What we -- not WE -- got wrong.

We got it wrong and buried a national treasure as a result. That’s the message of Tawfiq Rangwala ’s book What We Lost, Inside the Attack on Canada’s Largest Children’s Charity. You could decide you don’t care and read no further -- but be cautious. Once you have a more fulsome understanding of what happened to WE Charity, you may realize it could happen to an organization you love. ?

Rangwala’s premise is that a failure of journalistic ethics and tall poppy syndrome[i] combined to shatter an organization that had done and continues to do – much good work. I was part of the ‘we’ that got it wrong. (See my letter to the editor published in the Globe and Mail September 14, 2020[ii])

After reading Rangwala's book, I went back to review articles, my own included, written in real time, about the story. It was glaringly clear that the authors (myself included) trusted the information we were reading in the public realm and we repeated the inaccuracies.

Having studied journalism in College, I believed in journalistic ethics and good reporting so when I shared reports from the Globe & Mail, the CBC and Bloomberg – I believed in their credibility. When I shared the CBC’s Fifth Estate stories I assumed, like most, they had done their due diligence; that the research was solid. Our always financially struggling national broadcaster travelled to Kenya for the story. I believed they had something to go on.

Instead, according to Rangwala, they used shady journalism and strong-arm tactics to build a story based on inaccurate and defamatory information. They also left out all the positive commentary and the voices raised in support of the organization’s leadership and work.

Personally, I am alarmed that the coverage of the “WE Charity Scandal” fed into my personal bias, borne of tall poppy syndrome, that something wasn’t quite right at WE. To those harmed by the political debacle that suggested your work was not important, impactful or ethical – I apologize for my part in propagating the myths.

What We Lost is an important read for those who care about the social impact sector, journalistic ethics and sectoral collaboration. It also left me with questions.

Why didn’t the charity hire forensic services from one of the best-known consulting firms in Canada? A forensic audit from a firm we know would have held much more weight than one by folks who are virtually unknown to the average Canadian. And why, if so much of the criticism is unwarranted, were so many people willing to speak negatively about this organization? Tall Poppy Syndrome is certainly part of the answer.

The first time I received a lengthy speech about the brilliance of Free the Children and the Me to We social enterprise was from a board member at a health promotion organization where I was Executive Director. Of course, I knew about the 12-year-old Craig Kielburger. I’d been working in the sector for more than a decade when his story hit the news, but this was different. This was a well known, influential and affluent board member telling me that “these guys” are the future of the sector. So, like many, I kept my eye on what was happening in the Kielburger stratosphere. Of particular interest was the concept of social enterprise. While it was not unique to Me to We, neither was it widely adopted.

Over the years, volunteers extolled the Kielburgers approach, and they were held up as the leaders to watch. To be honest, it was hard to miss them. They seemed to be everywhere. As Rangwala writes:

The Kielburgers’ work ethic --- around the clock action with an emphasis on world-class content and performance at ever turn – set the tone across the organization. For more than two decades, Marc and Craig logged hundreds of days per year travelling the globe to build partnerships and launch bold initiatives. They appeared in small-town classrooms, mud huts in Ethiopia, boardrooms in New York and London, conference halls in Davos, a lodge in the Amazon rainforest, and everywhere in between. The brothers never stopped running and had limited patience for those who wanted to walk.” (p. 34)

That limited patience is what we heard about in the sharp-tongued whisper network in our highly cliquish sector. It remains the reason I don't doubt previous employees concerns about workplace culture. This is the kind of culture where it is possible to mistreat employees with mission delivery as the rationale.

From the outside looking in, the Kielburgers failed to make friends within a sector where you are either part of the well networked ‘in-crowd’ or not. They did not appear to play the game. They came across as arrogant. They appeared to lack humility. They epitomized the concept of white-saviorism. And though they are far from alone in owning that moniker, their White privilege and financial security made them obvious targets. Craig and Marc appeared overly shiny and bright in an industry that chooses their ‘legends’ and ‘rock-stars’ from among their own. The Kielburgers were not among the sector elite’s chosen.

