Philanthropy, capitalism and racial justice
“Black Lives Matter protest march” by Fibonacci Blue is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
This week, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published two long stories (here and here) about foundations, nonprofits and racial justice. Reporters Alex Daniels, Sono Motoyama and I talked to about 45 people, trying to better understand how foundations and nonprofits responded to the so-called racial reckoning set off by the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers in 2020.
To the degree that a consensus emerged, it was an unsurprising one: We were told by leaders of nonprofits that foundations have made progress, but not enough progress, when it comes to supporting the cause of racial justice. This is entirely predictable because advocates who focus on a specific issue –racial justice, climate change, human rights, disaster relief, failing schools, or homelessness–always say that funders should be doing more.
Another theme that emerged was a bit more surprising: Some of the richest and most influential liberal foundations, including Ford, MacArthur, Hewlett, Packard and Open Society, are increasingly giving up power as well as money. They are giving no-strings-attached, multi-year grants to Black-led organizations that engage in grass-roots organizing to build Black power. It has become conventional wisdom in lefty philanthropy that this is the way to improve the lives of Black Americans. Color me skeptical.
Finally, it became clear that, as with so much else in philanthropy, no one can be sure which strategies and programs to promote racial justice are working and which are not. The practice of evaluation itself is being challenged by insiders in the field, who argue that traditional notions like objectivity and rigor get in the way of racial equity. Color me even more skeptical.
Put simply, vast sums of money are flowing from rich foundations to grass-roots groups to accomplish vaguely-defined goals, with little accountability. The lack of knowledge about what works and what does not should matter more than it does.
The argument for giving unrestricted money to community groups is sometimes summed up by saying that the people closest to a problem are those closest to a solution. It’s almost become a cliche: See this, this, this, this, and this last one, by a grant-maker at google.org, who should know better.
Marginalized people deserve to be heard, of course. “Nothing about us without us,” a phrase popularized by the disability-rights community, is an important principle. It means that no policy should be decided without the full participation of those who will be affected. That’s a matter of effectiveness as well as justice.
But trusting community groups alone to solve problems caused by centuries of racism in employment, housing and education makes no sense. Expertise matters. If my computer is on the fritz, I get tech help. When a pipe bursts, I call a plumber. If I were to get cancer, I’d see an oncologist.
Solving social problems, too, requires expertise. Does requiring body cameras curb police abuses? Do gun buybacks curb violence? What’s the effect of rent control on housing affordability? What’s the best way to teach kids to read? How does family structure affect upward mobility?
Scholars have studied such questions for decades. Grant-makers and community activists who want to improve the well-being of Black Americans should, at the very least, become familiar with their work.
Consider, for example, that capitalism, for all its problems, has helped lift billions of people out of poverty, making possible a world that is wealthier, healthier and better educated. The world’s happiest countries — Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc — all enjoy market economies, along with progressive taxes and a strong safety net.
Yet foundations run by smart people fund the Movement for Black Lives, which aside from its accountability issues, wants to abolish market economies along with the police and prisons. “We are anti-capitalist,” the movement says. So are Cuba and Venezuela; they’re not faring very well.
Liberal grant-makers are not anti-capitalist but they generously fund nonprofits that advocate for bigger government, higher taxes, a stronger safety net and more regulation. My June 2022 story for the Chronicle, Can Philanthropy Remake Capitalism?, reports on the work of the Ford, Hewlett and Omidyar foundations to develop alternatives to neoliberalism.
Fortunately, institutional philanthropy is not monolithic. Corporate and conservative grant-makers say that unfettered capitalism is not the problem but the solution to the racial wealth and income gaps. They want to make it easier for Black Americans to start businesses and own their own homes.
You can read the rest of this story on Medium
