Philanthropists Should Take Advantage of Their Bully Pulpit

David Cutler, for the Chronicle

The conventional wisdom in philanthropy is that the job of a donor is simply to write the checks so that other, more qualified people can carry out the tasks of solving the world’s social problems.

But that mind-set too often squanders opportunities to truly conquer critical problems. It’s a perspective that keeps philanthropists from using their leadership stature to influence policy, a role they can often pursue without the kinds of restraints their grantees might face.

The foundation I lead seeks to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities as one of our grant-making priorities. In our nearly 15 years of operation, we’ve collaborated with a large number of effective organizations and gifted leaders, many of whom have achieved a great deal to help advance our mission.

But we have also seen obstacles, social problems, and gaps in the current offerings that the existing network of organizations either couldn’t or wouldn’t address. Many organizations that aid people with disabilities are dedicated to providing critical direct services, but too few take that important next step in speaking out on broader policy matters. It’s only when we began doing some of the work ourselves, particularly in the advocacy arena, that we saw our ability to make an impact.

When, for example, a White House official, a senior CNN correspondent, and Israel’s former foreign minister each, on different occasions, attacked opponents through vulgar references to people with disabilities, we spoke out. That got the attention of the White House and CNN, and the former Israeli foreign minister issued a widely publicized mea culpa.

We raised our voices similarly when a United Airlines crew recently removed a girl with autism and her family from a flight. The girl’s family is still petitioning the airline for redress, and in the meantime, we urged United and other companies to use this episode as a way of improving their interactions with people with disabilities.

We have also spoken out about patterns of police abuse against people with disabilities, adding our public statements to efforts to build momentum around a growing and important discussion about police abuse.

And following the tragic news in March that the co- pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 had apparently crashed the plane deliberately and had a history of mental illness, we encouraged policy makers not to rely on stigmas about people with mental illness but to rationally and fairly balance their rights against broader societal needs.

On a much different scale, Bill and Melinda Gates exemplify the kind of activist philanthropy I have in mind. To be sure, their philanthropy has made it possible for many other organizations to address some of the hardest problems on the planet. But both Gateses have also used their stature to personally urge government and business leaders to help in the fight to eradicate diseases, reform education systems in the United States, and much more.

Likewise, Lynn Schusterman, chair of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, has spoken out frequently and eloquently in support of LGBT equality in all aspects of American life, while fortifying many other organizations with the funding to fight for that and many other good causes.

Why couldn’t we simply ask our grantees and other organizations to take on this role?

We can, and we do. Many organizations are well equipped to raise awareness about social challenges and have a good track record of bringing about social change through their advocacy.

Others, however, are less assertive about advocacy, either because they see it as distasteful or because they face push-back from influential people within the systems they are trying to change. Some operate with boards that demand consensus. That means a single board member who doesn’t want to confront the status quo or alienate a public official can make it impossible for an organization to take a stance.

When new challenges emerge that don’t fall into their strategic scope, some groups take a pass, guarding against the possibility of “mission creep.” Or they are just not tactically flexible enough to engage in advocacy on fast-moving issues.

Many philanthropists I’ve spoken with over the years simply throw up their hands in frustration when confronted with such roadblocks and continue to passively fund the same organizations and services they’ve always funded. They are forfeiting the opportunity to make a bigger impact.

Some philanthropists plead that doing it themselves is impossible because it’s not their “core competency.” But philanthropists can acquire those competencies. We, too, can grow.

Unimpeded by traditional nonprofit boards, philanthropists are often much more free to push for policy changes than the organizations they support. They have much firmer control over their agendas and have fewer stakeholders to appease. And they can use the gravitas that comes with having financial resources to directly influence public discourse.

For their own reasons, many philanthropists don’t want to be the people out front, but this means they are sacrificing the impact they could make. Moreover, like so many people, they want everyone to love them, an impulse that can sometimes get in the way of doing what needs to be done.

It’s time for more philanthropists to undertake their own advocacy, to break the mold and promote more action. There’s so much more that many of us can and should do.n

Jay Ruderman is president of the Ruderman Family Foundation.