Protecting Our Vernacular Part II
Charity vs. Philanthropy
The Protecting Our Vernacular post discussed the sector’s responsibility to caution ourselves in using words that describe what we do. In calling a charitable act philanthropic, we must be sure that certain principles apply: responsible giving, equity demonstrated to those we serve, and accountability to the general public come to mind.
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of discussing with a sector-challenger the differences between charity and philanthropy. We frequent a for-profit restaurant where on more than one occasion, a man that we perceive to be homeless comes every evening to collect a packaged meal. We were discussing the field when we made the observation, and my buddy offers that since philanthropy is essentially caring for mankind, the contribution should be considered philanthropic.
Being the accountability obsessed practitioner that I am, I battled (fork and knife in hand!) about why it’s charity…not philanthropy. I scored a couple, and so did he…but we finally agreed on a few things:
1. The restaurant does not have the publicly defined mission to distribute unused food and materials to those less fortunate.
It’s not philanthropy.
2. The restaurant does not contribute food to a specified community in need.
It’s not philanthropy.
3. The restaurant does not maintain records of its charitable contributions, and therefore cannot offer to the general public accurate records of its benevolence.
It’s not philanthropy.
4. The restaurant will likely not assume responsibility if any health-related problems should occur as a result of consuming the food.
It’s not philanthropy.
5. The restaurant does not ensure that the service provided will be continued on a regular basis.
It’s not philanthropy.
On any given day, the service can stop. It’s not reliable. It’s not responsible.
It’s not philanthropy.
In my sincere efforts to carry the torch of effective use of our vocab, I’m happy to pass along some information about the International Encyclopedia on Civil Society. With Helmut Anheier and Stefan Toepler as co-editors, the work will be published by Springer in 2009. Be sure to look out for it.
1. The restaurant does not have the publicly defined mission to distribute unused food and materials to those less fortunate.
It’s not philanthropy.
2. The restaurant does not contribute food to a specified community in need.
It’s not philanthropy.
3. The restaurant does not maintain records of its charitable contributions, and therefore cannot offer to the general public accurate records of its benevolence.
It’s not philanthropy.
4. The restaurant will likely not assume responsibility if any health-related problems should occur as a result of consuming the food.
It’s not philanthropy.
5. The restaurant does not ensure that the service provided will be continued on a regular basis.
It’s not philanthropy.
On any given day, the service can stop. It’s not reliable. It’s not responsible.
It’s not philanthropy.
In my sincere efforts to carry the torch of effective use of our vocab, I’m happy to pass along some information about the International Encyclopedia on Civil Society. With Helmut Anheier and Stefan Toepler as co-editors, the work will be published by Springer in 2009. Be sure to look out for it.