Philanthropy Archives | The Public Sphere

Interview with Dr. K.T. Connor on ethics and public life

Dr. K.T. Connor was a Senior Adjunct Professor with the MPPA program until recently, for over a decade and brings a wealth of experience in ethics, business as well as public leadership. She served as the Managing Director of Applied Axiometrics. She is the head of a virtual collaboration of consultants using decision-theory-based assessments in selection, development, coaching, team building, and succession planning. In this short interview, she shares some insights into public leadership, ethics and her work and association with former (late) President Jimmy Carter.

Tell us about your association with Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center

When I lived in Georgia, I was often driving from my island off the coast, to the Carter Center in Atlantic, for both conferences and then meetings. And I was so delighted to learn more and more about what the Carter Center was doing, and why. That’s when I became so impressed with the humanity and value-based approach of Jimmy Carter.

I continued to learn more about Carter when I would often attend his gatherings in Lake Tahoe, San Diego, and of course, Atlanta at the Center. It was so easy to relax at his events, and he was open to all of us.

I was so glad to get to see how down to earth Carter was. When I went to various places with him and others, he was so open to all there. And he still invited us down to his hometown, and it was so clear he was so much a part of the community.

One trip I flew from Atlanta to the west coast with all attending the special event at Lake Tahoe. He was so good going all over the plane and talking to all of us. He was relaxed and open and walked up and down the aisle to have a chat with all of us.

Carter is often spoken about as an ethical leader, do you agree? Can you elaborate on why you agree or disagree?

I certainly agree that he was an ethical leader. I followed his role as President of the United States, and saw that he valued service above self-interest. Yes, that often resulted in looking less effective now and then, but from what I saw, it was consistent with his desire to serve. He was open even to those who ran against him, as Gerald Ford’s son notes at Jimmy’s funeral. (He shared that Gerald and Jimmy became good friends, even though Carter had gotten more votes on the election than Ford.) Even when President, he showed he had principled leadership, and valued decency and justice as well as caring for others. Because of the complexity of US Presidency, his caring became even more obvious when he developed the Carter Center.

When he was no longer President, he decided to maintain his desire to serve, and value all, and created an impressive goal for the Carter Center. He developed an organization to work to help even powerless people, to have them have skills, knowledge, and resources to improve their own lives. This improvement included disease prevention, democracy increase, and human rights safeguard.

He also was known to commit to truth, not lying, and to the importance of improving oneself, as well as helping others do so.

What aspects of public life today are different from say, the 1960 or 70s when Carter was active, politically?

When he was active politically, he was still learning how to serve others. He also absorbed values through his church to care for others and oneself, and to promote peace. He did now and then make a decision that did not turn out as he expected, and he was seen as not one to reelect. As our country grew, much energy went to divisiveness and race division. But gradually we as a country tried to bring all together. Carter’s decision did contribute some of that.

Carter’s involvement with his work at the Center, on the other hand, showed what he had learned, in order to be more effective with his goals. His dealing with helping people in various countries, including our own, created wide efforts to help others.

Does public service motivation impact ethical values?

I feel it does if it focuses not only on oneself, and one’s ability to lead and serve, but also on others, especially those in need.

One of the things we learn from good servants is something we can learn from Jimmy. Power is often maintained to be desired by many. But Carter slowly showed this was not why he served.

He seemed to know that some power was appropriate. But also it seems he also felt that respect for others, and even care for others, was essential. In no time that I saw him, did he show he was worth bowing to. Rather, he could be seen as so humble, so many times.

This should be a model for all in public service. It is a real service. Yes, they should make sure no one violates the ability to provide the service required. But they should also care not only for themselves, but definitely, also for others.

What are specific ways in which Carter’s life can serve as an example for young public servants today?

One major thing I feel is to be sensitive to bringing people together, not apart. This can be a challenge now and then, but they should also be sure to build the skills needed to meet the goals of their position. But public service is service to others, to those who depend on the service. Public ethics lets the public servant value being socially constructive, idealistic, altruistic, and creative. This will enrich our world and hopefully bring us all closer together.

Any other thoughts on ethics and public service?

I feel someone in public service deserves to be comfortable with themselves, and value themselves. I also feel, however, that real public service is not to just focus on power. It is not being seen as needing to have others feel less about themselves, so that the servant can be seen as more perfect. Real service is reaching out to all, especially those for whom they are assigned, to help them grow and perform. And it is good that they did this also for others. Jimmy Carter definitely showed that this was good to do.

Will philanthropy by the rich save us?

Mackenzie Scott’s giving away of $4 bn made news last week, as this was one of the most generous examples of giving by an ultra-rich person, this year. It is admirable that she has given this money away, even though there are very many criticisms of this phenomenon of hi-networth giving.

Hi-networth giving by Mackenzie Scott — credits: npr.org

Her problem is pretty unique to super-rich folk: how to help others, with all the surplus wealth that one has? There have been a few proposals before us, falling broadly into two categories :

Tax the rich and
Allow the rich to carry out their philanthropy, as they see fit and encourage them in this direction.

The first idea of taxing the rich doesn’t seem to gain a lot of momentum in the U.S., given that political will to make this happen doesn’t seem to exist. However, a vast majority of Americans think that what they pay are fair share of taxes. Given that we have a progressive system of taxation, at the individual level, there seems to be not much of a problem for the middle class. The poor and those who are struggling to make ends meet are the ones who are most upset about the status quo.

But for the super-wealthy and entrepreneurs and those with avenues to gain tax deductions, there are enormous loopholes through which companies do not pay any taxes, even after making billions of dollars in taxes. This article talks about how little a company like Amazon pays, in taxes (for the past few years, it has paid $0 in taxes). The company has faced a lot of criticism for this reason. Various tax credits and deductions help firms such as Amazon avoid taxes.

Can billions of dollars donated by the super-rich save us? This question is as old as the industrial age (also called the Gilded age), when the newly founded millionaires (billionaires in comparison to our age) such as Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others tried to answer this question. We have our own Rockefellers and Carnegies in the form of Mackenzie Scott, Bill Gates, and others, who have given away quite a lot of money to worthy causes.

At a time when the American economy has been battered by the pandemic, politicians, intellectuals are questioning why the current system persists, especially when we are fighting over something as basic as a $600 relief check for Americans.

The second approach of the wealthy giving away their wealth is a somewhat recent phenomenon, that has emerged in the past decade or two.

The Giving Pledge is an example of a modern version of how the super-rich have tried to rationalize their wealth and reach an agreement with themselves and others: the compact that giving one’s wealth away is one way to deal with the problem our societies have created: excessive wealth in a few hands.

Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth is one of the older documents in this regard that tried to address this specific problem.

What is the right answer to the problem of wealth transfer from the super-rich to the super-poor? That answer depends on the society that we have and how people feel about the obligations and rights that we have, as individuals towards each other, and the government’s role in regulating these obligations and rights. This ‘social contract’ may need revision, as we come out of the covid-19 pandemic, with deep questions being asked about the nature of our relationship to each other, to the state, and to our communities – far and wide.

This act may need a renewed imagination and a willingness to debate and dialogue with people with who we vehemently disagree.

What kind of philanthropy do we need, in these times?

Sabith Khan

In the past few weeks, I have received multiple requests for donations, mainly from nonprofits and individuals I know. The requests are for the upkeep of operations, providing essential services, etc. and reflect the need for solidarity, that is much needed in these times. Notions of charity, philanthropy, and volunteering are making a comeback in these times, with individuals and organizations doing all they can to adjust to the new reality we are facing. The question that remains before us is: What kind of philanthropy do we need, in these times? Do we need the self-help, communitarian model of giving or do we need billionaires writing large checks to address big problems? Will self-help groups take us out of the mess that we find ourselves in or will hi-networth giving save us? Or do we need government policies to address systemic issues that philanthropy is unable or unwilling to address?

Will the billionaires save us? This is a question that is being increasingly asked among scholars of philanthropy and some activists. While the idea of philanthrocapitalism is still around, there is increasing skepticism in the ability and willingness of the super-rich to help the less fortunate amongst us. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and other billionaires have shaped our world in many ways, both in good ways and bad. The question is not whether they have an impact, but how.

John D. Rockefeller & Carnegie: Remnants of an era gone by, or models for our time?

John D.Rockefeller and Carnegie embodied a ‘gilded age,’ which was known for its corruption and ties between businesses and politics. Perhaps much more than the age we live in, today. Carnegie’s greatest legacy may be the idea of funding and establishing libraries, which are in some ways the great equalizer.

Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth is an important text in American philanthropy and his ideas of giving away wealth while alive has become popular. One of his most famous quotes in the book is “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” When Carnegie wrote that “The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years,” he may well have been writing about us, in 2020. The fact that access to healthcare is so disproportionate in the U.S. of today is a tragedy. Media reports point to over 70 percent of deaths in Chicago from COVID-19 being that of African-Americans.

Amidst such catastrophic outcomes, we need government intervention in the form of stronger policies, but also support from foundations, individuals and community-based groups, to help fix some of these disparities.

While there is a section of American society that is deeply suspicious of hi-networth donors – and rightly so – one cannot deny the fact that those with a lot of wealth can and have made significant positive contributions to public life. John D Rockefeller helped establish the University of Chicago, for instance.

The emergence of the ‘new philanthropy’ which is based on measuring return on investment and is based on what Sean Parker has called a ‘hacker’ mindset is in vogue. As Michael Massing points out, Gates has single-handedly shaped Education policy in the U.S. Whether this is a good thing remains in question, given that education is a public good. Some of the bigger questions in this space remain unsettled and there are massive inequities when it comes to access to education, especially digital access, as we are witnessing during COVID-19.

The Giving Pledge is an off-shoot of the idea of giving away one’s wealth that Carnegie came up with. This notion has caught on globally, though its uptick has been somewhat slow in Asia and parts of Africa.

