TopicalBoost WordPress Demo

Category: True Diversity

  • Ian Rowe on “Our American Stories”: My Coming of Agency Moment

    Recently, Founder and CEO of Vertex Partnership Academies Ian Rowe sat down with radio veteran Lee Habeeb for an episode of “Our American Stories,” a syndicated radio program and podcast that highlights “ordinary Americans who do extraordinary things.” Rowe, who is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, frequently speaks about the Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative, an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity that values each person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.   

    In this discussion, Rowe shares the idea of “agency” which he defines as “the force of one’s free will guided by moral discernment.” He recalls his parents’ journey from Jamaica to the United States in search of a better life in the 1960s and how his mother’s coming of agency story as a young black woman in Jamaica parallels his own. Rowe shares the moment he knew as a young boy in a segregated school the role he played in his own destiny and shares how it shaped him to be a leader in education today. 

    Below are excerpts from Rowe’s story, featured on “Our American Stories”:    

    “My parents are from Jamaica, West Indies. They met in the mid-1950s. … And my mom took a liking to this guy, Vincent, my mom’s name is Eula. He was working on a sugar plantation as an accountant there and he was very smart and they started dating while they were very young. She was 18, and he was just a few years older. … And they fell in love with each other. 

    At the time, Jamaica was still an English commonwealth. And so my dad thought he kind of reached kind of the apex of what he could learn in Jamaica. He had the opportunity to go to England to finish his schooling. He went to England and after being there a few months, he missed his ‘bud’ that’s what they called each other. 

    At the time the British Government required that if you wanted to marry a young woman who is under 21 you had to write a letter to the young woman’s parents asking for her hand in marriage. And so Vincent [my dad] wrote the letter of a lifetime asking for her hand in marriage. … After much discernment her parents decided yes, and so my mom, at 19 years old, in the mid 1950s, a young Black woman, took a boat all by herself, about a 5,000-mile journey, to England to meet up with my dad and they got married. About a year later they had my brother and seven years later they had me. 

    They ultimately came to the United States. My dad became one of the early Black engineers at IBM and my mom started working at Manufacturers Hanover …which became J.P. Morgan Chase.” 

    … 

    “In some ways, for my mom, that moment when her parents said yes to this huge decision, and I’ll talk a little about my own coming of agency moment, I think that’s what she experienced. This moment where she felt she had a lot of skin in the game. She played a role in her own destiny. She was advocating to her parents to be able to go to England at 19, all by herself. Something that wasn’t done. But she knew that it was right. 

    It’s a lesson I learned from my mom and my dad, as well. Every young person is going to face multiple moments in their life when the future is unknown. Where you’re facing a huge decision that you don’t know the outcome, and yet after you’ve mulled the decision, after you’ve mulled all the factors, then you commit. You commit. That’s a part of agency that you take ownership of decisions in such a way that you are leading a self-determined life. You are responsible for your behavior, for your attitude. That’s ultimately what agency is all about. 

    I think for my mom, having that first big yes many years ago initiated a cascade of decisions that she, and then she and my dad made, which essentially and ultimately was to the benefit of them and their own family.” 

    … 

    “When my parents first came to the United States it was 1968-1969. … A lot of racial tension. … But they were very cognizant of what was going on in the country. They were raised in a predominantly Black country, so the role of race was far diminished. I remember my dad always used to say that when he was in Jamaica, he was a man. He was a man. ‘In Jamaica I’m a man.’ It was not until he got to the United States that he learned he was a Black man. And that had meaning to him because in Jamaica, your skin color wasn’t the first thing that defined you. What defined you was much more your actions, your attitude, your ambition. But in the United States he felt that based on these external forces, you were a Black man first and he fought against that. He said, ‘Well that’s crazy.’ 

    They also recognized that the country was changing. You know the Civil Rights Act had just been signed, the Voting Rights Act signed. You know opportunity was opening up. So, in some ways they weren’t running from Jamaica, they were running to the United States in search of a better life.  

    They instilled in me certainly this idea that your effort and your character, and what you do matters far more than the singular characteristics.” 

    … 

    “We first came to Brooklyn and had a very humble home. We were in a two-family house. What’s interesting about that time was my parents frankly were not that happy with what they saw (about) how young Black men were operating their lives. They thought they were too loose, and they were concerned especially given the larger context of all of the issues facing the nation.” 

    … 

    “I was kind of on lockdown… From kindergarten I went to school in the morning, came home immediately, did my homework, we had dinner as family, went to bed. … And so my experience growing up was very contained. My parents placed a huge value on being together as a family. They placed a huge value on faith. They placed a huge value on education. 

    My parents put a very high premium on education. … They knew that if you were going to succeed in this country the opportunities are there, but you have to be prepared once those opportunities come your way.” 

    … 

    “In 1973…we moved to a small town in Laurelton, Queens, into a community that had been predominantly white, Italian, Jewish, but was slowly becoming more racially integrated as more Black people in particular were moving into Laurelton. And unfortunately, that slow integration led to a lot of racial tension in Laurelton, and my junior high school, junior high school 231, had become the epicenter. And the school board decided to solve this problem by saying ‘You know what, we are basically going to punt and we are going to create a new school, and annex, in Rosedale, Queens,’ which was another town a few miles over in a more permanently and predominantly white part of town.  

    Essentially what happened was all the white parents that were going to my junior high school 231 in Laurelton decided to take their kids out and send their kids to this annex junior high school in Rosedale. Leaving junior high school 231 as a segregated virtually all Black school. And my parents, on the assumption that where the white kids go that’s where the better education will be, … they said to me they were going to take me out of 231 and send me to this other school.” 

    I’ll always remember the Sunday night before the transfer papers were supposed to be submitted, I begged my parents. … Something about this decision didn’t feel right. I loved my school. I loved my teachers and even this very idea just because now all white kids are gone somehow it has to be worse.  Why? Why? Why just because now that everyone is Black that just inherently means that its bad. … I begged. …,’Please let me stay.’… Ultimately my parents relented.” 

    … 

    I always wonder that in that moment, even for my mom, did she think back to that moment when she was in Jamaica as a 19-year-old girl with this letter in the hands of her parents making this huge decision and she’s asking them to go, ‘I want to go. It will work out. I love him. I’m ready to go.’ And they said, ‘yes.’ I’ve always wondered if that experience parallels to when I was begging for the opportunity, now at 12 years old, to stay at my junior high school.  

    And I like to think yes. I like to think yes because I feel like that was her first coming of agency moment where she felt she knew that she could play a role in her own destiny. And I felt at 12 years old that after my parents said yes, that I had skin in the game now in a way that I’d never had before. … That was the first movement that I experienced agency. That I was a force in my own future. That I had the ability to shape my destiny. That was a turning point in my life. 

