with certain conditions and interfered with faculty hiring. At Florida State University, an independent investigation found that programs funded by the foundation pushed a curriculum that matched its ideologies.

Jerry Funt, an alumnus of Florida State University, co-founded “UnKoch My Campus,” a campaign that seeks to expose the “dark money” donated to universities. Funt said he felt like some of his professors were shaping his political ideology during his first semester at the school.

“I was almost sold on these ideals, even though they were completely different from what I had been taught in the past – until I found out about this funding,” Funt said. “That’s when I started to look at my classes more critically. I realized that there were whole parts of economic theory that weren’t being covered or were being glossed over as wrong.”

“I have a problem when money corrupts the university.”

When it comes to economics, libertarians generally believe that free-market approaches are the most effective, and that people should have the right to freely offer goods and services without government intervention, according to the Libertarian Party’s website.

University President Daniele Struppa said that the brothers aren’t the kind of conservatives that most people may have in mind, denying that the donations are “dark” and “unethical.”

“Unethical is when you take money and people don’t know that you are taking it. Unethical is when people tell you what to do and you pretend that’s not the case. Unethical is when there is money that is being exchanged under the table,” Struppa said. “Here, everything is completely on the table.”

But not all Chapman professors agree with Struppa.

In late October, a committee in the Argyros School of Business and Economics voted to hire two tenured professors – the highest form of professorship – funded by these donations. While this is only a recommendation to Provost Glenn Pfeiffer, who will make the final decision by the end of this month, Dan Kovenock, a professor in the Economic Science Institute, resigned from his position as chair of that committee, concerned that there was not an open search for the candidates, and that there was a “lack of objectivity” coming from the university, he said.

The candidates recommended for hire are Michael Moses, a contributing editor at libertarian magazine Reason, and Katharine Gillespie, an English professor, who are married to each other. Representatives from the Smith Institute first presented Moses and Gillespie to the English department in September, which voted 15 to six against hiring them.

Before the faculty members voted, English professor Ian Barnard asked Moses during a research presentation in September about the ethical implications of the foundation’s donation. Moses answered the question, but when the video of the presentation circulated among English faculty members, Barnard’s question had been edited out.

“Such a question during a job seminar was rude,” Director of the Smith Institute Bart Wilson wrote to the English department in an email obtained by The Panther.

Later, the video was re-published on YouTube and included Barnard’s question at the end, but the initial censorship was enough for Barnard to vote “no.”

“I don’t want anything to do with this,” Barnard said. “The whole thing is doing a lot of damage to faculty governance at Chapman, that faculty aren’t having a say in this. It’s doing a lot of damage to free speech and critical discussion. If universities aren’t the place where we can have this discussion, then we’re doomed.”

English professor Lynda Hall voted against hiring these professors because she didn’t believe they would add anything new to the department, she said. It was an English faculty member who discovered that the funding had come from the Charles Koch Foundation, Hall said.

“There are always ethical issues if something is hidden,” Hall said. “The foundation’s goal was to change the perspective of liberal higher education, and change the thinking of young people, so they would vote in a way the Koch brothers wanted. That is stopping academic freedom. There is enough balance on campus to counteract this if it comes here, but it can be a cancer, in a sense – where it can filtrate other organs.”

“Unethical is when you take money and people don’t know that you are taking it … Here, everything is completely on the table.”

In response to faculty concerns about the openness of the candidate search, Wilson wrote in an email to The Panther that some senior faculty members in the university are “stretch hires,” which he described as candidates with well-established records and reputations, similar to Moses and Gillespie. There has been one case of a stretch hire in the English department.

In these cases, Wilson wrote, someone from the department brings the candidate to the university’s attention.

Patrick Fuery, dean of Wilkinson College, wrote in an email to The Panther Nov. 14 that he has expressed opposition “numerous times” to hiring these professors in Wilkinson College.

The donations to the Smith Institute have also been used to fund two professor positions in the philosophy department.

