Tuesday May 22 7 p.m. at
DRUM-Desis Rising Up & Moving
72-18 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11372
[Take the E/F/V/R or 7 train to 74th Street/ Roosevelt]
view map at drumnyc.org/DRUM/Contact_Us.html
Film is in English with Spanish subtitles.

Current Spotlight Event: 

Fund for Idaho 10th Anniversary
May 23, 2012
Bishop Tuttle House of St Michaels Episcopal Church
518 North 8th Street
Boise, ID

Wednesday marked a groundbreaking moment, as President Barack Obama became the highest-ranking official in our Nation’s history to endorse marriage equality, in an exclusive interview with ABC News. This, in the wake of North Carolina’s passage of Amendment One on Tuesday, which effectively bans same sex marriage in the state. Prior to this endorsement, the President had repeatedly stated that his own opinion on the matter was “evolving”, in stark contrast to his pro-equality stance in 1996 while campaigning for a seat in the Illinois senate, and his opposition during the general election of 2008. National polling on marriage-equality has shown a sharp increase in support from 2004 to 2012, with those in favor jumping from the low thirties to a slim majority today (50% as of the most recent Gallup Poll).

Some may call this political posturing by the President, more of a campaign finance decision than a personal one. Recent reports have shown that LGBT donors threatened to boycott the Obama re-election campaign, due to his refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors (which he still refuses to sign, by the way). Moreover, he has faced growing disenchantment with young voters, a key demographic which enthusiastically swept him into office in 2008. Supporting marriage equality creates contrast with presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, whom, ironically, has done some “evolving” of his own, but may cost him independents in swing states such as Ohio, Indiana, and especially, North Carolina.

Despite all the enthusiasm and glowing support President Obama received for his statement, he was quick to clarify that he believes states should decide the issue, and doesn’t plan to pursue new policies at the federal level. Even though marriage licenses are issued by states themselves, federal marriage policy is extensive. The federal government provides special tax rules for married people, not to mention offering benefits to the spouses of millions of federal employees. Social security benefits, hospital visitation rights, citizenship requirements, and many more issues fall under the umbrella of federal marriage regulations. While it may not be politically convenient for the President, marriage is a federal issue, and unless he wants to continue merely paying lip service to the LGBT community, he should support national recognition of same-sex marriage.

Obama has always affirmed that he unequivocally stands for the rights of gay and lesbian individuals throughout his political career, but marriage inequality is just one facet of the injustice they face. It is still legal to fire employees based on their sexual preference in 29 states, health care is more difficult to come by, same sex couples cannot adopt in many states, and homelessness for gay youth is on the rise. This isn’t just about those in the LGBT community either, as we saw in the aforementioned amendment one of North Carolina, which affirms marriage as the only legal union in the state, putting straight couples in domestic partnerships at risk for losing benefits.

Regardless of the criticism, regardless of the potential political calculations, this was still a significant cultural step forward for equality in the United States. At the end of the day, the President simply expressed an opinion, one which we hope will propel just policy forward in years to come.

Come out for a drink* and get to know some other wonderful people in this field!

Resourcing Social Justice: A Networking Happy Hour Event

Location: Franklin Park (618 Saint Johns Place, Brooklyn)

Date and Time: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 6:00-8:00

To RSVP for this event, please visit the event page.

*Refreshments will not be included. We thank each of you and your organizations for your in-kind support of this event through covering any food/drink costs.

Can institutional philanthropy—foundations established by the very wealthy and capitalized by investments in the stock market, hedge funds, and offshore investments—support a movement that challenges the very capitalist economic system that sustains it?

As of March 1, 2012, 62 people, largely from progressive funding organizations and foundations, have signeda letter on behalf of the nascent Occupy Philanthropy movement calling on institutional funders to provide financial support to the Occupy movement. The letter stated, in part, “We in the philanthropic community cannot let this moment pass. We have for so long wanted this kind of mass mobilization for justice. We have held conferences, gatherings, phone meetings, and spent countless sums in an effort to support the creation of a movement that is broad based in scope and calling for systemic change. Occupy presents a unique opportunity for the philanthropic community to creatively respond to these efforts and to the long standing and prior work of community organizations and leaders to promote economic equality for the 99%.” The letter’s signees include some respected private foundations long associated with social justice funding, including the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation in New York City, the Quixote Foundation in Seattle, and the Rasmussen Foundation of Alaska. Progressive public foundations that raise money to make grants also signed the letter, such as the Funding Exchange and the Third Wave Foundation. And some philanthropic luminaries, notably Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, also signed.

Rick Cohen | NonProfit Quarterly

However, the cumulative resources of the signers, largely from small foundations, don’t add up to much compared to the somewhere close to a trillion dollars of tax exempt assets in foundation endowments. The trustees and executives of the large foundations in control of those assets look a lot more like the boards of Fortune 500 corporations in terms of their social and economic status than they do the protesters who once resided in New York City’s Zuccotti Park or Washington, D.C.’s McPherson Park.

Still, institutional philanthropy has long had a streak of funders oriented toward repairing some of the damage that its business mogul financiers caused. In her 2003 book, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, Keene State College Professor Joan Roelofs argued that foundations may be impediments to social change and that their role is often to tamp down or soften the advocacy and organizing efforts of their grant recipients. That is, relatively strident activists become nicer, more mainstream, and less controversial with the assuaging presence of foundation grant dollars—and they almost always resist biting the hands that feed them and sometimes even avoid biting the hands that created the capital that feeds the foundations.

How do foundations interested in nonprofit due diligence fund a movement that operates significantly outside of a traditional nonprofit, 501(c)(3) structure, without even clear leadership delineations, decision-making dynamics, and governing boards? In other words, who are they funding? For a foundation sector increasingly focused on metrics, what metrics would foundation funders use for a movement that eschews a formal structure of demands and operates more nimbly? Indeed, Occupy often responds to events (for instance, Occupy protesters plan to remobilize in the spring for the May G-8 summit in Chicago), focuses on short-term actions (such as Occupy Salt Lake’s plan for protest theater about corporate influence at the Utah state legislature), or organizes to rectify specific injustices (such as Occupy D.C.’s Freddie Mac protests over the lender’s foreclosure on a Bowie, Md. homeowner).

Nonetheless, while acknowledging the constraints involved, there is no reason why institutional philanthropy cannot fund the Occupy movement, but doing so will require its leaders to consider several key questions, some of which follow…

READ THE FULL ARTICLE