Last week, our class had the opportunity to Skype with Kevin Salwen, author of The Power of Half. Throughout this video chat, I learned many things that the Salwen family believed in. For example, on the topic of anonymous philanthropy versus donating with the purpose of having your name placed on something, Kevin believes that if it's a cause you feel strongly about, you should put your name on it. I found this especially interesting since his family decided not to tell anyone about their project and the work they were doing with The Hunger Project.
Something that stuck out to me over the course of the Skype call was what Kevin called "the drivers of philanthropy." He believes that you must think about these 2 things: is there a problem that makes you angry? and if so, is there a place that you could help that would make a difference in someone's life? I believe these questions that Kevin challenges us to ask ourselves would prove to be extremely useful in this class. With $10,000 to donate and many charities that apply for the grant money, as a class, we need to decide which problems that occur in Broome County make us angry.
Personally, one problem I care deeply about, which is a problem in Broome County, is hunger. Each day, many families go hungry and don't know the next time they are going to have a meal on the table. As college students, I believe we take for granted the fact that we don't need to worry about the next time we will eat; food seems to be always available to us. From a blog post last week, the organization CHOW helps to combat the hunger problem in Broome County, having more than 20 soup kitchens, and this organization may be a possible option for us to donate some grant money in the next couple of weeks.
I want to know what are your drivers of philanthropy? What makes you angry?
Like you Kayleigh, I found Kevin's mention of anonymous vs. named philanthropy quite interesting. Prior to skyping with Kevin Salwen I hadn't given much thought to attaching my name to donations. Donations to me, were simply donations of money, a deed that does not necessarily need to be attached to my name. After all money was money, right? If I truly felt attached to a certain issue then I would donate more than just money, rather, my time, efforts, and resources. There was no way of being anonymous here. Kevin however, was not persuasive enough to change my opinion of anonymous vs. named philanthropy. I still do not feel a certain coercion to attach my name to my rather sporadic donations of money to random organizations.
ReplyDeleteA part of the skype conversation that truly did stick with me was the part regarding the drivers of philanthropy. This has been a concept that I have been struggling with since week three of SCHL280. I have yet to truly identify my core source of motivation to donate however Kevin Salwen's approach to this issue was rather novel and thus made me think in a different manner. He did this by asking the question of what made us angry. This seemed an easy question to answer. Injustice. Discrimination. Lack of equal opportunity. Lack of resources available to the lesser fortunate. So on, and so forth. It amazed me how Kevin's approach to answering our sources and drivers for motivation enabled me to almost instantaneously answer the question I had been struggling with for the past four weeks: what motivates your philanthropic endeavors? For this, I am thankful for the seemingly short skype conversation we held with Mr. Kevin Salwen.
I don't think it matters whether our names are on the donation. For me, knowing that I made a difference helps. I don't need any recognition. But that is a personal opinion. I don't think its wrong to receive recognition for a good deed. I just wouldn't ask for it. However it is nice when the people you help personally thank you and tell you the difference you've made in their lives. To share that experience with someone is amazing and something to remember for a lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that, Kevin Salwen's questions about what drives your philanthropy could definitely help us with our decision. When I choose to partake in philanthropy it usually does stem from my values and anger. When I see the values that I hold not extended to people in need it makes me angry. There are so many problems in this world and I want to do something about it.
Anger, in terms of my philanthropy, turns into passion for me which allows me to focus on a goal and seek to complete it. What makes me angry is that people don't have food to eat, clothes to wear, shelter to live in, and no education. My list can go on and on. But what drives me crazy is when people don't have basic needs. When families can't provide for their children it is heartbreaking. When people are not motivated to do anything about it is even worse. I just do not want people to suffer. When looking at the community we are going to donate to I think anger will play a role. We are going to want to attack the problems of the community and what angers us will be a great start into where we want to donate. It will also help choose what issues we want to focus on. I'm excited to see what motivates us and if what angers us helps us choose an organizations to donate to.
