As this process is coming to a close, I'm am left wondering what I truly learned from this process and the class as a whole. Did we learn to become generous, caring people? Did we learn to focus that generosity to make effective change? How did we learn this?
When deciding if a class or lesson was meaningful, I try to deduce whether the class taught me facts and information or if it changed my perspective. Obviously, this class was able to do both very effectively. We all know a bit better how to filter through unworthy organizations to find those that deserve our philanthropy. In addition, the first half of the class was able to change our mindset(s) on the very definition of philanthropy and everything it entails. My issue is about how to merge those very important lessons into this current process; has the group aspect of the process whitewashed all the personal changes we've experienced?
For the first half of this class, I had started to question many of my values and their respective importances. "Why do I stand by this value?" "How does this value align with my core self?" "Why does this value even matter?" I also kept asking myself what the point of all of this was. Why did any of it even matter to my life? There were so many personal dilemmas that I couldn't solve at that time. By now, I had expected to find myself closer to some resolutions of those introspective questions. I must say that I had completely forgot about those vital questions until I started writing this very blog post. I question what the presupposed goals of this process were and what actually will come of them.
I anticipated that the point of the process was to become more firm in our values in order to defend our choices. We were taught how to better communicate our values, but I don't feel that has been needed. In theory, it seems that it should have been necessary, and maybe it was for some, but I feel it has not been an important factor. After all, values are completely personal and subjective, and there's no way to logically deduce that your values are better than all others. Then I ask: Why emphasize the importance of personal values if this entire process is about compromising and forfeiting values? At this point there seems to be a dichotomy between group giving and personal giving.
With group giving, values become arbitrary by the very nature of collective decision making. There are two scenarios: 1) Everyone has the same exact values, which leads to the ability to make a decision based solely logistical choices or 2) People disagree on values and make compromises to find a middle ground. It still seems like personal values in choice 2 are still important, but I'd argue that core values are heavily tied to one another, which are then tied to the individual's mindset as a whole. The collective "mindset" becomes unique from the mindsets of each individual. At that point I'd say that everyone's values are compromised in some way, which leads to no one feeling attached to the filtered choices. The best course of action should then become to just find the most logical decision. In either case of 1 or 2, the decision becomes based on logic, but with choice 2, the emotional aspect becomes moot.
To bring it back to this process, I don't think there's a single person who is entirely satisfied with the outcome so far. No one's personal values dictate that these were the best choices, so no person feels emotionally attached to whatever decision will be made. Well then I'll ask: Why didn't we just choose from the start the organizations that have the objectively biggest impact using facts and data? What was the point of using values and emotions to filter out organizations when none of us are emotionally satisfied with the outcome? Can you say that this process has made you more confident in your values, or would you say that this process has taught you to become detached from your values?
Hi Mike -
ReplyDeleteI found this post really interesting, especially as we're beginning to zero in on a final giving decision. You made me ask myself some really reflective questions, but also see how these same questions can be used to determine the future of our class.
I especially liked your discussion on core values, and how they've been implemented in the decision process so far. What I find really interesting is that, from the very first core values assignment, we as a class selected - pretty unanimously - the values of "sustainability, education, and empowerment." While these are completely valid choices and I agree they are extremely important, I fear that they may not accurately reflect our individual feelings. Instead, since we're only allowed to choose from organizations in Broome County, I think we looked at the needs of the community and then developed these values from that process. What I mean is, maybe these values that we continuously mention in class are almost "temporary" values, ones that we use to make the best decision for the community in question, if only as a learning tool.
If this is the case, I still don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Forming a more concise, concrete list of what we as a class value was vital to chipping away at the 50+ applications we originally had. It gave us a clear vision of what we wanted to accomplish with our grant, and that in turn made much of the process run pretty smoothly, in my opinion. Even if I wouldn't carry these specific core values with me in future philanthropic actions, I certainly can take with me the ability to focus my feelings on the needs of the community around me.
Michael, thank you for writing a blog post that allows me to reflect what I have learned in this course. You asked if we learned to become generous, caring people and my answer is yes. I find myself feeling less reluctant to make donations to different gofundme pages, student groups, and organizations. I have definitely increased my donations due to the values I have learned in this class. I am more sympathetic to these groups asking me for money and my curiosity about their mission statements, core values, and what my donation will go to has made me ask more questions before blindly giving. So not only did this class allow me to become a more generous person it has also allowed me to become a more informed donator.