    Every big decision I’ve made going forward, particularly anything as it relates to my leadership in schools, is asking the basic question, ‘Why should it matter what the demographic makeup is of an institution? Who cares?’ What matters is the expectations. What we are asking young people to do. What is the metric for excellence? Are we holding everyone to high standards? That’s what matters. 

    I’m convinced that the reason I run schools today is connected back to that moment.” 

    … 

    “This presumption that just being all Black meant it had to be ‘less than’ and I never want anyone of any race, of any background, (to think) that just because there are kids of a certain background in their school or institution somehow it is ‘less than.’” 

    To listen to the full episode with Rowe, please visit  “Our American Stories.”   

  • A Conversation about History, Race and the Meaning of True Diversity with Ja’Ron Smith

    Editor’s Note: Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative offers an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. We support efforts that value every person as a unique individual and empower charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions. Learn more at TrueDiversity.org. 

    Cleveland, Ohio native Ja’Ron Smith and Washington, D.C.-raised Chris Pilkerton are two men of different races and backgrounds united by their faith and purpose to help the underserved. They both rose to become policy advisors to President Trump, where they advanced solutions for economic mobility of Black, white and all Americans. In a new book titled “Underserved: Harnessing the Principles of Lincoln’s Vision for Reconstruction for Today’s Forgotten Communities,” they offer a prescription for rebuilding underserved communities by drawing upon President Abraham Lincoln’s vision for reconstructing the nation after the Civil War. 

    I spoke with Smith, a policy expert on regulatory affairs, economic mobility, social justice, finance, banking and housing and urban development about his personal experience, new book and how he views true diversity.  

    The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.    


    Q. Tell us about your background and how it shaped your approach to work and life. 

    Smith: I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, in a lower middle-class community. My early years were similar to that of many people: parents struggling with drug addiction and alcoholism. My parents were both blue-collar workers and their parents were poor. They did what they needed to do to survive.  

    My dad sent me to a Catholic high school. That education gave me my first experience with religion and created an environment to help me. I wasn’t a good student until age 14 or 15. Despite their addiction, I was anchored with two parents that loved me and a grandparent that loved me, which made me a resilient person and gave me the courage to be curious. As I set out to be my best self, I had to do service projects to graduate and that’s where the passion developed for helping people. 

    My generation was the first generation to start going to college. 

    My background planted the seed of wanting to help change our community and empower people. From that experience you learn that people go into drugs and self-destructive behavior based off trauma or traumatic experiences. It can be hard to try to figure out how to become your best self and put food on the table.  

    I attended Howard University and during college interned in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill, which got me interested in politics and policy as a way to positively impact people. 


    Q. Coming out of your background and work at the highest levels of government, why did you decide to write this book? 

    Smith: I wrote this book along with my colleague, Chris Pilkerton, because working together in the White House, we realized there were so many challenges in underserved communities. Because of the pandemic, we weren’t able to finish some of the work we had begun on issues ranging from criminal justice reforms to workforce development. It became apparent that the work we were trying to accomplish was more important than ever. Some communities will be set back even further because of COVID. 

    My north star and mission has been figuring out solutions for underserved communities. When I came back to D.C. in 2008, I gave my life to God and He has positioned me through relationships to accomplish this mission. We talk about our faith journeys in this book, but this book provides a blueprint to complete our unfinished work.   


    Q. “Underserved” focuses on the post-reconstruction era in the United States. There was so much opportunity for Black folks: in politics by becoming legislators, starting businesses and creating economic centers, creating a new middle class and creating greater Black wealth. What didn’t happen following Reconstruction that led to issues we’re still dealing with today?  

    Smith: Abraham Lincoln grew up on a prairie, he grew up poor, was self-educated and he learned the importance of earning a living for yourself and being able to leverage that to empower oneself through economic empowerment.  

    Lincoln’s vision for Reconstruction highlights that economic empowerment … is a core part of America. America is a capitalist country; the whole notion of capitalism is based on the concept of mutuality and mutual benefit. It has lifted so many underserved communities around the world in ways that other systems haven’t. The challenge is that slavery raised the question of whether capitalism was exploitative. Capitalism doesn’t have to be.  

    Unfortunately, Andrew Johnson worked with the privileged class of the South (former plantation owners) and the creation of Black Codes created a dual system that Black Americans lived in for about 60 years until the Civil Rights Movement. Despite all of that, Black Americans in segregated communities were still able to foster economic empowerment and build robust communities. But the government and racist factions tore that apart. That has happened several times. In our book, we mention the Freedman’s Bureau, race riots and Black Wall Street. 

    Ultimately, you still did not have a breakthrough with those communities. Laws from the ‘30s created redlining and concentrated poverty and race. Then the presence of Great Society programs at the same time as the post-Integration movement led to Black flight. Upper class and middle-class Blacks left those communities. When affluent people–doctors and lawyers–left the community, those left behind were left with no real role models or high earners which led to concentrated impoverished communities. It’s similar in some white communities too. The reason we called the book “Underserved” is because we talk about poverty in white communities as well.  

    Lincoln saw the importance of investing in poor white communities as well as Black communities. His assassination cut short this work which could have helped in the Jim Crow South where poor whites were pitted against poor Blacks. A century later, the race and class warfare was something Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about during the Civil Rights era. 


    Q: Can you talk about the role of the church, particularly of the Black church, then and also today in driving outcomes that go toward economic opportunities?  

    Smith: First of all, the movement to free the slaves was undergirded by the Great Awakening, which created the abolitionist movement. The emergence of the Republican Party was anchored in religion. When we went into Reconstruction, many of the HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) that were launched were financed by religious organizations and invested in training preachers. The early leaders who went to Congress, like Hiram Revels, were ministers and the church became a safe place for individuals in the Black community to mobilize, organize and educate themselves.  

    New Black churches emerged out of that. Different denominations undergirded the Civil Rights Movement. The church has historically for the Black community been an anchor for change in our communities. However, over the last 40 years—and not just in the Black community—institutions overall including the church have lost the trust of the community. 

    Throughout America, people are less religious. Some people on the right blame taking prayer out of public schools, but it goes back to the methodology of trust. Some churches–not all of them–haven’t been the anchor that they used to be because trust is not there in the community. You might have a number of different churches in any underserved community. They are not all places that people go to or frequent. After being in seminary, I learned that in many cases churches have become more of a social club rather than an anchoring or change agent for society.  

    We need that anchoring because the church and faith community’s help in figuring out who you are as a person is extremely important in behavioral health. So many communities have dealt with the trauma of the pandemic and historic trauma. Being able to navigate the nuances of life is hard when you come from broken families. That’s a mission I have been on. We need the church and civil society more than ever.   

    Aside from the Black households, in which you see 70% are single-parent households, 50% of white households are single parent or divorced households.  


    Q: How can True Diversity or other equality-based, holistic frameworks for embracing diversity contribute to economic mobility?  

