Stanford Social Innovation Review

Threats to Latinos a Challenge for Nonprofits

Advocates for Latinos have become targets of hate campaigns that underscore the critical role nonprofits play protecting minority rights and strengthening civic life in a democracy.

One of the great champions of nonprofits was Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century French writer who saw in nonprofits a distinguishing hallmark of our ongoing “democratic revolution,” which he believed faced a continuing threat from the “tyranny of the majority.”

Instead of expecting government to take care of their problems, a solution that could lead to government running their lives, Americans team up and work to fix what is wrong.

Those “associations” that Americans form—known today as “nonprofits”—also represented for Tocqueville an important safeguard against the tendency of majorities and government to run roughshod over the rights of minorities.

Tocqueville’s insights and fears are important to remember in the face of growing intolerance in America for Latino immigrants and their nonprofit advocates.

As The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., reported recently, two of the state’s leading Latino advocates have been the target of threats and racist messages.

Because of the threats, Andrea Bazán, president of the Triangle Community Foundation in Durham and the new board chair for the National Council of La Raza, a national advocacy group for Latinos, has requested protection at some public appearances.

She was so concerned, in fact, that she sent her children to stay with her former husband and stayed away from home for several days in June, the newspaper reported.

And Tony Asion, a former police office and a successor to Bazán as executive director of El Pueblo, the leading advocacy for Latinos in the state, told the newspaper he had received death threats and messages he considers to be racist, and he now fears for staff members at El Pueblo.

Nonprofits work to advance the philanthropic mission of healing and repairing our communities and making them better places to live and work.

Yet in simply doing their job and advocating for the rights of Latinos, nonprofit leaders like Bazán and Asion now face threats that cause them to fear for their own lives and those of their children and fellow workers.

As Tocqueville recognized roughly 170 years ago, nonprofits perform a critical job in America by helping to make sure the most vulnerable among us do not fall prey to the intolerance of the majority.

But in a land of immigrants, a land in which the fading white majority is being replaced by a new majority consisting of minorities, the hate hurled at Latinos and their advocates only reinforces the indispensable role nonprofits must continue to play in safeguarding our continuing experiment with democracy.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Why I Wish Nonprofits Would Stop Using the Word ‘Minorities’

We’ve got to stop using the word “minorities” to describe the communities we serve. It doesn’t have any value. It never has.

I’ve been thinking a lot about language lately. How it can inspire or enrage, clarify or condemn.  The English major in me wants to take a red pen to all the useless jargon we promote in our organizations, starting with how we talk about the people we serve. Because part of the role of nonprofits, I believe, is not only to drive social change, but to also reframe the way America looks at social problems. For years, we’ve made a pity party out of the fact that “XX percent of the people we serve are minorities” as if this were in itself a reason to support our cause.

One of my first jobs was as a grantwriter for a small community development agency. Way back when I literally knew nothing about nonprofits or philanthropy, it baffled me as to why our grant language was littered with terminology about “serving minorities” and helping “at-risk youth.” A minority compared to whom? At-risk of what, exactly?

A better term to use that is highly regarded by academics is “people of color” which encompasses all people who are non-white. It’s a term that I prefer, and one you’ll notice me using a lot here on this blog. The term “people of color” has a more positive connotation than “minorities.” “People of color” have cultural significance, while “minorities” conjure up images of people that are worth less than the majority, marginalized, minor. As an African American, I’ve never wanted to be known by a term that makes me feel like I don’t matter. That reminds me I’m not majorly important just because of my race.

Many nonprofits use the word “minorities” as a blanket term to indicate that they provide services for underrepresented groups including African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and so on.  Why don’t we just be specific and name the communities we serve rather than being lazy with it? In Washington, DC, many nonprofits serve 100 percent African Americans. Much better to say that than to call your youth or homeless clients “ethnic minorities.” It means nothing except to connote a group of people that get stuck on the bottom of society’s shoe.

