The Galadriel of Giving
By contributing to institutional strength, philanthropist MacKenzie Scott brings classic liberalism to the fight for equity and a stronger society.
The greatest American philanthropist of our age operates under two fundamental principles:
One, that she should transfer large sums of money to nonprofit institutions and generally allow the leadership of those organizations to decide how to spend those funds to improve society.
And two, that generational wealth and the closely related construction of edifices to honor that vast fortune are antithetical to that same pursuit of a better society.
MacKenzie Scott’s widely-praised crusade to spend down half of the vast Bezos/Amazon fortune (for it is a crusade, indeed) has the singular goal of transferring wealth to liberal institutional programs, run by those who understand what needs to be done. She has given away more than $12 billion and counting.
The money is unrestricted, and based on a somewhat secretive identification and due diligence process to which no one outside her small of advisors is privy. In most cases, the first hint comes when consultants ask for some basic financial information, programmatic data, and a meeting with senior leadership - none of which is any kind of guarantee in a formula cloaked in secrecy.
Which is fine, in my view. I’d rather have the wealth transfer than the transparency (though my magic wand would yield both). And I know from first-hand experience with nonprofit clients that the process is not onerous, and the money comes with few strings indeed. In any case, I strongly believe there’s another aspect to Scott’s philanthropy that is too little remarked upon.
That is the belief in institutions themselves - a liberal institutionalist mindset that is far too rarely praised in our dangerous and increasingly mob-driven world. And while populist preachers of the left and the right would probably each decry a billionaire’s philanthropy as merely the transfer of wealth from an individual to well-vetted “establishment” vehicles, the sheer spread of Scott’s giving shows - in my mind at least - a keen understanding of just how society functions and changes and improves. Last spring she addressed the need for equity in how big philanthropy functions and, as I read it, how the nonprofit sector functions:
This means a focus on the needs of those whose voices have been underrepresented. It also means including others within the system who want to help improve it, harnessing insights and engagement from every role. Teachers, administrators, parents, and students. Incarcerated people, crime survivors, police officers, and the family members of them all. Veterans and refugees. Kids enrolled in public schools as well as charters. Rural students as well as urban ones. Affordable housing and job training for people in any geography. Healthcare for people with circumstances and beliefs of every kind. Very few solutions gain universal agreement.
I agree with Scott’s view: there’s no single size or shape to what works. Nor to philanthropy, either. I believe her style of giving is more than just moving money; it’s leadership by action and few words. Scott doesn’t seek the limelight (though, of course, she’s the subject of media gossip) nor will there be a raft of MacKenzie Scott buildings and institutes.
Five years ago, the critic Pablo Eisenberg wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy that big American philanthropy exacerbates inequality (his great recurring theme) and that we should all pay more attention to who gets the money and how it’s put to work.
We Americans tend to celebrate philanthropy and philanthropists with an uncritical eye. Charitable giving is applauded regardless of its impact or consequences. The media swoons before the largess of big donors or the accomplishments of foundations. Rarely do we look behind charitable giving to examine the recipients and their problems, even though they are the raison d’être for philanthropy.
Without nonprofits, there would be no philanthropy, only charity. It’s time we pay attention to the organizations that put donor money to use.
Eisenberg rightly noted that we tend to make major philanthropists into heroic figures, when in reality they’re bestowing robber baroneseque wealth in the first place. I don’t think we need to write a hero’s tale for MacKenzie Scott, and turn her into the Galadriel of Giving. But I do think more of how U.S. philanthropy operates should be focused on the nonprofit institutions themselves, just as Scott is doing - yes, in the pursuit of equity.
The nonprofit leaders I know and work with wear that particular pursuit on their sleeves every day. They are the most qualified guardians of the more than two percent of GDP Americans give away every year. With all due respect to foundation staffs and major donors, we should do much better than the mere 20 percent institutional giving that goes to general operating support annually. If you think the organization and its people are good, give to the organization.
That’s not plutocratic, I know. Nor is it populist. But it is liberal, and the challenges we all face - and the work that can rise to meet those challenges - demand it.
SHORT TAKES
MacKenzie Scott has given billions to direct services organizations, including those who provide food and run food pantries. So if anyone from a certain consulting firm is reading this, it’s my shameless plus to assist the largest settlement house serving the Bronx, which I’ve long argued is America’s true heartland. I was at the BronxWorks community center on the lower Grand Concourse last weekend for our annual Board retreat and saw once again just how important food pantry work is to people who need it. After you meet our neighbor Destiny in the video below, consider a donation here.
The vicious demagoguing of justice reform by extremist Republicans (and a few Democrats, ahem Mayor Adams) threatens to derail vital changes in how we approach justice - policy that will save money and help heal communities scarred by mass incarceration. The Vera Justice Fund (the 501c4 arm of the Vera Institute, a valued client of my consulting firm) has a brilliant ad out in New York this week pushing back against the false and misleading narratives.