Philanthropy and Politics–A Complicated Mix?
There has been a great deal of conversation on education reform in DC now that Mayor Fenty is gone and his school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is likely to follow suit. People have been examining the impact her tenure has had on education in DC and what has come under scrutiny is her relationship with foundations. Teacher Ken of Daily Kos writes:
When she sought outside foundation money, it originally came with strings – that if Rhee did not continue as head of the schools the foundations would not be obligated to meet the financial commitment they were offering. Whether or not one agrees with Rhee’s ideas for the school system, such conditions should be unacceptable – foundations have a choice either to commit funds or not to commit them, but they should not be allowed to dictate personnel decisions in the public sector merely because they have more money than the people served by that public sector.
Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of much of what we have seen from what Diane Ravitch has dubbed “the Billionaire Boys Club” of the likes of the foundations of Eli Broad, Bill and Melinda Gates (who have a number of former key members of their foundation at the top levels of the U. S. Department of Education under Duncan), The Walton Family, and others.
When I attended the Emerging Practioners in Philanthropy conference in April, there was a push for foundations to engage in social justice work and advocate for systemic changes that will better help the people many non-profits serve. At the same time, I wonder if the kind of relationship Gates, Broad, and Walton are creating with politicians is the kind of relationship we envision when it comes to promoting social justice.
Firstly, only certain foundations have this kind of pull. In other words, I’m pretty sure it isnt just the money from the foundations that is attractive; it’s also the people behind the money. These are all powerful people who have a great deal of influence. As a result, this doesn’t come off as collaboration, where organizations that serve a similar population in a similar issue discuss ways to combine resources and efforts. Instead there is mounting resentment from teachers, parents, and communities about what they feel is happening to them instead of with them.
Secondly, should funding be attached to people in the first place? Politics are inherently messy and if there is one things I took away from the primaries is that reform efforts are volatile. Once a candidate leaves, often the policies they created go with them. Funding may influence the continuation of a person’s power that may be unwelcomed, where as programs can have new leaders or change direction when necessary.
And finally, are we setting up a situation where voices of other foundations will be drowned out of this conversation? Not just because they may not have the money and influence of Gates Foundation, for example, but also because the way in which the conversation is being shaped requires a certain approach that other foundations may not agree with. Can lasting change only come from working with politicians? What role does the community play in this approach?
What do you think about the current role of foundations in politics? Are there other examples of this kind of relationship?
I agree. Politics are inherently messy and as such, foundations have no place being involved in these issues, especially at the mercy of our children. It is simply the status quo re-mixed: those with power continue to exercise their power and get a tax-exemption as a result of it. In my opinion, that’s immoral on all kinds of levels.
I saw Vince Gray on TV shortly after winning the D.C. Mayoral primary and he made a point of saying that he would not slow the momentum around real education reform in city. I hope he keeps this promise and doesn’t bow to the will of foundations who want to drive local reform from the passenger seat…
[Reply]
It seems that the two have always been intertwined. When John Winthrop stated that the rich were obligated to take care of the poor in the 1600s, he was already Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and enjoyed a long political career. His foray into philanthropy was followed by many, including Benjamin Franklin.
But now, we find that the entanglements have grown even more complicated, with the big players in the Philanthropic and political communities often being one in the same, setting the arbitrary rules for “giving”, growing wealtheir by the day while refusing to pay down their endowments and often
acting in complete opposition to their founders’ intent (see: Barnes Foundation).
Isn’t the goal to give away as much as you can? Shouldn’t you want to work yourself out of business by eliminating social ills? Shouldn’t the communities you claim to serve have a seat at the decision-making table?
[Reply]
[...] principles clear. I’ve come across some blog posts lately regarding nonprofits getting into politics. I’m interested in learning more about the proposed effects nonprofits donating or advocating [...]
[...] while Michelle Rhee was chancellor of education, she developed relationships with foundations that many thought were problematic. But clearly, there is a space in our national conversation on progress where non-profits are [...]
[...] that Michelle Rhee developed with foundations during her time as education chancellor in DC have been criticized. Similar to the concern of “advocacy for hire” is this another way for billionaires to [...]