ReplyDeleteI have to wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree with you that the group aspect of this process has whitewashed all the personal changes we’ve experience. I think that the group aspect of this class has actually taught me invaluable life skills. I have learned to work better with people, express my ideas more thoroughly, defend my positions in a more effective manner, and learned to keep an even wider open mind when discussing ideas I don’t agree with. I will argue that learning how to better communicate your values is of utmost importance. Learning how to better communicate your values teaches you what your core values are because those are the values you will passionately fight for instead of the ones you willingly compromise on. By communicating your values and defending them to others you learn what arguments to use to persuade people that your values are important, and which arguments don’t necessarily work in your favor. By listening to others communicate their core values it will allow you to gain a new perspective. Listening to others defend their values may change your mind and add a new value that is important to you or it will further cement your core values; both ideal situations.
I spent over three hours with my group discussing which organizations we wanted to recommend to the class to fund. Before this experience I probably would have written a completely different blog post where I agreed with you. My group realized half way in that we were not going to get to a compromise simply by just speaking to each other which is why we devised a rating method we thought would be a fair and accurate description of all our needs. It was so fulfilling to come up with a logical solution because even though the results didn’t end up how we necessarily expected them to we all ended up content with the end results. Yes the collective mindset became different from the mindsets of each individual, but there are very few things in life you can accomplish without collective action, regardless of the problems it leads to.
What we gave up as individuals in this class due to compromise is going to be balanced out by the effectiveness of our grant. If we all decided to go our separate ways and fund organizations that we absolutely love we would have maybe at the most been able to donate 100 dollars to one organization. By compromising with your classmates we are able to spread 10,000 dollars across multiple organizations, which will make more of an impact. What you give up in some aspects, you gain in others.
Celine, thank you for your perspective. I always really appreciate a differing viewpoint. Also, I sincerely apologize about the wall of text that you're about to read (or possibly not).
DeleteWhat I realize about my post is the truthfulness of it depends completely on the individual. Your argument is definitely valid for people who are driven and outspoken in group settings. Those types of people stick to their values without giving in easily, so they’re able to refine their perspective and discover more about their values. Someone like me, who is more likely to submit when unable to get his point across, may feel the whitewashing effect. Sometimes when I'm failing to get someone to understand my perspective, I feel that it’s mostly pointless to keep trying. I don't have any personal stake in the result of this particularly process, so I didn’t feel that it was worth it to get into serious arguments. My lack of teamwork and communication skills hindered my ability to discover my values further, but luckily that is an important discovery in and of itself.
It's interesting, though, since we were in the same group but came to exact opposite conclusions. I found it frustrating that people openly admitted to having the mindset that 'I'm not changing my mind, and I know I can't change yours.’ To give a lengthy and forced metaphor, that’s like when two people walking in opposite directions keep going the same way as the other so that neither is able to pass, but they both refuse to let the other go by first. They then both decide the only solution is to go back the way they came. I admit that I wouldn’t easily let go of Kopernik, but I was trying to be as open as possible. I wanted to hear a solid argument that would force me to support one of the other options instead of Kopernik, but I didn’t get that opportunity because most of us already decided our choices and weren’t too open to discussion. Instead of trying to understand the other’s perspective, someone would attack someone’s else view, to which they tried to defend. Instinctually, when someone has to defend their view, they find a argument that may not be too solid. Those rebuttals don’t usually make strong cases, and that entire methodology usually doesn’t lead to a mutual understanding. This led to a few defensive arguments that were based on emotion and iffy logic. This definitely shows when you think about the fact that, individually, none of us actually changed our minds about any of the organizations.
After the 3rd time of hearing someone state that ‘none of us will change our minds,’ I simply gave up. There truly was no point in discussing anything further when someone openly admits that. I really do appreciate the passion greatly. I love that people found organizations they can stand by completely. However, passion is difficult to reason with at times. Eventually, the idea of the scoring system came up, because we were convinced that it was impossible to find a mutual understanding. I personally felt that the scoring system was a bit of a cop out, but everyone, including myself, agreed so that we could just get it over with. The criteria that we chose were really good, and I thought it was a logical way to resolve the issue. The major problem about this approach was that our individual ratings weren’t based on data and facts; they were based on personal interpretation and biases.That, by definition, isn’t objective.
DeleteIn the end, I ended up compromising my values completely by agreeing to eliminate the organization that was most important to me, both emotionally and logically. I stuck by that choice, though, since it was the result of the process we agreed on, and everyone seemed somewhat satisfied with it. I tried to stand up for Kopernik, but I ultimately lost the motivation to fight any further. My biggest issue with all of this is that I shouldn’t even have felt the need to fight to convince others of my side; each of us should have felt the need to convince ourselves of all the other points. Yes, my personal experiences shouldn’t really be a factor in the decision, so I didn’t rely on my time at Kopernik to make any of my points. Unfortunately, I realized there was little desire for mutual understanding when I was asked only 1-2 questions about Kopernik, despite the fact that I’ve been volunteering there for a year and a half.