    Smith: Different perspectives help you to be competitive. Many other countries don’t necessarily have the model of diversity that America has and if we’re in a global competition of ideas, we are far ahead of people by celebrating our shared diversity. Celebrating that we are a melting pot is in the American DNA. We became a place where people came from all different walks of life to be able to participate in the American experience, which is based on individuality, ideas, freedom and liberty. That undergirds everything.  

    Companies and organizations that decide not to be intentional about thought diversity are losing the opportunity to benefit from that market share. But it has to be genuine, it has to be intentional. It cannot be virtue signaling. What the workplace is  trying to do is to harness our best asset which is the diversity of opinions and backgrounds. No one has the same experience. We celebrate that uniqueness that you can bring to the table and that uniqueness drives different ideas that an organization would never have thought about.  

    I’m not sure that designating a role for Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is right. If you have a C-suite, a better approach is having more COOs from different perspectives, more CFOs and CEOs. If you lean into being intentional about bringing in the best talent from diverse perspectives, you will get individuals in leadership roles who will commit to bringing other individuals with diverse perspectives along. For me working at the White House (and every organization I’ve been in), I’ve been able to identify individuals with different backgrounds that other leaders may have overlooked and they’ve ended up adding value.  

    It hasn’t been based on race but comparative advantage. Everyone brings different skills to a situation and it’s figuring out what comparative advantages individuals have that can make us more competitive. You want businesses or organizations to be intentional about what their talent needs are and to lean into those, not just check demographic boxes.  

    In the current landscape, DEI has become a talking point instead of looking at the most unique capabilities people bring to the table and what we can learn from them. We put blanket approaches in place that are not effective, when the unique qualities that people have because of their backgrounds is what we should focus on. 

    Click here to learn more about True Diversity.    

  • How Donors Can Fight Rising Antisemitism on College Campuses

    It’s been one month since Hamas terrorists brutally murdered over 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians – including babies, children, women and the elderly – and the international community was jarred back to the reality of the evil in this world.  

    Subsequently, an antisemitic backlash to the Israel-Hamas war has ensued. According to the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that fights antisemitism, in the weeks following the Hamas attack, there have been nearly four times as many instances of harassment, vandalism and assault directed at Jewish people and communities in comparison with the same period in 2022.  

    On college campuses in particular, there has been an alarming rise in threats against Jewish students. This week, a Cornell University student was arrested following online threats he would “bring an assault rifle to campus” and “shoot up” a dining hall where Jewish students eat. At Stanford University, an instructor was removed from the classroom after trying “to justify the actions of Hamas” and singling out Jewish students. In response to “an extremely disturbing pattern of antisemitic messages,” the Biden administration announced this week it would partner with campus law enforcement to provide federal resources to schools.  


    Universities Slow to Respond Following Hamas Attacks 

    Sadly, in the wake of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, many people tacitly supported their actions. Yet as anti-Israel rhetoric and actions have intensified among some groups, leaving Jewish students feeling scared and unsafe at American universities, too many higher educational institutions have hypocritically equivocated at the moment they should have stood firm in their opposition to antisemitic hate and violence. Encouragingly, charitable donors are uniquely positioned to hold higher education accountable to its commitments to the safety, dignity and rights of all people.    

    Days after the attacks and amid pressure from donors to respond, universities released statements expressing concern. The responses ran the gamut from clear moral condemnation to near sympathy for the attackers. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian student groups hijacked the conversation with their shocking statements and protests thereby coopting the universities’ responses.  

    Harvard’s reaction illuminates this point. It took days for the most elite university to release a statement, prompting former Harvard President Larry Summers to say: “The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student group’s statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral toward acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.” The university released multiple follow-up statements, but failed to strongly condemn a student statement that held Israel responsible for Hamas’ violence, prompting other alumni and donors to chide the university. 

    In comparison, University of Florida President and former U.S. senator Ben Sasse sent a letter to students and alumni explaining why it was unacceptable that his peers at other institutions were taking a neutral approach: “I will not tiptoe around this simple fact: What Hamas did is evil and there is no defense for terrorism. This shouldn’t be hard. [They] have been so weakened by their moral confusion that, when they see videos of raped women, hear of a beheaded baby or learn of a grandmother murdered in her home, the first reaction of some is to ‘provide context’ and try to blame the raped women, beheaded baby or the murdered grandmother,” he wrote.   

    The neutral approach that some colleges have taken – those that even chose to speak out —stands in stark contrast to letters and commitments made after the murder of George Floyd and the social justice protests of 2020. Many of those statements condemned the officer, the criminal justice system and systemic racism inherent in all institutions against Blacks. This leads us to wonder why those who embraced social justice and the equal rights and protections of all people haven’t stepped up now to defend their Jewish counterparts or condemn the slaughter of 1,400 people. What message does this send to Jewish students, faculty, donors and alumni? 

    As Sasse said on another occasion, “You got so many universities around the country [who] speak about every topic under the sun, Halloween costumes and microaggressions. But somehow in a moment of the most grave, grotesque attacks on Jewish people since the Holocaust, they all of a sudden say there’s too much complexity to say anything.” 


    Donors Can Help Combat Antisemitism on Campuses 

    Now, as violence and intimidation against Jewish students are rising, donors and alumni need not sit on the sidelines in dismay. They can use their voices and dollars to move administrations to stand against antisemitism in word and deed.  

    Philanthropic giving to higher education last year totaled $59.5 billion, including $23 billion from individual donations, according to a 2022 survey of U.S. universities by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. People giving $1 million or more made up less than 1% of donors but 57% of total donations.  

    While higher education giving is a rewarding and meaningful use of philanthropic dollars, it can be challenging for both donor intent and grant compliance. Nonetheless, accountability is a critical element of higher education funding. Academic institutions must be held accountable for the misuse of donor funds and that includes indirectly supporting activities that can be destructive to civility, undermine academic freedom or promote violence. 

    Recently, major higher education donors have ended their financial support and relationships with institutions over their response to the attack. For example, venture capitalist David Magerman, hedge fund billionaire Cliff Asness, private-equity billionaire Marc Rowan, former U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman and other high-profile donors cut ties with the University of Pennsylvania in protest of the university’s support for a festival featuring antisemitic speakers and its subsequent conflicting messages on the Hamas attack. Magerman, who is calling on other donors to do the same, noted, “I was just pushed over the edge by the equivocation of the response.” 

    At Harvard, retailer Leslie Wexner announced he was pulling funding from Harvard over its refusal to support Israel. Meanwhile, a group of prominent alumni including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and investors Seth Klarman and Bill Helman published an open letter criticizing the school’s leadership for creating an increasingly hostile environment for Harvard’s Jewish students and providing steps the university can take to remedy its actions. 