Michael Pace, the chair of that department, said he was not aware that part of the money had come from the Charles Koch Foundation until the interview process had already begun last year. The department voted unanimously to hire one of the professors, Bas van der Vossen, who specializes in political philosophy and is a co-editor for the “Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism.”

“I’m a Democrat, so there was an initial ‘ick factor’ when I first thought about it,” Pace said, although he said that he became more comfortable with the idea after vetting the professors and ensuring they weren’t politically biased.

“You’re never going to accept money from a donor with which you agree about every issue, right?” Pace said.

Economics professor Vernon Smith, who was key in securing funding from the foundation, said the sociology department voted against hiring professors funded by the donations.

“We do have faculty that are nervous about the Koch money because we have certainly seen, as you look at things the Koch brothers have funded across the country, that there is a specific political agenda that they want to push,” said Ed Day, chair of the sociology department.

When deciding whether to hire these candidates, Pfeiffer said that where the money comes from “doesn’t matter,” and the school doesn’t consider an organization’s agenda.

“What I consider is the quality of the candidates,” Pfeiffer said. “I’ve never talked to the donors, in this case, the Charles Koch Foundation. I’ve never had any communication with them whatsoever. I’ve never met them … I don’t think we want the politics of the candidates – it’s illegal to consider the politics of the candidates – influencing the hiring decision.”

Smith, a Nobel Prize recipient who grew up near the Koch family in Wichita, Kansas, describes his relationship with the brothers as “acquaintances.” Smith first met Charles Koch, one of the brothers, at a conference in the late 1970s.

When Osborn and Wilson hatched the idea that would eventually lead to the Smith Institute, the foundation was one of the donors on Vernon Smith’s mind, although the foundation was the last to add to the pool of $15.8 million that ultimately funded the institute.

The idea for the Smith Institute was sparked by a popular “humanomics” freshman foundations course, which combines the studies of humanities and economics. The Smith Institute is named for Scottish economist Adam Smith, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, which is a philosophy that opposes government interference. The institute aims to challenge “the perceived tension between economics and the humanities,” according to the institute’s website.

When Vernon Smith sent the initial proposal to executives at the foundation, they liked the idea of humanomics so much, they pledged $5 million, he said.

“It wasn’t like anything else (the foundation was) doing. It was completely different. And they just latched onto it,” Smith said.

Pfeiffer said that the other donors of the Smith Institute wanted to remain anonymous because they didn’t want to get “caught up and have people accusing them of things and being associated with this.”

The schools that receive donations from the Charles Koch Foundation tend to vary in size and prestige, but it has donated the most by far – more than $86 million – to George Mason University, a public school in Fairfax, Virginia. Struppa, Smith and Wilson have all held positions at the school.

“The way that Koch has historically given to universities with specific intent that violates academic freedom and faculty governance, I don’t think there’s a positive there,” said Sam Parsons, a George Mason University ‘16 alumna and co-founder of “UnKoch My Campus.”

At Florida State University, Funt noticed that his classes emphasized only one economic theory, he said. One instructor consistently showed videos from a known libertarian economist. Other economic theories and viewpoints were completely left out of the curriculum.

“Charles Koch has said himself, people who represent the foundation have said themselves: The intent of this giving to universities is for the protection of a certain ideology. It’s not at the benefit of the universities. The universities are merely tools to be used to achieve the means to an end,” Funt said.

Smith said that he doesn’t understand why students wouldn’t be open to understanding the study of economics, something he sees as a “basic tool.”

“If their political view can’t stand the study of another point of view, then it’s not a political view. It’s an ideology,” Smith said. “In other words, you’re so committed to it, you don’t want to expose yourself to any other ideas. What are you afraid of?”

Kate Hoover contributed to this report.