Anyway, as we know in this country the minority is becoming the majority. As the New York Times has reported:

Ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s population in a little more than a generation, according to new Census Bureau projections, a transformation that is occurring faster than anticipated just a few years ago. The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago, officials had projected the shift would come in 2050.

As the times change, we might as well get rid of the antiquated language that remains a huge barrier to our cultural competence.

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

2 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Creating the Safe Space to Talk About Race in the Nonprofit Sector

Here in America, we’ve had several opportunities to discuss race since the election of our nation’s first African American President:

• The New York Post title depicting the author of the economic stimulus bill as a dead monkey
• Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that our country is “a nation of cowards” when it comes to race
• And all of this talk of a “post-racial” America. Whatever that is.

I don’t need to tell you how disappointed I’ve been after reading the commentary these events have prompted. Or maybe I do. For the most part, this nationwide conversation about race that we’ve been having very reluctantly has also been approached in some of the most demeaning ways, namely this editorial by one Heather Mac Donald. The idea that we are moving “past race” in any way because we have a Black President has only served to bring to light the reality of just how marginalized people of color are in this country, and even in our very own nonprofit sector. I’ll be interested to see how many nonprofit conferences this year take diversity off the agenda, now that California foundations have agreed to invest more in “minorities.”

I’m not saying we should drop everything and run around hooping & hollering about race and diversity. We all have competing priorities in the work we do on a daily basis. But as agents of change and the keepers of our nonprofit culture, we do need to make it a point to consider race & diversity in every decision we make, or don’t make, in our work. I know it is hard to talk about race. It will not get easier. It is hard and it will not get easier no matter how much we want to believe whomever is telling us that we are “post-race.” I’m under no illusion that when you see me walk into the room, you no doubt see my skin color. That inconvenient truth is what drives these statistics on leadership in the nonprofit sector: 82 percent of nonprofit CEOs are White, 94 percent of foundation presidents are White, and 86 percent of board members are White. In order to change that, we need to be able to talk about it. Without being dismissive or demeaning. This is our opportunity to show that we as a nonprofit sector can do better than mainstream America on this issue.

I’m always disappointed when discussions about diversity at nonprofit conferences are so sparsely attended. People don’t come for many different reasons, but mainly because they are afraid. So we need to do a better job of creating the kind of safe space to have conversations about race in a productive way.

If you attend a conference, meeting, training, or dialogue about race, diversity, or inclusion, please know that you are the right person in the room at the right time. It’s important to remember that talking about race is difficult, but that to learn anything, you must move past the discomfort to fully participate. I believe that deep down, what we all want is to find a place where we can engage together and make meaning out of this thing called history. We’re all searching for that sweet poetry that lies beneath the work that we are called to do. We want to overcome our own personal issues with race and be reminded of the common values that brought us to nonprofit work in the first place. We need to know that we are kept in a safe place where we’re free to put our hopes and dreams out on the table and co-create something new and real once it’s all said and done. Talking about race and how to increase the diversity of our sector is still an important conversation to have.

We also need to define in a real way what can and cannot come into the room when we talk about race. If the room were a poem, it might look like this:

Excuses cannot come into the room
Control cannot come into the room
Guilt cannot come into the room
Your facade cannot come into the room
Condescension cannot come into the room
Rolling eyes cannot come into the room
Actors cannot come into the room
Fear cannot come into the room
The status quo cannot come into the room

New ideas can enter the room
Open minds can enter the room
Curiosity can enter the room
Compassion can enter the room
Forgiveness can enter the room
Dreams can enter the room
Respect can enter the room
Trust can enter the room

What are your ideas for creating a safe place to talk about race in the nonprofit sector?

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

First and Foremost: Know your Community

Have we replicated our offline social dynamics and barriers online? I believe we have—and Danah Boyd does, too. As reported by the New York Observer, Danah recently spoke to this when she presented at the Personal Democracy Forum about the data uncovered in her four years of research on new media use.

If we truly are reproducing our offline social divides online, then it’s further proof that the central part of your social media strategy needs to be focused on your audience.

“MySpace has become the ghetto of the digital landscape,” Ms. Boyd explained to the crowd. And many of us in these social environments, she said, “have gotten into the habit of crossing the street like we always do to avoid the riff-raff.” —New York Observer

You’ve probably heard of Facebook; you may even have set up a group or a fan page there for your organization.  But did you do that because you heard of Facebook in the news, or from a friend? Did you choose Facebook because you evaluated your existing community as well as the audience you wanted to bring into your community, and they were already using Facebook?  Did you consider MySpace? or Orkut? or Bebo? Maybe you’ve never heard of those platforms, but for some large demographics they are the hot spots online, not Facebook.

Let’s step back a minute and consider why a nonprofit or social benefit group wants to include social networking as part of a social media strategy.  Why would your organization want to have a presence on a social network?

• Go where the community already is!  Don’t expect the community to come to you, or even find you, online. Instead, go where they have already set up shop.
• Make your calls to action part of the routine!  Creating calls to action that match the community and can be accomplished, or promoted, in the same space will increase the overall participation you can garner.
• Join the community!  Don’t just come to the party and start asking questions or push calls to action; instead, actually join the community, answer questions, share links or information (even ones that aren’t related to your work but you may just know!), and be a genuine part of the ecosystem.

“The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to all of us,” she said. “It should scare the hell out of us.” —New York Observer

Choosing the platform or platforms to concentrate your efforts online is crucial.  You may hear about Facebook, but if your audience is on MySpace, it doesn’t matter how much time and energy you put in.  They won’t be there to find you.  When evaluating your community, some of the most influential items to consider regarding social networks include:

• Age: Facebook users can skew older than MySpace; many organizations in the UK have had great success joining the ecosystem on Bebo to extend the opportunity for teens to reach out for social services in a private way.
• Actions: What kinds of “actions” do you want your community members to be able to do? Each platform offer unique functionality and it may not match what your community members want to do with/for you.
• Data: Is your work reliant on certain data (whether for eligibility, age, etc.) that you will need validate, or at least advertise? Each platform displays profile information in different ways and you will need to check your settings and profile customization to ensure you are disclosing what you need, and offering opportunities to connect outside of the public messages.
• Goals: What are your goals for the inclusion of social networking in your social media strategy?  Be sure you don’t get caught up only on functionality that’s new and cool; remember why you’re there.

Danah’s research shines a bright light on an issue many activists and organizations have been concerned about ever since the media hype around Facebook VS MySpace rose as a loud voice in the conversation about social media use.  The issues our social service agencies and social benefit organizations are dealing with offline, in local communities, are showing up online.  It’s imperative that we recognize the social divides permeating online social networks and carefully consider how we craft our online strategies to truly reach and serve our communities.

What do you think? Has your organization had experience reaching your core constituents in an online social network? How did you identify the best place to concentrate your efforts?  What lessons have you learned?

You can download Danah’s dissertation here.

Amy Sample Ward’s passion for nonprofit technology has lead her to involvement with NTEN, NetSquared, and a host of other organizations. She shares many of her thoughts on nonprofit technology news and evolutions on her blog.

 

 

Posted by Jason Chua

3 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Social Enterprise: A Gated Community?

There’s a growing debate in the social enterprise world, not only about who’s a social entrepreneur but about who’s being left out of the club.

True, the exceptions and misconceptions abound, but the debate settles around two main points—that unless you’re a Caucasian and unless you’re an MBA, it’s tougher to get support for your good work trying to start a social enterprise.

Is that fair? Consider the arguments. The first point being raised by some across the sector is that MBAs seem to be preferred by social ventures and the foundations willing to fund aspiring social entrepreneurs. Employers, the argument goes, also seem to prefer MBAs, but the truth is that not everyone who can make a difference or start a social enterprise can afford business school—nor think they should have to get an MBA in order to get funding to develop their ideas. “I have no MBA nor do I want one,” says Martin Montero, the founder of Austin Social Innovation Fund. Montero tweeted me the other day in response to one of my queries about an October 15 story in the Wall Street Journal that cites the surge of interest by business school students in “socially-responsible money-making.” The article also notes how business schools are being pushed to create a whole host of courses and study tracks to help MBA students sort out the best way to build companies that both make money and help to solve social problems. Montero and others, including a number of Justmeans.com community members who messaged me earlier this week, said the fuss over socially-minded MBAs tends to leave out a great deal of people who are not in business school but who already have been making a big difference in the sector. ” We most definitely need more non-MBA social entrepreneurs,” Montero wrote.

A second point I keep hearing is that the developing world is, more or less, being left out of the conversation. Justmeans community member Gerard Ww, in a comment responding to my query on that site, said that “no company, organization, or individuals (seems) willing to really get their hands truly dirty side-by-side with us (those people at the bottom of the pyramid) while trying to help the BoP!” Describing himself as one of the billions at the bottom of the pyramid, he said that “we are never included in the [potential] interventions; it’s always the so-called academics and ‘successful’ business persons who dictate terms and conditions. Too few of us will ever be helped by the continued exclusion, but who else knows the conditions [at the bottom of the pyramid] better” than the people who live there?

Gerard isn’t the only person posing the question. Rod Schwartz, CEO of ClearlySo, an online marketplace that aims to raise the visibility of social businesses, sparked a lively debate earlier this year when he posed on the SocialEdge blog the following question: “Are the only innovations in social entrepreneurship Anglo-Saxon?” Schwartz had asked the same question at the 2009 Skoll World Forum, which I also attended, asking fellow conferees what they thought of the fact that a majority of the speakers and panelists were Caucasian.

Ashni Mohnot, who joins me as a contributing blogger at PopTech, wrote on that site this past summer that “many of the top socially entrepreneurial organizations work in international development, building products, services and social capital to improve lives at the base of the pyramid, yet they are often based in the UK or the US with founders and CEOs hailing from the Western world.” She cited D.light Design, FORGE, FaceAids, and Kiva as some examples of social ventures that develop their products by native Westerners or those educated in the West. Mohnot wrote that while these social ventures “subsequently engage locals in pilots, distribution or marketing, the initial product design is often the sole realm of the US arm.”

To be sure, it’s not true that all social innovators have MBAs and that they’re all “Anglo-Saxon” as Schwartz put it. But the debate continues over what some see as troubling trends in this new field of social enterprise.

What do you think? Do you perceive yourself to be in what Mohnot called an elite “social entrepreneur’s club?” Or is the debate unfair or misinformed? Does it raise some important or long-ignored issues that should continue to be discussed on these pages and across the sector?

Marcia Stepanek is Founding Editor-in-Chief and President, News and Information, for Contribute Media, a New York-based magazine, Web site, and conference series about the new people and ideas of giving. She is the publisher of Cause Global, an acclaimed new blog about the use of digital media for social change. She also serves as moderator and producer of New Conversations for Change, Contribute’s forum series highlighting social entrepreneurs and new trends in philanthropy.

Posted by Jason Chua

8 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Does Generation Y Discriminate Against Baby Boomers? Or Is It the Other Way Around?

I was at a nonprofit event yesterday where I spoke to Amy, one of my dear blog readers, who is an older (Baby Boomer?) nonprofit leader. She said that she loves my work and advocacy for next generation leadership, but she feels I promote ageism on my blog with my focus on the younger generation.
Do I?
I posed this question to my Twitter fam last night. These are some of the responses I received.

• @rosettathurman Considering the fact that many #nonprofits leave their miniony jobs to Gen Y I would say that the system is ageist
• @rosettathurman Boomers have to get used to a new voice & platforms just for us
• @rosettathurman it’s important to be respectful, but more important to push the envelope. You can do both. You do.
• @rosettathurman I, with u. The greatest creativity will come from the Gen Xrs & Gen Yrs who are being denied jobs by the current #leadership
• @rosettathurman I don’t think your focus on Gen Y promotes ageism. It’s important for bloggers to write from their own experience.
• @rosettathurman Agreement or compromise b/w generations not the aim, understanding & progress 2 the nonprofit’s goals are.

