home
papers
alumni
links
contact

The Social Philosophy and Policy Conference (SPPQ) was the first time that professional philosophers had convened for a comprehensive discussion of philanthropy. My purpose was to present some of the situations and problems that confront philanthropy in action that could be illuminated by moral philosophy.

The Ethiopian Famine Relief Effort  

Few things have more effectively captured the public sentiment in recent decades than the televised news reports about the Ethiopian famine first broadcast in the United States in 1984. The images dramatized suffering on a large scale among innocent people, particularly among defenseless children. The reports themselves indicated that literally millions of lives were in jeopardy, and that beyond immediate death by starvation there was also the prospect of large numbers of people mentally and physically maimed for life by lack of protein

The surrounding conditions were shown to be almost unbelievably harsh: large numbers of people crowded into refugee camps—or, even worse, unable to get into those camps at all. Thousands of people were reported to have died en route to the relief centers.

The political environment was also one of civil disorder. A government that described itself as Marxist-Leninist was engaged in drastic social and economic reform, including relocation of large numbers of people. A civil war between the central government in Addis Ababa and the secessionist rebel forces in Eritrea greatly complicated the situation. Public resources were diverted to weapons and warfare rather than to relief efforts, and the central government attempted to block relief shipments to rebel territory as part of its military strategy.

The neighboring countries of the Sudan and Somalia, also suffering severely from the drought, were drawn into the Ethiopian crisis. Somalia has been engaged in sporadic warfare with the government of Ethiopia for some years; the two sides have exchanged international sponsors (the U.S. and USSR). Sudan, divided by ethnic conflict north and south, proclaimed a policy of sanctuary for refugees fleeing from Ethiopia, even though its own resources to assist the refugees were critically needed by its own people.

The philanthropic constant in this situation might for present purposes be identified as the international relief community, led largely by American private voluntary organizations (PVOs), but also including international agencies such as the UN refugee commission and other private agencies such as the French organization called Doctors Without Borders. The PVO community had warned of the impending crisis long before it became headline television news. A few American agencies were already in Ethiopia when the news story broke in the United States, even though the Ethiopian government's relations with the United States were at the lowest diplomatic level.

The Ethiopian crisis continues—deaths are estimated at 2,000 a day after a year of exceptional international effort although the attention given to the crisis by the media has diminished sharply and shifted to other issues (most notably South Africa). What are some of the questions that have occurred in the course of the philanthropic response to the Ethiopian famine? Are they issues that might apply to similar crises elsewhere in the world?

• Is civil disorder the key? Drought in other African countries (most notably Botswana) has not resulted in suffering comparable to that in Ethiopia. To what extent should governments be held accountable for the suffering of their people in such circumstances? Does international relief ease the political burden on a bad government in Ethiopia?

• What is the true role of the famine relief effort? The sums raised, although historic in terms of voluntary giving for relief purposes, are a small fraction of the sums and supplies provided by governments. Is the role of private philanthropy that of consciousness-raising rather than the actual relief of suffering?

• To what extent should these problems be dealt with by voluntary giving? The scale of the financial need and the high levels of political action necessary to stabilize the country and the region exceed the grasp of voluntary action. Does voluntary giving obscure the need for more drastic and costly political action?

• On what basis can governments justify assistance to peoples where no significant political interest or benefit can be served? Our political "ally" in the region is Somalia; why should we help Somalia's principal enemy? Ethiopia has no importance to American economic interests; why invest a billion dollars in short-term refugee relief when the problem is likely to recur and there will be no discernible or measurable benefit to the United States?

• Finally, what is the role of the news media? By extension, what are the appropriate uses of the media by entertainers acting as volunteers to raise money for famine relief? What impact will fund raising initiatives launched in behalf of Ethiopian famine relief have on large-scale fund raising for similar or even different purposes? Will international communication make in­ternational fund raising a new force in societies where private giving has been modest or non-existent?

War and Revolution in Central America

The emergence of a Sandinista-dominated Marxist government out of the revolution against the Somoza government of Nicaragua has led to a strongly negative response from the government of the United States. The Reagan administration has given active support to rebel forces in opposition to the Sandinistas. At the same time, U.S. policy has supported the government of El Salvador against rebels that reportedly receive support from Nicaragua. Similar civil and international military action, polarizing forces around extremes of left and right at the cost of moderate influences, is taking place in Honduras. Peace initiatives have been sponsored by other governments (the Contadora group) as well as by the United States (the so-called Kissinger commission), and by a wide range of private voluntary organizations.

To a much greater extent than in Ethiopia, religious groups have sought to influence public policy toward Central America—supporting Administration policy as well as opposing it. Voluntary action by church groups to provide "sanctuary" for refugees fleeing Central America has chal­lenged immigration and refugee policy directly. Highly publicized legal action initiated against church groups has generated increased financial as well as moral support. other religious groups that support Administration policies have raised funds for humanitarian aid for the Nicaraguan rebels—funds that the Administration has been unable to extract from Congress. (The IRS classification of some of these non­profit organizations is not made clear in newspaper reports.)

