True Diversity Archives - Philanthropy Roundtable https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/category/true-diversity/ Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:28:36 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5 https://prt-cdn.philanthropyroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/29145329/cropped-gateway_512-1-32x32.png True Diversity Archives - Philanthropy Roundtable https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/category/true-diversity/ 32 32 Higher Education Funders: Get to Know the Professors https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/higher-education-funders-get-to-know-the-professors/ Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:23:53 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=45277 Class is back in session. Philanthropy is attuned to whether the campus protests that overtook many colleges and universities last academic year would be reignited and how school leadership will respond to antisemitic protests and the treatment of Jewish students on campus.
We believe this decision will allow local governments and law enforcement agencies to determine how best to respond to homelessness in their own communities, allowing greater local autonomy in policy decision-making and implementation.

Esther Larson, Philanthropy Roundtable’s senior director of programs, interviewed Devon Kurtz, public safety policy director at Cicero Institute, to better understand this issue. The Cicero Institute is a nonpartisan public policy organization with deep experience in public policy and technology, law and entrepreneurship.

Q: Homeless rates across America are only increasing. What do you see as the key contributing factors to this reality?

Kurtz: When we talk about homelessness, we often refer to it casually as a monolith. But that’s exactly the same problem with the policies most states use to respond to it. Homelessness is very complex with distinct subpopulations with varied needs and challenges. For example, it is important to distinguish between sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, the latter of which refers to people who live in tents and sleeping bags on the street.

America is not experiencing a homelessness crisis as much as an unsheltered homelessness crisis. All but 12 states have seen the proportion of their homeless population without shelter increase over the last five years, and 22 states have seen unsheltered homelessness increase by more than 50%.

The imprecision of how we talk about homelessness and in how we make policy means that most states are missing the mark. Federal homelessness policies take a one-size-fits-all approach known as Housing First, which prioritizes low-barrier housing interventions that offer people apartments without any requirements for behavioral health treatment or sobriety.

But more importantly, Housing First explicitly moves funding away from other types of programs that might be better suited to help high-risk, high-need individuals. The vast majority of states have moved in this direction, as federal funding decisions tend to drive local policies in the homelessness space. The result has been a growing gap between the capacity of communities to respond to different types of homelessness and the increasingly complex needs of those individuals living on the street.

Q: Policies at the federal, state and local levels have contributed both positively and negatively to homelessness in America today. What policies have had the greatest impact on homelessness – for good or bad?

Kurtz: Federal Housing First policies are at the root of most of the decisions made at every level of government in regard to homelessness. In addition to changing how resources are allocated, Housing First’s philosophy also de-emphasizes any sort of mandatory or coerced interventions, such as involuntary mental health treatment or legal prohibitions against street camping.

Cities well outside of California have followed along the same path in allowing sprawling street encampments to take hold of their downtowns. Austin is a notable example. These policies have good intentions—draw people into services and shelter with care and compassion rather than coercion. The problem is that they neglect service-resistant individuals or people whose conditions improve with personal accountability alongside compassion.

The line between “meeting people where they are at” and enablement is fine. But many homelessness policies lack that nuance out of an aversion to approaches that might be uncomfortable and involve penalties for failure. The results, however, speak for themselves—homeless encampments are toxic environments filled with waste and trash, and are often hotbeds of crime. Unsheltered homeless people have 2.5 times the premature mortality rate of sheltered homeless. The road to desperation was paved with good intentions.

A few states are taking a more nuanced approach with state resources. Florida, Georgia and Utah have all committed millions of dollars in state funding to fill the gaps for high-need individuals created by Housing First. They also take a more proactive approach with street camping that empowers law enforcement to intervene in dangerous encampments.

These policies are often criticized as lacking in compassion. But in many ways, they more effectively approach the situations of the street and the dangers faced by unsheltered homeless people and the communities around them. Most importantly, they take seriously the reality of the human condition in that they present an actionable response to severely addicted or mentally ill individuals who are “service-resistant.”

The policy discussion here is very, very challenging because we are ultimately discussing our society’s level of tolerance for squalor and human suffering.

Q: For those who are newer to the recent SCOTUS decision City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, could you explain how the case went to the Supreme Court and what its impact will be?

Kurtz: The fundamental question before the Supreme Court was whether or not laws that prohibit people from sleeping on the street or in parks punish individuals for qualities inherent to their condition. In fewer words, whether they punish people for passively “being homeless” or for specific illicit actions. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit prohibited enforcement of bans on street sleeping or camping, with few exceptions, out of a belief that it punished people for their condition as “homeless” and was thus cruel and unusual. This decision fettered how communities could respond to unsheltered homelessness and street encampments.

Ultimately, SCOTUS saw that street sleeping could be committed by people who were not homeless, which broke down the argument that the law prohibited a condition rather than an action. But more importantly, the Court found that the federal judiciary was playing far too large a role in setting homeless policies for communities. Thus, it affirmed in part this theme of ‘multifaceted and tailored local solutions’ that I have discussed.

In most of the U.S., this decision will affirm communities’ power and responsibility over responding to homelessness. In the Ninth Circuit, the decision will help smaller communities the most. Big cities were already forced to deal with the undeniable public safety and public health crises in encampments, even if they tend not to be proactive. Smaller communities, however, see encampments a fraction of the size of those in L.A. The problems in those camps are still pressing, but law enforcement may have felt restrained in their ability to respond to smaller camps until they grew sufficiently dangerous to warrant action. Now, communities can respond earlier.

Q: Though your focus at Cicero is public safety, you also focus on homeless-related issues. How do you see homelessness relating to other issues – public safety, mental illness, addiction, incarceration, access to affordable housing, etc.?

Kurtz: Street homelessness is the great public safety crisis of our time. Visible public disorder is tied directly to street homelessness, and by some measures, a significant portion of violent crime is associated with homeless victims, offenders, or both. Yet, the relationship between criminal justice and homelessness isn’t simple. Roughly one-third of homeless people in California had left prison or long-term jail stays within six months of becoming homeless.

Rates of substance abuse and mental illness among prison populations and unsheltered homeless individuals are high and increasing rapidly. About 50% of America’s psychiatric beds are in prisons. These systems are highly interrelated and, in my view, inextricable.

Eleven states have seen the number of unsheltered homeless people with severe mental illness more than double since 2018. Thirteen states have seen the number with chronic substance abuse at least double. To deny the public health and public safety implications of this crisis is misguided.

Q: Is there a state or city you point to as a guiding light in this work, in terms of their effective approach to homelessness and curbing its impact on individuals and communities?