The gist of most of the responses I received was that it’s OK to focus on a particular age bracket on my blog, which may be a little ageist to some people. But ageism is age discrimination.  And I don’t think I discriminate against Baby Boomer leaders on my blog simply because I try to empower younger people to lead. But I do think there was an underlying issue in Amy’s feedback to me: both generations still have not figured out how to talk about what we need from each other to be the best leaders we can be.
Amy was railing against the idea that all Baby Boomer nonprofit leaders don’t want/embrace change and are not supportive of Gen Y leadership. I don’t aim to make broad generalities when I speak of current nonprofit leaders. But I do believe we find truth in sharing our real experiences. I have to admit that the many young leaders who have shared their stories here over the past two 1/2 years point out situations where older leaders have not been supportive of them and many times have “blocked” them from leading. I’m not saying all Baby Boomers do that, but it is a common enough experience for many Gen Y leaders in the nonprofit sector that we can say it should be addressed.
It may be that we discriminate against each other. Many Baby Boomer leaders look at Gen Y like we’re their kids, while many a Gen Y person may scoff at the fact that their boss doesn’t know how to turn on the copy machine. Many other issues compound the complexity of intergenerational relationships and make it difficult to share leadership, including:

The rise of the use of technology for nonprofit efficiency: Gen Y is overwhelmingly more comfortable and proficient as a generation, but that does not mean Baby Boomers aren’t or can’t be. What bothers many young leaders is that their youth is only valued when technology comes up and their CEO wants to know how to use Twitter. For everything else, they are relegated to supportive roles.

Transfer of nonprofit knowledge: Many Gen Y workers feel that they could lead better if only they had an older mentor who would show them the ropes and teach them what they learned along the way. The problem is that few young people are finding those opportunities. May be the fault of the older leader for not reaching out or the fault of the younger leader for not asking for help directly.

Increased competition for nonprofit jobs: Older leaders are now competing with recent grads who are their kids’ age for good nonprofit jobs. Due to the economy, many older workers are not leaving the workforce as expected at a certain age. So now Gen Y is now being put in the position of supervising employees who are their elders. This is causing resentment on both sides. But the recession is hurting young nonprofit leaders, too.

Distribution of power: Even though Gen Y has more education than previous generations as well as ease of using technology, it does not equal to leadership positions. We are still not looked at for top management jobs because we’re “too young” and “inexperienced.” So while Gen Y can “discriminate” against Baby Boomers all we want, it does not translate into younger people taking over nonprofit organizations, no matter how you slice it.

While I do focus on next generation leaders on my blog, I am not at all saying that older leaders should not be equally valued. The problem for me is that for far too long, leadership has been defined in terms of age (over 40), title (CEO) & years of experience (a ton). My blog defies that by saying “Yes, young people can lead, here’s how we can do it and here’s how we can keep doing it better.” What some of my Twitter followers pointed out is that Baby Boomers have been the leadership focus for a long time and it’s now Gen Y’s turn to receive support.
And if supporting my generation is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Jason Chua

5 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Philanthropy Doesn’t Care About Black People

The October 18 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy confirmed what we in the nonprofit sector already knew: the nonprofit and philanthropic sector doesn’t do a very good job at this thing called diversity. Though the foundation world would have us believe that much progress is being made with the emergence of giving circles and donor communities of color, the reality is that it’s high time for the nonprofit sector to put race on the table. In fact, I titled this post as such because the expanded, cop-out definitions of diversity that include gender, religion, disability, and sexual orientation allow organizations to avoid the topic of race and pay lip service to the issue instead of making real cultural changes. Some food for thought:

• 82 percent of nonprofit CEOs are White
• 94 percent of foundation presidents are White
• 86 percent of board members are White

