Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A crisis creates clarity for donors

A crisis creates clarity for donors
Getty Images

Miller is the founder and chairman of the Jack Miller Center, a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to reinvigorating education in America’s founding principles and history, from K-12 through college.

The time between Thanksgiving and the end of the year is one of the busiest times of the year for giving, as Americans thoughtfully consider how to donate to organizations and causes they support. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a crisis to bring some clarity to our priorities.


In recent weeks, several major donors are closing their checkbooks to elite colleges and universities after the recent terrorist attacks in Israel. While we all watched videos of the horrific acts of barbarism that Hamas perpetrated on Israel, many student groups and administrators quickly jumped to defend these attacks as justified—or worse, righteous.

In this moment of crisis, philanthropists should remember the importance of maintaining donor intent. The anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism afflicting campuses should remind all donors of the need to be careful about how we give support to institutions. Our donations are too often used to support actions and views we oppose.

I had my own experience with this years ago when I gave a substantial donation to a top-tier research university to study peripheral neuropathy (PN), a condition from which I suffer. Not being well informed back then, the only condition for my donation beyond studying for a cure for PN was that if I thought they weren’t fulfilling their mission, I could get the unspent portion of the money back.

Three or four years into the program, after funding a lifetime chair and equipping two laboratories, including hundreds of mice, there was little left. So, by the time I discovered that they were studying some other disease, there was little I could do. But expensive as it was, it was a “Lesson Learned.”

Today, my family and I don’t think in terms of “giving,” but rather, in terms of “investing.” We donors should be “investing” with the intention of seeing certain hoped-for results. Philanthropy is a serious business and deserves serious attention.

For living donors, it is important to structure your giving around your beliefs. Those beliefs should be carefully thought out and memorialized. For those overseeing foundations created by donors who have passed away, it is their responsibility to use every means possible to determine what the donor believed and how that donor would want the money “invested.”

Now, I have a staff and a board to oversee my donations. We have a carefully-crafted contract for gifts over a certain amount. I also have a 19-page document, “This I Believe,” outlining my beliefs and the types of causes we will and won’t give to.

For example, I believe strongly in America and her political philosophy that has given me the freedom to live my life (94 years so far) the way I wanted to and to live the American Dream.

I believe so strongly in this that I have used many millions of my philanthropic dollars to start and build The Jack Miller Center for Teaching our Founding Principles and History, now in its nineteenth year. With over 1,000 professors on 320 campuses and an expanding K-12 program, we have reached millions of young people with the message that our country’s principles are worth preserving.

Most donors don’t want to start new organizations, but there are thousands already functioning, amongst which, donors can find good ones that promote the causes they believe in. There are also organizations out there, like Philanthropy Roundtable, DonorsTrust, and the Bradley Impact Fund, that can help you navigate the nonprofit world with your values top of mind.

There are thousands of organizations, large and small, out there, with a wide array of missions so every donor can find those whose missions align with their donor intent. And if one of those mega donors who are now unhappy with what is happening with their dollars would invest, let’s say, $100 million in one, or a few, organizations that really align with their beliefs and have a proven track record of success, they would be amazed at the results.

It is a shame that it took such a terrible crisis to bring clarity to smart giving. With the end of year and Giving Tuesday upon us, our mailboxes will be full of letters and emails asking for support. I urge all donors to do their homework and invest based on their values.

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less