White Moderate Foundations – Branded Silence (Part Three)
In case you missed the second part of the series last week, White Moderate Foundations: Disconnect & Stagnation, click here!
Over the past two weeks, I’ve covered white standards and how they are antiquated and restrictive and I’ve covered the disconnect from reality experienced when working with foundation staff or board members. After establishing the setting and describing the conflict within grantmaking and philanthropy, I think it is important to focus on the power dynamics between donors, grantees, and foundations and how foundations could better position themselves to build trust and lead social change.
In the rest of this article, I will cover signs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 21 from the original article. Let’s dive in:
1. You call for unity and for people to get along after the violent white supremacist attack at the Capitol.
As I mentioned in part two of this series, foundations are free from political pressures. What this means is that foundations and their staff can voice their opinions, stand up against injustice, and engage in conversations that challenge the status quo.
Since the murder of George Floyd, many foundations have been quick to realign their funding strategies or create new strategies around “racial equity” and “racial justice”. But what exactly does that include? Too often, the new programs or strategies are clunky or designed to fix a temporary problem, as if racism will just go away overnight.
Tensions were rising as we neared the November election. The results were in, Trump lost, and it looked as though we could just ignore his followers until President-Elect Biden was sworn into office. Then January 6th happened.
I am too frustrated by the events of that day and the following weeks to recap it in this article, but I want to focus on what didn’t happen. I did not see many foundations in the Pittsburgh region denouncing the attack. In fact, I have only seen two foundations in the region publicly stating that they do not condone the attack. One of the foundations even posted a link to a letter calling on philanthropic leaders to protect democracy with over 100 foundations across the country but is not a signatory itself.
I find it hard to believe that local foundations are okay with the insurrection. Where is the outrage and condemnation? It is very possible to take a stance on something when it literally could have destroyed democracy as we know it. If foundations truly support democracy (maybe not enough to sign a letter that the Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE), the Ford Foundation, the East Bay Community Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation signed), then they need to make their voices heard. This is a moment when uttering the phrase “words matter” is not enough.
2. You steer away from publicly condemning white supremacy, racism, fascism, etc. because that might affect your funding.
One of the things I have consistently heard by advocacy organizations in Pittsburgh is that they have been branded “radical” by some of the funders in the region. These include organizations focused on police accountability, black equity and equality, and food insecurity. I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think any of those issues are radical.
I don’t know the specifics around why or when they were deemed radical, but the fact that it has happened at all proves that some foundations are more concerned with the emotions of their board and/or donors than those they fund. The organizations on the ground should not be afraid to voice their opinion. As they experience firsthand the trauma and disparities they work to fix or improve, they should not fear financial repercussion due to their rightful frustration.
I would suggest that foundations strongly vet their donors, especially those that set up Donor Advised Funds (DAFs). If nonprofits are required to list any and all funders on most applications, why should foundations be excluded from a similar requirement when it comes to their donors? The public does not need to know dollar amounts of these DAFs because we would trust that the donor was properly vetted by the foundation and therefore is in alignment with the established funding priorities. Foundations should also establish their own payout rules for DAFs similar to their own minimum 5% payout rule established by the IRS.
3. You center the feelings of white donors and avoid anything that could make them uncomfortable.
Like the previous sign, foundations too often cater to their board or donors during moments of unrest. As we saw with January 6th, many foundations in our region remained silent. If the events of January 6th made you more concerned with your board or donors’ comfort level, then you are contributing to the problem.
Boards and donors should be required to go through extensive education on anti-racism, or at the very least, unconscious bias training. I was a residential assistant for two years during college, and we had an unconscious bias training built into our on-boarding process both years. If a small liberal arts college in the middle of nowhere Pennsylvania can do this, why can’t foundations that literally built Pittsburgh with $100 billion in assets do the same? Board members should not be allowed to join or remain on the board if they do not go through training. This should be the bare minimum that every board member needs to meet.
4. You encourage people to be more “civil” or to use a “respectful tone” when having conversations about race and other challenging subjects.
Encouraging people to be more “civil” or to use a “respectful tone” once again upholds white standards. It implies that being civil is equivalent to being educated and therefore anyone who gets frustrated or disrespectful is uneducated and is unaware of the matter being discussed. Those frustrated individuals tend to be the ones more immediately impacted by whatever is being discussed and are arguably our best source for educating ourselves on the issues and their solutions.
I wrote about it before, but foundations need to listen to those they serve. Stop setting the bar at a college degree when they have the resources to know that the neighborhood they serve has low-scoring schools and/or a low high school graduation rate. Foundations need to be on the ground with those they serve and should be aware of community profiles at any given point. Their funding should reflect those they serve, not the other way around.
5. You avoid anything that you think may be too “political.”
I mentioned earlier that foundations are free from political pressures. So why do they often avoid things that are too “political”? Foundations are going to be political in nature, as they generally aim to end systemic issues perpetuated by politics. However, foundations are in a unique position that for-profits and governments can’t achieve. Foundations can provide seed funding in social policies that lead to social impact.
