In making my decision about which organization to donate to for this week’s tweet of the week (Thank you Katherine for your nomination and for all of your votes, by the way), I chose something more from the heart. I would like to donate the money to my childhood camp called Mapleridge Ranch. It is a non-profit, Christian camp in Owego, NY (just up the road from BU!). Last summer I worked on staff there helping with the horsemanship program. It was very powerful to see campers overcome their fears of trying something new, like riding a horse. One of my favorite stories was helping a camper in cancer remission ride a horse for the first time. He picked our tallest horse, Ranger a Tennessee walking horse, to learn on. The two of them made an excellent pair, and the entire summer was really an amazing opportunity. The donation will go towards scholarships for campers who may not be able to afford to attend otherwise.
“I have a conviction that a few weeks spent in a well-organized summer camp may be of more value educationally than a whole year of formal school work” –Charles William Eliot, Harvard President
I found the reading this week about giving from the head and giving from the heart very interesting, as I have always thought of giving as an act of generosity from the heart. Yet, I see why it is important to also use your head in decision making. With a group as large as ours, I predict that the differences in these strategies may actually be something we encounter in our own decision process.
“Mr. Friedman said donors who give emotionally were like people who spend money on an expensive dinner” (Sullivan, 2013). But I thought that giving was a selfless act? Still, I definitely see the importance of the point made in the Brooks NYT article about the meaningfulness of actually contributing time rather than monetary resources.
“Mr. Friedman said donors who give emotionally were like people who spend money on an expensive dinner” (Sullivan, 2013). But I thought that giving was a selfless act? Still, I definitely see the importance of the point made in the Brooks NYT article about the meaningfulness of actually contributing time rather than monetary resources.
In this TED Talk, we receive an introduction to Peter Singer’s ideas on effective altruism. (I know we will be reading his book The Most Good You Can Do, so I thought this video might be a perfect introduction while also including a summary of what we are reading this week).
Peter Singer proposes several questions about giving. He even mentions giving from the heart and giving from the head. Towards the end of his talk, he states that it is not enough for us to simply follow prima facie principles like do not steal, lie, or kill. Instead, we have an obligation to give what we can to our fellow people. Sounds like Carnegie’s speech in the Gospel of Wealth, right? I find all of these things very agreeable, but it is this next part that I find myself thinking most about in reflection of our goal for this class.
He describes an example relatable to the Sullivan NYT article. According to Singer, training a guide dog for an American suffering from blindness requires about $40,000 overall. However, you can cure between 400-2,000 people of blindness by trachoma for $20-50 each in a developing country (Singer, TedTALK). Now, I may be partial to training programs such as these because I have personally witnessed many amazing stories through an organization called Guiding Eyes for the Blind, but I really am not sure how to respond to this… Of course, as a Utilitarian, I can see why Singer would emphasize following the latter option. However, I’m not sure if that means training guiding eye dogs would be any less important, granted he says that they are important in his talk. I also know that while it may not save up to 2,000 people, guide dogs have significant effects on their trainers and families, Paul Sullivan points this out in his NYT article about Lucy.
I think we can really relate this situation to our decision in class. With so many of us involved, we each have different passions and purposes for registering for Philanthropy 280. Soon we will start to communicate more with our local organizations as we come closer to our decision and we will face debate about how we allocate the grants.
I wonder what the class would think about the following situation: Consider a start-up organization that has little data regarding its overall impact so far… Now consider an organization that has a great theory of change and has been shown to impact our community well. I predict there may be a debate about this in relation to “head or heart” giving. Giving to a new start-up may actually help to create a chain of awareness for the start-up’s mission, and in turn, it would allow them to finally begin their theory of change and succeed in gaining awareness and implementing their plans.
Of course, giving to the more established organization will also guarantee effectiveness too. After all, we have $10,000 and that is not enough to solve all of the complex issues in Broome County. I think my situation also relates to our class discussion with United Way in regards to the appearance of grant requests. While I think it is important for us to use our head in our decision-making process, I think we have to remember our hearts as students in the local community too.
Of course, giving to the more established organization will also guarantee effectiveness too. After all, we have $10,000 and that is not enough to solve all of the complex issues in Broome County. I think my situation also relates to our class discussion with United Way in regards to the appearance of grant requests. While I think it is important for us to use our head in our decision-making process, I think we have to remember our hearts as students in the local community too.
Questions for readers:
- · Is giving from the heart, or giving to organizations without much thought like in the reading The Giving Conundrum to risky?
- · In regards to our class, since so many people are involved, how much say in the way the funds are spent is important to you?
- · Which would you choose to write a grant for: a start-up or an already well-established group?
- · How do you feel about Peter Singer’s talk? What do you think about his third question: Isn’t charity bureaucratic and ineffective anyway?
Julie- Great post and I love how you're bringing in an organization that you have a personal experience with to the conversation about nonprofits we should be considering. As an avid equestrian for the past 10 years, I can personally attest to the way that having horses in my life have shaped who I am as a person in every way. There is nothing that compares to putting an immeasurable amount of trust in something you can not communicate verbally to. Horses are more than just pets- they are our teammates, our friends, and our "babies" all in one. Not only is there the trust and responsibility factors ever-present, but also the valuable skills to deal with pressure and people around you, especially when the stakes are high.