Kurtz: It is a difficult question to answer because no two communities are the same. So what works in Detroit might not work in Austin, and what works in a rural state like Vermont certainly won’t work even in Boston. We will not find a silver bullet. There are great organizations like Haven for Hope that are often cited. And cities like Miami and Houston are often shown off for their reductions in homelessness.

But instead of trying to copy what other people do, policymakers and the philanthropic community should look to social entrepreneurs and innovators to help build new solutions and push the borders of what we think is possible. We need to build systems that reward innovation and challenge incumbent programs to improve and grow. Experimentation and dislodging barriers to entry and innovation are essential to effectively responding to homelessness.

We also need to look in unlikely places. For example, Nomadik AI, a start-up in Austin, Texas, is bringing a whole new approach to data collection in relation to homelessness. Organizations like theirs are so important to evaluating interventions and tracking how complex social problems like homelessness evolve over time and in different communities.

If you want to learn more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s homeless communities, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of Programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here.

The post Higher Education Funders: Get to Know the Professors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

Class is back in session. Philanthropy is attuned to whether the campus protests that overtook many colleges and universities last academic year would be reignited and how school leadership will respond to antisemitic protests and the treatment of Jewish students on campus. 

Donors and alumni have widely rebuked student involvement in riots and violent protests. University presidents, who could not act with moral clarity to protect Jewish students or who have been selective in the application of free speech and academic freedom, have been forced out by pressure from stakeholders. Using the power of the purse, donors canceled pledged gifts and promised to withhold future funding to send a clear message to university leadership. 

However, higher education donors and grantmakers should also pay attention to the actions of deans, faculty and lecturers. Are these academics upholding the standards and values that motivate alumni and donors to give to institutions, or are they perpetuating toxic learning environments donors want to change? True diversity calls for a diversity of viewpoints, but not for discriminatory behavior or intolerant rhetoric.  

Concerning events may have flown under the national radar but they provide cautionary examples of what is happening on campuses around the country. Recently, several Columbia University deans left the university after a scandal ensued from their antisemitic text exchanges during a panel discussion on Jewish life on campus this spring.  

One wrote, “Amazing what $$$$ can do,” while another dean wrote the panel discussion at the event “comes from such a place of privilege.” A third dean used vomiting emojis to refer to an op-ed by the campus rabbi on antisemitism. The text messages were captured by attendees at the event and released by the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce in a hearing. 

Conversely, a Stanford lecturer was dismissed last October for calling Jewish students in the class “colonizers” and asking Jewish students to physically go to the back of the class to illustrate the point that this is “what Israel does to Palestinians,” according to eyewitnesses. University officials stated clearly that “academic freedom does not permit the identity-based targeting of students.”  

These incidents and likely many others that have gone unreported should make donors cautious to ensure their philanthropic dollars are not supporting faculty who disrupt the learning environment for students of all backgrounds. 

My Roundtable colleague, Joanne Florino’s “Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders,” provides some helpful pointers for university donors in this regard. For example, one of Florino’s tips is to form relationships with friendly faculty. They will execute your project and are most likely to serve as guardians of your donor intent because you share the same goals. Faculty with aligned values can also be a trusted source of information for grantmakers on campus happenings or advising on promising philanthropic opportunities there and elsewhere. 

However, be prepared for personnel changes to remove your ally from the equation. Consider funding an academic center that hires professors who share your values and commitment to your mission. And, as always, be careful with unrestricted grantmaking. Grants or gifts with no strings attached can lead to donor intent being undermined and donors supporting people and activities they vehemently disagree with.  

This fall, expect more campus protests, especially as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Israel massacre and hostage crisis on October 7. Colleges and universities must grapple with heated viewpoints on different sides. Faculty should know there is no place for antisemitic or violent rhetoric when it comes to education and academic freedom. Philanthropy can play a role in making sure that message is heard loud and clear. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.   

The post Higher Education Funders: Get to Know the Professors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
How DEI is Failing Students: A View from Stanford University  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/how-dei-is-failing-students-a-view-from-stanford-university/ Tue, 03 Sep 2024 19:23:55 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=45236 As the fall semester begins at colleges and universities across the country, students, faculty, alumni and donors are watching closely, anticipating that new and returning administrators alike may bring with them new policies on free speech, protests and the role that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) will play on campus in areas other than admissions.

The post How DEI is Failing Students: A View from Stanford University  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

As the fall semester begins at colleges and universities across the country, students, faculty, alumni and donors are watching closely, anticipating that new and returning administrators alike may bring with them new policies on free speech, protests and the role that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) will play on campus in areas other than admissions.  

An August 30 op-ed in The New York Times tackled that last issue and suggested current DEI programs are not working and are “subverting their schools’ educational missions.” The guest essay was co-authored by Paul Brest, professor emeritus and former dean at Stanford Law School and president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation from 2000-2012, and Emily J. Levine, associate professor of education and history at Stanford. On the day it was published it attracted over 1,000 comments – enough to shut down the comments section.  

The authors say they are not calling for the complete abandonment of diversity programs as “some of these programs most likely serve the important goal of ensuring that all students are valued and engaged participants in their academic communities.” What they find concerning are the programs and DEI trainings which “undermine the very groups they seek to aid by instilling a victim mindset and by pitting students against one another.”  

Recognizing “how exclusionary and counterproductive some of these programs can be,” they call attention to the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias of protests at Stanford University following the Hamas attacks on Israel. That bias, they note, is baked into current DEI ideology as manifested in “a DEI training program at Stanford a few years ago [where] Jewish staff members were assigned to a ‘whiteness accountability’ group, and some later complained that they were shot down when they tried to raise concerns about antisemitism.” 

In place of current DEI models, Brest and Levine call for programs employing a pluralistic approach, recognizing a universal need for belonging and fostering “empathy with others rather than a competition among sufferings.”  Such programs would involve “facilitated conversations among participants with diverse identities, religious beliefs and political ideologies, but without a predetermined list of favored identities or a preconceived framework of power, privilege and oppression.” 

“Success,” they say, “would be an academic community of equally respected learners who possess critical thinking skills and are actively engaged in navigating challenging questions throughout the curriculum — an approach that teaches students how to think rather than what to think.”   

Brest and Levine acknowledge their recommendations will face strong headwinds from those who advocate for the complete abandonment of DEI and those who are adamant it be retained in its current form. Yet they persist in advocating change, concluding, “The current system is not good for Jews at Stanford and other universities. It’s not good for Muslims, either. And it’s certainly not good for society as a whole.”   

