"[T]wo pieces of artwork proposed for sale were donated without restrictions. Two more weren’t donated at all - they were purchased.
"Critics of the sale say that doesn’t matter.
"Oh, yes, it does matter.
"At least, as owner, the school ought to be able to sell the paintings it bought.
"As for the two paintings donated without restrictions, sale critics say the donors would have restricted their gifts if they had guessed the paintings would ever be up for sale.
"But business decisions like this cannot rely on would have/might have/could have. Decisions cannot fairly be based on guesses - in this case not just on donor intent, but guesses about donor intent.
"Donors can rightly restrict the use of gifts, through contractual arrangements."
It goes on to point out that "
Still, despite all that, the paper thinks the Virginia Supreme Court was right to enjoin the sale. Why?
"Other lawsuits are pending against
"If the school had no right to remake itself, then its current incarnation is illegitimate - and it therefore has no authority to dispose of the school’s assets.
"It would seem that the courts must first answer the question of whether the new co-ed version of the college may even be permitted to exist. Then the question of the art sale can be settled.
"Of course, by then the question may be moot.