By Christian Clansky
Communications Director
Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers
To borrow a phrase from President Obama, let me be perfectly clear. What follows is my personal opinion, and I’d like to start with the concession that Pablo Eisenberg is an expert on philanthropy and a lot of other things. I am not.
That said, his recent piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy – Misplaced Giving Priorities of America’s Wealthy – seemed to me to be almost completely wrong in its approach.
I could talk about Eisenberg’s implication that there must be a common value system for philanthropic giving. I could also talk about his idea that it is the media’s responsibility to hold philanthropists accountable for their giving. And I could certainly talk about Eisenberg’s harsh claim that “few, if any, of the nation’s wealthiest citizens seem to care” about those in need.
But instead, I want to talk about pandas and monuments.
To illustrate his point about “deeply disturbing…misplaced giving priorities,” Eisenberg picks on local billionaire and philanthropist David Rubenstein. In recent months, Rubenstein has made large gifts to support panda reproduction at the National Zoo and to help repair the severely damaged Washington Monument. Eisenberg doesn’t seem to find value in these gifts. He says:
Was a gift to pandas a matter of national interest that merited prominent treatment? Would the $7.5-million donation [to the Washington Monument] help solve a national societal problem?
One could argue that there is inherent value in the preservation of animal species. Organizations like the World Wildlife Fund certainly believe this to be true. There is also a very strong argument to be made about the importance of preserving historical structures.
Eisenberg, however, thinks that Rubenstein’s gifts aren’t valuable because they don’t address poverty. So I’ll approach from that angle.
The giant pandas at the National Zoo are one of the region’s most popular attractions. They rank with the monuments, the Capitol, and the cherry blossoms as symbols for our city’s tourism market. The pandas are even printed on Metro farecards.
By the same token, the Washington Monument almost single-handedly defines the District’s skyline. It is the literal centerpiece of the National Mall, which attracts millions of visitors a year.
Tourism is a major driver in our region’s economy. People buy tickets for planes and trains, and they fill up their cars with gas. They stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and shop at our stores. They spend money on Metro, Marc, and VRE, visit the gift shops and cafeterias at our museums, and take back wonderful memories that encourage others to come here to visit.
How does this help fight poverty? According to data from last year, our tourism industry employs 61,000 local residents. It also generates more than $600 million in revenue for the city from taxes and fees.
That money funds our schools, supports job training, and provides essential services to those who need it most.
Without attractions like the Zoo and the Washington Monument, people wouldn’t be eager to visit. That would result in lost jobs, lost revenue, and lost services. Gifts like the ones that David Rubenstein has made in recent months promote the health of our region, which is essential for promoting the well-being of those who need support.
If he’s going to attack the giving practices of those who freely and generously choose to give away their own money, Pablo Eisenberg should more carefully consider the inter-connectivity of things. Yes, the gift to the pandas merits “prominent treatment.” Yes, fixing the Washington Monument can help contribute to the solution of a “societal problem.”
A final point. I’m not sure that Eisenberg actually believes this, but the emphasis he puts on Rubenstein’s gifts to the Zoo and Monument make it seem like he believes those things constitute the extent of the billionaire’s philanthropy. An article from the Chronicle in 2011 talks about Rubenstein’s signing of the Giving Pledge and the ways in which he was planning to give away more than half of his wealth – estimated now to be more than $2.6 billion. It also mentioned the $100 million that the philanthropist has given to arts, education, and children’s health.
At the very least, Eisenberg might consider revising his comment about Rubenstein’s giving being “miserly.” He might also rethink his assertion that the “Rubensteins of this world can easily give more generously to charitable organizations.”
After all, when asked about the future growth of his wealth, David Rubenstein replied, “If I make more money, then I will have more money to give away…And I’ll be happy to do it.”
Posted by Rebekah Seder 