The post How DEI is Failing Students: A View from Stanford University  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
DEI Update: State Attorney Generals Battle It Out  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/dei-update-state-attorney-generals-battle-it-out/ Tue, 30 Jul 2024 13:35:28 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=44610 Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts face significant challenges today: corporations moving away from DEI investments, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating racial preferencing in college admissions and states passing legislation to prohibit DEI policies and programming on college campuses.

The post DEI Update: State Attorney Generals Battle It Out  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts face significant challenges today: corporations moving away from DEI investments, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating racial preferencing in college admissions and states passing legislation to prohibit DEI policies and programming on college campuses. 

We can add another new front in the effort to unwind the public and private sectors from the highly charged and divisive DEI framework that promotes unequal, unfair treatment based on race: the battle between attorneys general of red and blue states over law school admissions policies. 

The American Bar Association (ABA) is reassessing its guidelines for law school accreditation in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (SFFA). It is considering shifting away from “diversity and inclusion” and toward access for “all persons.” This includes expanding the number of “identity characteristics” from three—gender, race and ethnicity—to 14, those three plus color, religion, national origin, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, military status, Native American tribal citizenship and socioeconomic background.  

In June, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia—sent a letter calling for the ABA to remove race-based criteria from its law school accreditation process. The AGs urged the legal accrediting body to return to race-neutral admissions policies in light of SFFA, writing: 

“One standard in particular—Standard 206, Diversity and Inclusion—fails to account for SFFA and, by all appearances, directs law-school administrators to violate both the Constitution and Title VII. … While we support the Council’s willingness to modify Standard 206, the proposed revisions reemphasize Standard 206’s problematic requirement that law schools engage in race-based admissions and hiring.” 

These AGs recognized in their letter that “diversity is not without benefit” and suggested other types of diversity, such as socioeconomic and geographic diversity, can be pursued through race-neutral means. However, they concluded the ABA’s current “calls to calibrate classes and faculty based on race fly in the face of the Constitution.”  

These AGs rightly adopt the wider view of diversity we at the Roundtable ascribe to: True Diversity. True Diversity goes beyond the superficial categories of race and gender to look at all the facets that make individuals unique, including backgrounds, perspectives and lived experiences. These unique differences, when reflected in professors and students, can enrich the academic environment on campuses and shape the legal profession. 

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Other state AGs led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul penned a rebuttal letter to the ABA, Fortune 100 CEOs and other organizations to refute their Republican colleagues’ letter and remind these bodies of their commitment to DEI: 

“The undersigned 19 Attorneys General write to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that diversity, equity and inclusion programs continue to effectively address discrimination throughout the private and philanthropic sector. We also write to respond to coordinated attempts to contort the law and invalidate programs aimed at eliminating and preventing racial inequities.” 

Joining Illinois were California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C.  

These 19 AGs challenged the idea that higher education institutions “are barred from undertaking recruitment efforts to encourage a diverse applicant pool, or from creating non-hostile educational environments for underrepresented groups.” They confirmed that SFFA does not apply to corporate America, and therefore corporate DEI programs should not be abandoned.  

In light of these dueling perspectives from the top prosecutors from the largest states in the nation, organizations may feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.  

While diversity efforts have been around for generations, DEI is a more recent manifestation that calls for the unequal and unconstitutional treatment of Americans.  

In the philanthropic sector, foundations and donors committed upwards of $17 billion for racial justice in 2021 out of responses to the death of George Floyd. Some of these DEI-focused pledges included targeted grantmaking, racial and gender hiring goals and leadership changes in pursuit of equity, even if at the expense of mission and tested grantmaking practices. The outcomes remain to be seen.  

The approval of using DEI programs to advance racial progress and gender parity is not settled. The Supreme Court will likely have to wade into the debate again, as it did with the SFFA, to bring clarity. As the public and private sectors continue to grapple with these challenges to DEI and diversity programs, philanthropic organizations would be wise to reaffirm their commitment to equality under the law. After all, the eyes of the law are watching.  

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.  

The post DEI Update: State Attorney Generals Battle It Out  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Patrice Onwuka in Newsmax: Drop Affirmative Action, Focus on Students’ Unique Qualities    https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/patrice-onwuka-in-newsmax-drop-affirmative-action-focus-on-students-unique-qualities/ Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:34:42 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=44579 In an op-ed published in Newsmax, “Education Opportunities for Blacks Post-Affirmative Action,” Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka explains how philanthropy's historic role in the education of Black and disadvantaged students can be replicated in today's post-affirmative action world.

The post Patrice Onwuka in Newsmax: Drop Affirmative Action, Focus on Students’ Unique Qualities    appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

In an op-ed published in Newsmax, “Education Opportunities for Blacks Post-Affirmative Action,” Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka explains how philanthropy’s historic role in the education of Black and disadvantaged students can be replicated in today’s post-affirmative action world.  

Onwuka uses the example of the landmark partnership between philanthropist Julius Rosenwald and Black educator Booker T. Washington and how they used philanthropy to the benefit of over 600,000 Black students in the South. 

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “Drop Affirmative Action, Focus on Students’ Unique Qualities”:  

“To truly get beyond the affirmative action preference of race, we must value all students for their intelligence, strengths, character, diverse viewpoints, personal experiences and other unique qualities.”  

…  

“In the Jim Crow South, public resources were unequally distributed between segregated Black and white schools, leaving educational opportunities for Blacks woefully inadequate. In 1870, eight of 10 Blacks were illiterate.  

“By 1930, that proportion had plummeted to fewer than two out of 10, in good part due to a sweeping privately funded education program. Julius Rosenwald, the son of Jewish immigrants and part owner of Sears, Roebuck & Co., partnered with storied Black educator Booker T. Washington to help finance the construction of over 5,000 schools for Black children, which would eventually benefit more than 600,000 students.”  

…  

“Philanthropy is still well suited to provide targeted funding to expand educational attainment and workforce development.”  

…  

“For example, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation spends millions of dollars supporting programs nationwide that help high-achieving students without means gain admission and thrive in highly selective schools.  

The Connelly Foundation teamed up with business leaders to support a private Catholic college preparatory school for disadvantaged students of all faiths. These are just a few examples of how philanthropy is answering the call.”  

  

To read the complete article, please visit Newsmax.  

