Momentum is growing in philanthropy to support programs that bridge polarization and promote pluralism. Most recently, the donor collaborative New Pluralists, which aims to “build a nation of belonging,” was featured in the Biden administration’s United We Stand Summit, showcasing solutions to America’s hate-fueled violence.
Given the nation’s deep and growing divisions, many will welcome these developments. In my view, however, there is good reason for skepticism.
I have worked in the bridge-building arena for many years and currently serve as director of Neighborly Faith, which trains young Christians to counter polarization and collaborate with people of different faiths. Through that work, I have come to believe that most programs focused on pluralism are mismatched to the problems they aim to solve.
This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding by philanthropists and experts in the field of the issues that need to be addressed, whom should be targeted, and where interventions are likely to have the greatest impact. Increased philanthropic investment is certainly needed but should be accompanied with strategies better suited to the challenges facing a pluralistic society.
The lion’s share of philanthropic investment in pluralism during the past 20 years has flowed to two primary places: scholarly and policy organizations and grassroots groups. But neither has proven well suited to the task of stemming violence or making America a more welcoming place for all people.
Consider the great work of organizations such as Faith in Public Life, Interfaith America, and the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. These nonprofits publish, lobby, and run on-the-ground programs, yet their reach is limited to academics, policy makers, progressive clergy, and college students. (Neighborly Faith also works predominantly with college students and has in the past received funding from Interfaith America). All were trailblazers in the pluralism field in terms of both scholarship and philanthropy. But none is working directly with communities where hate-based violence or dangerous ideologies most often take root.
Recent pluralism-focused philanthropic endeavors aimed at grassroots organizing certainly show promise. New Pluralists, which hopes to mobilize $1 billion in donor investments in the next 10 years, is partnering with an impressive list of pluralism leaders throughout the country — what it calls “Field Builders.” And the Faith In/And Democracy donor collaborative launched by Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, or PACE, has so far awarded 31 grants to grassroots groups working at the intersection of faith and democracy.
Abandoning Failed Approaches
But the success of these endeavors will depend on a willingness to break away from approaches that have largely failed to build genuine bridges between people and groups. There are good reasons previous efforts didn’t succeed. For starters, this is difficult work. Pluralism is deeply unpopular among those who don’t already like it.
I have experienced this firsthand when planning pluralism programs among evangelicals at Neighborly Faith. It is easy to get progressive-leaning synagogues and churches to work together to bridge divides. It is much harder to convince evangelicals to sit down with Muslims — or any faith group — that don’t share their political leanings.
A 2020 report by the Aspen Institute on philanthropic giving for religious pluralism shed light on why so few nonprofits are succeeding at this work. The report found that the most generously funded pluralism programs were engaged in what’s called “mono-faith action” — or activities within one faith community. Relatively little funding went to multifaith bridge-building groups. This suggests, according to the analysis, that many donors “continue to have strong roots and commitments in a specific faith tradition.”
Unfortunately, such funding patterns are unlikely to produce the desired results. This may be one reason why leaders of pluralist organizations are unable to convince, say, a campus chapter of the far-right student-organizing group Turning Point USA to eat dinner with the local Muslim student association, or members of a Christian nationalist media group to spend time with LGBTQ activists. My organization is no exception. While we do work with some polarized groups such as these, most of our programs bring together conservative Evangelical and Muslim college students.
In my experience, gatherings between deeply polarized groups rarely, if ever, occur. These examples may seem extreme, but they shouldn’t be. They are exactly what’s needed to bridge America’s divides — and the types of accomplishments my field should churn out on a regular basis.
Relying on Conservatives to Lead
Fortunately, some organizations are devising new ways of bringing disparate groups together and offer potential solutions for others in the field. Consider the One America Movement, which counters toxic polarization by working with religious organizations on the left and right. Recently, the nonpartisan nonprofit did something I have never seen before: It hired conservative clergy to run its outreach to congregations, understanding that they would have more success convincing right-leaning groups to participate. Most pluralism nonprofits have progressive leanings and are normally hesitant to hire staff who do not share all their values.
The New Pluralists has also acknowledged that programs to promote pluralism have little track record outside of America’s most elite groups: think tanks, research universities, and forums for public policy. In response, the organization’s stated strategy is focused on “providing funding that enables communities to respond to local flashpoints.” Rather than funding large or elite organizations, it is seeking candidates “rooted within local communities,” facing “events that risk eroding trust and respect.” If New Pluralists succeeds, it will be a welcome result for the field and a clear demonstration of what’s possible.
This prompts the question of whether funding proposed at the White House summit can identify and travel to flashpoint areas that are stoking America’s hate and division — or if the distance is simply too great. In my experience, the forces that are pitting people against each other are difficult to identify and interrupt. Many are strictly digital, operating on YouTube, social media, and disinformation news sites.
Other networks are so nimble that connecting with them is nearly impossible. I recently tried to reach out to Turning Point USA and could not find a single email on its website. Some groups may not want to be found by pluralism nonprofits and have no interest in bridging differences.
The problems with funding pluralism are many, but a glut of new investment may be what is required to help the field develop innovative solutions and achieve results at the grassroots level. New discoveries about what is working, if widely shared and consistently funded, could help America get closer to the promise of a pluralist society that welcomes those of all races, religions, ethnicities, and identities.
The results of a recent national survey by PACE on how Americans react to the word “pluralism” demonstrates why innovation in the field is so urgently needed. The study found that only 19 percent of Americans view the word “pluralism” positively. Twice as many (38 percent) say they don’t know what it means, and the remainder (43 percent) view it negatively or are ambivalent. Evidently, pluralism in America has a long way to go.
