That was the university’s initial proposal for the grant, and the agreement reflects that the money will go to that project. And, as the foundation outlined in its newly released statement of giving principles, “the faculty call the shots” when it comes to exactly how the funds are used. The agreement describes the grant’s purpose thusly: “As stated in the proposal the mission of the Center is to pursue scholarly research and analysis of criminal laws, procedures, policies, and practices.” It also explains how leadership will be selected, consistent with the university’s proposal: “The Center will be led by a Director, (the “Center Director”), who will be selected by the University according to its normal procedures.”

The agreement also outlines how much money will be contributed each year and to what. “Salary and fringe benefits for two tenured or tenure-track professorships”; “Costs and expenses for the Center Director Stipend”; “Costs and expenses for the Administrative Assistant,” and so on.

The transparency effort has been welcomed in the education community, but cautiously. It’s nice, some say, that the foundation will be announcing its new agreements, but what about the details of the old agreements?

Connor Gibson, a researcher with Greenpeace, told Inside Higher Ed that the new effort doesn’t address “existing concerns” and hides conditions outlined in previous agreements. Several critics point to the case of Koch’s grants to George Mason, in which the foundation retained the right to be involved in grantee’s hiring processes. After students and faculty submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for information about GMU’s ties to the foundation, the institution’s president, Ángel Cabrera, released the grant agreements dating back to 2003. All but one of the agreements explicitly stated that the university had final say in hiring, but Cabrera admitted that the limited involvement the foundation still had in hiring fell short of academic standards. “The issue was that the agreements granted donors the right to participate in selection and evaluation committees, a circumstance that falls short of the standard of academic independence we should expect in every gift,” he wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

There has also been similar criticism by students and faculty of grants at Wake Forest University, Florida State University, and elsewhere. The foundation counters that the grant agreements, both then and now, are in line with the giving principles they’ve recently restated. “This move builds on our long-standing giving principles and takes things one step further,” Hooks told me. “We’re excited to be at the forefront of how philanthropies engage with universities.” The new agreement explicitly states several times that hires will be made according to university procedures and does not mention foundation involvement in faculty selection.

Here’s a full copy of the Arizona State University agreement: