« Matthew Kelly on the Costs of and Cures for Turnover | Main | Is Viral Marketing Failing? »
Thunderheads
Jenny Price, a Mellon- and Guggenheim-funded writer, has penned a piece in Good Magazine arguing against philanthropy. It is a provocative and thoughtful essay, to be sure, and raises some important issues. Price argues that bad corporate citizenship, exploitative labor strategies, irresponsible use of natural resources, and harmful environmental practices are some of the outcomes of producing massive wealth, a portion of which is then tasked through philanthropy to burnish the brand and reputation of the corporations involved. Price argues that money is given away to undo damage that should not and need not have been done in the first place.
Price’s argument troubles because a thoughtful reader cannot help but know that her argument is a sound one. As someone who has been watching free-market behavior for a lifetime, it is not difficult at all to observe that many ills are done to people and communities in pursuit of profit.
Philanthropy, as a modality of self-actualization and social action, is getting more play and more scrutiny as of late. Bill Clinton’s new book, Giving, makes a powerful case for devotion to causes. Oprah’s philanthropic activities have also focused attention on philanthropic activity, as did Warren Buffet’s decision to move a substantial fortune into the Gates Foundation.
As has been written in magazines for the super-affluent, high-profile philanthropy has become one of several new modalities through which the super-affluent can stake out their own territory and establish their own turf. At a time when too many people can buy a Bentley, not just anybody can give away millions of dollars per year.
However, as the largest wealth transfer in recent times gains momentum, so does the scrutiny of the genesis of wealth, the priorities to which gifts are tasked, and the cost of philanthropy to taxpayers as a result of the charitable gift deduction.
A couple of weeks ago, there was an article in The New York Times calling the not-for-profit status of arts institutions into question. There are more than a few people around who are concerned that scarce resources are being used to fund organizations and services whose primary stakeholders are the well-heeled and well-abled segment of society.
“Shouldn’t charitable gifts go to the less fortunate?” is a policy question that those of us in the cultural sector can expect to hear asked more often and more urgently. This question has been around a long time, and as a former fundraiser, I can attest that this question leads to a rocky and perilous conversational landscape
Making the case for the arts and culture will not be easier in the future. We can expect it to be more difficult. A clear, pithy, and persuasive set of messages is critical - and not just messages to donors, but to policy-makers, as well. The American cultural sector rests on a foundation built on the charitable deduction. A change in tax policy would almost certainly devastate the arts and culture as we know it today.
Those of us who work in the cultural sector create value for people and for communities, but most of the value we create works toward keeping healthy communities healthy, bolstering innovation in innovative people, and reinforcing connections to identity and culture. In other words, we tend a healthy garden to ensure continued bounty.
Those organizations and people that work in the public policy arena are likely to find themselves increasingly asked why tax-free revenues should support our institutions and organizations. They - and we - had better be ready to make a persuasive case. There are thunderheads on the horizon - in the form of massively growing public debt. We ignore these harbingers of the coming debate at our own peril.
Thanks to Tim Walker for the heads up on Jenny Price's essay.
Posted on September 24, 2007 12:40 PM | Permalink
Bookmark with: 
del.icio.us, 
StumbleUpon, 
digg
Comments
Neill,
Great overview of a growing challenge for cultural nonprofits (thunderheads, indeed), and the nonprofit sector, in general.
I recall attending a conference at the Rockefeller family estate on the Hudson River, remarking with my colleagues how many major philanthropist had spent the first half of their lives exploiting labor and the environment, and the second part applying their wealth and influence to repairing the damage.
After all, the Rockefeller's had essentially reconstructed the natural beauty around their estate, healing the damage of generations of clear-cutting by other profit-seekers. Meanwhile, their Standard Oil Company was doing what oil companies do.
So I certainly have an affinity for Price's argument. But I also see its flaws. First, one could argue with her fairly polemic statement ''these donors receive sizable tax write-offs that impoverish public social and environmental programs,'' which implies both that tax deductions are the primary problem impoverishing the system, and that even well-funded government efforts could address the issues alone.
It would be a glorious thing if all profit-seeking enterprises added social and environmental variables to their bottom lines. But until all of them do, philanthropy is an essential balance against the market system.
Plus, to paint all philanthropy with such a broad brush, as Price does, is a bit more provocative than productive.
ya gotta love George Will's timing to rebutt Ms. Price in today's Washington Post....
Furthermore, because the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure from positional goods, philanthropy might become the final form of positional competition. Perhaps that is why so many colleges and universities (more than 20, according to Twitchell) are currently conducting multi billion-dollar pledge campaigns. When rising consumption of luxuries produces declining enjoyment of vast wealth, giving it away might be the best revenge.
georgewill@washpost.com