The post Patrice Onwuka in Newsmax: Drop Affirmative Action, Focus on Students’ Unique Qualities    appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
In Illinois, Nonprofit Boards Are Under Attack and Demographics Reign Supreme   https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/in-illinois-nonprofit-boards-are-under-attack-and-demographics-reign-supreme/ Tue, 02 Jul 2024 15:01:22 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=44390 In May, the Illinois legislature passed S.B. 2930, a bill that requires nonprofits who grant $1 million or more to other nonprofits to annually report the demographic make-up of their board of directors. According to the bill’s language, demographic information to be collected from board members includes race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation and gender identity. The information would remain available to the public for a minimum of three years. 

The post In Illinois, Nonprofit Boards Are Under Attack and Demographics Reign Supreme   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

In May, the Illinois legislature passed S.B. 2930, a bill that requires nonprofits who grant $1 million or more to other nonprofits to annually report the demographic make-up of their board of directors. According to the bill’s language, demographic information to be collected from board members includes race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation and gender identity. The information would remain available to the public for a minimum of three years.  

On June 30, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed this legislation into law, with Illinois setting a dangerous precedent by becoming the first state in the nation to require these draconian and invasive disclosures. Nonprofit organizations should not be mandated by the government to disclose board demographics. They should be free to choose those with the right skills, backgrounds, perspectives and personal experiences to help advance their missions without fear of running afoul of arbitrary mandates. Further, forcing the disclosure of board demographics may violate the privacy of board members who may not wish their personal identifying information to be made public.  

While Illinois is the first legislature in the nation to mandate the disclosure of nonprofit board makeup, there have been instances of DEI policies being implemented which impact corporate boards. In 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill mandating that corporations headquartered in California must retain a minimum number of women, minority and LGBTQ+ board members. This comes after a California bill was passed in 2018 mandating corporations have at least one woman on the board, with the number increasing based on the size of the board.  

Since the passage of both bills, state and federal courts have ruled that diversity mandates are unconstitutional. Similarly, in 2021, Nasdaq issued a rule which ordered companies to publicly disclose statistics on their board makeup annually and put a statement on their websites if the company was unable to comply. Given that state and federal courts ruled California’s law unconstitutional, an Appeals Court may also find the Nasdaq rule is unconstitutional.  

Not only are demographic mandates unconstitutional they are antithetical to America’s founding principles. The philanthropic community seeks to foster and celebrate diversity but forced reporting of board demographic makeup promotes the exact opposite. Nonprofits thrive and support their local communities best when they have the freedom and flexibility to pursue the most effective ideas and strategies to solve problems and provide opportunities without worrying about checking a box or meeting arbitrary requirements. Legislation such as S.B. 2930 impedes charitable work and does more harm than good.  

To learn more about the efficacy of demographic quotas and mandates, read the Roundtable’s True Diversity Toolkit on this topic. To learn more about our True Diversity initiative, visit TrueDiversity.org.

The post In Illinois, Nonprofit Boards Are Under Attack and Demographics Reign Supreme   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Affirmative Action One Year Later: A Conversation with Devon Westhill  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/affirmative-action-one-year-later-a-conversation-with-devon-westhill/ Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:28:57 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=44266 This month marks the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the Students Against Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina cases. These seminal decisions ended racial preferences in college admissions processes, also known as affirmative action, after the court ruled in 2023 that the schools were violating the civil rights of certain students based on race.

The post Affirmative Action One Year Later: A Conversation with Devon Westhill  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

This month marks the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the Students Against Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina cases. These seminal decisions ended racial preferences in college admissions processes, also known as affirmative action, after the court ruled in 2023 that the schools were violating the civil rights of certain students based on race.  

Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka spoke with Devon Westhill, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), about the ripple effect from the decision one year later and what higher education can do to provide opportunities to those in need and support True Diversity. 

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: Can you tell us about your background and what led you to become president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO)? 

Westhill: People who work in the civil rights space often have a personal background that drives their passion to be involved, and that’s true of me. As a kid, I was underprivileged or disadvantaged. I was raised by a single mother. We were poor. However, we had a couple of real privileges: One, a mother who loved us and wanted the best for us. I can’t say the same for many people that I grew up with who had no parents in the household.  

Two, I was born in America, and that really made all the difference in my ability to move from where I started to where I am today as president and general counsel of CEO, which will celebrate 30 years next year of advocating for colorblind, equal opportunity for everyone. This is why we have been involved in racial preferential treatment in college admissions and all areas of life. 

I also got involved professionally because I have an interest in big questions like “How do we treat other people?” “Why are we here?” “What is our worth to the world, our country and mankind?” I went to Washington, D.C., nearly a decade ago to work on some of these issues in the areas of race, sex and regulation. Then, Donald Trump became president, and I was recruited into the administration to work at the Department of Labor and then to run the Civil Rights program at the Department of Agriculture before coming to CEO. 

Q: It’s been one year since the Supreme Court banned racial affirmative action in higher education. What has this led to across academia?  

Westhill: CEO has been involved in affirmative action issues for a long period of time. We continue to be involved because we don’t think it’s over now that the Supreme Court has prohibited race affirmative action in college admissions. We’ve launched our After Affirmative Action Network, which is looking to make sure that schools are complying with the state of the law as it’s changed. 

The 100-foot view of admissions in higher education is that we’ve seen a hair-on-fire response from selective colleges and universities. That’s really who is affected by race-preferential treatment—something like the top 100 colleges and universities in the country, which must be selective in who they bring into their campus and try to maintain racial diversity in line with that elite status. Almost universally, people view the SCOTUS decisions as a categorical ban on the use of race in college admissions.  

The question is: What is the ban on the use of race in admissions? Legal professionals are helping colleges unpack the decision and its implications for racial diversity on their campuses. 

Q: Although it’s only been one school year, have the worst fears that racial minority enrollment will plummet materialized?  

Westhill: There is a concern that sheer racial diversity is going to plummet on campus. That’s the reason Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which were both sued in this SCOTUS litigation, suggest that they can’t keep racial minorities on their campuses.  

The real question is: has opportunity plummeted? We don’t have data yet; it’s too early to determine whether or not this has happened. After the affirmative action decision, President Biden gave a speech and said, “Look, what we don’t want is for the door of opportunity to be slammed shut.” I agree. I don’t want the door of opportunity to be slammed shut, which is why we are against affirmative action. The door of opportunity has been substantially closed for other racial minorities, such as Asian Americans. Their enrollment was depressed on these campuses because they were “overrepresented.” 

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen affirmative action outlawed. California was the first state to do this back in 1996 through Proposition 209. We saw a decrease in minority enrollment on some University of California campuses, particularly Berkeley, but we also observed an increase in minorities at other campuses. At the University of California at San Diego, the performance of minorities increased in GPAs, graduation rates and participation in STEM majors.  

