Skip to content
Donate Now
  • Donate Now
  • logo
  • logo
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
    • Premium Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • Donate Now

  • Subscribe
  • Member Log in
  • Manage Subscription
Link to subscription form
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
    • Premium Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • My Menu

Bill Gates and the 3-Story-High Philanthropic “Selfie”

By Ruth McCambridge Ruth McCambridge | November 4, 2015
Share5
Tweet
Email
Share10
15 Shares
600px-Bill_Gates_-_World_Economic_Forum_Annual_Meeting_Davos_2008

“Bill Gates – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008” by World Economic Forum

November 3, 2015; The Guardian

Linsey McGoey wonders aloud in the Guardian whether philanthropy is better off once the major donor has died—or, as she puts it, “Is the most effective philanthropist a dead one?”

McGoey seems to believe that the celebrity status of some billionaire donors gets in the way of necessary critiques of their financially backed influence. She uses as an example of that blinding celebrity halo a bizarre scene that played out when Bill Gates turned 60.

To mark the occasion, more than 1,000 schoolchildren in Chennai, India, were photographed in the courtyard of their school holding life-sized cutouts of Gates’s face, raised above their heads in military salute. A three-story-high image of Gates beams from the rear of the configuration, featuring an upbeat slogan: “Grow rich. Help others.”

She contrasts this to the understated approach of the Wellcome Foundation which “creates about the same ‘good,’ measured in financial contributions, many members of the public haven’t even heard of it—let alone praise the charity in the same way that the Gates Foundation is lauded.”

“Most organizations on a par with the Gates Foundation are fair game for academic and journalistic investigation,” she writes:

When a health catastrophe strikes, many governments and UN organizations such as the World Health Organization are subjected to sustained internal and external review. The Gates Foundation, while as powerful, rarely faces the same scrutiny.

We need to challenge this silence. We need loudly to ask an uncomfortable question: do foundations narrow wealth inequalities or simply preserve them? Are foundations at their most radical when they exist to serve a benefactor’s hopes and whims—or when they’re emancipated from such an obligation?

McGooey generally believes that it is hard to be clearheaded about social inequities when that is the way that you, personally, have made your money. She posits that the “big three” U.S. foundations—Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie—only began to sympathize with labor and civil rights movements after their founders were dead, and that Ford’s grandson Henry actually resigned from the foundation in in 1977, writing that “a system that makes the foundation possible very probably is worth preserving.”—Ruth McCambridge

Share5
Tweet
Email
Share10
15 Shares

About Ruth McCambridge

Ruth McCambridge

Ruth is Editor in Chief of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

  • More by Ruth

Read Next

  • Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility in India: How Is It Working?

    The 2013 Companies Act mandates that Indian corporations with revenues greater than 10 billion rupees give 2% of their profits to charities. A new report calls it “one of the world’s most interesting experiments to promote private philanthropy.”

Popular Posts

  • Green New Deal Bill Introduced in Congress
  • Counting What Counts: Why Social Accounting MATTERS
  • The 2019 Gates Letter: What Surprises Them Scares Us
  • Reframing Nonprofit Leadership Succession: The Ultimate Strategic Hedge Against a “Bad CEO Hire”
  • Cash Flow in the Nonprofit Business Model: A Question of Whats and Whens
  • Vu Le on “Funder Fragility” and Unproductive Philanthropic Practice

Write for NPQ

  • Our Mission
  • Advertise
  • Board of Directors
  • Foundations and Funders
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • NPQ Staff
  • Contact Us
  • Press Release
  • Donors
  • Newsletters
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Back to top ↑

To Access the Full Article, Please Login or Subscribe

Can't Login?

Register a New Account Forgot Password

Continue Reading