Philanthropy has always been a huge boon to society. It allows people with excess income to donate to causes they believe in. In addition, non-profit organizations can pick up the slack of governments which may remain complacent to society's issues. Even though philanthropy is beneficial to society, it seems that philanthropy has been growing at a slowing rate. According to a Financial Times article I read, "giving in 2018 in the US may have increased at a slower rate than inflation." This trend is extremely worrying. The average person would expect philanthropy to become increasingly popular over time as a result of its great benefits, but it seems philanthropy is heading the other direction.
The author seems to attribute this downward trend to a damaging of the reputation of philanthropy. In addition to the decrease of everyday donors, it seems that the biggest donors are also donating less. The decrease of the average donor is bad enough, but the loss of our richest donors could be an even bigger loss. This seems to be caused by an accusation that wealthy donors only donate to protect their image and their assets. This negative perception hurts the reputation of philanthropy, making donating less common for fear of judgement. The author mentions the example of the Sackler family, who used philanthropy to protect their image and separate themselves from an opioid epidemic scandal. It is ironic that the rich, who once did not donate enough, are being criticized for donating too much. As a result of these possibly immoral motives, it seems that philanthropy's reputation has taken a hit.
Many people argue that wealthy families, such as the Sacklers, use philanthropy to distract from unethical business practices. This distrust of philanthropy by the wealthy seems to relate to our aggravation with the lax of taxation on the richest classes of our society.This is understandable. We can't help but feel like there is some ulterior motive for the rich to make these donations, such as a way to exercise their power or avoid taxes. There is no doubt that our system of taxation of the rich could use some work. However, it is important that we do not forgot the good that their philanthropy does. In my opinion, if we allow our opinions on philanthropy to deteriorate, we may lose out on an astronomical amount of funding towards non-profit organizations. Do you believe that the possible immoral motives of the richest donors are more important than the philanthropy they provide, or less important? In addition, will you continue to donate if the reputation of philanthropy becomes tarnished, or you are accused of having ulterior motives?
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/1980e4b4-57bc-11e9-8b71-f5b0066105fe
- Christian Sayage
The author seems to attribute this downward trend to a damaging of the reputation of philanthropy. In addition to the decrease of everyday donors, it seems that the biggest donors are also donating less. The decrease of the average donor is bad enough, but the loss of our richest donors could be an even bigger loss. This seems to be caused by an accusation that wealthy donors only donate to protect their image and their assets. This negative perception hurts the reputation of philanthropy, making donating less common for fear of judgement. The author mentions the example of the Sackler family, who used philanthropy to protect their image and separate themselves from an opioid epidemic scandal. It is ironic that the rich, who once did not donate enough, are being criticized for donating too much. As a result of these possibly immoral motives, it seems that philanthropy's reputation has taken a hit.
Many people argue that wealthy families, such as the Sacklers, use philanthropy to distract from unethical business practices. This distrust of philanthropy by the wealthy seems to relate to our aggravation with the lax of taxation on the richest classes of our society.This is understandable. We can't help but feel like there is some ulterior motive for the rich to make these donations, such as a way to exercise their power or avoid taxes. There is no doubt that our system of taxation of the rich could use some work. However, it is important that we do not forgot the good that their philanthropy does. In my opinion, if we allow our opinions on philanthropy to deteriorate, we may lose out on an astronomical amount of funding towards non-profit organizations. Do you believe that the possible immoral motives of the richest donors are more important than the philanthropy they provide, or less important? In addition, will you continue to donate if the reputation of philanthropy becomes tarnished, or you are accused of having ulterior motives?
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/1980e4b4-57bc-11e9-8b71-f5b0066105fe
- Christian Sayage
Hi Christian,
ReplyDeleteI think that your post is very interesting, and that it brings up a point I have been struggling with throughout the semester. I do feel that when people are just donating to help save their image, or better their company that it does lessen the philanthropic value of their donation. To me philanthropy should be about being passionate for a cause, and wanting to bring about change through your donation. I do not think that it should be used for personal immoral reasons. However, that would be in a perfect world, and I know that is just not how the world works. There are plenty of people who donate out of personal immoral reasons, like to fix their image, or because they may have been associated with a scandal. The money they donate still does do good things, which is why I feel that i cannot outright say it is bad philanthropy. At the end of the day, the money is still going to important causes, and bringing about change. For that reason, I think that the philanthropy these individuals or organizations provide is more important that their reasons for doing so, however, in a perfect world those reasons would not be immoral.
To address your second question, I think that I will still donate even if the reputation of philanthropy continues to be tarnished. Philanthropy is too important to me, to stop because there are some people who use if for the wrong reasons. However, I will admit that it would be hard to continue to be philanthropic, if I am being accused of doing it for the wrong reasons. I do think that it is important, however, to evaluate the reasons people may be donating, in order to see if they are really interested or just want to better their image. But in the end, I believe strongly in the tenets of philanthropy, and think that through philanthropy, real change can be brought about, which is why I would continue to be philanthropic regardless of how philanthropy is viewed.
