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.”
Also, Eisenberg complains that billionaires like Bill Gates are never held to account for their philanthropy. I wonder how he feels about Gates’ announcement today that he’ll spend three-quarters of a billion dollars fighting TB, AIDS, and malaria?
I don’t know how Eisenberg would feel about Gates’ giving, but giving and being held to account for your philanthropy are two very different things. The recent Robin Rogers Washington Post oped would be a good place to start http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hidden-costs-of-million-dollar-donations/2011/12/20/gIQAzpC1QP_print.html.
Eisenberg’s column is excellent. He doesn’t say giving for pandas and monuments is worthless; he says, in this time of economic crisis, that those gifts are emblematic of misplaced priorities. I would agree. Giving for anti-poverty efforts is more important than giving for monuments. I am more supportive of giving money for species preservation, but I still agree with Eisenberg that money for anti-poverty and direct human services is more important.
You correctly note that the Washington Monument has some importance for the tourist industry in Washington, an important economic driver. This, however, argues for the tourist industry to step up and fund repairs to the monument- after all, they are benefiting from the economic spillover that comes from a taxpayer-supported tourist attraction.
It is precisely because anti-poverty and direct service efforts have little economic significance today (though they can pay huge economic dividends in the future) that funding for them is so critical- and more important than a tourist monument that so many existing businesses and individuals already have a strong stake in maintaining.
Finally, Eisenberg is not saying that there must be one value system for giving. He is saying that his value system is better than that of Rubenstein. You may disagree, but I don’t, and I applaud his courage in saying so.
Dan – thanks for the great response. I appreciate it.
I certainly don’t mean to diminish Eisenberg’s commitment to fighting poverty. Of course I completely support that as a top priority.
What struck me about his column, though, was that his narrow focus on only two of Rubenstein’s many gifts doesn’t account for the possibilities that 1.) there is a larger, more comprehensive strategy to Rubenstein’s giving, or 2.) that these gifts don’t have an effect, direct or indirect, on poverty.
One other thing that I didn’t think about earlier is the relative condition of our economy and society compared to other points in history. There has never been a moment in the history of philanthropy when poverty hasn’t been a significant societal problem.
Eisenberg’s criticisms of billionaires’ philanthropy seem like they could be applied at any point in history to any funder that doesn’t rank direct anti-poverty giving as the highest priority.
The perpetual challenge of philanthropy is considering the most effective, innovative, and holistic ways of improving the world around us. I would argue that there are many correct approaches.
Mark Rosenman’s article in Friday’s Chronicle, “Charities Suffer From a Wealth Gap, Too,” adds data re trends that support Eisenberg’s argument. Perhaps the wealthiest among us really aren’t focused on improving the world around us but on improving that layer of the world in which they circulate.
Thanks for the mention of my piece: http://philanthropy.com/article/Charities-Suffer-From-a-Wealth/130469/. There’s additional data that might be of interest in my response to one of the comments: According to the most recent data available in Foundation Center publications, well under a third of grant dollars are aimed at the “economically disadvantaged” and only about 12% (including many of those same dollars — double counting them) go to human services. That compares to 23% going to education and 23% going to health. As to “social justice” — (which includes — again double-counting — some grants categorized as for the economically disadvantaged, human services, health and education in the preceding sentence), that figure is about 12%.
Mark and K.L. – Thanks much for the feedback. I added Mark’s additional data to our news round-up yesterday.
There are donations that make me scratch my head–when someone gives $100M to Harvard endowment, for example. But count me as a supporter of the “interconnectivity of things” position.
I noticed that Eisenberg talked about the “millions of *Americans* are going homeless and hungry and can’t find jobs.” And Rosenman talked about “the *nation’s* profound economic inequality.”
Should we criticize these men for focusing their efforts here in the land of opportunity while children starve overseas?
I think probably not. It’s good that people devote their time and money towards what they know. Everyone knows that money can’t solve everything–you have to know your issue, know the lay of the land, and have a really good idea in order to get something accomplished. Maybe a lot of funders think to themselves, “You know, I have no idea how to solve intergenerational poverty…and I don’t think anyone else has figured it out yet either… but I’m pretty sure I can fix this panda thing.”
More power to them.
I certainly can’t speak for Pablo, but the reason I focus on the U.S. instead of overseas/universal matters is that my objective is to help convince American foundations (and nonprofits) to direct additional resources to the pressing issues of inequality and injustice, imperfect democracy and the declining common good — to try to get them to look beyond our borders at the same time compounds the difficulty of this ambition and is much, much too great a challenge to the feeble talents I might bring to these efforts. .
As to investing only in programs initiatives where we think we know the answer, what does that say about the role of fueling innovation that much of institutional philanthropy embraces as part of its mission. And certainly, we do not all stumble in the dark when we try to advance equality, justice, democracy and the common good. While none of us has the magic formulas to solve these problems, pieces of the answers indeed are known and can be much better resourced.
Here’s another opinion to add to the mix, from the Community Foundation’s Terri Lee Freeman.