ReplyDeleteAside from my own competitive riding experience, I spent much of my time in high school volunteering at a local therapeutic riding center called Horseability. There, we worked with adults and children that have a variety of disabilities including mental, emotional, and physical. To watch a non-verbal autistic child transform into a present happy kid or a veteran recovering from PTSD feel confident learning how to balance after being fitted for prosthetics is nothing short of moving and magical. So I too personally have seen the massive benefits that bringing horses to people has. Basically, I could go on and on.
Anyways, I'd like to respond to your second and third questions.
This class is an eclectic group of students with many different years, majors, minors, experiences, from different places, and with different goals. Therefore, students whose wide variety of experiences are going to affect how they want the money spent. As it should. For most of us, we have probably never seen $10,000 in front of us (unless if you count walking into your dorm room). And that amount of money could immensely help make a difference in many people's lives if spent correctly. But correctly means different things to different people. I personally care immensely how the money is spent and I think everyone should too. If there are 27 people in the class and there's $10,000, everyone's opinion is worth about $370 (much more than my average 2 cents). I would like to hear every single person out on what organizations they believe in, why, and why I should believe in them too and I would like to experience the same courtesy. I hope that after presentations, debate, and a democratic process where we can all come to a consensus that most, if not all, are pleased with. And even if I personally don't get what I want, I'd find solace in that at least at difference would be made somewhere for someone. All in all, everyone's voice is valid, and mine is no more valid than anyone else's just as anyone else's isn't anymore valid than mine.
On the third question, I would prefer to write a grant for a well-established group than a start up. While a start-up would likely benefit greatly from a $10,000 grant, I don’t know when else we will have the ability to use money like this to affect change. I would prefer to stick to an organization that has a reputation of being ethical, responsible, and effective in their field of work. Donating to a newer organization is just a risk I am currently unwilling to take. I would prefer to see how a group proves themselves over time in a variety of capacities (ie: effectiveness at framing and addressing their issue area, how their spending is done and if it is responsible and a good use of their funds, and how leaders manage the organization) before donating such a great sum to them. And of course, if this is relative. If I were making significant amounts of money regularly and I could basically use $100 as tissues, I wouldn’t be as conservative about donating to a start-up. I would like to see us as a class focusing on organizations that have been making a difference, are making a difference now, and looking into ways about how they can continue to make a difference in the future.
Congratulations on your tweet of the week win! I think a lot of people who have been to summer camp can look back at the formative experience it had in their lives, so the organization you chose sounds like a great choice.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your fourth question, I found Peter Singer's talk provocative. I know we are going to study him later in the semester, but so far his philosophy has left me unsettled every time I run into it. If we start with the premise that are human lives are of equal value, his arguments make a lot of sense. It is therefore morally reprehensible to spend $40,000 on training a dog that will improve the lives of a few people at most instead of spending that money on curing 400-2,000 people of blindness in developing countries. To Singer, the choice is clear.
But then consider another scenario: you again have $40,000. You could spend that money to prevent fatal disease for 200 people living in poverty in a foreign country. Or you could spend that money on surgery for a child who lives in your hometown and will die without it. I'm fairly certain most people would choose the latter. If you didn't choose the latter, what if that child were instead your father? your sister? yourself?
This is why I find Singer so depressing. I'd like to believe that I value all lives equally, I'm passionate about global poverty and helping those in dire need. Yet when faced with the very possible conundrum above of saving 200 distant strangers or a family member, I would choose the latter, probably in a heartbeat. I'd probably do the same if it were a child in my neighborhood. Logically, I know that if I value all lives equally, I would have to choose saving 200 people. Singer's argument challenged me to question my core beliefs and realize how much I let my heart guide decisions. Furthermore, it made me question whether or not I truly believe all lives are equal.
In order to reject Singer's argument, we have to accept and acknowledge an emotional, non-rational side of our minds. We either have to become effective altruists or we have to accept that it's okay to an extent for people to favor their own pleasure and personal relationships over the lives of others. I assume that most of us will not become effective altruists, so instead it’s up to us to question the extent which we trade pleasure for philanthropy.
Thanks Julie for such a thought-provoking Blog post. I'd like to tackle the third question.
ReplyDeleteFrom a statistical and risk perspective, choosing a start-up organization can be dangerous and be very wasteful for the donor. Digging up some statistics regarding startups, one would find that about 90% of startups in business fail (1). Now, would you donate let's say $20,000 dollars of hard-earned money to a 9-out-of-10 shot that it could potentially go to waste or be misused? The statistic for nonprofits is most likely very different from that of business, however, the main point remains: Startups have the deck stacked against them. They face challenges such as organizational and financial instability, employment issues, and even basic executions problems. Big organizations have clear causes, are generally stable and well-known, and have great experience and reputation in providing some kind of meaningful experience for others. That's the key though, reputation. Charities can work much like businesses in some ways. They have a product effected by a supply and demand, a means to market their product (i.e. aid campaigns, social media announcements) and a extensive reputation that either improves, remains neutral, or proceeds themselves. A business may have a great product, but if it has no social presence and reputation, matched with a poor marketing style, the organization will come and go.