In my opinion, I think that if it is a large act of philanthropy, such as the one the Salwen's undertook, then it should be recognized. Although, I related to Joe in that I would feel uncomfortable telling my friends about such an action, I think speaking out to the general public through the news and the book was beneficial. By doing so, the family inspired many others across the nation to implement “the power of half” or other acts of giving. That man that approached Kevin was motivated by his book to take action to solve a problem he saw in his own community regarding the youth. This probably would not have happened without the Salwen’s sharing their story. However, small acts of philanthropy, the ones we ourselves most likely are involved with, do not necessarily need to be recognized. At least for me personally, if I volunteer somewhere for the day or donate a few bucks every now and then, I do not expect anything in return, nor do I think I deserve any.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question regarding what drives my philanthropy, I would have to agree with Gladys and Heawon that lack of basic needs make me angry. It just is not right that some families struggle even though they are working just as hard as some other families. However, it is also important to take into consideration what Kevin also said about approaching a problem. He, personally, believes in helping those that can help themselves and not ones that are absolutely hopeless. He said he tries to help people that are about partway on the path to solving their problem as opposed to those that are at step 0. I completely agree with this. I think this is something our class needs to take into consideration when deciding on which organizations to give. Although our passion may lead us to want to give to the organizations that give food, shelter, and clothing to the less fortunate, we also have to think with our head and decide on a group that will help solve the problem most effectively by helping those that are willing to empower themselves.
It seems that the "What makes you angry?" question really resonated what a lot of us. You chose to blog about it, another class member tweeted it, and I, personally, wrote that question down in my notes during our Skype session. It's an excellent question and one worth looking at.
ReplyDeletePoor parenting makes me angry. Of course, what constitutes a "good parent" is pretty subjective. There are just some things though that, theoretically, should be common sense. Babies should not be shaken. Meals should be provided every single day. Corporal punishment is unacceptable. Children should not be locked in rooms while parents' use drugs. Seems simple, right?
However, there are a shockingly large number of people with children that do not, in fact, know these things. In most cases, it seems that these people are simply parenting in the same way that they were raised. Nobody taught them anything different. Seeing this cycle continue throughout multiple generations makes me angry.
On a personal level, this would drive me to want to direct my philanthropy towards an organization that provides support and education for parents' that need a positive influences and help in developing their skills.
Like Gladys, my anger turns into passion. I feel passionate about giving my support to organizations that help families thrive within the community, whether it be through providing basic needs or education in some fashion. Passion is not enough to fix a large societal problem, however, and I also agree with Lauren's point about giving our support to an organization that is helping community members willing to empower themselves.
I too thought that Kevin Salwen's Skype with our class was extremely beneficial to our class. It was great to see what has happened since the book and how he, and his family, were donating their time and money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren and her argument about the recognition of philanthropic deeds. I don't think Kevin Salwen's opinion was that every small act of giving should be recognized. I think what he was getting at was that if you care enough about a cause and you make a large enough donation to that cause, that you should put your name on it in order to encourage others to do the same. Putting your name on a large act of philanthropy will grab other people's attention to the cause. He didn't mean that people should put their name on donations for any kind of praise or selfish recognition, but rather for the opportunity for future donations.
I also agree that lack of basic needs angers me. For people to live without food, or clean water, or somewhere to go to be out of the weather is unjust and heartbreaking. And, for those people to be so close to our homes while we live so lavishly makes me angry with myself, and our society. However, I disagree with Salwen's belief in helping the people that are already on their way to success. To me, it brings up the question: How can we start to help people that already have some, while there are others who have nothing. Imagine if there were two children: one with nothing to eat and the other with some food on their plate. Why give more food to the child with food when the other has none? I think that it is more of a benefit to lift the people off the ground who have nothing, than it is to propel people forward who already have more than others.
Much like Lauren said, I totally agree with empowering others as opposed to just trimming the edges of a problem. The problem will never go away if we don't address the real issue and give people the means to fix it. I think as we go forward in our selection process we have to think, which organization we feel will empower others and solve the problem the best and most effectively?
I actually agree with Kevin that we should be putting our names on everything we do. I think that what he was trying to say is that our name gives those we help a physical person to associate their thanks with, instead of just wondering which kind soul helped them out on that day. It isn't for any particular benefit for us, although one may arise from that, but rather so that we can inspire others to do the same. As we can see from The Power of Half, it is hard to be a trendsetter, but it is vitally important for people like this to make themselves known in order to encourage others to take the jump into helping others.
