Don’t Go Against a Donor’s Desires

To the Editor:

Rebecca Sive has called “the nation’s wealthiest foundations” to action, suggesting that they “pour all their resources into the [hurricane] recovery over the next few decades, and then go out of business” (“Katrina’s Aftermath Requires Bold Action,” My View, October 27).

Life sure would be good for everyone if we’d all just heed this advice, wouldn’t it? Or would it?

Ms. Sive’s ambitious proposal ignores at least two basic precepts of philanthropy: donor intent and the voluntary nature of philanthropic giving.

She is eager to plunder foundation coffers to tackle what she perceives to be the nation’s biggest, longest-standing problems — namely, racism and poverty.

But most of the wealthiest foundations were not established to address racism or poverty. Redirecting their philanthropic efforts by her edict would violate their respective missions and purposes, as well as the intentions of the donors.

Even more troubling, Ms. Sive does not propose to make her case to the donors themselves, eliminating any possibility of voluntary action among our fellow citizens for the common good.

Ms. Sive admits that “government cannot cure the problem,” allowing that the federal government is “unable to sustain either its current level of spending (which is already inadequate) or increase its spending.”

If the federal government cannot throw enough taxpayer money at poverty to eliminate it, what makes anyone think that the relatively paltry total of foundation resources will amount to more than a drop in the bucket by comparison?

The United States government has spent trillions upon trillions of our dollars since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, with little to show for it but a welfare-dependent class and a growing national debt. Confiscating every foundation dollar in the country would accomplish little more.

To ensure our success as a nation, Ms. Sive declares that it is vital to eliminate racism. Exactly how money will accomplish this is not explained to the reader.

But I disagree with her premise that “we live in a country that permits poverty and profound racial discrimination to occur.”

In fact, our society does not permit profound racial discrimination; such behavior is proscribed by law. And although there are certainly poor people in the United States, and many others who cannot take care of themselves, most of America’s poorest citizens enjoy a standard of living far above that of the world’s most impoverished people.

Eliminating racism is an admirable goal. That, however, will only be accomplished by changing people’s hearts, one at a time. No federal program or foundation grant will do the job.

Ms. Sive declares that “ending poverty cannot be done incrementally.” I suggest dropping the word “incrementally” and stating more correctly that “ending poverty cannot be done.” The logical extension of this thinking is an overnight confiscation and redistribution of private wealth held by American citizens. This is not philanthropy, it is socialism.

Americans have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. But in the world of philanthropy, we limit our idealism to making the case for betterment of the world in which we live and urging our fellow citizens to act voluntarily for the common good. When we do our jobs well, many will act, and life will be better, for all of us.

Hank Techentin
Director of Development
Outreach Foundation of the Presbyterian Church
Franklin, Tenn.

Mr. Techentin’s views are his own and do not necessarily represent those of his employer.