The Commons

Pablo Eisenberg’s jeremiad on charitable giving in the Wall Street Journal misses the mark in a variety of ways.  First, of his nine recommendations, only one of them deals with the more than 80 percent of philanthropic giving that is made by individuals – and that one only marginally.  He is beating a tired, lame horse here.  His primary complaint seems to come down to an assertion that not enough is going to what he thinks is important – namely, organizations “serving the poor, people of color, women and children at risk, gays/lesbians, disabled and troubled youth.”

Who made him the moderator of what causes are worthy?  And how did education and healthcare – two of the sectors he appears to believe are over-funded – become somehow disassociated from “the poor, people of color” etc.?  In fact, a good education and decent health are closely associated with upward socioeconomic mobility – with a bachelor’s degree worth nearly $1 million more in lifelong earnings than a high school diploma.  So, gee, maybe those “stingier” wealthy donors who are giving to “universities and colleges (and) medical organizations” actually understand something about opportunity, responsibility, and impact of giving that Mr. Eisenberg doesn’t.

While his critique of foundation practices is not entirely unfounded – even those who work in the sector know that greater flexibility and efficiencies would help them do their work – his proposed solutions are as naïve and generalized as the freshman compositions I used to correct.  You can’t simultaneously “simplify reporting” and “improve accountability” – not, at least, without adding a lot of staff who would make it even more difficult to dispense more dollars.  And the concluding notion that big donors will buy newspapers so they can serve a watchdog function is laughable – unless, of course, he has convinced Rupert Murdoch to turn the Wall Street Journal into an organ crusading on behalf of those people whom Mr. Eisenberg seems to feel are being underserved by foundations and private philanthropists.

If that happens, and the Journal begins to sound progressive and concerned about the plight of the oppressed and neglected, I’ll humbly apologize.  In the meantime, you have to wonder what the Journal’s agenda is in publishing this set of recommendations – all of which chip away at the validity of organizations that often pursue a “collectivist” agenda that Journal editors would oppose.  Has Mr. Eisenberg knowingly or unwittingly delivered more ammunition into the hands of those who would like to see the whole sector crippled – regardless of the effect on the populations that those organizations, however imperfectly, serve?

- Robert Moore, Ph.D., Managing Partner

Tags: blogging, charitable giving, eisenberg, nonprofit marketing, nonprofit reforms, philanthropic foundation practices, trends