March 13, 2007
Should Nonprofit Groups Take a Stand on the War?
The Nonprofiteer takes issue with a recent opinion article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy that encourages nonprofit leaders to speak out against the war.
The article, by Mark Rosenman, a public-service professor at Union Institute & University, says charity leaders need to speak out against the war because it is diverting government aid away from nonprofit organizations.
“The war has little popular support and massive opposition — and a very broad swath of Americans has been affected by its financial and human costs,” Mr. Rosenman wrote.” Perhaps it would be wise if nonprofit groups that see themselves as leaders in their communities and in society listened to their followers and caught up with their views.”
The Nonprofiteer, which is written anonymously, takes exception to that premise.
Instead, the writer says charities need to stick to their missions. If they have a mission to oppose war, they should feel obligated to speak out. If they have a mission to help the homeless or provide meals to the needy, they should focus on those missions.
Otherwise, the writer says, nonprofit groups are not using their resources wisely.
“We ask the donors to trust us enough to join in our mission; if we change that mission without warning, we’ve abused that trust,” The Nonprofiteer writes.
“If you’re the American Friends Service Committee, knock yourself out; if you’re the American Red Cross, butt out,” the posting continues.
Discuss your thoughts on this topic by clicking on the comment link just below this posting.
— Peter Panepento
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: What Charities Should Do When Donors Renege on Pledges
Next: Seaching for the Next MySpace
— Rev Brian Richards Mar 13, 09:27 PM #
As the author of the “stirring call to nonprofits” that appeared as a Chronicle opinion and on AlterNet, I’d like to offer a few counters to the Nonprofiteer’s arguments, after first saying thanks for the kind words and acknowledging with appreciation our points of agreement. First, although I’m not arguing my position based on popularity, polling data show that the sentiment to end the war is far beyond a “Democratic lock-step” and is, in fact, a solid majority position of Americans of all political parties. Second, the argument that nonprofits that challenge spending on the war is equivalent to challenging spending on any other government programs (especially social services) is spurious; the war is in a category by itself. Most nonprofits are committed to meeting human needs and tending to other fundamental needs domestically and internationally, as ostensibly are most government programs. Few any longer would argue that this characterizes the war.
On the third and final point, I think it is wrong and counter-productive for any nonprofit to define its mission so narrowly that it creates a little box, a silo, in which it isolates itself from true definitions of the problems it faces and tries to address. Would the Nonprofiteer’s example of the Greater Chicago Food Depository not appropriately be part of a coalition on human needs, part of an anti-poverty effort, part of a broader social welfare system reform project, part of a living wage campaign; should it not have something to say about government funding streams, about government priorities, about public values? If so, what about the war?
— Mark Rosenman Mar 14, 04:00 PM #
I think a case can be made for both sides of this very difficult issue and ultimately it would be up to the board of directors to determine such a public position statement, I would think. That being said, if one is going to extrapolate as far out of the proverbial box as you appear to, Mark, I think my concern is that a lot of energy will be spent defending the organization’s right to speak out on the issue. You’re connecting a lot of dots to prove a point, when I would think the bulk of your donors are more concerned with the matter at hand. I don’t know that for a fact, so my apologies for overstepping my bounds or assuming too much here.
— greg wallace Mar 14, 04:29 PM #
I appreciate your concerns, Greg, but it still seems to me that too few dots get connected, and too many pipers sre too worried about their payers picking tunes.
— Mark Rosenman Mar 15, 12:48 PM #
I appreciate the authors of the editorial and response taking the time to follow through on their ideas. I found Mr. Rosenman’s editorial so compelling because of its focus on the real situation – an unbelievable, disproportionate amount of money going to fund activities that the majority of Americans oppose. Even supporting the war doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t think a lot more about funding choices being made, which is why I agree that most nonprofits have the responsibility to their private donors to take a public stand requiring that public funds be spent in a manner more in line with public goals. This shouldn’t take a lot of time, energy, or expense for most boards: too much money is being spent on war which is not benefiting our sector, not enough money is being spent improving conditions in our sector. Ergo, we’re against war funding at current and proposed levels. A great deal of a charity’s resources must be spent finding actual funding to support their mission (where that mission involves direct services, at least). Speaking out in public to ensure that public money is distributed with direction from the public (instead of in opposition to this direction, as with Iraq war funding), is important to any charity whose mission involves safeguarding or promoting the public wealth.
— Melissa Moorehead Mar 20, 03:23 PM #