The philanthropic world’s reaction to an essay published in the Chronicle on “philanthropic pluralism” was nothing short of remarkable. For weeks now, I’ve wondered whether a similar article published in another field would have inspired such a spirited response — or any response at all.
Americans are divided over many questions, but the values shared by the essay’s ideologically diverse authors — free expression, civility, respect — are almost universally supported. Many of us have become so accustomed to the partisanship of philanthropy that it’s easy to forget that ordinary Americans are not deliberating these issues. To appreciate this, let’s look at the values the authors — all philanthropic leaders who included Ford’s Darren Walker and Stand Together’s Brian Hooks — articulate alongside responses to national surveys about those same values.
The essay’s authors acknowledge the value of free expression: “We should not question the underlying legitimacy of any foundation or philanthropist holding a particular view.”
Americans feel much the same. According to a 2021 Ipsos and Knight Foundation survey, 99 percent say free expression is important to them.
The authors encourage civility and open dialogue in the face of deep differences: “We assume that those involved in philanthropy have the best intentions, even if they take a different approach … While disagreements may be profound — even fundamental — we believe that public debates should rely on reason and open conversation.” They call on others in the field “to approach disagreements with respect.”
Again, Americans concur. According to a 2022 poll by Georgetown University, 95 percent say “civility and common respect is the first step in having a government that works.”
In fact, the essay meticulously traces nearly universal American values. The issues the authors confront are not today’s culture-war questions. They aren’t deepening divides across race, class, age, religion, or political party. These are values that remarkably few Americans disagree with — at least in principle.
As director of a nonprofit that advances pluralism, I would even push the authors to go one step further and commit to working together for the common good — despite their differences. A basic assumption for those of us working to advance pluralism is that profound differences must not keep people from collaborating on matters of shared concern.
Most Americans agree. Fully 73 percent say they want politicians to compromise to get things done, according to a 2021 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. How many in philanthropy would say the same of their foundation, or try to meet this standard themselves?
This raises the question: Does philanthropy today resemble America’s hyperpartisan politics more than it resembles America? Like politicians, those who work in philanthropy or lead nonprofits exercise an influence on society that goes far beyond an individual’s right to vote, volunteer, or write a check. This ambition can be a force for good. Yet, like politics, it can also attract and reward those with strong views who are least willing to compromise.
What Americans Expect
Given today’s polarization, it’s fair to wonder whether philanthropy should be embracing uncompromising views on issues that are already deeply dividing the nation. Should philanthropy not aim to meet the standard for compromise Americans expect of their politicians, or should it mimic the media and national politics by rewarding strong partisan stands?
The responses to the philanthropic pluralism essay may say more about the field’s polarization than about the article itself. Some believe that philanthropic pluralism will inhibit free exchange on substantive questions, provide cover for bad actors, or silence disempowered groups. These are valid concerns, yet ask too much of an essay bearing the title “We Disagree on Many Things, but …”
It could be that many in the philanthropic world find cross-partisan compromise dissatisfying. If this is the case, we are no more prepared to bridge America’s divides or strengthen democracy than politicians in Washington, D.C.
Philanthropy’s debates over pluralism have confirmed my own suspicions that the field is more partisan than the society it serves. If we can spend weeks debating and deconstructing an essay that most Americans wouldn’t bat an eye at, how will we ever succeed at healing the nation’s divides? Will we be able to accomplish things political leaders can’t if we are stalemated by the same culture wars?
Last year, Americans participating in a FiveThirtyEight survey ranked political polarization as among the most important concerns facing the country — above economic inequality, climate change, health care, racism, education, election security, and terrorism. If philanthropy is to meet this moment, it must rise above the partisanship Americans have long tired of and deepen its commitment to pluralism — not run away from it.
