Topic: Ohio

state of the United States of America

  • 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.    

  • This Labor Day, Pioneer Institute Highlights Importance of Vocational Training

    As Americans celebrate the achievements of our nation’s workers this Labor Day, Philanthropy Roundtable is proud to support organizations that eliminate barriers to upward mobility, expand opportunity and reward hard work. I recently sat down with Jim Stergios, executive director of Pioneer Institute, a think tank that envisions a nation where people can prosper and society can thrive because of “world-class options in education, health care, transportation and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent.” 

    The interview below has been edited for length and clarity. 

    Q: You lead Pioneer Institute (PI), a Massachusetts-based public policy think tank that concentrates on education, health care and economic opportunity. What is your mission and what role do you play in the broader public policy landscape? 

    Stergios: Pioneer’s mission is to advance innovation across multiple states in education, health care and economic opportunity through best-in-class research, advocacy and legal action.  

    Our education team works in multiple states with the goal of preparing students to be good citizens and economically successful. Our strategic focus is on innovations, especially the expansion of public (charter and vocational-technical) and private school choices, not on fixing broken public systems.  

    Our health care strategy focuses on the life sciences. In the last half century, the U.S. shed 40% of its hospital beds, largely because of the rise in outpatient care made possible by massive medical advances. Our life sciences team works in seven states and Washington, D.C., to promote transparent pricing, fend off price controls and expand adoption of pricing strategies that will make cutting-edge treatments more affordable.  

    On economic opportunity, we run on dual tracks, defending Massachusetts’s economic competitiveness and piloting in several states, for now, a program on the catalytic role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. economy as a way of building an understanding of capitalism. 


    Q: Over the last 30 years, PI has focused on policies that expand opportunities for all people. Where do you see the biggest opening for making gains in this area?  

    Stergios: In these increasingly politically charged times, organizations must focus on research, partnerships and legal strategies. That’s why we started the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center. Its job is to create precedents that will have immediate and lasting impact. Currently, it is focused on equal treatment for special needs students in private schools, enforcement of state obligations to teach U.S. history and civics, and the defense of immigrant entrepreneurs harmed by unnecessary government regulations. 

    Pioneer has seen significant progress in recent years, in Supreme Court cases like Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, where our amicus brief was cited in Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, and Carson v. Makin. Since these decisions, Pioneer’s research and advocacy on the ground in 10 states assisted local activists in securing legislation expanding choice.  


    Q:  While vocational training in schools has fallen out of favor over the last several years, you have focused on it quite a bit, authoring a book on this issue called “Hands-On Achievement: Massachusetts’s National Model Vocational-Technical Schools.” Why have you focused on this topic? 

    Stergios: Education reformers usually focus on either charter or private school choice. Massachusetts vocational-technical schools are public schools of choice that were ignored for too long. The commonwealth’s 1993 Education Reform Act required vocational-technical students to pass the same tests as their peers in other public schools to earn a diploma. That, along with a system in which students alternate weekly between academic and vocational education, has created a network of schools that outperform the state’s comprehensive high schools, ensure that students graduate with strong work skills and credentials, and have dropout rates a third of the statewide average.  

    That is especially impressive because Massachusetts’s vocational-technical schools educate more special needs and low-income students than other public schools. No state has gotten vocational-technical education right the way Massachusetts has. These graduates have a choice of pursuing further education or entering jobs that offer family-sustaining wages—without college and the debt that often accompanies it. Importantly, expanding stronger vocational programs in other states will address labor shortages in the trades and technology manufacturing and services sectors. 


    Q:  How have your strategic partnerships helped PI expand vocational and technical school efforts outside of Massachusetts?   

    Stergios: Pioneer is partnering widely to extend the impact of our vocational-technical school work. Through our longstanding partnership with the Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators, we were able to connect with national industry organizations such as SkillsUSA and Advance CTE.  Working through our chambers of commerce, we developed contacts with peers in our target states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas). Employers we’ve connected with understand the deficiencies in federally funded workforce development programs. Finally, we work with State Policy Network affiliates to disseminate our work nationally. 

