So last week we decided who our finalists are and who we wanted to
give to, and we had a discussion over whether to give to the
YWCA or the Binghamton zoo. As you all know we decided to give to the
Binghamton zoo, after a large amount of rigourous debate. In my opinion, I
would have preferred to give to the YWCA, but that is not what I want
to talk about. I want to talk about the debate that we had in class
and the importance of debate.
In the beginning of that class, if you told me that we would give
to the zoo I would have called you crazy, since there are so many
other organizations out there that at the time seemed so much more
“worthy”. Yet in class, Sarah won over the crowd, and made us all
realize that the Binghamton zoo is not only a worthwhile cause, but a
cause that we could see ourselves giving part of the ten thousand
dollars to. So in this case debate has changed our perspective on the
zoo and what it does to both the animals and people of the community.
Debate has changed our perspective on the community at large, and in
my opinion that is the true power of debate.
Without changing our perspectives how can we ever be true
philanthropists. To be true philanthropists we need to see an
organization through the eyes of the organization, and through the
eyes of the community as a whole, and then decide. This has a great
resemblance to a minutiae in Jewish law. According to Jewish law, if
every judge in a court of 71 agreed unanimously that someone was
guilty he would be set free then and there, no questions asked. This
is because if this ever occurs that would mean that not even one
judge saw the case from the perspective of the defendant, and if that
is true then what right do these judges have to discipline him. If we
cannot see the world through the eyes of another, than we can not
really judge them fairly. In the case of the Binghamton zoo, only one
student saw the case through the eyes of the zoo and from there she managed to convinced her group and then the majority of the rest of the class of the importance of the zoo. In this case the singular person managed to convince the majority of the class through debate. In the case of the court that would be like one judge making the case for the defendant and convincing the rest of them that he is right. In my opinion, we always need that one person fighting against the crowd to make sure that we are being fair to all perspectives. So what are your
thoughts on debate and perspective? Do you agree or disagree? Do you
think there is more to it? Do you feel we judged every organization fairly even though in some cases no one wanted to give to them?
I agree with you, Itai, that debate and perspective are extremely important, especially in a case such as our class's. Without any debate, it would have been impossible to narrow down the 52 applicants to the 19 potential finalist, let alone the 6 finalists. Compromise was also important, even if we didn't compromise in class. I cannot speak for the other groups, but I know for my group we had compromised on some of the organizations so that we could include a little bit of what everyone wanted. Of course, this is easier if you are in a group of 4 and choosing among 26 applicants than a group of 25 choosing among 52.
ReplyDeletePerspective was necessary for us in making our decision. Like you said, Sarah saw the zoo through the eyes of someone who worked there and had first hand experience while the rest of us simply viewed it as an animal park. Perspective is all based on experience and because no one else has worked at a zoo (or at least I am assuming this) none of us were able to see the benefits that the zoo offers as well as Sarah could. I believe that if the organizations had people who worked for them in our class that they too would have had a better shot at being a finalist. Going along these lines, I do not believe that each organization was judged fairly. There were too many organizations and many of them towards the end began to blur together. However, it would have been difficult to judge each organization fairly because everyone has their own biases.
Through debate, persuasion is also important. Not many people would have voted for the zoo at the beginning of class, but now it is a finalist. If Sarah had not been able to persuade her group or the class then the zoo wouldn't have been considered, most likely. Whether or not you agreed with the outcome, the zoo is being offered a chance because of persuasion. Now debate and persuasion, as well as new perspective gained from the people who go on the site visit, will determine whether the zoo or any other organization gets money.
Like Nick, I have concluded that not all of the organizations were judged entirely equally. Given all the possible variables, it is next to impossible to judge each organization on a completely neutral ground. Personal passion, as we have seen, can be incredibly influential in shifting the way that people view an organization, but is not the only factor at play. Ultimately, it is our core values and personal experiences that are some of the biggest factors that influence which organization we are inclined to support. We've seen this play out in our class, and I think that it is true in the non-profit sector as a whole as well.
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that Sarah made a strong argument for the Binghamton Zoo, but what can be said about the other organizations that no one had a strong personal tie to? Sarah’s persuasive description of the Zoo’s need for our money gave them an edge over many of the other applicants. Surely not all organizations were looked at as deeply as the Zoo, and much of this comes from the lack of direct advocacy for the organization from students in our class. This of course is no fault of anyone in our class; it was heavily by chance. In this way, I agree with Itai that being able to debate and put forth opinions was key in how our class decided on our six finalists. Clearly, it had a profound impact on which groups we chose.
In addition to direct advocacy for applicants, core values are critically important in the process of identifying which organizations someone feels passionate about. I know that the class's core values have been brought up time and time again, and I would hope that everyone has a firm grasp on the subject. I would just like to expand on its application to giving in general. When evaluating an organization, nearly everyone’s first instinct is to judge based on their core values. Whether it is a conscious or subconscious decision, our core values are what draw us to particular organizations in the first place. Whether we are trying to convince ourselves or a whole group of potential donors of an organization's worth, I firmly believe that it is much harder to do if the organization's mission doesn't fit with the core values or personal experiences of the potential donor(s).