    Perhaps the removal of charitable dollars will nudge universities to action. Academic institutions may say their hands are tied or attempt to hide behind claims they are protecting academic freedom and free speech. However, that rings hollow when we consider the alarming censorship on campus today. Let’s remind them of their sundry diversity, equity and inclusion efforts – from speech codes to removal of faculty — that have been weaponized against opposing viewpoints on campus. There is something deeply wrong when people argue “words are violence” but make excuses for and even celebrate one of the most inhumane acts of violence on a civilian population – including at least 30 Americans – in recent memory.  

    While faculty and students have the right to their viewpoints, the university has a responsibility to ensure everyone’s physical safety and – given their outspoken stance on social justice – to speak out when atrocities like the unprompted murders of innocent Jews occur in the world. And when they forget, donors should remind them.   

  • Denisha Allen (Merriweather) on Why Black Minds Matter


    Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Denisha Allen (Merriweather), founder of Black Minds Matter, a “national movement to celebrate Black minds, support excellence and promote the development of high-quality school options for Black students.” Allen, an American Federation for Children senior fellow, is a champion for school choice and a Florida tax-credit scholarship recipient. Through Black Minds Matter, she hopes to help provide access to an excellent education for every Black student. 

    The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.  

    Q: You founded Black Minds Matter, a project of the American Federation for Children Growth Fund (AFC), in 2020, a time when many Americans were seeking to address social injustices in our country. What led you to create this organization and what role does it serve? 

    Allen: I came to AFC after working at the U.S. Department of Education with Secretary DeVos. I worked with the Trump administration for two years, and then came to AFC as a director of Family Engagement. Then, in 2020, I wrote an op-ed in Real Clear Education about my frustrations in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Our country was in civil unrest, maybe even the whole world was in civil unrest, and people were looking for ways to challenge racism. I wanted to bring attention to areas that would help Black America attain empowerment and excellence in all aspects of life. And, to me, that meant focusing on education. When I looked at the data, I saw that Black students are not reading on grade level or graduating from high school at the same rates as their white and Asian counterparts. I wanted to focus on changing that.  

    Unfortunately, at that moment in the national conversation, there was not a widespread initiative from the Black Lives Matter movement to talk about education and education reform. So, I coined the term Black Minds Matter to highlight that we need to focus on education freedom. We received a tremendous amount of support for what we stood for. And I’m proud that one of our first initiatives was to bring together a network of Black school founders. This was very personal for me because I went to a Black-founded school, and I benefited directly from the school choice movement.   

    Our mission is to nourish Black students with a rich education of their parents’ choice by any means necessary. Our goal is to expand our reach by engaging new audiences. This includes both Republican and Democratic elected officials, HBCU’s and our growing Black Founders Network. We are also committed to expanding our visibility through high quality content that can also be used to generate revenue for our work.  

    Lastly, we want to bring awareness about education freedom to the communities where Black students are most likely to be relegated to poor performing public schools. We have over 430 Black-founded schools in our online directory at www.BlackMindsMatter.net, and 150 Black school founders in our network. We were thrilled to have many of them in attendance at our second annual Black Minds Matter Summit in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.  

    Q: Can you tell us more about your personal connection to the work you are doing? 

    Allen: I went to a private school in Jacksonville, Florida, on scholarship from sixth grade onward. I failed the third grade twice because I couldn’t read. As you can imagine, I had very low self-esteem, and I was lashing out by starting physical fights. My life trajectory was going in the same direction as many of the people in my family who had all dropped out of school. When I switched schools, I went from getting F’s and D’s to getting straight A’s.  When I founded Black Minds Matter, I saw the opportunity to highlight Black-owned schools as a part of that narrative, since school choice had such a transformative impact on my own life. 

    Q: Your website says that nourishing Black minds with a rich education is the first step to breaking generational poverty and societal inequities. What do you mean by societal inequities, and how does education combat this problem? 

    Allen: In America, there’s a class issue and there are a race issues, and sometimes those issues get intermingled and intertwined. But, at the root of both of those conversations is our education system. And the data shows that Black and brown students are performing the worst academically in this country. Just to give you an example, the NWEA just came out with a new study that follows in the same vein as recent NAEP [The Nation’s Report Card] scores. They said students on the whole will need three to four months of additional schooling in order to catch up from recent learning loss.  

    Shockingly, they found Black students will need two additional months to catch up. So, you’re telling me that Black students will need five to six months of additional schooling to make up for learning loss. When the system is pumping out hundreds of thousands of Black students who can’t read or do math into society, they end up in the criminal justice system. We call it the school-to-prison-pipeline. That is a societal inequity. That’s a civil rights issue. Black kids are not able to read. We need to change that. 

    When we look at education in America, we need to ensure that no kid is relegated to poor performing or failing schools because of where they live. Students in poorer neighborhoods are not receiving the same education as students who are going to schools where almost 90% of parents own their homes. We can solve this socio-economic/racial problem if we can create a market where competition is going to create incentives that perform better for students. Education freedom allows parents to choose the best school for their child regardless of school type. I sit on the board for Step Up For Students in Florida – the largest school choice program in the country. In Florida, we’ve seen academic outcomes for students in traditional public schools increase with every expansion of the state’s scholarship program. That’s because everyone is competing for students.  

    Q: Our 2021 Simon-DeVos Prize Winner Bill Oberndorf, chairman of the board of the American Federation for Children, has called access to education the civil rights issue of our time. Do you agree, and if so, why is that the case? 

    Allen: I absolutely do. It is the civil rights issue of our time. One of the goals of Black Minds Matter is to help the public see that school choice and education freedom are a part of the longer struggle for freedom in the United States and have deep historical roots. The conversation has been led by policy folks for so long, which is important. But I really want to make it more approachable and accessible to everyone. When we talk about the history of freedom in America, it is inextricably tied to access to education, from slavery through the Antebellum period all the way up to today. The struggle has always been access to education.  

    One of the ways we are working to showcase the connection between freedom and education is by conducting exhibits that illustrate the extent to which slaves wanted to read. One part of our exhibit showcases findings from archaeologists who found “pit schools” or deep holes in the ground where they also found tablets and pencils for writing. The slaves understood that their freedom was rooted in the ability to read and write, and they risked their lives to try to attain those skills. I always like to say there is freedom of the body and also of the mind, and that has always been the goal of African Americans in this country. They have never been divorced from one another. 

    Q: The recent Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in higher education could impact students throughout the country. How do you feel about this decision and why? 
     
    Allen: I think it’s going to be very obvious that we need better options for Black students, and this decision makes that clearer. Black kids are not reading on grade level and removing affirmative action in higher education means Black kids will have to perform even better academically to be accepted into colleges and universities.   

    Q: As you look ahead, what are you most excited about for Black Minds Matter? 