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that a committee voted to hire the couple as full, tenured professors. However, this specific committee voted only to hire them as tenured professors. This information has been corrected.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misrepresented Patrick Fuery’s viewpoint on the hiring of these professors, as it included incorrect information provided by a difference source. The Panther had not contacted Fuery about this issue. The article has been corrected to reflect Fuery’s opposition to hiring these professors in Wilkinson College, and the previous incorrect information has been removed.

Correction: An earlier version of this story included incorrect information provided by a source about stretch hires in the English department. The English department has only one stretch hire, not many. The Panther had not interviewed Joanna Levin, chair of the English department. This information has been corrected.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified the Thomas W. Smith Foundation as one of the three founding donors for the Smith Institute. That foundation has donated to the humanomics program at Chapman, not the Smith Institute. This information has been removed.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified which brother economics professor Vernon Smith met to in the 1970s. It was Charles Koch, not David Koch.


  • An impressive researching effort, a fine writing achievement, and a courageous decision to tackle an issue that many newspapers, regardless of pedigree, would choose not to.

    • Many newspapers would absolutely not touch this, as it has ZERO merits. What kind of environment are you seeking to establish? Varying perspectives are essential to the college atmosphere. so are you suggesting we should remove all professors who preach democratic ideas as well? If not, then you are extremely hypocritical. Some of the largest donors at this university are conservative, and that should have no bearing what so ever. If it is such a scary idea, you should stop concerning yourself with a school of which you don’t attend right now.

  • Very good article. Nicely written panoply of points-of-view. I hope this discussion will continue (“Deliberative Dialog” anyone???). 🙂

  • Clearly the English department has departed from their classical role of teaching their students inductive reasoning and empirical thinking, because this article lacks neither. It is shocking that the leftist citadel of academia has the hypocritical nerve to cry out against an ideology that disagrees with them. Instead of teaching their students to be free thinkers, tenured professors do little more than reproduce ideological clones of themselves, further entrenching liberalism on university faculties.

    Further, the condescending tone of the article incorrectly presumes that free market economics is just some abstract theory to be considered amongst other equally valid concepts. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that it’s the ONLY economic system that works. It would be more of a crime to waste students time teaching them about economic systems that have failed like SOCIALISM.

    • @Chris you’re right, this article doesn’t lack inductive reasoning or empirical thinking. great article!

    • Chris,

      Curious as to why you specifically attacked the English department as a whole. Your response sounds more like an individual who writes with a far-reaching argument, with not a whole lot to say, but definitely with a thesaurus at the ready.

    • In your first paragraph you state concern over tenured professors not promoting free thinking among students. In your second paragraph you insist that educating students about other economic theories is a waste of time. Isn’t a key aspect of free thinking the gathering and extrapolating of data? Even if free market economics is “the ONLY economic system that works” (which I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with in this response), wouldn’t students have a right to learn about the other systems of economics and where those systems fall short?

      TL/DR: It’s hard to think freely when information is actively withheld.

      • @Lance consider a biology analogy. No one considers “free thinking” to be jeopardized because Creationism isn’t taught in biology class, despite its status as a competing theory to evolution. No one would waste time explaining a theory in class that has been empirically disproven repeatedly. The only information being withheld in this case is the wrong information.

    • Clearly you wouldn’t know much about the “classical role” of English departments considering your first sentence is grammatically incorrect and thus contradictory. (Much like the logic that exists between both of your paragraphs.) The pseudo-intellectual approach you have taken to attack an incredible department–and a very necessary article–is cringe-worthy, and it’s very evident that you haven’t grasped the complexities of the subject at hand.

      Perhaps you should be aware of your own hypocrisy the next time you cry out against any ideologies that disagree with you? You need to double check your entire comment and take note of the difference in how you approach viewpoints that you agree with versus how you approach viewpoints that you disagree with. And perhaps be a bit more respectful considering you evidently don’t know anything about Chapman’s English department.

  • This article is an absolute joke, as is the English department. Very odd that trash day is wednesday, considering this was released on a Monday.