First of all, Itai and I had a rather intense debate over whether or not we thought the YWCA or the Zoo deserved the money while walking after class to Science 2. If my rant about the importance of debate during that walk inspired this, I'm honored.
ReplyDeleteDebate has been an integral part of my life for years now. I was debate captain in high school and I travel the country with the nationally ranked Binghamton debate team. People always ask me why I sacrifice so much of my time for debate, and I have a myriad of reasons why.
Debate teaches a person to hone all the skills which will be most helpful later in life. First of all, it helps you learn how to become knowledgeable. One can't debate without knowing the subject of the debate well, so it encourages everyone to be knowledgeable and passionate about a subject. It also teaches eloquence, because debate has a goal of persuasion; the more eloquent the speaker is, the more likely others are to be receptive to their opinions. My high school principal always used to say, "You don't know something until you can teach others to understand it," and the same applies for debate. It helps you not only advocate your opinion, but helps you better understand it yourself. It helps you become more comfortable speaking extemporaneously and in front of people.
Most importantly, however, it teaches neutrality. My absolute biggest pet peeve is when someone is incapable of being impartial. The classic example is politics, when the news incessantly reports on a refusal to compromise. Even though most people will claim they are always impartial and open to contrary opinions, they are almost certainly either naïve or lying. When I am given a resolution to debate at a tournament, I will debate two or three times on EACH SIDE of the topic. Especially when the topics are controversial such as abortion or assisted suicide, I am forced to debate the side I personally am vehemently against. If I was unable to remain open and impartial, I simply would be unable to succeed in those rounds because I would lack passion and wouldn't be convincing. Surprisingly (well, it should be unsurprising), issues upon which I believed my belief to be strong have had my opinions changed when an eloquent speaker convinced me otherwise; but if I had refused to be open minded, that wouldn't have happened.
Like most people, I didn't think I would be voting for the zoo. However, Sarah beautifully exemplified exactly what I ranted about to Itai and again earlier. She was eloquent, poised, passionate, and knowledgeable; and thankfully, the class was somewhat open minded. The moral here is, let smart people prove your wrong. If someone completely disagrees with you, let them speak. Chances are, they will have tons of evidence to prove you totally wrong, and the bigger person will say "wow I didn't realize that I was wrong thank you for convincing me" and the immature one will refuse to accept fact and logic because their ego is too big to admit they were wrong. To those who are passionate about the finalists, SPEAK UP. I'm a clean slate with no opinions on these charities. Convince me to support you.
I now realize more than ever the power of debate, and how it has the ability to change people's minds, especially debate that comes from someone who is truly passionate about their argument. I knew at the end of my PowerPoint presentation that I had garnered a little bit of interest in the Zoo, but not nearly enough to make it a finalist. I've spent the last two months going to the zoo three days a week, and falling in love with it. However, I know to many, as Nick said, it was just an animal park. I also knew that that perception of it could be changed, if only the class could get to see it behind the scenes like I did. And the only chance for that was a site visit. I had been trying to make the zoo's case logically, but as we were going around giving our last words on each organization, I realized that I had to risk sounding like a crazy cat lady and let all of my emotion about the zoo out. Worst case scenario: Everyone thinks I'm crazy, which is mostly true anyway, so no harm done there. Best case scenario: the zoo gets a chance to be considered for the money, and the class gets a chance for a behind the scenes visit (and everyone probably still ends up thinking I'm a little crazy-still true). Thankfully, the best case scenario is what occurred. People saw my emotional investment, and it tapped into their emotions. And that is the foundation for any truly great debate. I was amazed as I saw people who had looked at best politely interested during my PowerPoint slide suddenly debating with great fervor in favor of my favorite organization. It was an amazing transformation. Giving, and debate, really are emotion constrained by reason. People supported and opposed the zoo based on an equal mix of facts and feelings. I'm really glad I chose to let everyone see how much I cared, because it opened up one of the best, most intense debated I've seen in this class (and in general), and resulted in my favorite organization getting a shot at the grant money, which is a result that I had only dreamed about.
ReplyDeleteI too would like to highlight passions role in debate. In my highschool we had a course called Exploratory Issues, which was, for lack of better terms, a discussion elective; students would present on a topic of interest and lead the class in a discussion afterwards. It was never until that class that I participated in a good debate. What made the difference between an Exploratory Issues debate and some other class's debates was the student's passion for the topics they chose. In the case of Philanthropy and Civil Society, our passion shines through in the causes we would like to support as well as our personal ties to particular organization. By incorporating our passions into debate, we help to see each organization in the best possible light, considering it for all it's worth from all of our perspectives and experiences (provided we speak up). While it can be a little stressful to have a lot of people split up about an issue, each side passionate in their beliefs, I believe it helps to make sure an issue is really fleshed out. For anyone on the fence, debate helps to highlight what makes each side tick. Armed with an increasing understanding of our own values and goals through philanthropy, debate provides perspective through impassioned examples.
ReplyDelete