Reactions to gifts like Ken Griffin’s say more about the critic than the critiqued.
Like most professional communities, it’s always easy to conceive of the challenges we face in the fundraising community as being somewhere between the various ideological camps that subscribe to different definitions of best practices. However, I have found that when a gift like Ken Griffin’s $300M to Harvard makes headlines, the real challenge we collectively face becomes most evident.
In The War for Fundraising Talent, I described the learned helplessness that is baked into the way that many nonprofit organizations go about their fundraising efforts. This learned helplessness is fueled by the way many of these fundraisers and their employers react to gifts like Griffin’s. Instead of being curious and looking for insights that can enlighten their practices, they get themselves tied up in the criticisms that always ensue afterwards.
Griffin is the 34th wealthiest person on the planet. This means there are 33 people who are more capable than he is of making such gifts, and many of them don’t see the world the same way he does. Griffin’s older peers are the wealthiest generation in American history; this wealth eventually has to go somewhere else. The Baby Boomers have managed to make the donor-advised fund as ubiquitous as the 401k. These funds now account for upwards of $235 billion that must eventually go to a charity. There is no doubt in my mind that, for those who want to find fault with the philanthropic decisions of our most affluent citizens, the next decade is going to be a heyday.
I don’t believe I nor anyone else deserve any bonus points for trying to crack the code on Ken Griffin’s gift. As a graduate, Harvard is referenced in the first line of his LinkedIn profile. In addition to Harvard, he has given very publicly to a wide range of charitable causes. He has also given close to $60 million to Republican candidates and campaigns during this election cycle. Politico points out that the mantra woven into both his philanthropic and political giving is a determination toward “protecting the American dream for future generations.”
What may be more enlightening for my fundraising colleagues and their employers is some perspective of the critics who can't help finding fault when gifts of this magnitude happen. Within hours of being announced, headlines were popping up, one after another, that relied on the same underlying formula. The reaction to a gift like Ken Griffin’s often says more about the critic than the critiqued.
When gifts of this magnitude catch our attention, the first thing we go looking for are easy answers. For some, it’s perhaps because we want the advantage of such a gift for our own organization; others want to dismiss all possibility that any such gift could originate from a legitimate source or emerge from the best of intentions. This impulse to start looking for simple explanations is why gifts like Griffin’s are easy pickings for what my friend Beth Breeze, in her book In Defence of Philanthropy, refers to as the populist critique.
Making sense of a gift of the magnitude that Griffin gave Harvard last week starts with the realization that easy answers aren’t out there. Breeze explains that, “At root, populism is the denial of complexity, providing satisfying but erroneously simple answers to exceedingly complicated problems.” Breeze wants us to acknowledge, “That philanthropy is far more complex than most people realize, and requires far more nuance than many critics appreciate.”
Breeze explains that the populist critique assumes that the philanthropist’s gift is qualitatively different from everyone else’s, beginning with questions about where their money came from followed by suppositions that it’s primary purpose is to hide a self-interested agenda. Breeze explains, “Populists problematize both the accumulation and the distribution of wealth, advancing the view that rich donors have secured their fortunes immorally and suggesting that their philanthropic distribution is an attempt to cover up their ill-gotten wealth, as well as to mask self-interested hidden agendas and ulterior motives.”
After raising suspicions about the manner by which the philanthropist came into wealth and convincing us that there is always a hidden agenda behind the donor’s stated intent, the formula then directs our attention to the harmful effects that such an evil-doer and their gift-giving will have on society. This is where we can begin to make sense of how this critique differs from the others that Breeze outlines in her book. She explains that, “Where academics and insiders typically write from a place of constructive critique, drawing on evidence to make their points, populism is an evidence-free, hyperbolic zone that depicts big donors as ridiculous, immoral and potentially illegal.”
In the end, Breeze asserts that, “The cumulative result is to nurture dislike of donors and hostility to the outcomes of their philanthropic acts.” And she warns that, “The net result of the populist critique is to question the possibility of any extent of altruism among rich donors, and to promote the interpretation of giving as a cunning ruse.”
Then some of us wonder why some fundraisers are fearful and hesitant to engage with those with the greatest capacities to give. Rather than being able to see ourselves on the same team with those who are capable of contributing in the most extraordinary ways, the populist critique conjures up fear, envy, and resentment towards those with whom the majority of us already have enough trouble engaging in meaningful ways. Understandably, sometimes it is hard to even believe that we live on the same planet as some of our wealthiest donors.
Fortunately, the most talented fundraisers that I have met throughout my career, and the hundreds that we have talked with on The Fundraising Talent Podcast, don't all see their work as an us vs them endeavor. They understand that their work often involves persuading those who don’t see and understand the world the same way we do to give. They strive to first see themselves on the same team with their donors no matter how different the realities are from which they may hail.
If your organization wants to understand how to raise extraordinary levels of support by way of meaningful relationships and higher expectations, our team at Responsive would welcome the opportunity to help you do that. If you’re interested in learning more, email me and/or our managing partner, Michael Dixon. We will be happy to volunteer an hour to get to know you and to explore with you what a partnership with our team might look like.