Intelligent Giving

    Upon stumbling upon a post from another blog about philanthropy (Philanthropy 2173), I read about an idea that is extremely simple, but necessary to efficiently donate services or money. Who knows what the community best than the community members themselves right? The profound idea is to incorporate the community members' ideas about how to utilize donations to improve those lives in need. Such implementations are crucial in non-profit organizations that attempt to help those in need, as the money may be allocated inefficiently by not inputting opinions from those directly affected. This also allows for a sense of connection between both the benefactors and the beneficiaries.
    However, the community consists of a variety of people who probably have different priorities and needs in their lives. The main question would be: Who do we incorporate in these inclusive meetings to meet the needs for the majority of the members within the community? Now, this makes the simple idea of including the community into philanthropy a difficult concept. Those who participate may not represent the majority, but rather an outlier who intends to sway the decisions to fit his or her personal needs. This defeats the purpose of philanthropy and leads to an unintended distribution of money to the community. So what needs to be done to prevent these occurrences?
     These concerns display the necessity to engage in philanthropy intelligently. Many people have the notion that philanthropy is easy and necessitates only the action of giving something away. Although this may make the donator feel better, the donation may be misguided. Therefore, research is crucial before one begins to "give away" because donation may be just that: randomly giving away rather than providing.

What do the scales really weigh?

      “Reputation is so rarely proportioned to virtue.”-Saint Francis de Sales. There is no doubt that in our culture, having a good reputation is everything. It determines who your friends are, what kinds of companies will hire you, even what you can do and say, and to whom you can say or do such things. Certainly to those individuals constantly under the limelight, reputation means this, and much more. The life of a celebrity virtually lives and dies by his or her reputation. Who they date, what they say, how they dress, and what they look like on a daily basis always comes to bear on the lives of today’s celebrities. When a celebrity lies, cheats, steals, has to go to drug or alcohol rehab, or is caught doing something that society deems inappropriate, that celebrity’s reputation is adversely affected. The question that I have been wrestling with is: “Is it possible for a celebrity to repair the damage done to his or her reputation merely because they donate large sums of money to charities, or even create foundations for charitable causes themselves?” Ndomukung Suh, Mel Gibson, and of course, Lance Armstrong, are prime examples of the dilemma of the philanthropic celebrity whose reputations have been damaged by either “on-field” or “off-field” actions. 

Ndomukung Suh was the second overall pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, by the Detroit Lions. Suh was known for his aggressive style of play at the University of Nebraska, where he played five years as a defensive lineman. Once he broke into the NFL, it was clear that Suh’s style of play was much more aggressive than the vast majority of the players in the league. In his first two years in the league, Suh has been fined $42,500, disciplined three times, and suspended two games without pay for, among other things, stomping on an opposing player’s arm , and kicking an opposing quarterback in the groin. While his on-field actions are questionable at best, Suh has certainly ventured into the arena of philanthropy, donating $2 million dollars to the University of Nebraska Athletics program, while also creating a $600,000 scholarship for students applying to the UNL School of Engineering, of which Suh is a 2009 graduate.

Another celebrity who recently was thrust into the court of public opinion was Mel Gibson. Gibson is an Australian-American actor, and film director who has won awards for both his acting in directing. However, beginning in 1991, and most recently in 2010, there have been instances in which Gibson has been accused of making homophobic and racist comments, investigated for accusations of domestic violence, and even accused of having Anti-Semitic undertones in his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ. There is no doubt that Gibson has made philanthropy a large part of his life. Gibson and his former wife have contributed money to many foundations and charitable organizations. Gibson has donated upwards of $6.8 million to numerous organizations. 

Perhaps the best example of this dilemma is the icon of American cycling. Between 1999 and 2005, the 5’9 Lance Armstrong won seven straight Tour de France cycling titles. However, in recent months, it has been brought to light that Armstrong used doping agents, for which he has been stripped of each one of his seven Tour de France titles, and is currently under investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). However, it is almost impossible to forget Armstrong’s foundation, which generated roughly $325 million from the sale of the yellow “Livestrong” bracelets. Furthermore, Armstrong, along with a number of other athletes founded “Athletes for Hope,” a charity which helps professional athletes become involved in many charitable causes.