The door of opportunity has not been slammed shut but opened wider for people to be judged based on their character, merit and potential, not their skin color or ethnicity. 

Q: You wrote recently that “Another unforced error was the portion of the court’s opinion last year that allegedly outlawed affirmative action which stated that schools can still consider applicant essays discussing their race.” Do we know if colleges took this advice and adjusted their selection processes accordingly? 

Westhill: Yes, we’ve seen schools respond to this idea that you ought to use essays to determine whether or not someone might be disadvantaged or has overcome adversity to get at—in a very crude way—the race or ethnicity of a person to determine whether they fit the profile of the student they’re looking for.  

We’ve seen schools change their essay prompts. Some of them have even asked outright, “How did the Students for Fair Admissions decision from last term affect you?” For example, there was an exposé on Columbia Law School. It exposed the fact that the school was requiring very short (30-second) video statements in a crude attempt to look at the skin color, race or ethnicity of the applicant applying to the school.  

They went back on that quickly after the exposé came out, but these are the types of ham-fisted efforts we’re seeing. I’m hopeful that with time and individuals like you and me continuing to talk about this issue, schools will do a better job of finding those diamonds in the rough that they’re looking for, and you’ll get true diversity. 

Q: There has been a shocking uptick in antisemitism on campuses nationwide in recent months. And yet, the DEI bureaucracy seems to have gone silent. Why is that?  

Westhill: Throughout the Civil Rights Movement and throughout the history of this country, Jews have stood hand-in-hand with Black Americans in their plight out of oppression and into freedom. I’m especially disturbed that students and the DEI bureaucracy seem to think of their Jewish brothers and sisters as oppressors and not people who have undergone historic oppression.  

What we’re seeing on these campuses today is driven by the idea that because Jewish Americans have some power in some ways in American society or globally, they sit squarely within the oppressor side of the oppressor-oppressed matrix. We should not rework the oppressor-oppressed matrix. I’m dubious that the answer is an antisemitic task force or committee.  

Here’s what schools should be doing: uphold the law. On one side, there are laws against treating people differently and discriminating against or creating a harassing environment for them. On the other side, schools should be consistent and uphold their own standards about protests, speech, expression and academic freedom.  

There’s a real problem if we shut down speech and expression. I’m a radical when it comes to free speech and expression. It’s one of the reasons why the Civil Rights Movement was successful: minorities stood up and stood hand-in-hand with each other to say something was amiss and we needed to change as a country. Many of those people were Black and Jewish, holding hands together. 

Q: We believe in True Diversity, which encompasses embracing all of the facets of individuals that make them unique—inside and out—not just their skin color or gender. How can we help change people’s perceptions about diversity to broaden it beyond just superficial categories of race and gender? 

Westhill: We’ve developed this atmosphere in America (and probably some other places around the globe as well) where, because of the consistent drumbeat about what “diversity” means, it has become synonymous with treating people differently. For example, diversity is often incorrectly defined as having a certain skin color or one’s ancestors coming from a certain place. It’s important to consistently point out that actually supporting diversity is not about a preferred skin color or gender in a given situation. Diversity is the opposite; it’s looking at the full person who’s going to bring their different experiences and views on various issues to the table.  

Right now, many people are interested in racial preferencing because they are aware that the law has changed and that something is happening on college campuses and in corporate America. We have a historic moment to persuade people that we need a deeper way of thinking about diversity. In polling, people think diversity is valuable, but as a deep contextual analysis of what people bring, not just skin color, We can bring people back to understanding that the idea of diversity is good but has been co-opted to be more narrow than how it should be viewed.  

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need. 

The post Affirmative Action One Year Later: A Conversation with Devon Westhill  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Patrice Onwuka in Philanthropy Daily: How Americans Can Avoid Funding Antisemitism and Pursue Reforms on Campus https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/patrice-onuwka-in-philanthropy-daily-how-americans-can-avoid-funding-antisemitism-and-pursue-reforms-on-campus/ Thu, 16 May 2024 17:05:34 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43831 In an op-ed published by Philanthropy Daily, Patrice Onwuka, Philanthropy Roundtable’s adjunct senior fellow, examines the lack of outrage from diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) advocates in higher education related to condemning the dramatic rise in antisemitism activity on campuses nationwide. While many donors are threatening to pull funding from higher education institutions, Onwuka says there are still ways to give to higher ed that can return these institutions to what they were built for, including fostering intellectual pluralism, academic excellence, workforce preparedness and research.

The post Patrice Onwuka in Philanthropy Daily: How Americans Can Avoid Funding Antisemitism and Pursue Reforms on Campus appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

In an op-ed published by Philanthropy Daily, Patrice Onwuka, Philanthropy Roundtable’s adjunct senior fellow, examines the lack of outrage from diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) advocates in higher education related to the dramatic rise in antisemitism activity on campuses nationwide. While many donors are threatening to pull funding from higher education institutions, Onwuka says there are still ways to give to higher ed that can return these institutions to what they were built for, including fostering intellectual pluralism, academic excellence, workforce preparedness and research.

Below are excerpts from the article “How Americans Can Avoid Funding Antisemitism and Pursue Reforms on Campus”:

“Universities have spent millions on so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) resources and staff and made numerous public statements in support of racial equity and justice. And yet, in December, three presidents of the most elite universities in America–Harvard, MIT, and University of Pennsylvania–could not unequivocally say that calling for the genocide of Jews violates their campus rules.”

“It’s no secret philanthropy has been a strong proponent of the social justice movement and DEI efforts in higher education and beyond. According to the philanthropy research organization Candid, donors have committed nearly $17 billion to support racial equity since 2020. But racial justice statements and monetary commitments made by high-profile individuals, organizations, and corporations in the past ring hollow if they do not condemn antisemitism and calls for violence today.

Donors and philanthropic organizations would be wise not to support institutions that fuel or remain silent about racial hate against Jews. Americans should also consider how their charitable dollars may indirectly advance antisemitism in America, especially in academia, through blind support for alma maters and higher education institutions that fail to protect Jewish students from harassment now.”

“However, donors need not abandon academia entirely. With thousands of higher education institutions, donors should direct their dollars toward colleges and universities that share their values. Big donors have outsized influence on academia: gifts of $1 million or more made up less than 1% of donors but 57% of total donations in 2022. But don’t underestimate the generosity of other alumni and smaller donors in telegraphing their disapproval of an administration’s actions.

