This is a post about how I deal with my despair around the slow pace of change in philanthropy. My despair—and this post—were spurred on by many things, like experiencing continued dishonesty, bias and tokenism in the field, as well as troubling power dynamics. The recent piece in the NY Times about the largest transfer of wealth in the history of wealth describes one of those troubling power dynamics. This shift of money, according to the authors, is not significantly going to help anyone but those who are already wealthy.
So, as one little person in a big big world, how do I deal with my despair (in addition to not engaging with the 24-hour news cycle)? By thinking deeply, and writing about what’s bothering me. As Dr. Ann Belford Ulanov always used to say, echoing Wilfred Bion: the solution is in the problem. So, I offer the following observations about the obstacles to change I keep bumping into in the philanthropic field, alongside some ideas for doing things differently.
(Dis) honesty - The philanthropic field is FULL of progressive and radical folks who want to turn existing philanthropic systems on their heads. It’s great! There are people who want to realize a philanthropic system that is not an evasion of paying taxes, or a playground to fund the ideas of the wealthy. But instead is a resource for community-defined and community-led sustainable change. Not money from outside, being directed by outsiders, for the “good of us.” But plans and power building that we generate together, that philanthropic entities would be humbled and honored to support in solidarity with us. We can see what philanthropy could be, we know the value it could bring… And we know too well its worts. The reality is that we can’t really tell the truth, in the words that are truest, inside the places we work, nor to gain access to the inside of places we want to work: in order for philanthropy to change, the wealthy must not only give their wealth, but they must give up their power, too. Rich people need to give their money away and then get out of the way. But, if you say something like this out loud (like in a job interview) you often won’t get a second interview. And if you say these things to your organization’s leaders, or in meetings, you’ll likely be labeled “negative” or called a cynic.
What can be done - avoid weaponizing the terms “cynic” and “negative” to silence someone who’s offering ideas about what needs to change. Invite all kinds of status quo perspective-challenging conversations. We all know change takes time. We all know Capitalism is what we’re working with. Don’t let silence and unwillingness make it take longer to transform it.
Bias - Bias is too big an issue to squish into a single paragraph, so I only want to talk about one small sliver of it: grants and reporting. I’ve worked for so many organizations over time, and applied for so many grants for them, it could make your head spin. Just last week (literally) I submitted 10 proposals for different orgs. But what makes my head spin is the significantly heavier lift in both grant proposal requirements and grant reporting requirements that come from traditional foundations looking to make grants to Black-led and people of color-led organizations. It reminds me of the film industry, and how the budgets for movies directed by men are almost always significantly higher than budgets for films directed by women. What it shows me is that the people who are in control have bias against the people they are purportedly supporting—and it shows up, in film, via budget size, and in grants and reporting via demands for documentation that require significantly measurable additional work, to prove…what I am not certain.
What can be done - simplify the grant application and reporting process. Let an organization send you its favorite blurb about itself, and as the entities with resources, foundations should follow-up with due diligence and find out what they need to know with the resources at hand: websites, annual reports, Guidestar, 990s, interviewing community members. Shift the administrative burden off the organizations, and onto the resource-rich.
Tokenism - It’s still hanging around. I see it in organizations that add new DEI Director positions and fill them with people of color, but when those directors bring organization-wide changes to the table, they are not supported. Many historically white-led organizations have hired people of color in executive-level positions in very recent years, but the same holds true: they become a symbol of change, yet are not supported to implement org-wide change. Meanwhile historically Black- and people of color-led organizations continue to be underfunded overall.
What can be done - make a commitment to DEI and belonging. Talk about it daily. Understand what it means at the high level, and in day to day actions. Becoming inclusive does not simply mean diversifying the look of things. It means changing who we are as people—addressing our biases, engaging empathy, and expanding our perspectives so that we—who are the organizations!—can change our organizations and institutions.
Power dynamics - This is another too-big-for-a-paragraph topic, but I just want to talk about one small part: the folks, primarily the white people I have worked with, who conflate anti-white supremacy and anti-racism with doing good and being nice. Also, those folks, primarily the white women I have worked with, who conflate prejudice and discrimination with systemic oppression. The result is usually a leader who is either unaware of her bias, or resistant to addressing it due to a belief that it couldn’t possibly be there, for she is a nice person, doing good things, and is herself, discriminated against. This leads to very imbalanced and extremely harmful power dynamics, usually unspoken ones, that make it very hard—and sometimes dangerous—to call out the dynamics.
What can be done: while it may be true that we are nice people, doing good things, who have tough lived experiences, we nevertheless have biases and beliefs that cause us to act in certain ways. To avoid unconsciously harming others, we must be unafraid to admit that we have biases and beliefs however ugly they are, or upsetting it may be to say so. We are products of our society, after all. The biases within us might not be our fault, but it is our duty to address, admit, and root them out.
—MBF
FOR INTERESTED PHILANTHROPISTS AND NON PROFIT PEOPLES:
Really feeling this funder group’s aims AND backing actions. Read solidaire’s announcement about their path forward.
Nonprofit AF, Vu Le’s website and thought bucket where he tackles with great humor and collaborations a lot of the issues I bring up here. Uncannily relevant to this post is something he put up just a few days ago: Join the Movement to End Crappy Funding Practices! Also a fan of his point-by-point take-down of The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s April opinion piece on Philanthropic Pluralism. Just like there can be hate crimes, and hate speech, I do think there can be hate philanthropy.
Great post. So knowledgeable and important. I feel like all the CEOs who contributed to the Pluralism op-ed. in the Chronicle should read your post. Your post talks about what foundations DO and how they behave in the world. The guts of social justice/change/liberation. The op-ed on the otherhand seems mostly concerned with avoiding polarizing discussions, allowing divergent views, not a bad thing of course, like families sitting around the dinner table, except in this instance I can only picture privileged people sitting around a board room table trying to keep the status quo going instead of changing society or questioning institutionalized anything.