    Pioneer also has hosted webinars on “Hands-On Achievement,” garnering over 14,000 views in our target states, California, Florida, New York and Washington. The book generated national print articles in outlets like The Washington Post, The Washington Times, IndustryWeek, Public News Service, radio coverage, media attention in target states and think tank podcasts and articles. Our mini-documentary, “Training Our Future Workforce: Voc-Tech Success,” was watched over 84,000 times. 


    Q:  The recent Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in higher education will impact students throughout the country. Why is focusing on K-12 education important in creating opportunities for all students?   
     
    Stergios: Our focus remains on K-12. Much of the racial tension generated by affirmative action results from the failure of our monolithic public schools. Affirmative action in higher education admissions is itself a clear indictment of the success of America’s public K-12 schools. If traditional public schools were doing their job, such an “end of pipe” workaround would never have been necessary. This is, in part, why the vocational-technical model is vitally important. We need more K-12 models that bridge achievement gaps.  


    Q:  What are the ongoing challenges or pitfalls for PI and organizations like yours that aim to address expanding opportunity through education? How are you tackling these issues?   
     
    Stergios: I’m very hopeful about education. In 2000, few would have believed that by 2023, district schools in the U.S. would lose 10% of their market share, as measured by enrollment, to charters and private education models. Instead of responding by improving the product, the two national teachers’ unions are doubling down on divisive, self-serving rhetoric.  

    Pioneer is part of a group of organizations supporting change in states where that is possible. Only the threat of even greater losses in market share will force traditional public schools to change direction and focus on providing educational opportunity to all students. 

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

  • Donor Intent Watch: Controversies Around the Country

    In May, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. This edition of our Donor Intent Watch again focuses on several higher education disputes, this month in Arizona and California.  

    We also have two disappointing updates, one on a Dartmouth College case we featured in May and the other on proposed donor intent legislation in Ohio. We encourage donors to contact us with any questions they have about our featured items and to consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub.   


    Discord at Arizona State University 

    Philanthropist Tom Lewis made headlines this month when it was revealed he had withdrawn his funding for the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at Barrett, Arizona State’s Honors College. His decision ended a 20-year relationship between Lewis and his wife, Jan Lewis, and Barrett. Lewis has taken great care with his grants in higher education, and we featured him prominently in our donor intent guidebook, “Protecting Your Legacy.”  

    His philanthropy at ASU began with small grants to Barrett, expanded to significant scholarship offerings and culminated with the founding of the Center for Personal Development, which offered Barrett students innovative courses, workshops and a speaker series. At no time did he fall into the endowment trap, but instead structured larger awards as grants made in increments over a limited term, with continued donations dependent on satisfactory progress reports. “Start small and start short,” he advised other donors. 

    Lewis’s style of grantmaking made it possible for him to pull his support in the wake of campus protests and the alleged termination of the Center’s executive director, following a February 2023 presentation at the Lewis Center on “Health, Wealth and Happiness.” Lewis expressed disbelief at the “outrage” sparked by the event’s mostly conservative speakers, saying: 

    We expected some opposition, but I was shocked and disappointed by the alarming and outright hostility demonstrated by the Barrett faculty and administration. … After seeing this level of left-wing hostility and activism, I no longer had any confidence in Barrett to adhere to the terms of our gift, and made the decision to terminate our agreement, effective June 30, 2023. I regret that this decision was necessary, and hope that Barrett and ASU will take strong action to ensure that free speech will always be protected and that all voices can be heard.  

    While this is an unfortunate conclusion to what had been a productive relationship, Lewis has the satisfaction of knowing he did not leave funds behind in a perpetual endowment that would no longer align with his values.    

    Read more here and here.  


    Hastings College of the Law Changes Its Name to UC College of the Law, San Francisco 

    On September 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to change the name of University of California Hastings College of the Law to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Within a week, the Hastings College Conservation Committee, which includes alumni and six descendants of the law school’s founder, Serranus Clinton Hastings, filed a lawsuit against state and school officials.  