• The essential question is the freedom of action claimed by and accorded to voluntary nonprofit organizations seeking to influence or change U.S. foreign policy-by direct action outside the United States.

• Can "humanitarian aid" be kept humanitarian in military situations? Are private contributions in fact fungible? Do they free up other funds for military purposes?

• Should boundaries be placed around the activities of church groups in foreign affairs? Is the separation of church and state jeopardized by the roles played by church groups in Central America?

• Does political action by churches and others undermine philanthropic behavior? How might we draw the line between politics and philanthropy?

Controlling Nuclear Weapons

This is the title of a new book by Robert Dahl which ex­amines the question in terms of the trade-off between "democracy and guardianship."[1] At what point does a democracy yield its democratic processes to the decision of experts ­when the consequences of error are catastrophic?

No issue is more familiar. Philosophers and others have engaged in extended discussions about it: A recent issue of Ethics was devoted to the topic.[2]

In terms of philanthropic action, the range of activities has spread across vast public rallies in Central Park in behalf of the nuclear freeze; teach-ins and student referenda at Brown University; the development and distribution of course materials and teacher guides by the Institute for World Order; and investment in academic research at a cluster of leading universities and research centers by the Carnegie Corporation.

Many have called for a massive effort to concentrate philanthropic resources and energies on this issue. The actual amount of funds currently allocated is probably small, in the total scheme of philanthropic giving. The numbers of people called to the debate, however, by educational and religious institutions, appears to run into the millions.

To what extent should private voluntary organizations influence U.S. nuclear policy? To what extent should U.S.-based organizations attempt to influence the policies of other governments? To what extent is direct action of the kind most dramatically illustrated by Greenpeace justified within the framework of the philanthropic tradition? What is the role of the media in this issue? Are philanthropic organizations accorded different editorial treatment from that given to governmental and private economic points of view?

South Africa (For more on South Africa, see "Tainted Money.")

Seldom has an issue become so intertwined among the three sectors. Private voluntary action has led to effective pressures on business corporations and on inter-governmental relations.. Religious organizations have again played a leading role, along with civil rights groups.

South Africa appears to have drawn attention away from the Ethiopian famine as the leading issue of African affairs pressing on the public consciousness. Voluntary efforts have become linked with political as well as religious and social groups within South Africa. The principal multinational corporation effort to improve the lot of South African blacks has been led by a black American clergyman (Leon Sullivan). Business corporations and philanthropic foundations have been the principal sponsors of black South Africans studying in the United States under a program managed by the institute for International Education. The American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa was the focal point of a South African fund-raising effort, supplemented by funds from the United States, to build a vocational school in Soweto. Colleges and universities with African studies and Afro-American studies programs have been the campus focal point for debate about the issue.

    • What are the rights of private voluntary groups outside South Africa in supporting anti-apartheid protest that lead to violence and death of South Africans?

    • Is the strategy of disinvestment justified by religious organizations and educational institutions if the consequences are harmful to their own financial stability?

    • Should philanthropic efforts in South Africa aim at longterm reform or short-term disruption?

    • Are the philanthropic interventions in support of apartheid in South Africa (Jerry Falwell) or in opposition to it (almost everyone else) examples of American cultural imperialism? How do they differ?

Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts

The arts present the most permeable boundaries among the three sectors. Not only do for-profit and not-for-profit interests co-exist with a variety of public agencies, initiatives that begin in one sector mature in another. Foundation-supported artists make recordings with for-profit recording companies; tax-exempt theaters become the home of subsidized productions that eventually become highly profitable. Individuals are supported by sales of their work, by foundation grants, and by grants from public agencies (such as the state arts councils and the National Endowment for the Arts).

Lincoln Center is a familiar and symbolic hub of such activity, but many similar institutions have been established across the country.

   • Should public and philanthropic funds be used to support activities that become profit-making?

   • Should philanthropic funds, by definition not-for-profit, be permitted to result in private benefit? Should distinctions be drawn among artists, producers, and others in this regard?

   • Does philanthropy subsidize elite culture with public money? Should public opinion be enlisted to validate or even guide the arts when public and philanthropic monies are involved?

   • Should not-for-profit philanthropic enterprises be permitted to supplement their base income with resources earned by profit‑making activity?

   • Should access to the arts be free? Does the right to education have a cultural counterpart in the arts?

 

[1] Robert Dahl, Controlling Nuclear Weapons, The Frank W, Abrams Lectures, Syracuse University Press, 1985. Back to Text

[2] Special Issue on Ethics and Nuclear Deterrance, Ethics, vol. 95,no.3,1985. Back to Text.

next page >>

<< previous section