The stunning announcement of >$6B in philanthropic donations in one year by @mackenziescott deserves wider

Fine piece by @nkulish in the @nytimes that addresses some of the key issues.

https://t.co/UCvUCT9rru
But this should be just the start.

Important first to put the $6B total in context. Total grantmaking in 2019 by @darrenwalker at the @FordFoundation was ~$350M. Total at @Hewlett_Found was ~$450M.

So @mackenziescott is ~15x some of the largest and most discussed foundations.
To the best of my knowledge, what we know about her philanthropy stems from a total of two posts on @Medium.

No address. No website. No known staff. We don't even know much about the entities she's using -- DAFs, LLCs, private foundation?

https://t.co/y4kLry4XOT
What's interesting about her philanthropy?

*Proves it's not that difficult to give away a billion dollars.
*No strings attached giving - all general operating support over multiple years
*No reporting requirements, AFAIK
The anti-paternalist, non-technocratic approach is a refreshing counterpoint to prevailing trends. Nevertheless, her arrival as one of the largest and most important philanthropists means that she is wielding considerable power. And that power deserves our scrutiny.
Big philanthropy is the conversion of private assets into public influence. It is an exercise of power by the wealthy. It is a plutocratic element in a democratic setting.

Her preferences, and hers alone, determine a flow of $6b into American civil society.
And apparently there's much more to come.

Despite the astonishing ~6B in giving, she's almost certainly far wealthier at the end of 2020 than she was at the start. Amazon stock's value has soared.
True, she's under no legal obligation to be transparent. But that's a failure of our public policies. And of our expectations of philanthropists.
Directing scrutiny at philanthropists need not mean a default skepticism of their aspirations. It means that we citizens deserve the opportunity to assess the goals and strategies of big philanthropy.
One reason is that philanthropy with tax breaks. We subsidize @mackenziescott's DAF via forgone tax revenue.

Contrary to popular opinion, philanthropy is not the exercise of liberty to give away your own money. It's a tax-subsidized exercise of liberty.
But the more fundamental reason is that she enjoys $6B of funding power, with much more to come, as a signatory of the Giving Pledge.
One of the great chroniclers of such power is @AnandWrites. Any random dip into his timeline will afford a good example.

Here's the latest: https://t.co/tQ0aYrq59z
And beyond all these questions of philanthropy, there are even more foundational concerns about whether anyone should have a fortune of $30+ billion dollars in the first place.
Attitudes about philanthropy are changing. @mackenziescott is providing an example about how to do it differently. And public attitudes are changing too, moving beyond default gratitude for any charitable impulse.
Let 2021 bring more journalism and broader discussion of all kinds of philanthropy.

People to follow: @Philanthropy @InsidePhilanthr @AnandWrites @nkulish @SSIReview @HistPhil @Philliteracy @p2173

More from Society

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women

You May Also Like