More from our inbox:
To the Editor:
Re “Get the Biggest Bang for Your Generosity,” by Farhad Manjoo (column, Dec. 16):
Mr. Manjoo’s call to do good through effective altruism via donations to GiveWell — ensuring that lives are saved or improved in Africa at a reasonable cost — is commendable. But this is a critical time to focus philanthropy locally. New York City and other cities, especially underresourced communities, have borne the devastation of Covid, racial injustice, environmental degradation and inequities in education. Civic philanthropy has created vibrant cultural, educational and charitable resources.
Libraries improve early childhood literacy and create work force opportunities for adults; museums reflect human knowledge and creativity, and educate our teachers and our students; food security charities feed neighbors; hospitals care for the sick and advance research for human health and longevity. Most important, new local philanthropic investment will ensure a new generation of nonprofit leadership that is community-based and diverse.
Donors of $50 or $50 million alike should demand evidence of impact and have the confidence that hard-won contributed dollars are spent wisely … by the nonprofit next door.
Ruth Cohen
Brooklyn
The writer is the president of Real Impact Consulting.
To the Editor:
Farhad Manjoo argues that charitable contributions can and should be maximally effective, mostly through preventing or curing disease in poor countries. This is a laudable priority, but reflects a problematic way of thinking about why and where the affluent donate.
Charity is grounded in the acknowledgment that “they are poor and I am rich.” An alternative, justice-oriented frame is “they are poor because I am rich.” That framing acknowledges the fact that global poverty is, to a significant degree, the consequence of an unjust global economy, with poverty subsidizing affluence.
Such acknowledgment calls on the relatively affluent to support efforts to address structural drivers of inequality (nationally as well as globally), which means supporting groups that work to empower, not just to help, even as many of these groups do address needs for housing, food and health care.
Determining which groups do this effectively is not as straightforward as measuring diseases cured and lives saved. It calls not just for research, but also for engagement with social justice movements.
Naomi Scheman
Arlington, Mass.
To the Editor
The idea that effective charity yields overnight results is dangerous and dated. Effective charity offers more than temporary relief. It challenges systems of oppression, ultimately creating long-term change that saves more lives. But this work takes time, trust and sustained support.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, rural communities have been exploited for decades by transnational mining companies. But thanks to years of committed funding, Congolese activists were finally able to reform the mining code. Now, companies must share some of their profits with the people whose land they use. This is a major step toward giving entire communities the means to lift themselves out of poverty.
When we donate money, we share power. As you consider giving this holiday season, look past flashy marketing and vanity metrics. Instead, support grass-roots organizations that are tackling the root causes of poverty, inequality and injustice. This is the best way for your donation to make the most impact.
Regan Ralph
Washington
The author is the chief executive and president of the Fund for Global Human Rights.
Sidelining Kamala Harris
To the Editor:
Re “Harris Struggles to Define Role Even as She Is Making History” (front page, Dec. 24):
When Joe Biden was vice president during the Obama administration, he laid claim to being “the last person in the room on every major decision.” It is clear that Vice President Kamala Harris has not been given this courtesy. Instead, she has been relegated to the shadows, obediently standing at attention during presidential appearances.
Upon achieving the Democratic nomination, Mr. Biden’s presidential win rested heavily on his selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate. She deserves the chance to show her strengths. They could make the difference for the success of Mr. Biden’s presidency.
Martha D. Trowbridge
New York
Missteps on Covid by Both Trump and Biden
To the Editor:
Re “Virus Has Americans Angry and Confused, and They’re Tired of It” (news article, Dec. 22):
I remember when every piece of negative Covid news was laid directly at the doorstep of the Trump administration. Even at the start of this once-in-a-century pandemic, lack of widespread testing, confusion over national policies versus state mandates, and the number of total deaths were all treated by the news media as the sole responsibility of the man in the White House.
Now, nearly two years later, the Biden administration was clearly caught flat-footed by the outbreak of predictable Covid variants like Delta and Omicron. Widespread testing remains severely lacking, national and state guidelines remain confusing and inconsistent, and there was a lack of urgency in fast-tracking critical therapeutics (“Only One Antibody Treatment Works Against Omicron, and It Is in Short Supply,” news article, Dec. 22).
None of this is to absolve Donald Trump for the many missteps and misstatements during his tenure — though his administration did oversee the development of landmark vaccines. It is rather to offer some perspective — and humility — regarding what human governments can realistically accomplish against brazen natural threats.
Stuart Gottlieb
New York
The writer teaches public policy at Columbia University.
"direct" - Google News
December 30, 2021 at 10:15PM
https://ift.tt/3sIizOj
Opinion | How Best to Direct Your Charity - The New York Times
"direct" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2zVRL3T
https://ift.tt/2VUOqKG
Direct
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion | How Best to Direct Your Charity - The New York Times"
Post a Comment