HEARTS OF THE CITY: Exploring attitudes and issues behind the news. : A rotating panel of experts from the worlds of philosophy, psychology and religion offer their perspective on the dilemmas that come with living in Southern California.

Today’s question: A Jewish high school, in exchange for a $5 million donation, renamed itself after a family foundation whose best-known member was convicted of securities fraud. In general, should schools accept grants if the gifts require the use of names publicly linked with misdeeds?

*

Marjorie Suchocki, vice president and academic dean, the School of Theology at Claremont.

“I see at least two viable answers: On one hand, the charitable donation and naming might be intended as a form of restitution, allowing the family public recognition for its attempt to redress the ills of one of its family members. One could ask, ‘Should an entire family be put to disgrace because of the actions of one member? Let the family without sin cast the first stone.’ On this reasoning, one would affirm the gift by giving the family’s name to the school. On the other hand, if the money involved was earned through the dishonesty of one of the family members, then the institution should refuse the gift. How could it in good conscience profit from greed, dishonesty and disregard for public and private good? How could it hold the name of such a person before its students as a model worthy of emulation?”

*

The Rev. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.

“When the tax collector Zacchaeus repented of his sins, Jesus told him to pay back fourfold the people whom he had cheated. If he had established the Zacchaeus Foundation to fund worthy projects, would that have been bad? Much depends on the motive: There is a fine line between a repentant sinner’s act of public restitution and a blatant attempt to buy some credibility for personal advantage.”

*

Rabbi Eliott N. Dorff, rector and professor of philosophy, University of Judaism, Bel-Air.

“Judaism trusts teshuvah , the process by which one who has done something wrong ‘returns’ to a state of moral health and social acceptance. The miscreant must not only pay for the crime and make restitution to those wronged, but also must admit guilt, show remorse and ask forgiveness. Once that is done, the slate is clean; even mentioning the former crime is forbidden. Gifts from such a person must then be treated as if they were from someone who never committed the crime in the first place. That is true all the more for a family foundation, which was never implicated in the misdeed.”

* Compiled by JOHN DART, Times staff writer.