I don't know Gary Tobin personally. I usually find myself in agreement with what he has to say. But his latest volley directed at the organized Jewish world, "Jewish Organizations Shut Out From Philanthropists Largest Gifts," misfires.
The title of Tobin's study is needlessly provocative. It also comes off a bit harsh leaving the impression that Tobin found a particular enjoyment in smacking Jewish groups. There's already enough resistance in the system to acknowledging ineffectiveness -- so it's counterproductive to create issues that take our eye off the ball and can be used by the establishment to change the subject from substance to personality. If the establishment has one area of expertise, it's how to circle the wagons and spin bad news to focus on the messenger instead of the message. So Gary -- do us all a favor and spare the gratuitous baloney.
In this case, though, the message is off base. Jewish donors are hardly conspiring to "shut out" Jewish philanthropies from large gifts. There's plenty of funds going to Jewish groups. And it's not as if Jewish donors are trying to make a point -- "I'll give $100 million to the university and one million to the federation. That'll show those Jewish organizations." Besides, if you look at denominationally-directed philanthropy in the U.S., I'm guessing the organized Jewish world stacks up pretty well. There is no religious, ethnic or cultural group that is as successful and as organized as the Jewish community.
I'm one who does not see much in the Jewish world deserving of mega gifts. By deserve I mean that the intrinsic value of most Jewish philanthropy to making a better world, while significant, simply cannot compete with stem cell research and the like. They're largely in different leagues -- and that's ok.
For example, does anyone really think that a new wing for the JCC is of a higher societal value than a new wing to the cancer research center? Take nothing away from the JCC (I'll address the role of the JCC in the emerging Jewish community of the 21st century in a future post). I'm sure a new wing is important. But is it mega gift important? I guess it depends on what is considered a mega gift. Will the new wing get $1 million? Maybe $5 million? But that's not in the mega gift range that Tobin is discussing.
Besides, when you're talking about mega donors you're usually also talking about mega egos -- which means mega recognition. There are but a few cities where Jewish agencies can come even close to providing broad community recognition and competing with other groups offering mega impact philanthropic initiatives. I mean, it's not too hard to figure out that almost any donor would prefer to have the local symphony hall named after them over the local JFS lunchroom. Jewish donors know they can create their Jewish legacy for less than a mega gift. And they know that their Jewish legacy and the attached recognition have a limited scope -- I don't mean that as a negative, it's just what it is.
So for my two cents, Tobin is comparing the incomparable and by doing makes a "straw man" argument. There's a lot wrong in Jewish philanthropy and the system it supports. Tobin's mega gift tangent isn't one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I find your comments on Tobin's work thoughtful and interesting. A perspective I have not heard anyone else voice. Think about posting those comments on this post http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/jewish-organizations-shut-out-from-philanthropists-largest-gifts/.
If a dialogue could be started, it might be quite interesting.
In the meantime, best of luck with this blog. Having been on both sides of the organized Jewish world just a bit longer than you, these public voices are needed. Hopefully those responsible will read, absorb and not dismiss out of hand what is written.
I think that there is a crying need for some mega gifts in Jewish institutions. What about Jewish education? I am not the only person who believes that the survival of the Jewish people in this country requires that the majority of Jewish children have a day school education through high school. Realizing this goal will require a lot of money.
“dak,” I am in full agreement! And maybe some mega donors will step forward with a mega gift. My take on the Tobin report is not that a mega gift is impossible (in fact there are several examples of mega gifts). My take is that from a larger perspective, Jewish causes, including education, do not lend themselves as readily to the mega gift as do other causes. And so Jewish causes will not be the recipients of mega gifts anywhere near the scale of higher education, medical research etc. I'm not whining about it or blaming anybody. I just think that's how it is.
The existence of a crying need for Jewish mega gifts is uncontested. (Having said that, what constitutes a “crying need” and how to address it are, of course, entirely subjective.) But crying need obviously does not produce a mega donor. Crying need is not necessarily (and obviously isn’t) translated into philanthropic value to the mega donor. And, by the way, we will get mega donors here and there. The more nationally-oriented the packaging and context (like a national Jewish education effort -- and I believe they exist already, no?) the more conducive to attracting a mega donor.
Finally, you have couched Jewish education in the context of Jewish survival, and you stated that a majority of Jewish children should get a day school education through high school. I could not be in more vigorous disagreement -- not about the efficacy of day school education but about the context you proffered.
I am the product of day school education and my kids attended day schools as well. So, I am a believer in Jewish day school education – as an education. But, if day schools are couched as the panacea to Jewish survival (if we even look at Jewish survival as the most salient end product of our Jewish efforts), we will lose more ground. Moreover, as a statement of wishful thinking, sure it’s nice to contemplate a majority of Jewish kids in day schools (and having high schools available in almost every community). But is it a realistic goal toward which we should be working?
If I understand the logic, many day school proponents view day schools as critical to Jewish survival because they think that an environment saturated with Jewish content will overcome any future temptation to marry a gentile. Is that how we should look at day schools, as essentially anti-mixed-marriage factories?
This is a discussion for a future post. But in the meantime, I’d suggest that we really have to change our thinking. Day schools are not the answer to the survival question. Frankly, I think that’s the wrong question anyway.
Let me be more specific. The parents who send their kids to day schools because of continuity concerns by and large already do so. So if we want to grow Jewish day school enrollment, it’ll have to be because of the intrinsic value of a Jewish-themed education – because Jewish education is meaningful and relevant to their lives and to the values they want inculcated in their children. (75% of the Jewish kids receiving a Jewish education get it outside of a day school environment. Shouldn’t we be focusing on this group, or do we think that supplemental Jewish education is as good as it can get?)
And I’d further recommend that we stop looking at Jewish community building through the narrow, and I believe self-defeating, lens of Jewish continuity/survival. We have to offer the Jewish people, indeed the world around us, much more than merely the desire to survive.
Post a Comment