Tall poppy syndrome was present when some of us saw what appeared to be preferential treatment for WE within school boards across Canada. I knew of several organizations who laboured hard yet failed to see their school programs given a chance. There were exceptions like “Jump Rope for Heart[iii]” and briefly “Ride for Dignity[iv]” but overall – getting into schools on a broad basis across multiple school boards in this country is an up-mountain battle that few organizations have the staff or financial resources to enter.

WE Charity’s stronghold within schools, with some of Canada’s best known corporate leaders, as well as high profile politicians -- when other equally important causes could make no such inroads, made their success hard to celebrate. It also made it easy to jump on the anti-WE Charity bandwagon.

The organization does themselves no favours when they make claims, like the subtitle of the book, that they are/were Canada's largest children's charity. A quick search of the CRA website identified at least three organizations that were, at the end of 2019, larger: CARE Canada, Plan Canada International and the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation. An unsubstantiated claim on the cover of the book meant I needed to continually fact check to ensure I was not reading a WE said THEY said diatribe.

Rangwala shares his personal bias as a long-time board member and friend of the Kielburgers. He also provides evidence that indicates the story presented in the media and to the parliamentary committee was horrifically one sided. He argues that voices were missing from the discourse including current and past board members (other than the recently resigned board Chair,) teachers, students and beneficiaries of the organization’s work.

Most jarring for me, was the sharing of detailed communications from one of WE Charities most vocal and poignant detractors, Reed Cowan. After Reed Cowan’s testimony to the ETHI Committee, I reached out to him on LinkedIn mortified by his experience. I was ashamed, on behalf of all of us who work to inspire the philanthropic spirit, and wrote to apologize for the manner in which he and his donation were mistreated. He sent back a simple ‘thank you.’ It turns out, there was a lot more to the story[v]and to the WE Charity debacle.

Depending upon your lens, you will agree more, or less, that we failed the beneficiaries and stakeholders of this organization. I believe you will be deeply disappointed in our trusted media outlets who failed to conduct their own research. I think you will be surprised to learn about failures to fact-check and the lengths to which reporters went to create alternate facts. You may even be sad to realize just how impressively the media failed to present all sides of the story. As Rangwala wrote:

No matter what you think about the Kielburgers or the WE organization, you should question the way the media told this story, starting with allegations about the CSSG that were later shown to be false and continuing right up to the present moment. Along the way, too many reporters set their professional skepticism and sometimes even their ethics aside. (p. 306)

I am hopeful that people connected to the formal learning institutions in our sector will read this book and pull out the teachable moments in the real-life case study. As the WE Charity scandal unfolded, I was convinced by media stories, outreach from folks in the sector, stories in our industry publications, and other sources that the organization was:

• In precarious financial health;
• Out of touch with the realities of a decolonized approach to work on the ground in the countries they worked alongside;
• Led by bullying racists;
• Extremely poorly governed;
• Financially complex;
• Untrustworthy, and unethical.

Today I think they are largely misunderstood. I also believe they made some critical mistakes. I don't believe these mistakes were the result of the claimed naivete of the founders but more likely because they felt untouchable. Were those mistakes and inadequacies - many of which are mirrored in other organizations -- a reason for this organization to be crushed? Of course not.

The organization was surrounded by powerful people, very few of whom came to their aid. Moving forward, I wonder if leaders in our sector will invite all the stakeholders into conversation -- so we make sure this doesn't happen again. A true case study doesn't leave some of the storytellers out in the cold.

[i] Tall Poppy Syndrome | Newport Institute

[ii] Letters to the editor: Sept. 14: ‘I’m not sorry to see the founders leave. I find them to be unrepentant and unable to take responsibility for their own demise.’ Readers react as Lobbying Commissioner launches review of Kielburgers’ WE Charity, plus other letters to the editor - The Globe and Mail

[iii] Jump Rope For Heart : Heart Foundation : Competitions

[iv] Ride For Dignity: Students Break A Sweat For Africa | CityNews Toronto

[v] Demand letter to WE Charity - The Washington Post ?