We are unable to fully display the content of this page.
The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.
Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page.
You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one,
or subscribe.
If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 571-540-8070 or cophelp@philanthropy.com
To the Editor:
I agree with Lisa Pilar Cowan that foundation leaders have long been shielded from public scrutiny and accountability. (“As Funders Face New Levels of Risk, What Does Bravery Look Like?” March 18.) However, I disagree that this has made funders risk averse.
Illustration by Elizabeth Haugh; iStock
On the contrary, insulation from scrutiny has caused some foundations to become hyper-partisan, coloring their worldview and funding priorities in ways that are polarizing and out of step with mainstream America. This has eroded public trust and placed foundations in federal officials’ crosshairs. Cowan’s suggestion that nonprofit leaders take more risks in their actions and statements misunderstands their role. In the current moment, nonprofit leaders don’t need “bravery,” as Cowan says, but humility.
Most Americans want a competent, meritocratic, and apolitical nonprofit sector. The local food pantry, for example, plays a critical function and is best able to enact its mission when it transcends politics and instead appeals to people’s shared sense of community and altruism.
Moreover, organizations are most innovative and effective when their leaders are curious, open to opposing ideas, and willing to pursue the best solutions. Unfortunately, many foundations and nonprofit leaders only consider initiatives and ideas that confirm their predetermined points of view. In the long run, this ideological bias harms the sector’s performance and public standing.
The Trump administration’s policies are absolutely concerning. Private citizens have a duty to speak up when they believe their traditions, values, and laws are under attack. But for civil society’s sake, the nonprofit sector needs to stay in its lane, focused on mission and above the political fray.
Right now, nonprofit leaders should model pluralism and compromise. If they invite the public to consider the merits and nuance of controversial ideas, engage with opposing views, and find common ground, real progress is possible.