These statistics among the sector’s top leadership highlight the enormous disparity between what our clients and communities look like in comparison to our leaders, given that less than 70 percent of the U.S. population is White. This disparity is happening all over the country but it’s especially disconcerting here in Washington, DC - colloquially referred to as “Chocolate City” for its high number of Black residents (over 60%) - because executive directors and CEOs of nonprofit organizations that serve predominantly Black or Latino communities are predominantly White. It’s gotten so bad that Venture Philanthropy Partners has invested $500,000 in the African American Nonprofit Network to recruit more of the kinds of leaders that look like the people their organizations are serving. Now let me be clear:  I do not necessarily take issue with White leaders serving communities of color. We need all kinds of people to do the important work of social change as it moves their hearts to do so. However, it makes me uneasy when I think about the reasons behind the racial disparity and lack of diversity within the nonprofit sector. Why is it that the people who have relevant experiences of struggle and challenge within communities of color are not usually the ones who emerge as nonprofit leaders to address these issues? Aren’t these the ideal leaders that would know how best to solve these social problems?  And if so, why doesn’t philanthropy care enough about real social change to begin recruiting more people of color for leadership positions?

Pablo Eisenberg says that leadership and challenge go hand in hand. So, if our current leaders never had to face the kind of challenges that go along with being a person of color in a community of great poverty, but are then tasked with paving the way for change in these same communities, who’s zooming who? If we are, in fact, buying into the idea that a White leadership pool is more desirable than one that is racially diverse, are we really getting anywhere with our goals of solving the kinds of problems that could benefit from leaders with first-hand knowledge of the issues? The nonprofit sector needs to recognize that people of color are often still seen as takers of handouts and charity instead of as empowered and valuable citizens, and having White leaders of philanthropic organizations only reinforces this notion and does more harm than good. There are many other reasons to promote diversity within nonprofit leadership that we could name here, but the point is that it’s clear we need to start openly talking about these reasons more so that we can begin to truly open up our boardrooms and executive positions to different kinds of leaders. Right now I definitely think there’s space and opportunity for some real inquiry within the nonprofit sector.  We need to ask ourselves some hard questions:

• Why hasn’t the leadership of the nonprofit and philanthropic sector kept pace with the changes in racial demographics in this country?
• Can nonprofits ever be fully effective in solving social problems if they don’t include the racially diverse perspectives of the communities they serve?
• Would foundations be more effective in their grantmaking if they ensured their grantees’ leadership reflected the communities they serve?
• Who will be tasked to educate the 86 percent of White nonprofit board members so they see racial diversity as a critical issue for them to address?

For some more public grappling with this issue, you may wish to join the Chronicle’s live discussion at 12pm EST October 26 with Renee Branch, new director of diversity and inclusive practices, Council on Foundations; Paul Schmitz, president of Public Allies; and The Rev. Clarence Williams, director of racial equality and diversity initiatives at Catholic Charities USA to discuss achieving diversity at nonprofit organizations.

(Photo courtesy blackpeopleloveus.com.)

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, DC area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Katie Harrington

59 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

...but some are more equal than others

You’re meeting with a nonprofit Board as it tries to establish a mandatory minimum gift by individual Board members.  These meetings are always excruciating because Americans would rather detail their sex lives—honestly!—than talk about money.

But this meeting is about to become doubly excruciating, because the agency in question serves poor people of color and has one or two Board members of color adrift on a milky sea.  Often these Board members have been recruited from institutions in the neighborhood the agency serves—the pastor of a local church, perhaps. 

So no sooner is the toxic monetary topic broached than some well-meaning pale person says, “Well, of course, whatever number we pick we wouldn’t expect Reverend Jones . . . ” and then tails off because s/he doesn’t want to say what s/he’s thinking so obviously it could be spotted on Google Earth: ” . . . . wouldn’t expect Reverend Jones TO HAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE HE HAS DARK SKIN AND LIVES/WORKS IN THIS AWFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.”

