- . Digg It
- . Sphere It
- . E-mail This
- . Save to del.icio.us
- . Permanent Link
Curb Your Anonymity
Larry David's not only one worried about nameless donations
Leave it to Larry David to make a vice out of donating money to a worthy cause. In last night's episode of the HBO comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm, the self-obsessed celeb is outraged when he learns that he has been upstaged by friend and neighbor Ted Danson (playing himself) at a ceremony celebrating donations to the real-life environmentalist group the Natural Resources Defense Council. While Larry is pleased at first to see his name decorating a wing of a new NRDC museum, Danson is the one slathered in praise by Larry's wife (an NRDC advocate) and by a gushing Senator Barbara Boxer, who makes a guest appearance. You see, unlike Larry, Ted didn't want a lot of "fanfare." The donation of his wing is marked "anonymous."
The rest of the episode makes a farce of "anonymous" deeds good and bad: Who stole Larry's favorite baseball jersey from the dry cleaners? Who jizzed on the blanket in his guest bedroom? Who did the same on his best friend's daughter's doll? Identity always outs, and no good deed goes unpunished. In real-world philanthropy, though, anonymous donations are not getting as many laughs.
First, there is the issue of publicity. As an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education last month points out, a recent increase in large anonymous donations is making it harder for universities to induce the me-too effect and drum up more gifts. Donors don't want their names to distract from the work they are supporting, or they simply don't want to be besieged afterward by other charities looking for handouts. Some schools, like Middlebury, have come up with a compromise, foregoing a public announcement of big gifts while encouraging donors to tell their friends. Then competition kicks in to see who can give the most.
Which is great for the rich guys' egos, but not so good for the public. At least that's what Joel Fleishman argues in his new book, The Foundation: A Great American Secret — How Private Wealth Is Changing the World (Public Affairs, 2007). As the government retreats from promoting the public good in every area, from human services to protecting the environment, private foundations pick up the slack. But their actions are often hidden from the public whose tax dollars subsidize their generosity. Fleishman argues that this is bad for the public, which has a right to know, and ultimately bad for foundations, which are vulnerable to the government stepping in to clear things up. That's what happened during the McCarthy era, when the Rockefeller and Ford foundations were accused of promoting communism in China and India because of grants made to organizations in those countries.
In a review of The Foundation, Kathleen McCarthy, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at the Graduate Center at CUNY, makes the argument even more forcefully: "Unless the entire foundation community begins to work more consciously to convince legislators and the citizens who elect them of their legitimate value in a democracy, this teeming, diverse sector may jeopardize its independence and its ability to sustain itself over another century." In other words: 'Fess up, anonymous, or you'll be out of business. Just like Larry David says.
Celeste Fraser Delgado is the MOLI View's contributing editor for Worthy Causes.
The rest of the episode makes a farce of "anonymous" deeds good and bad: Who stole Larry's favorite baseball jersey from the dry cleaners? Who jizzed on the blanket in his guest bedroom? Who did the same on his best friend's daughter's doll? Identity always outs, and no good deed goes unpunished. In real-world philanthropy, though, anonymous donations are not getting as many laughs.
First, there is the issue of publicity. As an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education last month points out, a recent increase in large anonymous donations is making it harder for universities to induce the me-too effect and drum up more gifts. Donors don't want their names to distract from the work they are supporting, or they simply don't want to be besieged afterward by other charities looking for handouts. Some schools, like Middlebury, have come up with a compromise, foregoing a public announcement of big gifts while encouraging donors to tell their friends. Then competition kicks in to see who can give the most.
Which is great for the rich guys' egos, but not so good for the public. At least that's what Joel Fleishman argues in his new book, The Foundation: A Great American Secret — How Private Wealth Is Changing the World (Public Affairs, 2007). As the government retreats from promoting the public good in every area, from human services to protecting the environment, private foundations pick up the slack. But their actions are often hidden from the public whose tax dollars subsidize their generosity. Fleishman argues that this is bad for the public, which has a right to know, and ultimately bad for foundations, which are vulnerable to the government stepping in to clear things up. That's what happened during the McCarthy era, when the Rockefeller and Ford foundations were accused of promoting communism in China and India because of grants made to organizations in those countries.
In a review of The Foundation, Kathleen McCarthy, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at the Graduate Center at CUNY, makes the argument even more forcefully: "Unless the entire foundation community begins to work more consciously to convince legislators and the citizens who elect them of their legitimate value in a democracy, this teeming, diverse sector may jeopardize its independence and its ability to sustain itself over another century." In other words: 'Fess up, anonymous, or you'll be out of business. Just like Larry David says.
Celeste Fraser Delgado is the MOLI View's contributing editor for Worthy Causes.
What People Are Saying…
Leave a Comment