In this week's Chronicle of Philanthropy, which is always an excellent read by the way, there is a discussion about whether philanthropy is a profession. The article is written by Dr. Howard Gardner, a developmental psychologist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Dr. Gardner is a pioneer in the way we learn and how we assess intelligence (spoiler: there isn't one way). I believe he is one of the great thinkers of our time.
His essay sparked a reaction from me because he suggests that philanthropy is not a profession, in a way that other professions exist with an established career path, participants, and gatekeepers that decide who can participate and who gets rewarded.
Philanthropy, by definition, is simply the love of humans. In this way, all of us have the potential to be philanthropists, acting out of love to help others with our time or financial resources. Some of us are or will become major donors to support our largest institutions, get buildings named after us, receive accolades in the press. Others will go about the quiet and necessary work of simply helping our neighbors, taking in hurt animals, walking for cancer research, buying Girl Scout cookies. Are we will philanthropists then? Yes. So Dr. Gardner might be right. Philanthropy is not a profession simply because everyone is allowed to participate without any prior training.
However, we are now, and this is only within the last 20 years or so, training people to become professional philanthropists, professional fundraisers who work with and for philanthropists. This education is necessary to grow talented individuals who are effective at bringing resources to bear on social problems but also to raise skills at identifying those issues and deciding where to invest those dollars for the maximum public good. I believe giving money away is actually harder than earning it and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have echoed the same sentiment. If it is a difficult job, then shouldn't we be teaching people how to do it effectively?
This brings in the concept of evaluation, of deciding from among good and worthy organizations and causes competing for limited resources, philanthropic funds. What measures do we use; purely emotional appeals or purely rational appeals or a combination of both. I personally believe that fundraising is a balance between emotional and rational needs and the job of the fundraiser is to figure out what most resonates with the donor or philanthropist.
So in response to Dr. Gardner's essay "Why Philanthropy Is Not a Profession", I believe it is both a profession and a passion, a calling and an occupation, a feeling and an evaluation. This is what I teach.
His essay sparked a reaction from me because he suggests that philanthropy is not a profession, in a way that other professions exist with an established career path, participants, and gatekeepers that decide who can participate and who gets rewarded.
Philanthropy, by definition, is simply the love of humans. In this way, all of us have the potential to be philanthropists, acting out of love to help others with our time or financial resources. Some of us are or will become major donors to support our largest institutions, get buildings named after us, receive accolades in the press. Others will go about the quiet and necessary work of simply helping our neighbors, taking in hurt animals, walking for cancer research, buying Girl Scout cookies. Are we will philanthropists then? Yes. So Dr. Gardner might be right. Philanthropy is not a profession simply because everyone is allowed to participate without any prior training.
However, we are now, and this is only within the last 20 years or so, training people to become professional philanthropists, professional fundraisers who work with and for philanthropists. This education is necessary to grow talented individuals who are effective at bringing resources to bear on social problems but also to raise skills at identifying those issues and deciding where to invest those dollars for the maximum public good. I believe giving money away is actually harder than earning it and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have echoed the same sentiment. If it is a difficult job, then shouldn't we be teaching people how to do it effectively?
This brings in the concept of evaluation, of deciding from among good and worthy organizations and causes competing for limited resources, philanthropic funds. What measures do we use; purely emotional appeals or purely rational appeals or a combination of both. I personally believe that fundraising is a balance between emotional and rational needs and the job of the fundraiser is to figure out what most resonates with the donor or philanthropist.
So in response to Dr. Gardner's essay "Why Philanthropy Is Not a Profession", I believe it is both a profession and a passion, a calling and an occupation, a feeling and an evaluation. This is what I teach.
Comments
Post a Comment