    Allen: I’m always very excited about the Black School Founders network. They are amazing, so to be able to support them and champion the work they do for students is very rewarding. Many of them have models that are worthy of replication. We are going to focus on capacity building and finding ways to support them. I’m also very excited to get more involved in states and districts with the worst academic and life outcomes for Black and brown students, and to advocate for better outcomes in the lowest performing districts in the country. For example, I get excited when I think about a city like Baltimore, where reading and math levels are abysmal. The creation of education savings accounts in that city will help students access better choices. Through projects like this, we are going to close the achievement gap.   

    For more information about this organization or others providing Pathways to Opportunity, reach out to Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Erica Haines.

  • True Diversity Advocates Respond to Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decisions

    In 6-3 and 6-2 rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race-based preferences in college admissions, writing “The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.” 

    President of Students for Fair Admissions Edward Blum, the organization that filed the lawsuits, applauded the ruling, saying, “The polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student’s race and ethnicity as a factor to admit or reject them has been overruled. These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country’s civil rights laws.” 

    The Roundtable compiled reactions from our True Diversity partners, who signed our statement of principles. The True Diversity initiative provides an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity that values each person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need. Read the Roundtable’s official statement on the ruling here.   

    Ian Rowe, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and founder and CEO of Vertex Partnership Academies, which is a charter school serving high school students in the Bronx, said: 

    “Years from now, Black students admitted to top schools will say thank you Supreme Court for a decision that removes the perception the only reason I got in is due to my race. You re-established merit as the core criteria to be considered against a standard bar of excellence.” 

    For more from Rowe on how to provide pathways to opportunity for disadvantaged individuals, check out his book “Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for ALL Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power.”  

    Devon Westhill, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, whose mission is to “promote colorblind equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in America,” said: 

    “The Harvard and UNC cases provided the Court a great opportunity to clean up the mess it created by its decades-long experiment permitting a racial spoils system in college admissions. It has now seized the opportunity—on the 20th anniversary of its misguided Grutter opinion—to vindicate the American principle of equality under law. As a result, today we are a more perfect union, notwithstanding more work that lies ahead.” 

    The Center for Equal Opportunity filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff at every stage of these cases. Check out Westhill’s recent blog on this topic, entitled “Shall We Overcome: What is the Alternative to Affirmative Action?” 

    Stephanie Holmes, an experienced labor and employment lawyer and founder of BrighterSideHR, said: 

    “While the Court’s decision today is not directly applicable to the workplace, employers should take notice. Race-based preferences in the employment context have always been prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the provision applicable to employment. In recent years, however, the proliferation of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs in corporate America, while well-intentioned, have increased the focus on an employee or applicant’s race or sex. This has provided incentives for employers to make hiring or other employment decisions based on protected categories, such as race, which is unlawful.   

    The Court’s majority opinion underscores the value and importance of treating all people – all employees – as the unique individuals they are in order to fulfill the promises guaranteed to every American in our Constitution. Even though the Supreme Court’s decision does not change existing law in the employment context, employers should be prepared for increased focus on and questions around their DEI approach. Employers are encouraged to use this opportunity to review their diversity programs and be prepared for questions from employees, who may have a wide variety of opinions on this topic.”   

    For more from Holmes, an author of our True Diversity toolkit, please read “True Diversity: Legal Overview & Recommendations for Employers.” 

    Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that defends Americans’ liberties from government overreach and abuse, responded to the ruling in a Fox News op-ed. Legal fellow Ethan Blevins said: 

    “While this is a key win for individual rights, the court did not go far enough. The court should have held that race can play no role in university admissions whatsoever. Instead, the court has opted to prop up a feeble precedent that leaves the door ajar for ongoing discrimination.” 

    Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in favor of SFFA in these cases. Read more about their  litigation efforts here.  

    Patrice Onwuka, Philanthropy Roundtable adjunct senior fellow and director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at the Independent Women’s Forum, said: 

    “As a society, we cannot remedy past discrimination by creating new inequities; otherwise, we lock ourselves into a vicious cycle of injustice. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that educational institutions must not infringe on the civil rights of one group of students based on their race regardless of whether some view the desired outcome as virtuous.   

     “Every child in America deserves access to a quality education regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or class. Education is not only an equalizer, but it anchors the ladder of economic opportunity. If we want to ensure that disadvantaged children, including those from minority backgrounds, can compete for spaces in higher education, we should accelerate school choice efforts and be committed to holding all kids to the same high standards.”  

    For more from Onwuka on this topic, read her Philanthropy Roundtable research on the effectiveness of diversity quotas on corporate boards in “Improving Board Diversity: Lessons from Sweden and Norway.” She has also written about the pitfalls of charitable organizations collecting demographic data and using it to make philanthropic decisions. Read more here. 

  • Celebrating the Legacy of Julius Rosenwald This Juneteenth

    On Monday, the nation will celebrate its newest national holiday, Juneteenth. June 19 commemorates the day in 1865 when the last enslaved people were declared free in America.  

    One way to celebrate Juneteenth is through powerful depictions of freedom fighters and their efforts to achieve equality for all. Julius Rosenwald, who rose to become president of Sears, Roebuck and Company, is one philanthropist who comes to mind. Rosenwald, the son of Jewish immigrants, was committed to seeing Blacks improve their lives through education and self-reliance. He helped finance the construction of over 5,300 schools in 15 southern states between 1912 and 1932. His work contributed to the education of more than 600,000 Black students, including poet Maya Angelou and former Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia. 

    Rosenwald and freed Blacks such as Booker T. Washington, whom Rosenwald partnered with, understood that education would be the key to uplifting Black people. Their new freedom was just the start of a long road to realizing the pathways to opportunity that our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Through education, Rosenwald and others would help Blacks become economically independent.  

    Yet the challenges they had to overcome were great. In 1880, three out of four (76%) Blacks were illiterate in the South. By 1910, that rate had fallen to one out of three (33.3%). Nevertheless, over 40% of Black men were still illiterate. Rosenwald’s schools taught children and adults alike to read and become productive citizens, leading to tremendous outcomes. A Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago analysis in 2009 found that “The Rosenwald program accounts for at least 30% of the sizable educational gains of Blacks during the 1910s and 1920s.” 


    Creating a National Park to Honor Rosenwald 

    To honor Rosenwald’s legacy, in 2020, Congress directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to study the feasibility of designating sites associated with the life of Julius Rosenwald as a part of the National Park Service. This move stemmed from the work of the Rosenwald Park Campaign, an organization of volunteers dedicated to honoring Julius Rosenwald and protecting the Rosenwald schools by creating a National Historic Park. Philanthropy Roundtable joins hundreds of organizations in supporting this campaign. 

    Some of the very people who are now charged with creating the National Historic Park for the Rosenwald Schools understand firsthand the importance of Rosenwald’s legacy. Robert G. Stanton, the first African-American director of the National Park Service, noted:  

    “I personally experienced the pain and stain of segregation under the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine, attending a dilapidated two-room elementary school. With support from the NAACP, my parents and others filed suit in Federal District Court in 1949 to have a new school built in the community and eventually won the case. They were committed to quality education for their children, as were African-American parents throughout the rural south. We children also possessed what Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune called a ‘thirst for education.’ The Rosenwald Schools gave many African-American children access to educational opportunities that they would not otherwise have had.”