Matt Rozansky
ReplyDeleteHi Christian,
I really enjoyed this blog post and I think you did a great job. I think it’s unfortunate that the richest donors do not seem to be donating as much as they used to because it discourages others from donating. Large donations to a nonprofit organization are so vital if they are unable to receive any other government funding or public donations. If wealthy families have genuine motivations for donating to a nonprofit organization, their donations should be welcomed with open arms. It starts to get tricky, however, when motivations for donations are not as pure. The Sacklers use their fortune (which was created by aiding in the opioid epidemic) and hope it will wash away their bad deeds.
This idea reminds me of our site visit to Truth Pharm where Alexis discussed a passionate (and maybe heated) boardroom discussion on accepting donations from a donor who has racist beliefs. Truth Pharm wound up deciding to turn that donation away even though it would have helped people because of the connotations and racist beliefs attached. Making difficult decisions like that one are really tricky especially with organizations that have lives at stake. We should be favoring organizations and donors with core values that stick to their missions, regardless of the bottom line of the donation or bank account.
On April 15, 2019, the world was saddened to see the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris be partially destroyed with flames. As difficult it is to see a beautiful building with a lot of personal and symbolic ties be burned, it is equally (if not more) difficult to recognize the people who have decided to pledge the funds to support the rebuilding of the Cathedral. Billions of dollars were raised in days and the French government was likely to support the rebuilding of this iconic place. I read a Washington Post article about the backlash facing the Notre Dame donors which said, “In just a few hours today, 650 million euros was donated to rebuild Notre Dame,” South Africa-based journalist Simon Allison tweeted. “In six months, just 15 million euros has been pledged to restore Brazil’s National Museum. I think this is what they call white privilege.” The imbalance of donated funds to issues that affect the same or fewer number of people is confusing. Additionally, this (https://twitter.com/robreich/status/1118534101948985346) is a Twitter link to Rob Reich’s Twitter (who we’ve read a couple times for class already) about the wealthy donating to the Notre Dame.
I don’t want to discredit the fact that any philanthropic donation is a good deed. Having the means to donate is a gift, however, there are so many issues that go unnoticed if they do not get the public attention. So, is the reputation of philanthropy just to make the wealthy look good and get tax breaks? Should we be promoting donors who have genuine morals even if that means turning away large donations? These questions are troubling and difficult to answer because the ultimate goal of nonprofit organizations in general is to help.
All the best,
Isabel
Here’s the link to the Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/billionaires-raced-to-pledge-money-to-rebuild-notre-dame-then-came-the-backlash/2019/04/18/7133f9a2-617c-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7aa15117ff86
Hi Christian,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post because it eloquently described a concern I've shared throughout this class; that being the apparent deterioration of philanthropy's reputation. Off the top of my head, one other factor that likely contributed to the declining growth rate of philanthropic giving in the US is the 2017 tax law. As we discussed in class, this removed tax incentives for charitable giving that many middle-class Americans used to receive.
While I wholeheartedly understand the negative sentiment towards billionaires that donate money to charities as a way to cover-up past misdeeds, I still think in principle, this is a good thing. To clarify, I wish that billionaires like the Sackler family only donated out of the good of their hearts rather than to "make up" for helping fuel our opioid epidemic. However, once a wrongdoing is already committed, it can't be fully reversed. Of course, a company and/or individual can take steps to remedy their mistakes and prevent them from happening again, but another good way to "make up" for previous wrongdoing is through philanthropy. This is because even when billionaires donate for the wrong reasons, they (hopefully) donate to organizations with staff and volunteers who work for the right reasons. When someone decides to get involved with a charity, it is often because they are passionate about what that charity combats, and want to help out and create change. So, in the end, the money that billionaires donate is used by people with good morals and good intentions, and in my opinion, that's what's most important. However, my opinion is different when a billionaire establishes their own charity rather than donating to existing ones.
To answer your second question, I will continue to donate to charities even if the reputation of philanthropy becomes more tarnished, because I believe in the positive aspects of philanthropy. Philanthropy allows people to come together and directly impact issues that they care about, and fills in where governments fall short. As long as an organization is staffed by people who are accountable, demonstrate good morals, and are effective, I would donate to that organization. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, as long as philanthropy is improving our world, I am not extremely worried about the stigma towards donating to charities that you mentioned (although I do think it's a problem).
Hi Christian!
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this blog post, I think it brings up an interesting point that we have even discussed during class. Most of the big philanthropy in our country is coming from the wealthy. One would think that the donation of millions of dollars would be seen as a positive thing, but instead everyone decides to criticize individuals for the way they are spending their money. In the case of the Slacker family, maybe they are donating for an immoral reason. Or in the case of Jeff Bezos, he's not donating his money to the right causes, or is just not giving enough. However, the money belongs to these individuals, so they should be able to spend it the way they want to, and no one else should really be able to tell them otherwise. I agree that it is unfair that the taxation on the wealthiest people in our country is the way that it is, but we should still be grateful when they are willing to donate money to the nonprofit world.
The discussion we had during class was regarding whether people should be able to tell Jeff Bezos how to donate his money. Half of the class believed that he should be told, while the other half believed that it was his money and he should be able to spend it however he wants. Instead of just seeing his donations as a positive thing, society decides to criticize him. It is no wonder that philanthropy is growing at a decreasing rate. Why would someone want to do anything if they are just going to receive negative feedback? I think if we viewed donations from the wealthy as a positive instead of a negative, then philanthropy would no longer have a tarnished reputation.
Jillian