The Art of Philanthropy, State Of

I am working on a curriculum for a credential in philanthropy. In the Course Info section for the capstone course on "The Art of Philanthropy," I am contemplating such words as these. I wonder if they would get me fired, before I even begin? Ought I to keep it a bit more bland, and finesse the real issues? I welcome advice. Derision is ok too.

---- snip---

The purpose of this course is to help you transition from "studying about" philanthropy, and mastering the financial machinery of philanthropic planning, to becoming active in the world as an agent of the good.

The course is designed to bring you to the leading edge of conversations about philanthropy and philanthropic advisory services. I don't mean so much the leading edge of finance and tax law, as the leading edge of conversations among those with money about what they owe themselves, their family, and to their community, as they contemplate what matters most. The advisors who participate in and facilitate such conversations are sitting at the planning table today at the client's right hand. These trusted advisors in philanthropy are few in number, and precious. They come from many disciplines: finance, law, trust work, life insurance, investments, financial planning, planned giving, donor consulting, foundation consulting, general fundraising, wealth coaching, family systems theory, psychology, philosophy, political theory, literature, theology, sociology, mythology, history, dance, theater, music. These leading advisors are distinguished by their ability to bring all of themselves to the table, and to help the donor or client do the same. These advisors are able to think across the disciplinary silos and to facilitate the donor's efforts to create a meaningful action oriented plan. The highest level of planning is wisdom, virtue, justice, truth or beauty. We don't get there in this lifetime. But that is the quest, sometimes Quixotic, often foolish, never completed.

In this course, we will use online discussions to hash out our personal viewpoint in conversation with others. That is preparation for the kind of open ended conversations about meaning, purpose, and the world we want that draws clients and donors to us as philanthropic advisors. It is also preparation for the kind of civic dialogue that brings a community, or a subset of a community, together in common purpose, whether community members are rich or not. In a society so stratified by wealth, such inclusive conversations are critical for the health of democracy.

You will read key texts and articles by some of the leading practitioners of our noble trade. You will not be spared self-reflection. If moral philosophy is a healing trade, there is also an old saying, "Physician heal thyself." The questions in the study guide are designed to lead you to your own understanding, your own synthesis, perhaps even your own self-cure. The way the questions are set up is meant as a model for how you might yourself conduct an open-ended exploration with a prospective donor or client. I call this, "the unlicensed practice of the liberal arts." There is no law against it. No regulatory structure prevents it.  Still, such open discussions can turn the world upside down and hence may be frowned upon by those above us. 

Testing, or validation, in this course, is  "objective," that is, multiple choice. I have made every effort to use the traditional testing system as a way to reinforce the key points that you will need in the real world. I am not trying to make you parrot back my fallible and half-formed opinions as if they were doctrine, dogma, or gospel. That would be self-defeating, and would represent a worst possible practice. Instead, the questions are designed to make sure you have done the readings, focused on the main points, and can use common sense and good judgment. Sample exams are provided throughout.

To make exams less stressful, each chapter also contains a summary in which I consciously highlight the material on which the exams are based. The reduction of complex, often paradoxical and challenging material, to a testable, even memorizable, summary is a challenge. But I have done that so that you as a adult learner will have some confidence that the exam is not a mystery. With that confidence, that the exam is not "tricky," you can keep your focus on exploring in this course the skills and knowledge you need to work as a trusted advisor to wealth and power, and as a leader in our emerging discipline.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve as your Tutor in this effort. I am only a fellow seeker, one among many. My goal, my highest goal, is that you will come into your own and far surpass me on this journey towards the ever-elusive "world we want." Let me close with one of my favorite quotations, from a fellow moral philosopher and tutor to the wealthy, Seneca: "Here is my way; where is yours?" That Seneca ended up dead, forced to commit suicide by one of the Roman Emperors he served, should not deter us. That Cicero, another great moral philosopher, was executed by those he served, that Boethius (author of Consolation of Philosophy) was, that Jesus was, should not deter us either. We can always fall back on financial expertise and keep a low profile, if need be.  In this philanthropic advisory business, we proceed at our own risk.  May your efforts prosper.

Phil Cubeta

Comments

[Gerard Senehi]

This looks terrific! great idea, and i really like the emphasis on making it real versus studying about it. I could see in light of that and some of the deeper and personal questions that one will need to explore, that the testing may have both an objective side as you describe and a side that has to do with how much one engages in making it real. I realize that this may not fly in academia as we are afraid to implicate students in this way because we are afraid of the measuring stick that will be used for evaluation. Maybe there is a way to validate the importance of both what students will learn as well as how much they make it part of becoming agents of good.
Sending you best wishes and support for the positive impact such a course could have!

[Jeff Trexler]

Impressive.

[Phil Cubeta]

Thank you both. The views on Gifthub are those of a Dumpster Dwelling Morals Tutor, in and out of Wealth Bondage. The College courses are written in an impersonal style, in the passive voice, imparting objective information, tested factually, to insure that those certified have been machined to a specific tolerance. The underlying pedagogical model is Prussian, as is most high school, junior college, and industrial training. "I teach, you memorize it. This - hint - just might be on the final exam1" What one learns as always is subservience, not to wisdom, but to authority. I am sorry to say there may be some carry forward into philanthropic advisory services in a corporate or even nonprofit environment. The donor is not our student, we are the donor's servant.

That is why, Gerard, a group like EnlightenNext has an opening to do something grand. You are "mission-aligned" with true teaching or mind-opening. To create a space where true teaching about giving rises up from the group in open, tentative, probing conversation is possible for you.