    In an effort to further promote and raise funding for this National Historic Park, the board of the Campaign commissioned a film entitled “Rosenwald: Toward A More Perfect Union,” directed and produced by Charles Poe, co-founder of the Parks Channel, a new social media platform for content about national parks. This film tells “The extraordinary story of a forgotten philanthropist, a Jewish son of immigrants from Chicago who became a champion for Black education in the Jim Crow South.” Recently, it received the award for best documentary short at the People’s Film Festival in Harlem, New York. 

    This film will be shown as part of the Fifteenth Film Festival in the Washington, D.C. area on June 18. Showing this film just before Juneteenth sends a powerful message that, as we remember the end of one of our darkest periods of history, there was a period of hope and inspiration that followed.  

  • Saving the Arts from Politics and Presentism

    How philanthropy can support the arts in an age of activism

    Philanthropy Roundtable’s Values-Based Giving Program connects our donor community to high-impact organizations that advance our shared values of liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility. This story is part of our campaign highlighting how donors and nonprofits work together to improve lives. Interested in learning more about Values-Based Giving and the services our team provides? Click here.

    Lincoln Jones doesn’t like to talk about ballet. That’s because as the founder of American Contemporary Ballet, his Los Angeles-based company of 21 dancers that mounts some 70 performances a year, he thinks about ballet in a different way than most. “Imagine a theoretical art form that is populated by almost impossibly beautiful creatures,” he says. “Angels, practically, angels inhabited by pure rhythm, and moving in a way that is unmistakable proof of human nobility.”

    Jones’s reverence for ballet has meant going against the grain of traditional staging, bringing the art form to warehouses and open spaces where his audiences can be immersed in the performances. But his quest for independence also goes beyond the stage. In summer 2020, Jones found himself dancing on a newly unstable platform. Like arts organizations across the country, Jones was pressured to post a black square to his company’s social media accounts. The reason: to show solidarity with Black Lives Matter. It wasn’t just a request. It was more like a demand. Yet, Jones refused. One of the few arts leaders to do so, he faced a backlash that almost overturned his company.

    “In 2020, they tried to kill us,” he recounts. “The ‘black square’ swept the arts world. Everyone was supposed to post the black square in support of Black Lives Matter. I didn’t do it. For one, because I read what Black Lives Matter was and I didn’t support it. And, two, it was not my prerogative to represent the artists in my company politically.”

    For his sin of omission, Jones’s dancers were threatened. They feared for the future of their careers. They worried they would be ostracized from the world of dance. But Jones stood his ground, writing an open letter to his company explaining his actions. There were resignations and loss of funding, but his audience returned. Now, two years later, as other LA-based arts organizations still find their numbers down, American Contemporary Ballet is up and dancing to a sold-out run.

    “There is no thought of the moralizing and the guilt trips that now come with what should be joyful, personal and celebratory experiences,” Jones says of the impact of today’s politics on the arts.

    In contrast, for his company, “Not a single audience member has complained that we have not apologized for the land we are dancing on, or the music that we’re dancing to or the color of our skin,” said Jones. “They all just seem to want a good show.”

    Jones is now one of the signatories of Philanthropy Roundtable’s “True Diversity” Initiative, which published a statement of principles pledging to “return love, compassion and empathy to the diversity conversation by embracing an equality-based perspective.” His journey reveals the challenges of finding a middle ground in a culture that has become anything but neutral. The same is true for today’s arts funders who seek to stay above the fray of contemporary politics.


    The problem is that, in the past few years, mainstream arts organizations have become besotted with politics. Transcendence is out. Presentism is in. Arts for art’s sake? Today, it can seem more like art for the sake of climate change, social justice or racial redress. In the news, we now see activists storming museums to throw soup at paintings or glue themselves to the walls. Yet these outward convulsions often only mirror the vandalism from within. Mainstream arts leaders are attacking the legacies of their own institutions. The director of the American Museum of Natural History has overseen the destruction of her institution’s memorial to Theodore Roosevelt. The director of the Whitney Museum of American Art gave the green light to an exhibition that attacked one of his own trustees, who was forced to resign. The director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art has called his institution “connected with a logic of what is defined as white supremacy.”

    In a recent City Journal article, “Guardians in Retreat,” Heather Mac Donald decries the firing of the 82 volunteer docents at the Art Institute of Chicago and their replacement with six paid educators. The reason? The color of their skin. In the mantra of “diversity, equity and inclusion,” the museum claimed its docent program had “centered certain stories while marginalizing and suppressing others.”

    Mac Donald continues:

    “The racialist wave that swept the United States following the arrest-related death of George Floyd in May 2020 has taken down scientists, artists and journalists. Entire traditions, whether in the humanities, music or scientific discovery, have been reduced to one fatal characteristic: whiteness. And now the anti-white crusade is targeting a key feature of American exceptionalism: the spirit of philanthropy and volunteerism.”

    Beyond these racialized attacks, cultural philanthropy continues to find itself up against the notion that charity should be spent on only utilitarian concerns. The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer reflects this Benthamite attitude, named for English writer Jeremy Bentham, in his book “The Life You Can Save”: “Philanthropy for the arts or for cultural activities is, in a world like this one, morally dubious.”

    Singer pointed to the $45 million the Metropolitan Museum of Art spent on a Duccio painting in 2004 as an amount that would pay for cataract operations for nearly one million blind people in the developing world. “If the museum were on fire,” he wrote, “would anyone think it right to save the Duccio from the flames, rather than a child?”

    Of course, the choice is a false equivalence. Philanthropy is not a zero-sum equation. A dollar directed to a museum does not remove a dollar from a hospital, food bank or shelter. And the soul is a vital organ of its own. American philanthropists have long understood this call as they established a vital legacy of arts support. Without a monarchy, largely with support from the state, private philanthropy created and underwrote American cultural organizations in ways that have become the envy of the world and a reflection of the virtues of our democratic ideals. Unfortunately, for many of today’s progressive cultural leaders, these ideals are just the problem as they seek to overturn this democratic legacy and undermine American legitimacy. They check all of the boxes except the one that matters: as Jones puts it, the box for “human nobility.”

    For philanthropists who still believe in America’s founding principles, funding for the arts can be a dance of its own. Sometimes the answer is to go it alone—funding one’s own cultural projects. With support from the Morris and Alma Schapiro Fund, the painter Jacob Collins founded a school called the Grand Central Atelier in 2014—after taking on students informally for more than two decades—that is dedicated to reviving the classical traditions of art. His first students from the 1990s have become his faculty, and his school now attracts students and attention from across the globe. Likewise in 2009, Rick DeVos founded ArtPrize, a contemporary art competition and festival that has invigorated Grand Rapids, Michigan, by offering nearly $500,000 in prizes and attracting half a million visitors a year, with art displayed throughout the city.