  • Why do we need to bring in Professors that are to the right of the political spectrum? I want to continue being brainwashed by far left professors who shove their views down my throat……Let’s all remember that our University would not exist if it wasn’t for the CONSERVATIVE donors. Ex. (Argyros, Fowler) If your employer was conservative, would you not accept your pay check from him/her because you do not agree with them? I would love to see how that works out. I am very excited with the steps Chapman is taking to becoming an even more conservative campus.

  • Anytime a professor is brought on solely for the purpose of advancing a political agenda is dangerous. At the very least, Chapman should be open and transparent about these donations so students can know who’s funding their education. I wonder how the conservative board of trustees would feel if Tom Steyer donated millions and then immediately hired a bunch of far-left professors…

  • Once again, The Panther expresses selective outrage. The issue of leftist professors indoctrinating students is far more prevalent than conservative professors. Just look at the degrees Chapman offers- Peace Studies, Latinx, LGBTQ, etc. The Panther has no problem with whoever funded these programs because they fit their ideology. Shameful!

  • Professors should be hired on merit, not because some billionaires want to reinforce their own ideology. If the Kochs want to donate money to a school that they believe is doing good work, good on them, but it can’t come with strings attached. We can’t afford to let the corrupting influence of money interfere with the honest pursuit of knowledge at Universities. Good on the English department of Chapman for refusing this ridiculous proposition.

  • We’ll discourage our son from enrolling next fall if Chapman turns down a perfectly acceptable donation of this size.

    Too dumb to trust with other things we’ll assume.

  • Liberals need to shut up and realize that if it weren’t for straight republican white males, there would be no CCC, tunnel of oppression, or trans bathrooms. Get a brain.

  • There is a difference between hiring a professor with an ideological stance (everybody has one just by virtue of being socialized in the world) and hiring a professor who is being pushed by a foundation whose sole purpose is to create an environment that manipulates education to achieve an ideological end. I think that this is being incorrectly labelled by some as an issue about the political beliefs of particular professors, which is not the case; this is about the larger issue regarding the compromised integrity of hiring professors as a tool by which to exploit academic freedom. While it is true that political and ideological background play a role in the texts that professors choose and the assignments they give, how can we compare the influence of those professors to the influence of professors backed by a foundation with significant clout and a $5 million donation? Money talks, and, in this case, it has nothing good to say.

  • Oh so the Panther finally turned comments back on this page?

    For everyone who does not know, this newspaper got major crap for this shoddy, lazy political hit job that they tried to pass off as “investigative journalism.”
    They arrived at a conclusion that had no correlation with the evidence (just look at the electoral map with the donations).

    So, of course, people rightfully grilled The Panther for this.
    And, of course, The Panther could not take what they tried to dish out, so they caved and turned off comments in an attempt to limit criticism.

    And if The Panther doesn’t allow this comment to be posted, then it will be the beginning of the end of this failing paper.

  • As a student that is currently enrolled in one of Dr. van der Vossen’s philosophy classes, I can tell you honestly and confidently that he does not have any sort of hidden agenda, nor is he attempting to convince students of libertarian ideals. On the contrary, he is a very open-minded professor. He has published articles on how teachers should strive to be as politically unbiased as possible. In the classroom, he constantly urges us to formulate our own ideas and back them up with with the strongest possible arguments. Everyone in my class willingly participates because of the comfortable environment and structure of the class he has created for us. As a senior at Chapman, I would highly encourage anyone to take one of his classes. I am not recommending this because I have libertarian or right wing political views of my own; in fact, I come from a very liberal family. But putting political backgrounds aside, I recommend his classes because they enhance your critical thinking and writing skills, challenge you to support your own positions, and most importantly, encourage you to seek the truth. It deeply saddens me that an article like this has the potential to turn students away from taking a class with an extraordinarily intelligent professor. I sincerely hope that any student or faculty member reading this article takes into consideration that it does not provide an accurate reflection of those mentioned in it.

Leave a Comment