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.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less