    The plaintiffs say the removal of Hastings’s name violates a contractual agreement made between Hastings and the state in 1878 when he made a gift of $100,000 in gold to establish the institution. Among other stipulations in that agreement, the lawsuit argues, was one which ensured that the school would forever be called the “Hastings College of the Law,” and which promised Hastings’s heirs the return of his gift —with interest —should the school ever “cease to exist.” That amount is currently some $1.7 billion. 

    The dispute erupted in 2017 when the San Francisco Chronicle published an op-ed calling for renaming the law school because its founder had encouraged and financially supported lethal violence against Native Americans in the 1850s. In response, a Hastings Legacy Review Committee was formed and commissioned a three-year study on the matter. The current lawsuit contends the study raised doubts about any direct involvement of Serranus Hastings in the deaths of members of the Yuki tribe.  

    The plaintiffs also note that, in September 2020, Hastings’s dean, David Faigman, recommended against any name change, but suggested instead that the school engage in “developing a true partnership between the descendants of those [S.C.] Hastings wronged and the school that bears his name, [which] will create substantive opportunities to transcend that history and live and work for common goals.”  

    When another article accusing Hastings of masterminding a massacre of Native Americans appeared in The New York Times in late October, 2021, however, the response abruptly changed. Within days of the article’s publication, the law school’s board resolved that Dean Faigman should collaborate with California’s state government to remove the Hastings name from the institution. A bill authorizing the change, AB 1936, was introduced in the California Assembly on February 10, 2022. It passed both Assembly and Senate without a negative vote in August of that year, was signed by the governor in September and took effect on January 1, 2023. 

    This will be a particularly interesting dispute to follow because of the use of legislation by California to invalidate the 1878 agreement. The lawsuit argues this is not only “an unconstitutional impairment of the state’s contractual obligations to S.C. Hastings and his descendants,” but it also “violate[s] constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, as well as the California Constitution’s requirement that the College remain in its existing ‘form and character,’ free from sectarian or political influence.” 

    Read more here. 


    Update on Dartmouth College Lawsuit 

    In the May 2023 Donor Intent Watch, we discussed a case at Dartmouth College concerning a 2002 restricted gift made in the will of the late Robert T. Keeler for the “sole purpose” of maintaining the school’s golf course. A second restriction advised the college that any funds not used for that purpose were to be returned to Keeler’s charitable foundation. In 2020 Dartmouth closed the course, but the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Unit determined that because financial reasons spurred the closure, Dartmouth would be allowed to keep the funds and use them for “golf-related” purposes, including financial support of the men’s and women’s varsity golf teams. The estate of Robert T. Keeler filed a lawsuit rejected by a circuit court on the grounds that the estate of Robert T. Keeler did not have standing to bring such a suit. In response to an appeal filed by the estate to the Vermont Supreme Court, the decision of the circuit court has been affirmed by a unanimous vote.   

    Legal standing is all too frequently a stumbling block in efforts to protect donor intent, and in this case, the use of a will to convey the donor’s restrictions was insufficient to establish such standing. Dartmouth was ultimately successful in maintaining control of the funds because “the statement of understanding between the Keeler estate and Dartmouth that formalized the gift made no provision for the estate or the foundation to recover the money if the golf course was closed.” Donors should certainly consider bringing in legal representation to help craft a carefully worded gift agreement with the recipient institution – possibly one which names a contingent beneficiary with legal standing to sue.   

    Read more here. 


    Update on Ohio Donor Intent Legislation 

    Thank you to Jeff Moritz, son of Michael Moritz, for whom the Ohio State University College of Law is named, for alerting us to the outcome of proposed donor intent legislation in Ohio. Senate Bill 83 had passed the state Senate along party lines, with Republicans voting in its favor. That bill contained controversial higher education provisions, but included a donor intent protection amendment for endowment agreements between donors and state higher education institutions.  

    The bill was added to the Senate version of the Ohio biennial budget in mid-June, but to gain the support of the Ohio State Bar Association, the bill’s proponents had agreed to a reduced statute of repose and the inclusion of only those endowments in place prior to the date of enactment. In the end, because of widely acknowledged disagreement between the Senate and House over the bill’s higher education content, SB 83 was removed from the budget in its entirety. We will stay in touch with our friends in Ohio as Moritz notes they “will be regrouping and determining our next steps over the next few months.”