[The Nonprofiteer doesn’t mean to suggest that only agencies serving poor people of color do, or should, have nonwhite Board members.  Rather, she’s trying to give clueless whites the benefit of the doubt.  At a community-based social service agency, white Board members might conceivably think Reverend Jones doesn’t have any money because of the neighborhood he and the agency share.  Whereas at the city’s main art museum, white Board members who hastened to exempt the Reverend from having to make a gift would be proceeding solely and blatantly on the basis of their beliefs about his skin color.]

If the consulting gods are with you, you’ll be spared the necessity of forcing the issue (“You wouldn’t expect Reverend Jones to do what?  And why not?”) by that gentleman’s polished pastoral tact.  Reverend Jones, who’s too polite to have said “I’m right here!” when his Board colleagues began talking around and about him instead of to him, will ask, ‘How much money are we talking about, again?” and, once the number is reiterated, nod and say, “That wouldn’t be a problem for me.” 

But you can’t always expect to be so lucky; because, again, most people will do whatever they must to avoid talking about money, especially their own.  So any random Reverend Jones—one might almost say any self-preserving Reverend Jones—will most likely keep his mouth shut and enjoy not being pressed for a contribution the way the rest of the Board will and should be.  Because after all, if you’re going to tolerate the costs of your fellows’ racism you might as well enjoy the benefits.

The Nonprofiteer can’t possibly be the only one who understands that we’re talking about literal costs, actual lost gifts, to every charity in America where white people let their racism trump their good sense.

And it goes beyond Boards: friends of friends of ours, who’ve retired very comfortably, observe that local charities never ask them for contributions.  Why?  They’re only guessing that the color of their skin, coupled with the slight drawl that reveals their roots in the South, causes people to assume they’re just “poor country Negroes.”  They, like the imaginary Reverend Jones, are gracious about it, but you can tell it sticks in their craws.

So here are some suggestions.  Every Board President should—and if s/he can’t or won’t every Executive Director must—impress upon every member of his/her Board the sacred Nonprofit Syllogism:
All Board members must be treated equally;
Every Board must include members of color;
Therefore, Board members of color must be treated equally. 
Client representatives are an exception to this rule, though the Nonprofiteer strongly suggests that even they be asked to make some contribution—“meaningful to the giver” is the phrase currently popular.  Why?  Mostly because it requires non-client Board members to treat clients as partners instead of supplicants, but also because it makes for a great story when you’re out soliciting.  “100% of our Board gives to support the agency—even the client members!”

If necessary, mention that
Not all poor people are black or brown.
Not all black or brown people are poor.
Most poor people are more generous (by percentage of income) than most rich people—and if that makes you uncomfortable, handle it by giving more yourself not by asking less of others.
If you have indeed recruited people to your Board with some special half-articulated understanding—he’s a community representative; s/he’s from a cooperating nonprofit and has prior fundraising commitments—now’s the time to revisit that understanding.  In a private conversation, those “special cases” will readily agree (at least in principle) that every Board member needs to meet the same standard. 

So ask her to do so.  Don’t just assume she can’t.  There’s a tendency to let one’s prejudices skew the outcome—to try to spare someone the imagined embarrassment of having to say, “I don’t want to do that” by asking them to do something else, something less: “Chair our new Community Advisory Board!  You won’t have to give any money!”

But that’s just compounding the original underestimation of Ms. Special’s capacity—which may well have been based on her race.  Lest you accidentally create a separate-but-unequal Board for people of color, ask her to accept the full range of Board responsibilities, and give her the chance to decline.  If she does, you can always float the Advisory Board idea then—but she won’t.  Because amazingly when you treat people as your full partners, they return the favor.

Kelly Kleiman, who blogs as The Nonprofiteer, is a lawyer and freelance journalist whose reportage and essays about the arts, philanthropy and women’s issues have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and other dailies; in magazines including In These Times and Chicago Philanthropy; and on websites including Aislesay.com and Artscope.net.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments