The best new book that I have seen is by James Douglas, a British political scientist now teaching at Northwestern University (Why Charity? The Case for a Third Sector, Sage Publications, Inc., 1983). Douglas addresses the reasons why a third sector of private philanthropy and voluntary service exists in the first place. He analyzes the constraints and the limitations on government and the marketplace. Economics does not seem to have provided a satisfactory solution to what Russell Hardin calls "the back of the invisible hand" or for the paradox of public goods.

There is also a valuable new anthology on America's Voluntary Spirit (The Foundation Center, 1983), edited by Brian O'Connell, who also serves as President of the organization called Independent Sector.

Training tends to be found in programs for managers of not-for-profit organizations or in courses in fundraising. The only systematic degree training that deals with philanthropy in depth is in social work, although some business schools address it in courses in corporate social responsibility.

Let me illustrate my point about the neglect of philanthropy in general education by referring to recent course catalogues of Amherst College, The University of Texas at Dallas, and Hofstra University. To the best of my knowledge, none of these catalogues lists courses making any reference to charity or philanthropy or the independent sector.

Amherst offers an Economics course entitled "Radical Perspectives on Capitalism" that does not, according to the hundred words or so of summary description in the 1980-81 catalogue, make mention of charity or philanthropy, even to repudiate them. Course 20, "Economics and Property Rights," discusses "the use of common property resources ... the historical development of private property and its regulation ... contracts, and the relationships between property, equity, individual freedom and the public interest," but apparently with no reference to philanthropy and the right to donate private property for public purposes. Political Science 21, "American Government," makes reference to "the relationship of private aspirations and public norms," and Political Science 23, "Political Obligations," mentions "the obligation to rescue." Political Science 24, "Politics in Third World Nations," declares that "special attention will be paid to the problems of human rights and world hunger." Is there reference in these courses to the work, say, of the Medical Mission Sisters? To CARE? To Bread for the World? To the impact of philanthropy on American foreign policy?

There are no courses listed on the literature of charity at Amherst, but there is a course on the literature of madness.

Amherst, by the way, was founded in 1821. The historian Merle Curti describes its origins: "Canvassing the small towns of western Massachusetts, the representatives of Amherst's 'Charity Fund,' as it was known, were remarkably successful. In less than a year they raised $37,000 from 274 individuals for most of whom philanthropy of any amount was a sacrifice." (Merle Curti and Roderick Nash, Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher Education, Rutgers University Press, 1965, p. 46.) Amherst has developed to the point where it proudly reports endowments for student aid amounting to more than $6 million enough from past giving to permit a policy that no student will be denied admission on the basis of financial need alone.

The only other reference to philanthropy that I could find in the Amherst catalogue was a bibliographic reference to the interesting little book, Doing Good. The Limits of Benevolence, mentioned among a dozen other titles in an interdisciplinary course on "Perspectives on the Professions." That reference touches, at least, on what I have in mind: introducing the idea of philanthropy into courses of general education that violate the sacred precincts of the specialized disciplines.

As far as I have been able to discover, philanthropy is no more a part of the education of undergraduates at Hofstra than it is elsewhere. Social Psychology 159 probably does not deal with dominance and dependency as an aspect of giving and receiving charity. Social and Political Philosophy 4 probably does not give much time to philanthropy, and Introduction to Ethics 11 probably does not use philanthropy to illustrate the discussion of "ethical progress." English 132 on the nineteenth-century British novel probably does not use Dickens' satirical attack on charity as practiced in his time as an illustration of the literature of charity. Political Science 105 on "Public Policy in the United States" probably does not reveal to students the extraordinary role played by philanthropy and the independent sector in shaping American public policy. (This is an oversight that might well be remedied when the historians Karl and Katz publish the history mentioned earlier.)

The University of Texas at Dallas is a public institution, upper division and graduate only. It occupies space largely provided by individuals associated with Texas Instruments Incorporated and by the corporation itself, people like Eugene McDermott and Erik Jonsson in particular.

There is a course at UT Dallas in "The Ethical Conduct of Business" and another in "Corporations and Politics," but neither course description makes explicit reference to the growing role of the corporation in philanthropy or to the relationship of corporate philanthropy to the formation of public policy. Presumably one turns instead to History 3366, "Themes in the Social History of the United States: Race, Class, Sex, and Social Change," "a survey of social history, focusing on the American experience ... [that] fulfills one-half of the Texas legislative requirement for six hours in American history." (It may also indicate what you get when the legislature takes it upon itself to tell faculty members what to teach.)