One of the bigger problems with hi-networth giving is the ‘expressive giving’ that drives many of them. What this means is that rich people give to causes that drive them, at a personal level. There is a sense of strong involvement among many of these folks, who are driven to make a difference around them, for various reasons. Whether it is promoting religious freedoms or healthcare, the one who writes the check wields an enormous amount of influence over the one who receives it. In a context where this can mean shaping a nation’s public health or the education system, this is a slippery slope; despite the good intentions of the donor.

Bill Gates has also received a lot of flak in recent years. His failed educational ventures, with the start and closure of private schools and about turn on this key sector is seen as a big failing. As The Guardian quotes him as saying “The overall impact of the intervention, particularly the measure we care most about – whether [pupils] go to college – it didn’t move the needle much … We didn’t see a path to having a big impact, so we did a mea culpa on that.” Such mea culpas are expensive and heart-wrenching, when they impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids.

Is Bill Gates the new Andrew Carnegie of our times?

The Gates Foundation has spent considerable amounts on public health and has achieved quite a bit of good in the world, but at the same time has an outsized influence on global health policies. How one interprets that is open to question. Some may call it philanthropic, while others may call it non-democratic. A stricter version would even call it hegemonic influence. The rightwing media has more recently started attacking Mr.Gates for altogether different reasons: his advocacy of stay-at-home orders, differing with Mr. Trump and his followers. His advocacy of preparedness for epidemics has been consistent. His support for this effort is admirable.

Philanthropy’s goal ultimately should be the betterment of lives. This is a goal that all of us agree upon. The divergence seems to be on how to get there. This is an area where all stakeholders – givers of money, recipients, and entities that govern it should come together and hash this out. In this regard, Carnegie’s advice of giving away one’s wealth during one’s lifetime may be the best advice for anyone who has a lot of wealth. The gospel of wealth may be a good reminder for our billionaire class, perhaps?

How can charity and philanthropy help during COVID-19 crisis

I accidentally came across a short video on twitter by Chef Jose Andres. Chef Andres shared a recipe of a simple lentil soup and also a message: feed others with what you have. Feed your own family, feed the people around you. This simple message resonated with me, both as an educator and as someone who cooks. I am not a great cook, but can feed myself and others around me with the ingredients around me. Spending a lot of time in the kitchen in my formative years has taught me a few skills.

pursuing-philanthropy-during-covid-19 — Source: aha.org

Food as philanthropy is a powerful idea. One individual that is doing well is Chef Andres, one of the 100 most influential people in the world as identified by TIME and also a philanthropist. He is a spokesperson for issues related to migration, philanthropy in the U.S. And his work can give us some ideas on what everyone of us can support and get behind, especially when institutions around us either don’t exist, to deal with issues that ordinary human beings are facing, or if they exist, they are not living upto their promise. This situation calls for a powerful force in American (and global) civil society: that of philanthropy and voluntary action.

While it is true that charity in itself cannot replace the function of governments with their billion (or trillion dollar) deep purses, at the very least, charity can act as a temporary support mechanism, a band-aid that can stop the bleeding. A crutch that can help people get by, till they get actual support and help, that they need, to get back on their feet. Philanthropy has a key role to play in promoting human welfare. It not only involves donations of money but also donations of effort, through volunteering.

Chef Andre’s work with World Kitchen Central is based on a simple premise : “Feed anybody that is hungry and bring water to anyone that is thirsty.” Another aspect of charity and philanthropy that is relevant is made clear by his statement “the urgency of now is now, not a week from now.” This profound statement, though somewhat simplistic at face value is key to understanding how charity and philanthropy during COVID-19 crisis can be useful : often it is driven by immediate needs. Immediate need to feed someone, to provide shelter, to donate Personal protective equipment etc.

By focusing on what drives a person, he/she can act immediately, whether by writing a check, donating masks or mobilizing people to volunteer. This need for ‘expressive giving,’ as scholar Peter Frumkin calls it, is central to the idea of philanthropy. And we are seeing this manifest now, during a pandemic. Some, for instance have raised questions about Huawei’s donations of masks to Europe and other parts of the world and questioned its intention.

While donor intent and passion are central to giving and voluntary action, they are not without problems. There can be corruption, hobnobbing with powerful elite and a million other ways that certain rich philanthropists can use their money and resources to gain advantage, by leveraging their philanthropy, during this time.

Regardless of how one feels about charity, there is no doubt that the humanitarian urge to contribute to a solution will exist. And that is a positive force that both communities and governments should leverage, to provide short-term and long-term solutions to people. At a time when governments are failing to provide what is needed, both in terms of resources and direction, to dealing with one of the biggest crises of this generation, it may well be that individual action and values may help bring us together, to address some challenging issues.

As Andres asks: “Coronavirus is facing us to ask ourselves, who are our leaders? Are they the ones who give speeches or the ones with boots on the ground to do things.” His charity is helping patients dealing with COVID-19 by feeding them.

Food may well be a starting point, but it doesn’t have to stop there!

If you wish to donate to World Central Kitchen, check out – https://donate.wck.org/give/236738/#!/donation/checkout