Despite my slight disappoint, I’m really encouraged by everyone’s drive and dedication. We’re all very passionate and logical, and every one of us really put in a lot of time and effort to come up with the best possible solution. It shows that we genuinely care about using the money as effectively as possible. I’m extremely proud that a bunch of college students care so much about money that isn’t theirs going to organizations with which they have no connections in a community they know very little about. And I believe that was the exact cause of our shortcomings as a group.
I loved reading your blog post Mike; even your title was intriguing! I think you raised some really good points. For instance, you mentioned that none of us are probably entirely satisfied with the process so far. I agree, I doubt none of us are completely satisfied with everything that has happened so far. But, did we expect complete satisfaction? I know that I wasn’t expecting complete satisfaction with every step of the process. But, I was hopeful that I may be able to see one organization I love move forward. Thankfully, I am in a position where I believe that any of the four organizations that we are still focused on would be able to do great things with our grant. Furthermore, I think that these four organizations offer great services to the community. While, I would have liked to see Family Planning meet my expectations, realistically it did not. Yes, that is disappointing, but I’m glad that I had some disappointment. It really just illustrates the need for philanthropists to complete due diligence before completely backing an organization.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, I think I expected to learn more about myself and the philanthropic process through this course. I think we can all agree that has happened. A Path Appears really made a difference for me, and I think that the information it offered was extremely valuable. I have already recommended it to a few people because I think it did provide “a path” for me to start exploring. In a sense, the book surpassed my expectations on how much I could learn about philanthropy through reading.
I think another takeaway I have from this class is learning about group giving. I think learning about it has changed my future expectations for how I want to give back. I think it’s a great idea, but I also am wondering how differently the process would have been for 25 people who were already close to one another. Would it be easier because we may surround ourselves with people with similar values? Or would the overlooked differences between us manifest themselves in a negative way and thus make the process even harder?
This makes me consider how philanthropy is impacted through our connections to people. I found this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/libby-leffler/transforming-philanthropy_b_4453215.html , which describes how Facebook can display your donations to philanthropic organizations. This just makes me wonder, in what way would seeing friends’ support of organizations change your view on them? Would it even make a difference to you? If you loved the organization they donated to, would that strengthen the connection you may have towards them? What if you do not believe in the organization, could that hurt your connection with the person? Would seeing the organizations that people support, impact your decision to join a giving circle with them (if you had the opportunity to effective “screen” people)? I think it’s interesting to consider how our current expectations influence our future expectations.
Thank you for the post, Mike! I’m glad to see that both you and Tim took a step away from our upcoming decision and towards our past discussions of values this week. I, too, have been reevaluating my thoughts on my values: what they mean, why I hold them, and how they will affect our class as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI can truly say that I have discovered my values through this class. This is less because I had groundbreaking realizations about my indemnity, and more because I had never been given a forum in which I was encouraged to recognize and discuss the things that are important to me. Sure, I always knew empowerment was important. Empowerment means providing the resources for a group or individual to accomplish something, and who wouldn’t want to provide opportunity and power? However, it wasn’t until I read anecdotes from A Path Appears and applied the concept of empowerment to our finalist organizations that I understood its potential. Looking up “empowerment” in a dictionary is one thing (to give power or authority to; authorize, especially by legal or official means); actually empowering children from STAT to have successful and meaningful lives is another.
This class put things in perspective for me. My older brother, Jeremy, was adopted from Bucharest, Romania in 1989 and I had never even asked about the circumstances of his adoption until we read about the uneducated, impoverished Romanian orphans in A Path Appears. If anything, I am grateful to this class for making me a curious and questioning person. When I google “philanthropy news” or “philanthropy and puppies”, I’m doing more than searching for something to tweet. I’m educating myself on the world of philanthropic opportunities and I’m getting excited about them.
The fact is, I’m sure that all of our organizations match our values in one way or another. As students, we are masters of making connections and applying our knowledge to what we study. If I prioritize empowerment as a core value, I will find a way to see empowerment in some way in every organization. And if an organization doesn’t fit one of my core values, I’m sure it will fit another. I do not think we can pick incorrectly, and I do not think a simple word I have decided on as one value should be the be-all-end-all decision-making tool.
At this point, I would of course love to impose my values upon every member of the class and get my way when we make our final decision. However, and maybe this is a passive approach to the situation and my peers will disapprove, I’m also really content with the new understandings I have of philanthropy in the world and philanthropy in my head and heart, whether or not our final decision goes my way. I have the tools now to decide what causes are important to me, to research them thoroughly, and the give intelligently. I feel more connected to my values than ever, and whether or not my personal values sway our class’s decision is not as important to me and how they will sway my future philanthropic endeavors.