Richard Marker, an adviser to donors and a professor at New York University’s Center on Philanthropy, sees lessons for philanthropy in the furor over the Islamic center and mosque slated to be built two blocks from the former World Trade Center site.
Mr. Marker says that misunderstandings about the project have fueled its unpopularity. And just because the center seems to be unpopular with many Americans, he says, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be built.
Philanthropy, too, needs to be careful about caring too much about what’s popular or what the majority thinks, he says. Efforts to push private philanthropy away from being so “private,” by creating consensus measurements around societal needs, could be harmful, says Mr. Marker.
It might not seem very controversial to suggest that supporting soup kitchens is more important than supporting rich institutions such as Harvard University. But if not Harvard, says Mr. Marker, what about a community college or a charter school? He says there’s no easy way to draw a line.
Philanthropic fads shouldn’t dictate where money goes, either, he notes. And if philanthropy has to meet some external standard, then why not raise taxes and let politicians decide how to spend this money?
“History teaches us that xenophobia, or less dramatically, socially unpopular reasons, are not very good or responsible ways to set public policy,” Mr. Marker writes. “And in philanthropy, that is why we have private philanthropy—so that it can fund those things which some may perceive to be in the long-term public interest, even if not necessarily consistent with the short-term majority as reflected in opinion polls.”
What do you think? Do all charity leaders have some stake in the debate over the Islamic center project?
0 Responses to Keeping the ‘Private’ in Private Philanthropy
raharnisch - August 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm
The ignorance and prejudice on display in the debate over the proposed Islamic center is, in my mind, the equivalent of the opposition to full civil rights for people whose sexual orientation troubles some people.The United States of America cannot allow discrimination based on personal emotional reactions and private religious beliefs. It is a shame when politicians cave in to such prejudices. Private philanthropy must be free to be private, not subject to the whims of a capricious public. Either it’s private or it’s not. Interfering with private philanthropy amounts to a seizure of property. I’d rather give up the tax advantage than turn over decisionmaking to outsiders.
stewartk - August 17, 2010 at 8:44 pm
There is no “ignorance” or “prejudice” on display. Building a mosque at Ground Zero is simply insensitive and ill-advised, if one believes in courtesy, sympathy, and “being good neighbors.” I did not have a loved one perish in the towers on 9/11, but I still think it is completely inappropriate to build a mosque there, a stone’s throw away from where thousands of Americans were literally incinerated alive by Islamic jihadists. Building a mosque there is insensitive. Is it “legal?” Yes. It is “freedom to worship?” Yes. But is it appropriate and the best move by Muslims to foster positive feelings and relationships among the people of NYC and America? NO.I don’t see how philanthropy has anything to do with this situation. This issue is about being sensitive to those who lost loved ones on the most horrific day ever in the United States of America, as well as the millions of other Americans who also feel that the location of the mosque is inappropriate and ill-advised.Just because I can walk down a dark street at 2:00 a.m. doesn’t mean I should, and it’s a good idea.There are many things in life that are technically “legal” but certainly inappropriate in certain circumstances and situations. Should Germans build a 3rd Reich Museum next to Auschwitz? I’m not Jewish, but I have many dear Jewish friends and would be outraged at the incensitivity of such a thing. Surely there are other locations on the island of Manhattan where a mosque can be built and allow both intrested parties (Muslims and the families of the victims of 9/11) the peace and freedoms that they have a right to.I can also name numerous instances where Christian houses of worship have been denied the “right” to build in a certain neighborhood, on private property, because the neighbors were “concerned” about parking, the traffic, the size, the height of the cross or steeple, etc. It happens all across America, folks. This mosque issue is nothing new.
dougwhite - August 18, 2010 at 12:09 am
The Germans who would build a 3rd Reich Museum would pay homage to the evils of the 3rd Reich. Is that – paying homage to the terrorists – what some think Muslims are doing in Manhattan? No, quite the opposite. Furthermore, insensitivity is not the barometer by which – not in government, and not in our private discourse, which is what Richard Marker argues – we measure progress or the lack of it.The community of private, nonprofit organizations, of which homes of all religions are vital members, have been given the luxury, in our laws and in our hearts, to address that which we think is – privately – most important. Should the government want to support unpopular causes, and it is doing less and less of that if, for example, the declining NEA budget is representative, then let it step further in and play a more enthusiastic role in the quest for a greater diversity of ideas. But that is not and never will be enough, which is why private philanthropy, with its often long time horizon, is needed. If advocating only what some say everyone should think are good ideas or universally sympathetic causes were the measure of what those few would define as a healthy society, we would live in a world very much like . . . the Third Reich.
resilience005 - August 18, 2010 at 2:31 pm
insensitive and ill-advised are too strong to be used in this case. We have to be careful to not send the message to everyone that all muslims are terrorists. And refusing this Mosquee is what it means. People will pray on this site 24 hours it is a powerful message to the entire world. We should make the difference between “terrorists” and people who just want to practice their religion.