Let's take a look at this in action. An article by philanthropy.com(2) talks about many social media stars being very influential in enacting social change. It cites an example of Smosh, a Youtuber who makes very over-the-top comedy. He quickly racked up over a million views on his video, and received nearly 50,000 people pledging for his cause. Was his product particularly interesting at first? Maybe not. Was his means to market his product appealing? To only a few. Is he a well-known and trusted entity? Yes. Reputation can truly precede something or someone, and frankly, this is what startups lack. They lack trustworthiness and a history of competence. If a startup would like to receive money, its got to show it can compete. Its got to prove itself on the big stage before its getting any money out of me.
(1)http://fortune.com/2014/09/25/why-startups-fail-according-to-their-founders/
(2) https://philanthropy.com/article/social-media-stars-ascend-as/228241
First off, congratulations on winning! I personally do not keep up with the Super Bowl games but it was interesting to learn how they use their popularity for a good cause. Like mentioned in class, this is definitely a positive attractor and is a great way to raise awareness.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the questions you posed, this week’s reading made me question the different topics we discussed in class previously. What is meaningful giving to us and how can we give effectively to solve an issue in the community? I felt Martins’ article, The Giving Conundrum, challenges what we discussed in the past seminars. We had scanned the data from our online resources and looked into the most prevalent issue that needs to be addressed in Broome County, but Martins is here saying that it is the act of giving that counts. And there are no right answers to giving. Whether we give with our hearts or give with our head and heart, we are all philanthropist just like Melinda Gates. As simple as that concept and opinion appear to be, I believe there are complex and different forms of philanthropy and types of philanthropists.
Peter Singer presents one type of philanthropy known as effective altruism. His Ted Talk challenges a great debate between giving effectively (donating to the 400-2,000 people) versus meaningful giving (guide dog). He sides with giving to a larger population because that is more effective in quantitative results. However, Caleb raised great points concerning Singer’s opinion. What if that person who you are saving can create the next best vaccine to cure a disease, or what if that person was your family member? Sometimes, as humans we prefer to make irrational decisions and I believe that is when the heart wins. And that is why meaningful impact can be very subjective because everyone have different values. Depending on the situation, we, as philanthropists, change our decisions. This can definitely be a problem as we start to narrow down the issues we want to tackle with the $10,000. What I am curious about is whether or not anyone changed their minds after hearing other group’s presentation. Did a specific issue spark your interest?
Julie-
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on winning tweet of the week and I really support your giving it to the camp you used to attend. I never attended summer camp, but I have heard from many people that even to this day, they still consider it some of the best times of their lives. I have some friends who continue to volunteer for the camps they went to growing up, therefore I feel confident that it is something that brings a lot of joy and happiness to young kids.
I thought that it is interesting that it can sometimes be discouraged to give from the heart. I always associated philanthropy with things that I care about the most, so until very recently I really only could understand giving from the heart. Although many prominent philanthropists and scholars have stated that it can be more effective to give with your head so that you can make rational decisions that enact that most amount of change, I still think the two should go hand in hand. I think that in The Giving Conundrum the manner in which the author gave may have been too risky. She simply searched for random non-profits and put her credit card information in accordingly. I’m sure that she must have felt a certain level of passion for each of these organizations since she did seek them out, but her methodology did lack organization and perhaps efficiency.
If deciding between a start up organization and a better-established group, I would have to thoroughly research each before making a decision. I do not think that because an organization is new that they are necessarily unprepared for the realities of the challenges they may face, they may just be a little less experienced. Overall, I think that with passion each organization could be equally effective and passionate given the right amount of preparation, organization, strategy and effective leadership.
Hi Julie and congratulations on winning the tweet of the week. I found your tweet very interesting. I love the idea of harnessing the attention that a popular event like the Super Bowl generates and using it for the purpose of philanthropy and change-making. Your post raises some interesting points regarding the head versus heart conversation from the articles and in-class discussions. I would like to provide my opinions in response to the first question that you posed us.
ReplyDeleteYour first question is something that I've been thinking about a lot the past couple days. I believe that the argument of head versus heart has been skewed too much in the favor of head so far. As you said in the beginning of your post, the act of giving stems from the heart. Our compassion towards others is what leads us to giving in the first place. In this way, the heart is central to the giving process. Additionally, I believe that to create any meaningful and lasting change there needs to be people who are passionate about creating that change. People who are emotionally invested in an issue will go the extra mile to affect change. So I personally think that giving from the heart is not risky as you ask. However, giving without thought is a problem. Those who are passionate about fixing a problem will gather the necessary information before taking action. So while giving from the heart is a great first step, it does not excuse using your head in the process. Choosing to give to an issue that some would say is not cost effective, such as guide dog's as you used in your example, is great as long as you are still being an informed donor.