Unfortunately, many foundations focus too much on financial return instead of social return. There needs to be more advocacy from the foundation side to push for a higher social return via grantmaking and an increase in the minimum 5% pay out on all assets. If foundations are unwilling to take “political” action, they are not helping the communities they serve.
6. You are more worried about affecting your org’s reputation or upsetting team dynamics than you are at the inequity of pay and power allocated to Black, Indigenous, women, LGBTQIA+, disabled people, and other marginalized folks.
I covered this earlier, but to put it differently in terms of marketing, as a foundation, past and present grantees reflect your brand. If your brand has historically not considered marginalized individuals and you have made no attempt to educate your board, staff, or donors, or at least run a PR campaign to make it look like you have, you are part of the problem.
As a white male, I think it is safe to say we’ve had plenty of time to perfect democracy and correct equity and equality in the United States. The last four years were the peak of our efforts and I can confidently say that it may be time to let someone else lead. I’ve repeated it throughout all of my articles so far, but foundations need to listen to those they serve. Stop doing what you think your constituents need, or worse, telling them what they need. You do not have to surrender all of your power to empower others.
13. You allow racist, sexist, white supremacist, and other hateful views to have airtime for the sake of “diversity of thoughts/perspectives” or “equal time.”
I’m not suggesting that foundations are led by racist, sexist, white supremacists; however, the silence after January 6th is telling. Additionally, the breaking of silence (I’ll have to look up who responded locally once I’m done writing this) and the creation of special, black-focused programs after George Floyd was murdered, is further proof of a system that doesn’t work.
Foundations need to be proactive with their strategic funding and 10-year plans while considering politics and political movements, but not letting them control their plans to the extent that they inadvertently harm those they aim to help.
14. You dismiss people’s actions to advance social justice if they are not done through the “right” and “proper” channels.
I wrote about this in the last article but think it is important to say again: foundations that maintain formality for the sake of formality are content with white standards. They are okay with perpetuating a broken system so long as they feel good about themselves at the end of the day.
White standards currently dominate the “right” and “proper” methods for social change, but I think COVID has proven that these standards need to change. These standards must become more inclusive and focused on access to the channels rather than channels themselves. Foundations need to make their programs and resources more available and transparent and be proactive with their grantees. For example, don’t spend time chasing late reports when you could have spent the same amount of time in the beginning of the grant period encouraging grantees to reach out to program staff with any questions and ensuring they understand the process.
16. You spend more energy comforting the privileged when their privilege is challenged than you do to address the injustice suffered by racialized and marginalized folks.
Although the letter I linked earlier has over 100 foundations signing up to protect democracy, the letter itself is rather empty. I personally consider the sudden push for racial equity equivalent to the “thoughts and prayers” statement issued after a tragic event that could have been completely avoided if the system functioned properly or even remotely cared about the people it was built to help.
“We encourage [elected officials] to listen to diverse voices — including those of people who have been overlooked, forgotten, and excluded, and who are facing persistent threats to their lives and livelihoods…”
While this is a step in the right direction, foundations can do more than encourage elected officials to listen. A foundation could easily pull funding from an organization, effectively killing it or severely affecting their financial situation. I’m not suggesting they do this, but to imply that they can only encourage elected leaders to listen is simply not true.
“…We call on [elected officials] to repair our tattered social fabric and help our democracy live up to its ideals…”
Once again, to imply that foundations can only call upon elected officials to repair our democracy is not true. The elected officials you are calling upon are the same people who let January 6th happen. Why would they take responsibility for repairing a system that they broke for personal gain?
“…And we stand ready to work with [elected officials] to move our country forward and increase opportunity for all who call it home…”
Foundations should not “stand ready” to work with elected officials. Foundations need to be prepared to do the dirty work that they should have been involved in much sooner. It should not have taken an attempted coup for foundations to realize their role to move the country forward. I would also add that increasing opportunities alone will not change anything if no one can access those opportunities (*see everything I’ve written in the last two articles of this series).
21. You believe in radical changes in theory, but you think people should be pragmatic and incremental in their approach.
Radical changes often require nontraditional thinking that is discouraged by transactional white standards. They are the same standards that enable white supremacy and come at the cost of humanity. With the release of multiple new 10-year plans and funding priorities centered around humanity, it seems incredibly ironic to run these programs on the archaic standards designed before black people were considered people.
Instead, the standards need to be rewritten to be more inclusive, accepting a wide range of education levels and backgrounds that alone do not decide the potential grantee’s credibility or merit. Access to funding and the means to acquire grant funding need to be prioritized. Until they are prioritized, white standards will prevail and function as intended.
This concludes my third article, Branded Silence, part three of the White Moderate Foundations series.
In case you’ve made it this far and have no idea what I’m talking about, over the next few weeks, I’ll be going through the 21 signs you or your organization may be the white moderate Dr. King warned about observed here in Pittsburgh and offering solutions to the grantmaking world. Please feel free to comment or message me with any questions, I would love to discuss any of this further. Stay tuned for more!