Through charitable giving, Americans can support reforms, extract accountability and demand change in higher education. Allying with academic institutions and issues-based think tanks that share their values and goals, donors can do the legwork with fundraising staff, administrators, faculty, and researchers, leading to lasting relationships.”

To read the complete article, please visit Philanthropy Daily.

The post Patrice Onwuka in Philanthropy Daily: How Americans Can Avoid Funding Antisemitism and Pursue Reforms on Campus appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Disagreeing on DEI, Agreeing on True Diversity https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/disagreeing-on-dei-agreeing-on-true-diversity/ Thu, 16 May 2024 16:28:19 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43824 True Diversity is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.

The post Disagreeing on DEI, Agreeing on True Diversity appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

True Diversity is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.

In April I had the pleasure of being a panelist at an event to discuss diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and how philanthropy can support equality of opportunity.

My goal was to explain DEI and how its manifestations are detrimental to the goal of expanding opportunity, and then to present true diversity as a better approach that values every person as a unique individual.

I said the idea of diversity has been around for decades. As companies and organizations sought to increase demographic minorities in their workplaces, they implemented many different types of diversity initiatives. As I’ve written, many diversity initiatives such as bias training fail to deliver on expected outcomes and backfire in the workplace, worsening workplace cohesion, triggering backlashes and leaving minorities feeling alienated or resentful of the tokenism.

The social unrest in 2020 driven by George Floyd’s murder led to an escalation in demands for diversity to fight racial injustice. The calls were for greater equity. I explained that equity and equality are not synonymous, they are very different. Equality pursues equal opportunity whereas equity demands equal outcomes. This conversation of equity versus equality led me to several points on DEI’s failings:

  • DEI attributes virtually all average group differences — from arrest rates to medical school admissions — to systemic discrimination. Yet, we know that average group differences in outcomes can reflect a variety of factors.
  • DEI calls for judging people based explicitly on their race or sex and assigning categories of victimization (oppressed or oppressor) based on demographics of race, gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of an individual’s unique circumstances, agency and choices.
  • DEI advocates replacing classical liberal values of merit, fairness and equality. We’ve seen DEI programming and ideas take over the academy, professional organizations, media, government and large companies.

In more of its insidious manifestations, DEI has led to the chilling of free speech by silencing voices that present opposing views. The college campus is a great example. As the concepts of DEI have become guiding principles in higher education, they have supplanted the basic function of the university: the rigorous pursuit of truth. An obsession with equity has shifted attention away from pursuing groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, patient care or workforce readiness.

Philanthropy has become ground zero for the DEI debate. Since 2020, there has been an enormous push for grantmakers to advance DEI through grantmaking with massive commitments ($16 billion in two years alone). Yet there has been no accountability for where the money has gone.

Demands for gender and racial quotas on boards, equity in organizational leadership and commitments to specific demographics are unrelated to an organization’s mission. Acquiescing to those demands may reduce organizational effectiveness. For these reasons, equity must be abandoned.

Instead, the philanthropic sector should embrace a broader meaning of diversity. As I said, “Diversity should not be a dirty word.” We must broaden the definition of diversity to encompass other dimensions of the individual beyond race and gender such as viewpoint diversity, education, experience and political views. This is true diversity. 

The Roundtable created the True Diversity campaign to offer grantmakers and nonprofits an equality-based and holistic framework for embracing diversity, rooted in five key principles:

  • Valuing every person as a unique individual not just a member of a demographic category
  • Respecting organizational diversity, donor intent and mission-focus
  • Seeking diverse perspectives not just diverse skin colors
  • Embracing conversation including difficult conversation, but not shutting down debate
  • Offering tools that empower organizations

In closing remarks, I said true diversity does not require organizations to change how they do their work or who they serve. Instead, true diversity empowers organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.

The post Disagreeing on DEI, Agreeing on True Diversity appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
National Liberty Museum: Resolute in Liberty as Ideological Tensions Infiltrate the Museum Sector  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/national-liberty-museum-resolute-in-liberty-as-ideological-tensions-infiltrate-the-museum-sector/ Thu, 02 May 2024 18:19:57 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43777 For those unfamiliar with the National Liberty Museum (NLM), the name itself hints at our engagement in the myriad discussions surrounding the clash of extreme ideologies and the varied interpretations of liberty. Situated in Old City Philadelphia, the museum, which is both privately and publicly funded, faces the added complexity of embodying what a liberty museum should represent during a period of significant division within the United States and globally.

The post National Liberty Museum: Resolute in Liberty as Ideological Tensions Infiltrate the Museum Sector  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
The following is a guest post submitted by National Liberty Museum.     

For those unfamiliar with the National Liberty Museum (NLM), the name itself hints at our engagement in the myriad discussions surrounding the clash of extreme ideologies and the varied interpretations of liberty. Situated in Old City Philadelphia, the museum, which is both privately and publicly funded, faces the added complexity of embodying what a liberty museum should represent during a period of significant division within the United States and globally.  

At NLM, our mission is to connect, educate and inspire individuals to explore and advance the complex practice of liberty. Our goal is to cultivate a society that cherishes freedom of thought, civil discourse, respect for the rights of all and the essential pursuit of liberty. 

You may wonder what this entails for a museum. One visitor encapsulated it perfectly by stating, “This is a museum of ideas, not objects.” This reimagined direction has provided NLM with a distinctive opportunity to investigate the various dimensions a liberty museum can encompass. We are deeply involved in the realm of civics education, collaborating with contemporary artists from varied backgrounds and mediums worldwide, and generating original content.  

Our content, in essence, forms our collection, all aimed at fostering a plurality of viewpoints, thereby shaping individuals who are open to broadening their horizons and welcoming new ideas. However, the past two to three years have presented increasing challenges as political and ideological tensions have infiltrated the museum sector. 

In the past four years, there has been a notable evolution within the museum sector concerning the interplay of politics and funding. This evolution has intensified over the last two years, presenting the risk of us unintentionally echoing the divisive trajectories of higher education and the media. In my tenure as CEO of the NLM navigating the landscape of financial viability, I’ve been consistently confronted with the prerequisites set by federal, state and local grants as well as foundations, which often hinge on alignment with DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives.  

These mandates are not only prescriptive but also subject to ill-defined language with shifting interpretations, demanding a strategy that conforms to multiple and sometimes conflicting definitions of what constitutes “a more equitable museum.” Failing to meet these varied criteria could mean forfeiting essential funding—placing the museum in a precarious balancing act between mission alignment and operational sustainability. 

As a result, a dilemma arises in reconciling how any museum can faithfully meet these varying definitions and execute them successfully. The blunt truth is, we cannot. Attempting to do so leaves us straddling the line between insincerity and misconception. This insistence on uniform adherence to a changing and elusive standard is not only difficult but counterintuitive to fostering true diversity

Conversely, political agendas have also permeated from the opposite political direction. An example of this is West Virginia’s House Bill 4654, which employs legislative power to dictate what a museum can exhibit, predicated on a subjective notion of “obscenity”—a term left undefined by the bill. This ambiguity threatens to undercut a foundational American principle: freedom of speech. Such legislative overreach endangers the ability of museums and their professionals to present a spectrum of provocative and thought-provoking works, crucial for stimulating creativity, critical analysis and a well-informed populace. 

The critical dilemma NLM faces is: how can we maintain fidelity to our mission and provide quality civics education to young people in a time when the essence of a true liberal democracy seems to be eroding? We find ourselves having to navigate between funding dependencies, which may compel us to lean toward certain political stances, and the threat of being ostracized for not conforming to another.  

These pressures not only influence financial stability but also directly impact our educational endeavors. We might find ourselves self-censoring to avoid closure. It is our duty to the forthcoming generation to critically examine these constraints and consider both sides of the ideological debate, ensuring that we do not compromise our educational integrity. 

In closing, I leave you with a reflection and a call to action. The National Liberty Museum stands at a crossroads, emblematic of the broader museum sector, where the preservation of a liberal democratic ethos is both our challenge and our mandate. In an age where ideological forces from all directions vie to reshape the narratives within our walls, we must steadfastly adhere to our mission: to instill in our visitors—especially the next generation—the principles of liberty, civics and the courage to entertain a plurality of ideas. 

The museum, as a sanctuary of ideas, has the unique power to transcend the fray of political squabbles and serve as a forum for deep, critical engagement with the very tenets that underpin our society. Our content is more than our collection—it is a living, breathing dialogue with history, culture and the promise of democracy. 

We call upon our philanthropic partners to stand with us in a vital mission: to champion democracy through education. Support that honors the mission of museums will enable us to maintain spaces that not only allow for freedom of expression and civil discourse but also embrace the challenging dialogue necessary for a shared pursuit of liberty.  

As we create these partnerships, we are not merely naming our commitment to democracy but actively living it, promoting civic understanding that is broad and deep. The National Liberty Museum remains steadfast in lighting the way through these complex times as a testament to liberty. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need. 

The post National Liberty Museum: Resolute in Liberty as Ideological Tensions Infiltrate the Museum Sector  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Patrice Onwuka in RealClearMarkets: Why Choice and Merit Are Better Than Board Mandates https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/patrice-onwuka-in-realclearmarkets-why-choice-and-merit-are-better-than-board-mandates/ Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:38:09 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43683 In an op-ed recently published in RealClearMarkets, “Why Choice and Merits Are Better Than Board Mandates,” Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka says SEC-issued rules requiring race, gender and sexual orientation disclosure mandates on corporate boards for companies on the Nasdaq stock exchange are discriminatory.

The post Patrice Onwuka in RealClearMarkets: Why Choice and Merit Are Better Than Board Mandates appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

In an op-ed recently published in RealClearMarkets, “Why Choice and Merit Are Better Than Board Mandates,” Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka says SEC-issued rules requiring race, gender and sexual orientation disclosure mandates on corporate boards for companies on the Nasdaq stock exchange are discriminatory. In light of the upcoming rehearing of the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC lawsuit challenging these SEC-issued “Board Diversity Rules,” Onwuka explains how these mandates fail to deliver their intended results. She also discusses why women’s personal choice and merit are better for women’s advancement on board positions than diversity mandates.

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “Why Choice and Merit Are Better Than Board Mandates”:

“Gender board disclosure mandates like the one attempted by SEC may be well-intentioned, but they fail to deliver on intended outcomes. Advocates of greater board diversity commonly argue it improves a firm’s financial performance. The data are less certain. Plus, these mandates ignore the gains women have made over the past 40 years.”

“Proponents also attempt to justify gender board rules on the grounds that increasing female board representation will lead to better outcomes for all women, especially younger women. Unfortunately, evidence doesn’t support that claim either. The presence of one female board member has led some companies to feel the gender diversity box is checked, and no other women are needed, undermining the goal of seating the most qualified individuals.”

“The reality is the shift is happening without destructive mandates. Over my lifetime women have seen tremendous growth in executive roles and on corporate boards. Women run over 10% of the nation’s Fortune 500 companies. They comprise 46% of new independent directors of S&P 500 boards–up 92% in 10 years. Last year, a third of all S&P 500 board directors were women.

“The steady rise of women in leadership shows companies and organizations recognize more and more the value of merit. As individuals, women bring a wealth of knowledge, expertise, experience and connections that can improve corporate performance. The problem arises when the selection of women for such positions becomes a check-the-box exercise to meet arbitrary mandates.”

To read the complete article, please visit RealClearMarkets.

The post Patrice Onwuka in RealClearMarkets: Why Choice and Merit Are Better Than Board Mandates appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Advancing Working Women for Greater Mobility https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/advancing-working-women-for-greater-mobility/ Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:18:54 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43351 As detailed in a new report from the Independent Women’s Forum, “Working for Women 3.0: A Modern Agenda to Help Women Strive and Thrive,” policies abound that expand opportunities for women by encouraging the creation of a more dynamic, innovative and flexible working world.

The post Advancing Working Women for Greater Mobility appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>


As detailed in a new report from the Independent Women’s Forum, “Working for Women 3.0: A Modern Agenda to Help Women Strive and Thrive,” policies abound that expand opportunities for women by encouraging the creation of a more dynamic, innovative and flexible working world.

While these policies are heading in the right direction, there continue to be barriers to women’s advancement like outdated degree requirements, underemployment, unnecessary occupational licenses and gender quotas that do more harm than good.

Women’s History Month gives us the opportunity to examine the barriers that continue to hinder women’s career advancement, but also to discuss the unique role philanthropy can play in moving women up the economic ladder.

Women’s Advancement

Nearly half of U.S. workers today are women. Over the past 70 years, the share of working men and women in the labor force has narrowed from a gap of 42 percentage points to just six percentage points. One out of three workers in the 10 highest-paying occupations are women—up from just 13% in 1980. Last year, a third of all S&P 500 board directors were women.

There are 14 million women-owned businesses in the U.S. They comprise 39% of all businesses—a 13.6% increase from 2019 to 2023 alone. A significant majority of women-owned businesses are one-woman shops. However, overall, women-owned businesses employ nearly 10% of the U.S. workforce.

Another important contribution to women’s workforce participation has been increased flexibility. During the pandemic, which forced many women out of traditional jobs to oversee their children’s online educations or care for family members, remote work and flexible scheduling expanded significantly for many workers.

Consequently, we’ve seen a tremendous increase in women freelancing, becoming self-employed or starting side businesses. Women now comprise nearly half of the nation’s 70-plus million freelancers. They choose to be independent for the flexibility, fulfillment and other benefits that traditional employment does not confer.

While women have made tremendous strides, there is undoubtedly much more for women to accomplish in the workforce. Women lag behind men in many other high-paying careers and leadership roles. For example, only 10% of Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs.

Gender Diversity Quotas

To propel women’s advancement in board and leadership roles, gender diversity initiatives are pushed as an ideal based upon the belief that greater diversity leads to more debate and better decision-making. That is true when diversity is broadly defined to include viewpoint, experience, socio-economic background and other categories, not narrowly limited to just gender and race. The data are actually mixed on the impact of demographic board diversity on corporate performance.

Women’s representation on boards and in leadership roles in companies and organizations is often used as a measure of societal progress, but in some cases good intentions do more harm than good. For example, the presence of one female board member has led some companies to feel the gender diversity box is checked, and no other women are needed, undermining the goal of seating the most qualified individuals.

Some believe women must achieve parity in all areas, but that misses the tradeoffs men and women make to achieve the lives they desire. The responsibility of raising families or caring for aging parents may deter some women from pursuing high-paying careers with demanding hours or leadership career tracks that require heavy business travel. Measured by the variety of opportunities women can choose from to carve out the best life for their situations, we are moving in the right direction.

Board representation is also not the best measure of progress if it undermines mission, organizational effectiveness and donor intent. For example, an organization serving vulnerable boys may lack gender diversity but could still be advancing its mission effectively. Should it be forced to add a woman for the sake of checking a box?

Consequently, government mandates to force gender and race diversity on boards are not just ill-advised but, as California has learned, illegal and discriminatory. Companies and organizations are embracing women in leadership because they are right for the job. The government should not tamper with what is working.

That is why the True Diversity campaign is as important as ever. Grantmakers and charities benefit from the tools to push back on demands for demographic box-checking.

How Donors Can Expand Opportunities by Removing Barriers

While pushing for greater economic mobility for women is still a valid goal, we must recognize that not all women are in the same position and find ways to meet them where they are.

Some barriers include underemployment, which is remarkably high for women who relocate frequently, such as military spouses. Immigrants and women with criminal records are often locked out of occupations and entrepreneurship by government policies. These are areas where, by supporting public policy advocacy, donors can expand economic mobility for many women.

Because not every woman desires a four-year degree, we must first remove degree requirements for millions of the nation’s middle-skill occupations. Increasingly, a high school diploma and even hands-on experience and skills are not enough for workers to secure jobs. At the same time, employers say degrees do not ensure better-qualified candidates. Thankfully, organizations and companies have begun to shift from requiring four-year degrees to skills-based hiring.

Donors can support educational and advocacy organizations that are pushing state and federal policymakers to implement assessments of all job positions and eliminate college degree requirements that are not relevant to the jobs. A dozen states—both red and blue—have removed degree requirements for thousands of state jobs, but many more should. Organizations such as Opportunity at Work and the Cicero Institute are at the forefront of driving policy changes to unlock middle-skilled jobs for the 70 million workers who do not have a degree.

Second, by reforming or removing unnecessary occupational licenses, many women will be able to engage in jobs they have been locked out of. Over the past 60 years, the number of occupations requiring licensure has skyrocketed from just one in 20 workers in the 1950s to more than one in four today.

Licenses are state government-issued permission slips to work. The required education and training can create barriers to opportunity for individuals who cannot afford it. There is often no health or safety rationale for the licenses. Because each state has its own requirements, which vary by occupation, people who move frequently, such as military spouses, find it difficult to maintain their credentials and stay employed.

Some states even outlaw those with a criminal record from obtaining a license, which undermines reentry efforts. Immigrants with unique skills and experience from their homelands find excessive licensure unwelcoming, inhibiting their ability to work.

States are exploring regional compacts and agreements to accept licenses. They are also reducing or eliminating occupational licenses. Organizations such as the Institute for Justice fight for women such as hair braiders and eyebrow threaders while advocating for policy changes that will free millions of women to pursue their ambitions.

Women’s progress is undeniable, and philanthropy can be a supportive force in removing the barriers to their continued achievement.

Learn more about True Diversity and how the Roundtable advances pathways to opportunity.

The post Advancing Working Women for Greater Mobility appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>
Christie Herrera in New York Post: How Donors Can Shake Up Higher Ed  https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/christie-herrera-in-new-york-post-how-donors-small-and-large-can-shake-up-woke-higher-education/ Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:56:01 +0000 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/?p=43113 Can philanthropists fix higher education? Donors should take a more effective and aggressive approach to funding higher ed, rather than abandoning it.

The post Christie Herrera in New York Post: How Donors Can Shake Up Higher Ed  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>

In an op-ed recently published in the New York Post entitled “How Donors Can Shake up Higher Ed,” Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera provides a detailed giving approach for higher-education funders who want to advance American values and reestablish excellence, merit and opportunity for all at universities around the country.

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “How Donors Can Shake up Higher Ed”:  

“Can philanthropists fix higher education?” 

… 

“While it’s wise to abandon some giving strategies, I’ve urged donors to take a more effective — and more aggressive — approach to advance their values and secure the reforms higher education desperately needs.” 

… 

“The days of nostalgia giving must end unless your school is one of the few that’s still excellent. 

This may be the toughest message for philanthropists to hear, especially those who went to an Ivy League or other prestigious institution. 

They should instead fund schools with more principled leaders or proven commitments to ideals like free speech and intellectual diversity.” 

… 

“Choosing another school may be the best way to change an alma mater, since it fosters competition.” 

… 

“When a donor pulls a big gift from a college, the result is a brief news cycle. 

If a donor directs that money to an advocacy group that criticizes the university’s failings, the result is ongoing pressure.” 

… 

“Now it’s time to shake up the system — not merely by withdrawing donations but by donating in ways that make higher education worthy of the name.” 

Please continue reading at the New York Post.

The post Christie Herrera in New York Post: How Donors Can Shake Up Higher Ed  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

]]>