Going off of the “I Am a Philanthropist” video, our class discussion
and what Emmanuela has written under her blog post, I also find it hard to
accept my new found definition of who is considered a philanthropist. Personally,
I consider a philanthropist an individual who possess large sums of money who then
donates a great portion of their fortune to a great cause, organization or fund.
I then group activities like the donation of different things (food, clothing
etc) and time as volunteerism. Yes, volunteering can also highlight an individual’s
love for humanity, but at times, volunteering is done out of force, without
choice and also to make oneself look better; this is also evident with some
Philanthropists as well. With this being said, it makes me very angry to come
across the thought that some philanthropist join a cause just to get their
names in “the know” without even having love for humanity. I came across an
article about a professional athlete who has claimed to profit a great amount
of money from his charity http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/02/report-some-nyc-athlete-charities-arent-that-charitable/
This angers me for many reasons and leaves me to think that
there are more cases like this in the world. Yes, it is definitely good to
give: but I personally feel and stand strongly behind the thought that one must
give with a cheerful heart or not give at all: after all, philanthropy does
mean love for humanity and although this story is about charity, for the many
individuals considered philanthropists who are responsible for acts similar
like this are actually deceiving humanity. But how do we identify and crack
down on such individuals?
I had first came into this class thinking of philanthropists as mainly those with a lot of money to give. But I no longer believe you have to be rich to be one. For instance, a non profit org can deal in philanthropy without necessarily being a wealthy non profit. So long as you're acting in the love of humanity, I believe the title philanthropist may be attainable. The women who give their hair away to locks of love may not necessarily be rich, or may not necessarily be able to effect people on a wide scale. But if a person is doing the act with philanthropy in mind, meaning doing it out of the love for humanity, then I accept the act as philanthropic.
ReplyDeleteAs for those who do these acts, and at the same time seek notoriety, I can't blame them, nor subject them to a lesser value. At the end of the day a child is cared for, or a family can pay their mortgage, or a student can enjoy her or his music program. To denounce someone who seeks fame with their philanthropic actions seems not only elitist, but counter-productive to those who will actually be benefiting from their gifts.
Now as for those that are using the system for their own gains, now that falls into another category, but I would need to access such a situation much further.
Jelissa,
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues in your link is a source of considerable debate in philanthropy. Many argue that people who create foundations should not use them to pay family members. The money that goes into foundations is tax deductible. If you put money into a foundation and then pay it to a family member (if that family member is not performing work that reflective of the salary he/she is receiving) then the foundation acts as a tax avoidance scheme and not a philanthropic enterprise. The National Center for Responsive Philanthropy (www.ncrp.org) raises this issue consistently. I have provided the links to that organization and its blog on the left side of our blog. You may want to check out some of the items on that site.
While I had an image, before entering this class, that philanthropists were people who amassed a great amount of wealth throughout their lifetime and were able to distribute their wealth to those in need without becoming financially unstable, the video also opened my eyes to the various acts that could be deemed as philanthropic actions. Whether these gestures are genuine or not are hard to determine among different individuals, but I believe that it does not matter as long as the impoverished party finds hope to live another day or finds food to live another day. I must agree with Derrick regarding the fact that there may be superficial "philanthropists" who donate money or some form of assistance in order to better themselves. Although I disagree with the motive behind their actions, the outcome is that the people in need are being helped. I would rather that people exploit philanthropy for personal gain than for people to idly stand by while there are people starving around the world.
ReplyDeleteJelissa, it never even occurred to me that professional athletes making millions of dollars would be using charities to make some extra money for their family. Yet, I can see how it is plausible when some millionaires on Wall Street still find the need to steal money. Doing such a thing angers me as well, but I feel in some cases there is often more to the story. Many of these athletes that are accused of doing such a thing most likely set up a charity, but then put no time into it. They simply focus on their job of playing a sport and lose sight of the bigger picture of their initial charity. I’m not saying this is an excuse, but the reality of the situation. Other players that do such a thing like D’Brickashaw Ferguson who give their mom a $90,000 salary is ridiculous and needs to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question of how to crack down on individuals that use charities for personal tax benefits, I would say to give an ineffective charity bad press. Unfortunately, we don’t have much say in what the front page of the paper is, but if this happened it would be effective since nobody wants his or her reputation tarnished. If there were a series of cases of this happening, then others would think twice before starting a charity that doesn’t help other people’s lives.
After reading all of these different posts, I find myself agreeing with the points Derek and Seoyoon are making. I spent a lot of time thinking about the term “meaningful giving” after we left class last week, and I have come to think that it doesn’t really matter if the giver is doing so anonymously or for notoriety, it may not always even matter what they are giving to. What should matter the most is that they are giving, that they are helping to change a life or make a difference where one is needed. While it doesn’t surprise me that there are many individuals out there who want the pride and appreciation that comes along with being a philanthropist, it doesn’t make me outraged either. I would like to believe that people just give out of the kindness of their hearts but unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. Many people do things just for the recognition and glory, people donate huge sums of money to get a building named after them all the time. But I think that what should matter the most, what meaningful giving truly is, is what the receiver gets out of it. If the giving makes a difference to someone’s life, in any aspect, then it is still significant in my book.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, I don’t agree with the article that Jelissa posted. It disgusts me that there are people with such money and power who use it to help themselves. When I say it doesn’t always matter what they are giving to, I am referring to providing basic needs vs providing culture and education (another hot topic from last class). All of these are very thought-provoking and controversial issues and I look forward to discussing them further.