The right way for an organization that desires this level of transparency is to use BIP32 and publish their extended public key.
The single address model for simplicity is like trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer.
My overall point is that this kind of solution tends to raise costs for certain use cases.
BIP32 is all well and good, but requires significant tooling for a donation-accepting entity to implement, requires much broader dissemination among wallet clients, and is largely incompatible with the widely-deployed single-address model already in use by many entities.
I'm not here to scream bloody murder about Luke's initiative, but rather to encourage looking at this from as many sides as possible. CoInvalidation etc. present real threats to Bitcoin as a privacy-enhancing system, but, as I think I demonstrated above, privacy is not the sole or even primary concern for every use case.