 So, ladies and gentlemen, the decision is yours, have these individuals done enough to balance the moral scales, and if not, will they ever be able to?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2012/01/11/the-30-most-generous-celebrities/3/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson#Philanthropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndamukong_Suh

Baby Steps

Right around New Year’s, every magazine cover has some piece of advice on how to make those resolutions into a reality, but the one thing they can all agree on is the importance of measurable, attainable goals. No matter what is is we want to accomplish, real change is undermined when we try to look at one gigantic problem. Instead, breaking big problems into bite sized pieces gives us the motivation to see something through to the end. Peter Singer’s book felt like trying to cram a year’s worth of self-improvement into January. My dislike of the book had far less to do with thinking he was wrong (He wasn’t. I mean, objectively, we all probably should do more.), but the idea that unless I were to give up every excess in my life I wouldn’t be doing enough didn’t inspire me, it depressed me.

The Power of Half is so much more salient for me because it sets goals toward being a good person that feel attainable. I can absolutely spend half as much time playing Temple Run 2 on my phone or go out to eat half as much as I currently do. By asking less, it actually motivates the reader to do more. Additionally, measurable goals are for more motivating, psychologically speaking, than abstract ones. By eliminating the wiggle room left by saying we will do more to help or give up some of our time, deciding to give away half of something keeps us honest.

The question is: is it really okay to say, “I’m not going to give up everything, but I’ll give up half of something I really enjoy, and that is good enough.”? The attractive answer is, yes. However, Singer’s book still nags at me. As I read his arguments, I couldn’t poke any real holes in them. It’s true that almost every single dollar I’ve ever spent or will ever spend could help someone who really needs it, and, by choosing not to, I’m putting my wants ahead of other’s needs. In class, Dr. Campbell said that we need to work out the answers to these questions for ourselves, and I’m sure my opinion will continue to evolve over the course of this semester and my life. But, today, my conclusion is this: this week I will give up half of something I like doing, and put those resources(whether it’s time, money, or something else) toward doing something good for someone whose needs are greater than mine, and I will feel good about that, but I will use that nagging feeling that Singer’s book has left me with to push me toward making a bigger sacrifice next week.

I almost forgot! My favorite way to take baby steps toward making a difference: Kiva.org lets you contribute as little as $25 dollars to give a microfinance loan to someone in need.

Is there a "right" way to give?

As last week’s class came to a close, I admit I was one of the students who clicked in “C”. I am more unsure about my ideas on philanthropy than I was when I entered this class. The more I read about different philanthropists and the more I listen to the opinions of my peers, my own ideals shift.  I find myself being stuck on questions such as “is giving to one cause better than giving to another?” Or, “is giving anonymously more dignified than taking responsibility for your donation?” Mostly, my inner conflict has been wrestling with the concern, “is helping a few, in need individuals better or worse than helping a larger cause?” Opinions that I once had on all of these questions have been blurred and slightly changed in our discussions these past two weeks.

When I came across this article, it got me thinking about Dorris Buffet’s idea to give “hand-ups rather than handouts”.  Ariel Nessel and his Pollination Project are on a similar mission, giving small grants of $1,000 every day for at least a year in order to jump-start individuals into making a difference. Similar to my reaction to the video on Doris Buffet, I liked the idea of providing the extra push to help people get on their own feet. “Putting air under people’s wings” is definitely more effective than merely giving people some money to buy food and not the means to grow their own.

On the other side, it got me thinking about how much that money could make a difference when more was put into a greater cause. Once again I was back to debating, is a small amount of money towards 365 small groups really the best idea? That money could be used to help with poverty and hunger in a greater scheme. Giving $1,000 to a student group to advocate safe sex isn't a bad cause, but is it the best cause for the money?

