Celebrate Giving in All Its Variety

To the Editor:

The observations that Arianna Huffington offered for the Slate rankings of major donors (Press Clippings, March 9) hit a sour note. By eliminating gifts that are “investments in buildings, not people,” she has demonstrated that her expertise is more suited to political commentary than in helping people, non-profit enterprise, or philanthropy.

If Ms. Huffington were homeless, I suspect she’d have a different view of capital grants for shelters. If she were a scientist, she might need a lab in which to conduct experiments. If she were a performing artist, a suitable venue for her audience might be more important to her. And if she was ever a child, a ball field, swimming pool, or recreation center might be deemed worthwhile.

There are instances of extraordinary wealth in higher education and, it may surprise Ms. Huffington to learn, among some elementary and secondary schools. I’ve often thought that a new tax category of “non-taxable/non-charitable” might be better for private schools that raise funds from outside donors so the parents can still afford the country club and new sport-utility vehicle while having their kids in a prestigious school.

A lot of us are also guilty of voting down the taxes we know our public schools need, hoping somehow that someone will convince a company or a foundation to pick up the tab for our kids because we don’t want to.

As for “self-referential giving,” that’s another slippery slope. Should wealth derived from the computer industry not make grants in support of technology? Isn’t their expertise in that area greater than, say, that of a political commentator? Shouldn’t a chemical company support the educational efforts of those interested in chemistry? Don’t both the for-profit enterprise and its charitable support contribute to the well-being of our society?

I learned about philanthropy — it was called “tzedakah” at the Sunday school I attended — mostly by watching my parents donate their time and money to causes they thought important. In a perfect world, we’d all give generously, in anticipation of need, without being asked, and anonymously. In this less-than-perfect world, we should celebrate philanthropy of all kinds, irrespective of whether it supports the cause we think most just or the group we think most deserving or needy.

If Ms. Huffington wants to offer her own list, based on her own research and her own criteria, by all means encourage her. The debate over “good grants” and “bad grants” is an ongoing professional issue — and, on a personal level, a moral issue as well. What we don’t need however, is “political commentary” that tries to make a complex issue simple and reduces a generally wonderful human impulse to give into a 30-second sound bite that looks like wisdom but isn’t.

David M. Zemel
Vice President for Programs
Donald W. Reynolds Foundation
Las Vegas