    Fortunately, outside of the world of land acknowledgments, preferred pronouns and black squares, there are still partners to be found who value art for art’s sake and the freedom that spirit represents. Take Riverside Symphony, composer and cofounder Anthony Korf’s 41-year-old Lincoln Center orchestra that rejects identity politics through its concerts and music literacy program for inner-city school children.

    “We program music on the basis of its value, or the potential of a contemporary composer to achieve that stature over time,” he says, going against the DEI mandates of many of today’s foundation functionaries.

    Or consider the National Civic Art Society, the advocacy organization led by Justin Shubow promoting America’s classical vernacular as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

    “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us,” Shubow says, quoting Winston Churchill. “Our Founding Fathers were architects in their own right. They chose classical architecture to harken back to Rome and Athens.”

    What these arts organizations all share is a commitment to beauty and excellence that rises above contemporary trends and political convenience.

    The answer for today’s arts funders, one museum trustee tells me, is to look beyond the biggest organizations and the supposed prestige conferred by their board seats. Instead, he says, “Look to the second and third tier museum,” noting the abundance of local arts institutions that can still mount serious shows by flying under the radar of the Fords, Mellons and Carnegies and their progressive mandates. Join up with other connoisseurs, he advises, who don’t want to be led around by the nose.

    Likewise at Bader Philanthropies, one strategy of funding the arts is through its “Building Resilient Communities” initiative. “Through this strategy,” says the program officer Bridgett Gonzalez, “we are able to embrace the rich cultural diversity that embodies our local artistic community, exemplified through creative and traditional art forms.”

    When it comes to the arts, the solution, ultimately, goes beyond the politics of left and right. “There is a very specific political ideology that has taken over,” concludes Lincoln Jones. “It has for a very long time. This did not start in 2020. You have art that is politically based. And then there is art that is based on the human desire for connection and spirituality.”

    Nevertheless, to avoid the politics of art, it now takes some understanding of the art of politics and a willingness to dig deeper into the cultural organizations that expect your support. The question is not what is right or left, but what is right or wrong when it comes to the arts and the bravery to embrace, in English poet Matthew Arnold’s famous phrase, what is still “the best that has been thought and said in the world.”

    James Panero is the executive editor of The New Criterion.

    (Photo Credit: American Contemporary Ballet)

  • Philanthropic Responses to the Closing of the American Mind

    How Charitable Giving Is Helping Expand Freedom of Expression on College Campuses

    Philanthropy Roundtable’s Values-Based Giving Program connects our donor community to high-impact organizations that advance our shared values of liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility. This story is part of our campaign highlighting how donors and nonprofits work together to improve lives. Interested in learning more about Values-Based Giving and the services our team provides? Click here.

    The fundamental purpose of higher education is to provide Americans of all backgrounds the opportunity for advanced learning, foster the pursuit of knowledge and provide training in specific fields of study or practice. But in recent years, ideologically charged threats to freedom of thought and academic inquiry have expanded on college and university campuses across the country under the guise of “diversity” initiatives or policies. Many campuses have become hot beds for a “cancel culture” driven by political ideology that has intimidated students and professors, leaving them afraid to express their views, popular or otherwise.

    This truly is the closing of the American mind, then throwing away the key, a mortal threat to the very soul of scholarly inquiry as well as educational and professional advancement, which are building blocks of individual and economic flourishing. 

    Fortunately, private philanthropy is well-positioned to help the leaders and organizations who have stepped up to assess and remedy this grave crisis. Nonprofits are mobilizing students, faculty and alumni by providing resources on multiple fronts—from litigation to advocacy to media efforts—to raise awareness about this attack on free speech and association and promote the value of intellectual diversity at educational institutions.

    By challenging what has become a dangerous status quo, organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the Academic Freedom Alliance, and Alumni Free Speech Alliance are working hard to maintain an open exchange of ideas and critical thinking in our colleges and universities. While others, like the Institute for Humane Studies, are creating alternative models that help demonstrate innovative approaches to higher education. The work of these organizations varies, but each is dedicated to combating an epidemic that is chilling speech and hindering students and faculty from engaging with diverse ideas through respectful debate and discussion.     

    A Crisis of Free Speech and Expression on College Campuses

    To underscore the seriousness of this problem, one can cite numerous examples from university and college campuses around the country.

    FIRE is dedicated to defending and sustaining all Americans’ individual rights to free speech and free thought, with a special emphasis on our nation’s campuses. According to FIRE senior fellow Robert Shibley, college administrators have become “so amenable to unlawful or unconscionable demands that they set themselves up for the many calls to punish or silence students we’ve seen.”

    Last year, FIRE partnered with College Pulse to conduct the largest survey ever of college students’ experiences with free speech. Nearly 45,000 students participated from more than 200 colleges, and only one-in-four students (22%) reported they felt “very comfortable” discussing “a controversial political topic” with other students on campus. The survey also found that about three-in-five students (59%) said they would be uncomfortable disagreeing with a professor publicly on a controversial topic, while one-in-five (22%) said they often engage in self-censorship.

    Another recent survey conducted from 2019-2021 by the nonpartisan nonprofit Heterodox Academy, which is dedicated to improving “the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement,” found that nearly nine out of 10 students believe “colleges should encourage students and professors to be open to learning from people whose beliefs differ from their own,” while almost the same high percentage of students believe that “colleges should welcome students and professors with a lot of different points of view.”

    In comparing these two reports, it appears college students agree that open inquiry and free expression are valuable. However, many remain somewhat fearful of expressing their own views to their peers and faculty.

    Fortunately, organizations like FIRE and Heterodox Academy have resources available for them. FIRE’s Student Network offers a community of peers who care about civil liberties as well as opportunities to learn about students’ rights on campus. This year, Heterodox Academy is launching a new Campus Community Network with 23 chapters across the U.S. and Canada, including MIT, UC Berkeley and McGill University. Each community is action-oriented, led by Heterodox Academy member co-chairs from among faculty, staff or graduate students, and charged with hosting monthly gatherings, organizing events and collaborating with fellow campus leaders.

    It’s important to realize that students are not the only ones suffering on campus. FIRE publishes a database that tracks when a professor, researcher, lecturer or other individual with an academic position at a college or university is investigated, penalized or otherwise professionally sanctioned for “engaging in constitutionally protected forms of speech.” They have documented nearly 900 examples—more than 120 in 2022 alone—of people being targeted by either the political left or right since 2000.

    Philanthropic leaders and charitable organizations are stepping up to support organizations pushing back against efforts to suppress free speech and expression on college campuses, as well as developing new ways of fostering open and intellectually diverse learning environments in higher education. They include the Barry Foundation, the Stanton Foundation and the Institute for Humane Studies.