I guess it really isn't my say in where Mr. Nessel should give his money, or whether his decisions are right or wrong. The old me, the one from two weeks ago, would have said that his money should definitely be given in a larger sum to hungry children in Africa, without a second thought. But the new, confused, me wonders if this kind of giving is “good enough” because it is still giving. 

http://philanthropy.com/article/Giving-1000-a-Day-a-Dallas/136585/ 

Thinking before we act

    After our last discussion and with the realization that ultimately, we have to decide where to give this money. I think it's best if we try to rid ourselves of a couple of things. Firstly, we should try to break our original convictions. For instance, I came into this class with the idea of helping people on the basis of instant needs. Food, water, basic (or at least what i first assumed was basic) life needs, were at the top of my list. But after last week’s discussion, I realized, sometimes, what an area needs, may not necessarily be another food pantry, or another soup kitchen. A better art center or a refurbished community center might provide a lot more positivity, and effectiveness to an area than we might realized. We must look into the situation of the area we are providing for in every aspect. This may require a little more time and energy over the course of the semester, but ultimately, it may prove greatly beneficial. Note: I’m not saying let’s just throw money towards things that cater to the culture of an area, what I’m saying is let’s not make rash decision without full evaluations of the situation.

     Secondly, as human beings, and as those who want to help, it is inevitable that some of us walked into this room with personal biases over what type of org they would like to help out. Over the course of this semester, I’m sure many proposals will be made, many eliminations will be made, and quite possibly a few feelings will arise with those moments. So if you worked tirelessly coming up with a proposal, made charts, talked to councilwomen/men, the whole package, and your suggestion gets eliminated, please remember we are a team, we work as one. Now, I’m not saying don’t get upset, because it is a normal reaction if you dedicated a lot of time into a proposition, but remember, we are here for the people, and no matter what proposal(s), are passed, some organization will gain the assistance it needs.

Post#1

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?

Shades of Grey in Michael Bloomberg's donations to John Hopkins University

Hello everyone,

For this blog post I'll be discussing a profile of Michael Bloomberg published by the New York Times several days ago (which you can find here).  Bloomberg is the current mayor of New York City who is worth approximately $25 billion from his ownership of the Bloomberg Corporation which supplies financial technology.  The article describes how he has donated over $1.1 billion over the last four decades to his Alma Matter; Johns Hopkins University.  His donations have transformed Hopkins immensely in virtually every conceivable manner since he graduated.  I'd like to focus on two aspects of his giving: his decision to expose his immense giving and whether he donated to where the greatest need lies.  

            During our discussion we spoke about the role of anonymity and discretion in charitable donations.  Some philanthropists ascribe to the notion that their generosity should not overshadow the effect of their donation.  This is why in virtually any listing of benefactors for any fundraising there is almost always someone listed as being anonymous.  On the other hand, there are many donors who want the recognition whatever the reason.  They are cast in stone on buildings, displayed in photographs, and are written about in the New York Times.  For Bloomberg it seems as if he has spent time weighing whether to fully promote his donations or to do them and receive the minimum amount of publicity.  In the article it describes how he has decided to make his donations public in order to encourage more donations towards academia.  Do you think people should promote their own donations or maintain their anonymity like Joshua Rechnitz?

            My second point of focus comes in regards to whether Bloomberg’s donations are going to the point of greatest need.  Higher Education as an industry does not require revenue to come solely from donations like other recipients of aid as they receive money from tuition charges.  My focus is not regarding Bloomberg’s funding of 20% of need-based aid but upon his donations for art installations, brick and marble walkways, and more.  Bloomberg has an immense love of Hopkins as his donations show but at the same time why do they deserve to receive such an immense portion of his money. In addition, we discussed in class the merits of SOB donations for culture.   Would a donation be better off used to help pay someone’s mortgage or spent giving them the opportunity to see an art gallery at a University?  Bloomberg’s donations have been extremely generous and have greatly assisted the development of Johns Hopkins University over the last 40 years.  However, I have a hard time seeing how donations for sidewalks are a worthy investment of immense wealth. 

            I’d love to hear some of your opinions regarding his donations and the article.  I think that some of the points I've brought up are not black and white decisions but have many shades of gray.  Bloomberg’s donations should be a model for other members of the mega-rich.  Enjoy the Super Bowl and I’ll see you guys on Tuesday.