In Praise of ‘Old Philanthropy’

To the Editor,

While I enjoyed reading Dimple Abichandani’s op-ed, “What an Andrew Carnegie Interview Reveals About Philanthropy’s Sins — and How to Move Beyond Them” (May 9), I disagree with her assessment of philanthropy’s failures and how to address them.

Abichandani asserts that old philanthropy — as embodied by Andrew Carnegie — wrongly focuses on what is feasible now and doesn’t try to uproot existing systems. Instead, she says, philanthropy’s new mandate should be to “transform the systems of how wealth and power are administered so that they can be shared more equitably.”

But philanthropists who think they alone can identify and eliminate unjust systems of wealth creation and distribution demonstrate a breathtaking lack of humility. Why would wealthy donors alone know best how to reshape society?

Donors should aim for impact, not promote ideology. Achieving impact depends on their practices and how well-immersed they are in their focus areas. That includes how they choose, listen to, and trust their grantees; how well they analyze and take risks; and their ability to follow and evaluate a grant making strategy.

Philanthropy rooted in a single field can be transformational, too. Carnegie, for example, donated $60 million to help build more than 1,600 libraries, laying the groundwork for the country’s public library system. Today public libraries still play a crucial role in promoting literacy and community engagement, proving that his grant making had lasting social benefits.

Or take John Rockefeller, whose grant making revolutionized medical research and treatment, modernized medical education, and helped develop a vaccine for yellow fever. Someday I expect Bill Gates’s legacy will be viewed in the same way. These donors aren’t any less momentous because they focused on certain causes and didn’t uproot systems.

If such philanthropy seems too pedestrian, consider the alternative: Donors would never agree with one another — or the public — on what systems are worth changing. Foundations that proselytize on the ills of society and how to fix them will also be rightly perceived as privileged elites.

Philanthropists can’t wave a wand and fix systems they don’t like. They’ll better serve the public by focusing on their missions. Call this “old” philanthropy, but it works.

Malcolm Macleod
Board Chair, Johnson Scholarship Foundation
Author, The Practice of Philanthropy, A Guide for Foundation Boards and Staff