Giving Compass' Take:

• This blog post from the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy discusses the conundrum of organizations taking money from disreputable or dishonored sources: Keep it or give it back?

• There's a case to be made that the money can still do good, but many organizations will have to take a long, hard look at internal policies to determine how to handle sensitive cases.

• Here's more about the Sackler family and what the implications have been for nonprofits.

Earlier this summer, the University of Louisville announced it was changing the name of its football stadium from “Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium” to simply “Cardinal Stadium.” How come? Papa John’s founder and board chairman, John Schnatter, confirmed a report in a Forbes magazine article that he used a racial slur in a conference call with the company’s marketing agency. In her statement, University of Louisville president Neeli Bendapudi underscored the school’s commitment to “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” as the reason for making the change ...

Gifts large and small have prompted similar agonizing in all sorts of organizations. Last year, for example, the University of Southern California rejected a $5 million gift from Harvey Weinstein to help women filmmakers after accusations of sexual assaults were made against him. With limited success so far, protesters have also been urging art museums to shun donations from the Sackler family, long-time cultural patrons, who own the company that manufactures oxycontin, a drug implicated in the opioid crisis.

Fundraisers and other organizational leaders have sometimes taken the position that the real problem with tainted money is that “it ain’t enough.” Gifts from disreputable sources, this suggests, should be judged by what they accomplish, not the character of their donors.

Read the full article about the "tainted money" problem by Les Lenkowsky at The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.