ReplyDeleteWe also should not be afraid of what others may think of us when we put our names out there. No matter what others say, good or bad, if we really believe in a cause, then it doesn't matter what others think, because all that matters is the good that we are doing for those in need. I personally think that the Salweens should have told more people, not to rub it in their faces, but because they were proud of what they were doing and they wanted to own it. When you own a project it means that you care about the cause, and even if it is a small deed, you still should put your name out there because it is a way of saying, "I support what this organization is doing and I want to be a part of it."
The other part of this blog post about the drivers of philanthropy made me realize something that I am sure many of us have noticed just from our time in school. Although it bothers me that not enough is being done about the impending environmental problems that our world may be facing soon, what really gets me angry is when children and high school students just give up on their studies and waste their potential. I've seen former friends turn to drugs and it has messed them up and ruined the great potential that I once saw in them. I hate that such brilliant minds have been wasted, and I don't want to see it happen anymore. I am sure that this is a problem in Broome county with the public school system being the way it is here, and if we can implement programs to keep young children on the right track and out of trouble, then we can do a lot of good for the families of this community.
Is this something that the class should consider supporting? I would say absolutely yes, and I'm sure we all know somebody who has gone down the wrong path and it is always sad to see. I think it is something that hits close to home and that is what gets me so angry about it. I really hope we can change lives through this class, and this is a way to promote a huge change.
Great posts guys. Kevin Salwen brings up two important points about philanthropy. One, the issue of recognition of philanthropic acts. Two, the idea of anger as a facilitator for philanthropic action.
ReplyDeleteFirst, philanthropic action hypothetically should not need any form of recognition. If a person follows through with their philanthropy and comprehends the difference it makes, I believe this is enough credit for anyone's moral integrity. On the other hand extreme cases of philanthropy, i.e Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, serve as an illustration that many people can look up to and strive to become. I believe the idea of philanthropic recognition is beneficial. Although majority of people do not need this recognition, it is important for some philanthropists to be recognized because it establishes a norm/exemplary ideal of a philanthropists that everyone should strive to become. On the other hand the fact of philanthropic recognition in and of itself may encourage philanthropic donations and actions by itself. For example someone may donation to a art museum just to have their name on the front of it. We may criticize this as selfish, but in the end some for of donation, most notably a large one, was accomplished. So in the end, I agree with Kevin that philanthropic recognition plays a crucial role in the dynamic of philanthropy.
Second, Kevin brought up the idea that anger should fuel our desire to perform philanthropy. I take this simply as sentimental connection drives philanthropic action. So instead of anger, whatever a person finds near and dear to their heart determines their philanthropic avenue. In other words as we have said in class, emotional connection to a cause drives action. I believe that the higher degree of emotional connection a person has with a cause the more likely they are to contribute.
Another interesting point is the fact of anonymous donations in the form of direct philanthropy. In the case of the Great Depression, people in need were more likely to seek out help because the supporter was anonymous. This brings up an interesting question: do anonymous donations regarding direct philanthropy yield a higher level of requests for said donation? In the African example the people were reluctant to take money from the donator because they didn't trust his seemingly illogical throwing of money at villages. Would they have taken the money if the person was anonymous? This is a curious scenario that I am interesting in hearing others opinion.
This post has really allowed the class to discuss and further delve into where our passions lie, and I feel that this will help us in deciding where we would like to give our money at the end of the class. While the responses on this post about "what makes us angry" have been fairly varied, there are many consistent themes throughout them: discrimination, injustice, lack of resources, lack of equal opportunity, and lack of basic needs.
ReplyDeleteSomething that also came up in the post which is very important to me is the problem of the unhealthy environment, which was mentioned by Ryan. While it may seem like environmental problems are only a global problem, and there is not much that we can do in Broome County to help solve these problems, I would have to disagree. There are many steps that local communities can make in order to help the environmental both locally and globally. Some of these are increasing energy efficiency in homes, fixing up brownfields, and cleaning up major sites of pollution. Therefore, the money we have would definitely not be wasted if we gave it to an environmental cause, and the local community would benefit as well.