I will do the best I can at the college to keep that spirit alive, between the lines, but the best place to do it would be within an extended intentional community devoted to true learning.

Jeff has written of this, as a Greek ideal of the City and in the middle ages the ideal of the collegium.

Erasmus bodied it forth as Fool preaching to Fools, all in their scholarly gowns, or monkish outfits, with their asses ears showing just a bit.

To play the Fool, as every straightman knows, you cannot crack a smile. The Fool must be the last to recognize his own foolishness or the humor falls flat. I hope to rise to such professorial self seriousness.

[Sean Stannard-Stockton]

I'm seriously going to have to consider retaking the CAP exam. I would have loved to have found this sort of intro when I got started with the study.

Recently, I've been thinking about what the core ideas are that separate people when it comes to philanthropy. For instance, why is it that Bill Schambra and Bill Somerville are on the same side of the table when they debate Paul Brest? What are the key beliefs that cut to the core of how we think about philanthropy?

One of the candidates for a core belief is the idea of whether philanthropy is something that is "owed" back to the world. The word "owe" implies you took something or were given something that must be returned. You use the word "owe" in the beginning of the second paragraph and I'd like to point out that many people are beginning to think about philanthropy less as something that is "due" back to society, but rather as something that is given from a position of free will.

I'm not asking that you change the language, just that you consider whether the language is a part of your own internal narrative or whether it is an intentionally used word that correctly describes the CAP program's thinking about philanthropy.

Good luck Phil!

[Phil Cubeta]

Right, Sean, I know. Yes, I was taught that we are stewards, good or bad of what we are given. That is indeed a religious tradition, comes from the bible, the gospels, I also feel it deeply. I recognize others are more of the Atlas Shrugged persuasion, but I also believe that blindness can be cured, and that such is the role of the Morals Tutor to America's Wealthiest Families.

I don't see how the view that we are self made is even remotely defensible, though it widely held. I can see how it would fit in a libertarian worldview, and might fit with a business like approach to giving, a social venture sort of approach.

You give freely, then, but why? Results? Why care about making the world better? In what value tradition are you rooted, or are your ethics more like brand preferences, a consumer choice, a market whim? Or is giving more like a marketing deal, a way to market a product or a practice, without any felt sense of obligation to something larger than oneself, and client service?

I do think we need a different kind of literacy to do philanthropy well. That literacy comes from the liberal arts, and from ethical and religious traditions. Now, by Golly, I have a big stick to beat my opinion into the dullards.

I do agree, though, that testing fairly for cultural literacy with an objective test is very hard. Hence the temptation to stick to the Tax Facts.

Anyway, thanks for the comment, Sean. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving and passed the gravy not because you must, but because you felt like it. If you ever feel like hogging the whole gravy boat, you may, at my table. I have learned that is how many a guest does act. It is a free country, their habits and mores are as good as mine. Who am I to judge. They were raised differently, in a pigstye.

[Michael Moody]

Sorry to come late to this discussion. But as you know, Phil, this is one close to my heart, as I am shamelessly and publicly in favor of more liberal arts education in philanthropy (even as I leave this profession myself). Your course therefore looks wonderful to me.

I'm wondering if you are using MC tests because that is easier or expected in the program, or if you prefer those as ways of evaluating students? I ask mainly out of curiosity, knowing that you will have thought about this choice a lot, not with an axe to grind for/against tests in your course. Although I will admit to being shamelessly and publicly (and with full throat) in favor of requiring more writing of students at every level, to the extent we can. I would have pegged you for a good old fashioned defender of the lost art of rhetoric, as well.

P.S. I'm staying away from the whole Ayn Rand vs. religious obligation question, except to say there IS a middle ground in thinking about philanthropy (and obligation) in terms of cultural tradition (which is ethical, and concerned with values and so on, but not always/necessarily religious). But wait.. I'm staying away from that discussion...

[Phil Cubeta]

The business model for the college requires selling a fair number of course enrollments. Right now there are about 300 in the CAP course. That is already quite a few to grade. So the objective testing is a necessary design requirement, but not what I would prefer. I am trying to write the courses around a series of Socratic questions, leading the adult learner through the issues, and seeking practical real world applications. Then in the summary of each section, I try to do my own synthesis, as a "model" for what it is worth, and as the basis for the objective test. Not ideal, better to have the whole course run as discussion online or otherwise and to have the test be a project or essay, or business plan. Still, if the College goes along with the Socratic workbook for the course, it seems to work well enough in provoking thought rather than pre-empting it. We also go on webquests where the learner gets thrown into contemporary controversies, like the one you mention about whether selfishness is a moral virtue, and whether moralities are in essence brand choices to be honored as such, much as we speak of the blind as differentially abled. I agree that it is rude to tell a blind person that colors exist. Likewise to tell a libertarian that virtue or taste exists and eludes him is very rude.

When Joseph Brodsky heard from a group of American undergrads that they had not read Ovid, he said, "You have been cheated."

Just as children who get no vitamin growing up get rickets and are stunted and deformed, so in a society devoid of poetry, we grow our philanthropists with bowlegs. And since they are wealthy we praise the bowlegs and honor them as a cultural difference well worth preserving and passing on their children.

Go far enough in this direction and what you get is Alan Greespan and the crash of the economy. Bad philosophy and bad art ultimately translate into the decay of the body politic. Had he had better teachers, he might have outgrown his Ayn Rand views before he did so much harm to so many.

And what do you mean about leaving the field? I certainly hope you are going somewhere you can put your talents and leadership skills to good use.