    Donors and nonprofits are bringing together resources in different yet complementary and effective ways to motivate alumni to engage with their alma maters and their student populations, provide high-tech alternatives to traditional academic forums for formulating scholarship and support litigation that defends professors and students whose rights have been violated and who are facing reputational and career repercussions.

    Academic Freedom Alliance: Promoting “Freedom of Thought, of Inquiry, of Discussion”

    In early 2021, academics from across the ideological spectrum came together and formed the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) to protect college and university faculty members’ right to speak, teach and publish the results of their research without fear of sanction or punishment. According to the nonprofit’s website, AFA’s purpose is to help scholars “fulfill their vocation as truth-seekers.” Its diverse membership includes socialist philosophy professor Cornel West, conservative Princeton law professor Robert P. George, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen and prominent liberal free speech attorney Floyd Abrams.

    It is one thing to state an ambitious purpose, but AFA members have formulated effective strategies. AFA Director of Operations Howard Muncy points out, its members embrace “the NATO-like principle of an attack on one being treated as an attack on all” – transcending any philosophical differences or disagreements between an academic who is subjected to attack and the colleagues coming to his or her aid. To the AFA, an assault on academic freedom anywhere is an assault on academic freedom everywhere.

    When professors or scholars find themselves under siege for exercising their First Amendment rights, the AFA will raise funds to support any necessary litigation on their behalf. And it carries out this defense without endorsing any content. In just two years, the AFA has supported 13 cases. During that same time period, it expanded its membership from 217 founding members to more than 700 practicing academics today, a credit to their strategy of refusing to choose ideological sides.

    This is also why the John and Daria Barry Foundation chose to help protect academic freedom by becoming AFA’s first donor.

    “To carry out their mission, scholars must be free to pursue the truth,” Daria Barry emphasized. “Our foundation helped to create the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) to ensure that professors who are unfairly censored can find a common source of strength by banding together with their peers from across the political spectrum.”

    And it’s not only the scholars who benefit, notes Barry. “In today’s climate, the AFA serves to recall universities—and their broader communities—to their first duty to their students: to pursue the truth,” she said.

    Alumni Organize to Support Free Speech at Institutions of Higher Education

    It takes courage for a faculty member to risk the comfort of his or her position in opposing politically charged attacks on academic freedom – courage which not every professor or scholar who cherishes free inquiry will be willing to exhibit. But alumni are significantly less vulnerable.

    With this in mind, graduates of Cornell University, Davidson College, Princeton University, the University of Virginia and Washington and Lee University formed the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) in 2021, allying with the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse, Princetonians for Free Speech, UVA’s Jefferson Council and Washington and Lee’s Generals Redoubt.

    According to AFSA Chairman Emeritus Edward Yingling, the group is working to establish individual speech alumni groups at colleges and universities, then helping them grow and thrive. Like the AFA, AFSA does not discriminate based on ideology in defending the rights of faculty and students.

    “In the current environment of intolerance of thought, our colleges and universities are becoming monocultures. They’re losing their reason for being,” said Yingling. “So our job is multi-faceted. We shine a spotlight on any objectionable actions against faculty or students. … But that’s just one element of what we do.”

    AFSA is building a list of alumni across the country who support its mission, extending support to faculty and students so they do not feel isolated and taking part in events with third party groups, including partnerships between the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), Braver Angels and BridgeUSA to encourage depolarization and respectful engagement among students on divisive issues. At present, AFSA boasts 15 member alumni groups actively engaged with their alma maters with an ambitious goal of increasing that number to 40 by the end of the year.

    The Stanton Foundation, which primarily educates at-risk children and promotes adoption, provided AFSA with its initial grant. Stanton Foundation Program Director Laurie Slap applauded AFSA’s “thoughtful, coherent approach” to growing its membership and influence as an “umbrella group that is bringing together different organizations,” citing support for AFSA from MIT’s Free Speech Alliance. That organization was founded in 2021 when University of Chicago geophysicist Dorian Abbot was disinvited from delivering MIT’s prestigious John Carlson Lecture. The invitation was rescinded following a student outcry over a Newsweek article Abbot co-wrote arguing that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on campus, among other things, violate the “ethical and legal principle of equal treatment.”

    Digital Platform Provides “Intellectual Community Building”

    Another nonprofit pursuing freedom of thought – albeit in a different manner – is the Institute for Humane Studies, which supports scholars applying classical liberal principles to today’s most pressing challenges. Ryan Stowers, executive director of the Charles Koch Foundation, which has long been one of IHS’s financial supporters, is excited about its plans to make full use of technology in the fight to promote robust scholarly discourse.

    “In the last five years the attacks on scholarly freedom have escalated to a level you wouldn’t have expected,” Stowers said. “That’s a reflection of increased intolerance in the exchange of ideas elsewhere in society. But universities are meant to be above this, to be a safe place where the entire array of ideas can be discussed. Instead they’re now under constant threat.”

    “Philanthropy has to think through the strategy of how to fight that threat,” said Stowers, “and IHS has one of the most innovative approaches.”

    For more than 60 years, IHS has been connecting scholars across the “humane disciplines” of economics, history, law, philosophy and political science through interdisciplinary programs around the ideas and institutions that underlie free, open and prosperous societies. Economist Emily Chamlee-Wright, the organization’s president and CEO, described the new IHS initiative as a digital gathering place that, once fully developed, will break down intellectual silos and help scholars do their best work.

    According to Chamlee-Wright, like IHS’s traditional programs, which will continue, the digital gathering place will attract scholars seeking bottom-up solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges in a context of intellectual humility and openness.

    Education has long been central to America’s success in numerous fields from medicine and the advanced sciences to the globally competitive field of computer technology plus law and economics. Defending and promoting the freedom to learn, teach or research without ideologically motivated interference, bullying or other threats is critical to any effort focused on restoring or reforming older higher education institutions or providing new pathways to opportunity.

    Through philanthropy and its partnership with these dedicated nonprofits, we are witnessing support for independent, critical thinking on campuses and beyond, including innovative technology that empowers scholars and faculty researchers to share ideas openly, and ultimately, to strengthen our free society.

    For those concerned about what’s being taught to our next generation of leaders headed into the business world, government agencies, medical community, and yes, the classroom as educators, we must remember that stifling debate, diverse viewpoints and the ability of students, faculty and staff to engage with them does not create a skilled practitioner, a bold innovator or even a savvy voter. Instead, it results in students being woefully unprepared for the “real world” and without the skills needed to succeed when they bid their campuses farewell.

    Thomas McArdle was a White House speechwriter for President George W. Bush and is a longtime political journalist. He was speechwriter for Export-Import Bank of the United States Chairman Kimberly Reed during the Trump Administration and was senior writer for Investor’s Business Daily. He writes a column for the Epoch Times and contributes to IssuesInsights.com.