A Giving Pledge-Style Effort
I
s Needed to Encourage Diverse Ideas in the Field
To the Editor:
In their recent op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy — “We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism” (April 13, 2023) — respected foundation heads and philanthropic leaders powerfully highlight the importance of pluralism in the sector. I applaud the authors for their bold stance on this vital issue and for recognizing philanthropy’s role in nurturing a diverse and inclusive society.
The consequences of ongoing divisive discourse in the field must be addressed at many levels. As the authors point out, there’s a real risk that fear of criticism will lead foundations and philanthropists to shy away from charitable endeavors.
But the sentiments expressed in the op-ed need to go further. Specifically, I propose a new iteration of the Giving Pledge whereby foundations pledge to support organizations that embody the principles of philanthropic pluralism championed in the piece. By directing their generosity away from organizations that demonize others, those signing the pledge would amplify the importance of philanthropic pluralism in fostering a more equitable world.
Critically, the philanthropic community should not only advocate for philanthropic pluralism but actively invest in it. That means moving beyond rhetoric and principles and taking action. The authors need to prove to the world that they’re not just paying lip service but championing genuine change.
Ari Segal
Founder and Managing Director
Segal Consulting
To the Editor:
Thank you for publishing the statement of agreement by six philanthropic leaders who represent a broad political spectrum. The authors demonstrated a commitment to higher-level values that encourage diversity and strengthen the field and democracy.
However, the op-ed’s message and reach should be broadened and sustained, catalyzing an opportunity for philanthropic leaders across the country to pledge support for the values it reflects. A civil-society pledge, analogous to the Giving Pledge, would be a clear and visible public affirmation of values guiding future philanthropic behavior. This timely pledge would build on the authors’ stated principles and encourage all of us in the field to commit to the pluralistic values necessary for a healthy democracy and strong social sector.
Bob Hughes
Former President and CEO, Missouri Foundation for Health
Community Advisory Board, United Way of Rhode Island
Let’s Do Better Than Supporting What’s Allowed Under the Law
To the Editor:
Six leaders of institutional philanthropy make a laudable defense of freedom in their recent opinion piece, which lays out their support for philanthropic pluralism. Four of the five principles they propose are warranted in an era of decreasing tolerance of debate and a growing sense in society that words lead to harm rather than enlightenment.
However, the fifth principle presented by this group, which essentially reads “if it’s legal, let us alone to do it,” gives them cover to operate in perpetuity. Is there not a higher moral ground to which philanthropic intermediaries and the holders of concentrated wealth should strive? Is the hoarding of financial resources — dribbling them out bit by bit over an eternity — a principled stance simply because it’s allowed under the law?
The source of the wealth so carefully protected by so many philanthropic leaders was generated by businesses that maximized the use of their assets. By contrast, how is a foundation that grants 5 percent of its assets annually engaging in either morally acceptable or sound management practices? If the business assets of Henry Ford, Charles Koch, or James Buchanan Duke were allowed to operate at 5 percent utilization, the foundations associated with them wouldn’t exist.
Let us hail the defense of classical liberalism by institutional philanthropy leadership. But let’s also call on them to a higher plane of performance.
Clark A. McCain
Former Senior Program Officer
The Coleman Foundation
Credit:Source link
