Topic: The Limits of Philanthropy.
Gerry Adams: I'm a great fan of a man called Chuck Feeney. And if you haven’t interviewed Chuck Feeney, and he might not do an interview with you, but Chuck Feeney was a billionaire who gave away all of his money.
I’ll give you an example. I brought him on to see a survival school for the Irish language. And I was trying to encourage him to give some money to it.
This was a school where parents had financed by running raffles and, you know, all of that sort of fundraising projects. And the kids were all in this big hall, and they were getting a brilliant education.
So he said to me when we went through the whole thing; and I thought he was highly impressed by it; but he says, “I’m not going to give them any money.” And I said, “Why not?” And he said, “Well, they’re doing very well without me. Perhaps if I give them money they wouldn’t do as well.”
So I would take a leaf from his sort of experience of philanthropy and put it into sustainable projects.
Recorded on: Oct 8, 2007
Discuss
Evan Conley on February 23, 2008, 1:23 PM
The example given by Mr. Adams makes the argument for sustainable philanthropy while considering the risks of unintended consequences clearly and simply. What is missing however, is the acknowledgement of opportunity cost. Given the highly engaged nature of the parents mentioned in the clip, a monetary donation would allow for their energy and efforts to be directed towards the development or enhancement of music, debate, sport, student government programs, etc. instead of managing fundraisers. Clearly, these activities would enrich the student's education immensely. Mr. Adams' rightfully calls for sustainable approaches to philanthropy. Yet, we must be aware of the consequences that occur with the acceptance of 'they seem to be doing fine without me' approach to philanthropy in the broader context.
Evan Conley on February 23, 2008, 6:23 PM
The example given by Mr. Adams makes the argument for sustainable philanthropy while considering the risks of unintended consequences clearly and simply. What is missing however, is the acknowledgement of opportunity cost. Given the highly engaged nature of the parents mentioned in the clip, a monetary donation would allow for their energy and efforts to be directed towards the development or enhancement of music, debate, sport, student government programs, etc. instead of managing fundraisers. Clearly, these activities would enrich the student’s education immensely. Mr. Adams’ rightfully calls for sustainable approaches to philanthropy. Yet, we must be aware of the consequences that occur with the acceptance of ‘they seem to be doing fine without me’ approach to philanthropy in the broader context.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register