I am necessarily tentative in all these sweeping statements about what is taught about philanthropy to undergraduates, for I have based what I say merely on the examination of course catalogues and course descriptions and on the indexes of college textbooks. I welcome evidence that would correct my impression that philanthropy is simply ignored in the American college classroom.

My argument has been that philanthropy operates on such an enormous scale and is so widely diffused in American life that it seems astonishing that it has failed to capture the attention of the academic community in the United States. Philanthropy and voluntary service broadly considered are, in my opinion, vital to the preservation of freedom, but their operation and purpose and place in our tradition must be taught and studied and learned if they are to survive. They are, at the moment, not a system of thought but a confusion of law and custom and attitude and behavior and organization and simply ignorance. Offering such intellectual disarray holds out little promise for effective response to other, competing systems.

One faculty member (a social historian) remarked that "If we did teach about philanthropy you probably wouldn't like what we taught." Similar arguments bring out a point of view that sees charity as demeaning to the recipients and philanthropy either as a means of keeping the poor in their place or for diverting tax monies to the cultural priorities of the rich. Corporate giving, in this view, is rejected on the grounds that it only serves to strengthen an already insidious capitalist influence.

A contrasting position, still widely held by skeptics in the business community, is that corporations should leave philanthropy to individuals; they hold the nineteenth-century opinion that "charity has no place at the board table. " Libertarians, more visible these days if not more numerous, give such high priority to individualism that they are suspicious of all social action proposed under the rubric of benevolence.

Let me contrast the neglect of philanthropy with the systematic attention paid to a contrasting set of values. The Left Academy (McGraw-Hill: 1982), edited by Edward Vernoff and the well-known, self-described Marxist political -scientist Bertell Ollman, is a discipline-by-discipline report on the status of the "Marxist perspective" on American campuses. In the 1950s such a book title would have signalled an expose" written by a fervent anticommunist. Today it is the title of a book that applauds the rise of Marxist views among university faculty.

"A Marxist cultural revolution is taking place today in American universities," say the editors in their introduction. They go on to report the publication of "four Marxist-inspired textbooks in American government" and the publication of "over fifteen books on Marx and Marxism" by Oxford, Cambridge, and Princeton university presses. (The Left Academy, page 1.)

“There are over 400 courses given today in Marxist philosophy..." according to Ollman and Vernoff. The popularity of Marxist teaching innovations is not my point, however; the point is the absence of teaching about the tradition of voluntary service and private giving in American life. It does indeed make a difference to one's thought about the American system whether one sees it through eyes that legitimate philanthropy or through eyes that see legitimacy only in the state. Quite apart from opinions of the kind I have been describing (and expressing), philanthropy as it is organized in the United States provides the means for social change that is an interesting alternative to those to which other, especially Marxist, societies are limited.

Philanthropy is a subject that touches the life of every student and every faculty member at every American college. It is easily related to every discipline of the humanities and social sciences and to professional studies like medicine, law, and business. It could be taught, and in my opinion it should be taught, but it is not taught.

Conclusion

The system of charity and philanthropy and voluntary service is at work in almost every aspect of our lives. We give to it and we receive from it. We use it to help others and to express our ideas about how life could be made better for all of us.

The independent sector provides a means by which we can make corrections in the way our economic, political, and social systems work. The device permits peaceful change, constantly under way, of an infinite plurality and complexity as diverse as we are ourselves as a free, open, and democratic society.

There is reason for the concern that this complex and rich tradition will not thrive without care and encouragement and understanding. Highly organized and powerfully funded alternative ideologies are pressing upon us; we might by default find our system modified significantly while we are not attending to it. Technical adjustments might be made in tax policy, in the law regulating not-for-profit organizations, in the definitions of which organizations are eligible for tax exemption and of which gifts are eligible for tax deduction, in the boundaries surrounding corporate contributions, or in the practices of endowed foundations.

Public discourse about the issues that unite and divide us owes much to the right to raise money and the right to give it. No other society has been so bold in granting that right and in extending its use. Perhaps no other society is so free.