Sectoral Silos Also Persist in Forbes

While yesterday's post described how Forbes is actively blurring the boundaries between public and private efforts to advance social change, dinosaurs commited to sectoral silos still speak from the magazine's pages.

The current issue (April 9) leads with a "Current Events" opinion piece oxymoronically entitled "Benefactors Must Be Hardheaded" in which "eminent British historian and author" Paul Johnson writes:

Clever men and women on the left, whose lives are driven by the lust for power and a taste of social engineering, have a gift for infiltrating charitable institutions and gaining control of their spending programs. I am often astonished by the way in which corporations that were created by the fruits of capitalism shamelessly finance bodies and individuals whose objectives are to undermine the capitalist system, destroying private enterprise and the free market.

I won't deny that idea - - the fact that philanthropy is dominated by lefties (as proven by the uproar that greeted Steven Gunderson when he invited Newt Gingrich to speak at the Council on Foundations) or that ego is as rampant in philanthropy as in the corporate sector. But in 20 plus years in philanthropy, I HAVE NEVER MET ONE SINGLE FOUNDATION STAFFER who fits this eminent historian's description. (I wonder how much time Paul has spent in philanthropy.)

More interestingly, I'm struck by Forbes' decision to give this guy major play with his supposition, soooo 2003, that profit and social change are mutually exclusive. If you don't read PhilanthroMedia, dude, check out Fast Company, Business Week, Worth, The Economist, Fortune, ad nauseam. They are rife with truly current events in which myriad signposts point to the end of philanthropy as usual.

Susan Herr